Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Injured Fed-Ex Security Guard Was Unarmed

It appears as if a foolish policy towards guns has again reaped horrible consequences.

According to the father-in-law of Christopher Sparkman, the FedEx security guard that was critically wounded in the shooting at the FedEx warehouse in Kennesaw on Tuesday, the young security guard "didn't stand a chance" against heavily armed Geddy Kramer, the 19-year-old gunman who attacked the facility. Armed with what was reportedly a shotgun, a knife, and shells strapped across his chest, Kramer, according to one witness, "looked like he was heading into war."

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution quotes Sparkman's father-in-law, Russell Brannen declaring that "It's real unfortunate they [FedEx] didn't allow those security guards to be armed." Brannen added, "Chris didn't stand a chance. The guy blew through the back door. The scales are tipped in the wrong direction when the security guard can't carry a sidearm. Had he been armed, he might have been able to stop the other five from being shot."

It's one thing to ban employees from arming themselves, but when you don't allow those who GUARD the unarmed to be armed, you are simply inviting disaster. What's more, Sparkman is an ARMY SOLDIER who has been deployed to Kuwait! If Brannen's information is accurate, this reeks of the same policies that have allowed armed killers to shoot up U.S. military bases, and the like. Will the gun-control freaks ever learn?!

Additionally, Sparkman's family is "cautiously optimistic" at his chances for recovery. He is shown below with his young bride that he met through his church youth group.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Close Your Mind

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 are settled for all time.

Such a conclusion is in direct contradiction to what has become the supreme virtue with far too many in our culture: “tolerance.” As the United Nations’ Declaration of Principles on Tolerance instructs, “Tolerance … involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism.” Of course, such a declaration reveals how the definition of tolerance has changed. Today “tolerance” no longer simply means “to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them.” Today’s “tolerance” 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 description of “tolerance” above illustrates well such fallacy, as “Tolerance … involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism” is itself a dogmatic and absolute statement. Today’s liberalism is full of such nonsense.

On “tolerance,” G.K. Chesterton, who greatly influenced the life and writings of C.S. Lewis, noted that “Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions.” What better describes a modern liberal than a “man without convictions?” When a person lacks convictions it becomes very easy to align himself with whatever worldview provides the most benefits in this world—or at least allows you to have the most “fun.”

A case in point is the debauchery on display at Dartmouth College. According to Linda Chavez, a few weeks ago, student protestors gathered at the office of the Dartmouth president “and demanded more ‘womyn or people of color’ faculty, coverage of sex-change operations on the student health plan, and ‘gender-neutral bathrooms,’ among other things.”

Sounding like Dean Vernon Wormer, Dartmouth’s president, Philip Hanlon, harshly addressed the student body culture that, in the 1970’s was the inspiration for the film Animal House. Hanlon declared, “Dartmouth’s promise is being hijacked by extreme behavior, masked by its perpetrators as acceptable fun.” He addressed sexual assaults, dangerous drinking, partying, hazing, and “a general disregard for human dignity.”

Hanlon also noted “a grave disconnect between our culture in the classroom and the behaviors outside of it — behaviors which too often seek not to elevate the human spirit, but debase it.” Hanlon, evidently, has not been visiting Dartmouth’s classrooms very often, because the debasing behaviors occurring outside the classrooms directly reflect the culture of “tolerance” that exists inside them.

In other words, Dartmouth is only reaping what it has sown. Hanlon and his cohorts should not be surprised that young people who have been taught that it is okay to kill their unborn children, that they can have sex with whomever they wish without any consequences, and that they can “marry” whomever they desire, will also eagerly embrace “sexual assaults, dangerous drinking, partying, hazing” and the like.

Dartmouth, he added, cannot “be held back by the few who wrongly hide harmful behaviors behind the illusion of youthful exuberance. Routinized excessive drinking, sexual misconduct and blatant disregard of social norms have no place at Dartmouth. Enough is enough.”

To what “social norms” is Hanlon referring? It sounds like he is appealing to some “absolute” moral standard. How “intolerant” of him! For decades now, our colleges and universities have led the way in preaching “tolerance,” in place of moral absolutes, as the supreme virtue in our culture. Impressionable young minds have taken this message to heart and today the U.S. contains tens-of-millions of Americans who have abandoned any notion of sound (biblical) morality. They have eagerly adopted the pagan philosophy of “Do as Thou Wilt.”

More tragically, the scourge of “tolerance” has also invaded our churches. My own church’s association, Vineyard USA, like many other American churches, has recently experienced dissension on the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Ken Wilson, senior pastor of Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor, has recently made headlines over his decision to “come out” in support of homosexuality.  

According to USA Today, “Experts say it might be the first time the pastor of a large evangelical Christian congregation in Michigan, and maybe the U.S., has come out so openly in favor of gay people and same-sex marriage.”

Wilson said his decision was “about welcoming previously excluded groups.” On the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, Wilson has also said “we should all ‘agree to disagree’ [which is certainly not the attitude of those leading the homosexual agenda]: Maintain our different convictions, but not judge each other over them, not insist on excluding each other over such matters, and continue to work together in the name of Jesus to do things like alleviate suffering for orphans in abject poverty.”

“Agree to disagree” is simply another way of framing today’s “tolerance.” Of course, Wilson’s position would ignore the suffering that results from homosexual behavior. As is typical with so many who preach “tolerance,” his argument is rooted in multiple straw men (evangelicals generally are “judgmental” and “excluding” when it comes to homosexuals) that make his position seem more “loving.”

What we are really dealing with here is competing views of truth. Those peddling “tolerance” generally reject the notion of absolute truth. As noted apologist William Lane Craig puts it when writing about the Christian perspective on homosexuality, “Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste.” And if taste determines truth, then we’re all at the mercy of whoever’s in charge, because, ultimately we’re all intolerant. It’s simply a matter of who’s right.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Saturday, April 26, 2014

"Something Bruin" Agents Under Investigation

Along with Channel 2 Action News out of Atlanta, News 13 out of North Carolina is also investigating the investigators in the "Something Bruin" bear poaching sting. Several million dollars of tax-payer money was spent and dozens of people arrested in a case where it seems that the officers acted at least as criminally as those charged.

Click here for part one of the News 13 investigation.

Click here for part two of the News 13 investigation.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

More Out of Control Government!

From Channel 2 Action News: Poaching Investigation Under Fire

It appears as if Department of Natural Resource officials in Georgia and North Carolina significantly crossed the line, and perhaps even broke the law themselves, when they conducted the highly touted “Something Bruin” operation to catch bear poachers in the southern Appalachian Mountains.

I have intimate knowledge of this investigation as some of those closest to me (not directly mentioned in the story) were victimized by these (at least) heavy-handed tactics. The accused in North Carolina were the first to shine some light onto the problems with this sting operation. Channel 2 Action News has now begun to investigate the investigators.

There is even more to this story than Channel 2 is reporting. Trust me, there is indeed “Something Bruin” here, and it stinks to high-heaven. Stay tuned as I may be able to provide details that you can get nowhere else.

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Wonderful Cross!

The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. Noted biblical scholar, professor, and author Wilbur M. Smith said that, “The resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down…” No other event in human history changed the world like the resurrection of Jesus. The cross was terrible for Him, but wonderful for all the rest of humanity. (For more on the Resurrection, see the links above.)

Thursday, April 17, 2014

The Games Democrats Must Play

Now that Louisiana Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu’s deceptive video ad has been widely panned, it is worth noting that her efforts, though somewhat unique, are something that Democrats across the U.S. are probably going to mimic often this election cycle. (Is anyone really surprised that today’s liberals would resort to make-believe to sell themselves?) An excellent case in point is the Senate race in Georgia to replace Saxby Chambliss.

While a crowded GOP field battles it out, democrat Michelle Nunn is raising money and liberal hopes when it comes to the Democrats being able to hold on to majority power in the U.S. Senate. Nunn’s campaign raised well over $2 million in the first quarter of 2014. This is more than double the highest reporting GOP candidate, Jack Kingston.

In the solidly red state of Georgia, Nunn is going to great lengths to separate herself, not only from Obama, but from liberalism in general. Her first TV ad doesn’t even mention her party and is purposefully vague on the issues. Instead, she mentions President George H.W. Bush and touts her “optimism.” No doubt this will continue after her GOP opponent is determined. To me, this begs the question: how in the world can anyone be fooled? Are the low-information voters really that na├»ve?

As Byron York noted about Landrieu—and as Republicans love to point out—over 95% of her votes in the Senate have been with Obama. This is the case with almost every Senate Democrat. As Roll Call reveals, “Every vulnerable Senate Democrat up for re-election in 2014 voted with President Barack Obama at least 90 percent of the time in 2013.” The Senate Democrats who are deemed “not vulnerable” vote with Obama even more frequently.

Thus there is absolutely no reason to believe that Nunn, or any other Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, would do anything other than tow the liberal line as (currently) drawn by Obama. Everything from Obamacare, to a radical energy policy that is predicated upon one of the greatest myths ever perpetuated upon mankind, to a redefinition of the institution upon which all cultures rest, Nunn would no doubt fall in line with the rest of her party.

In addition, Nunn will be beholden to a Democratic Party Platform that is filled with “intrinsic evils,” and devoid of any mention of God. She also belongs to the political party that boos the very mention of God. Along with supporting abortion at every phase “regardless of the ability to pay,” Democrats call for laws that guarantee that “women have access to contraception in their health insurance plan,” which, of course, we now see playing out before our eyes.

To top it all off, just like Landrieu and the rest of her liberal colleagues, Nunn would vote for Harry Reid to lead the Senate. To win the race in Georgia and help the GOP to take the Senate, along with properly handling any “gotcha questions” sure to come their way, all that any GOP candidate worth his or her weight in ballots needs to do is properly educate the electorate in these realities.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Revenge of the Gays

No one should be surprised that the Gay Gestapo saw to it that Brendan Eich got what they thought he deserved. “Live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. We were warned.

In December of 2005 The Becket Fund, a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion, held a conference to discuss the legal ramifications of same-sex marriage. Ten of the nation’s top First Amendment scholars, liberal, conservative, and moderate, were brought in to present their views of same-sex marriage and the likely outcomes if it is legalized. As a result of the conference a series of papers was published.  These papers were widely reported on. Publications such as The Weekly Standard, National Review, World Magazine, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, and many others have covered the results of this conference.

The conference focused on four topics: Can the government force religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions? Can the government withhold benefits, such as tax exemption, from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex unions? How will freedom of religion arguments fare against legal same-sex marriage? What are the effects on biblical (traditional) marriage?

Mark Stern, general counsel for the liberal leaning American Jewish Congress and a supporter of gay marriage, wrote in his paper, “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.” According to Peter Steinfels, writing for The New York Times, what Mr. Stern has in mind are “schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.”

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, also a supporter of gay marriage, in his Becket paper noted that, “As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status.”

Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, participated in the Becket conference and wrote, “Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.” Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

He adds that, “This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.” Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage hinted at “aspirations of the homosexual movement” as well, and took it even further. After the will of the California people was undone with a judge ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Brown declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”

There you have it. Ultimately this debate isn’t about marriage or “discrimination.” This is an attempt, using the power of the American legal system, to force moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. And it is about revenge upon all those—past and present—who have stood, and continue to stand in the way of such “progress.”

Unless America comes to her senses, there almost certainly will be many more Brendan Eichs, Barronelle Stutzmans, Jack Phillips, and Elaine Huguenins. After all, the undoing of an absolute truth (marriage is a union of one man and one woman) is bound to be confrontational and messy. When you call good evil and evil good, there are bound to be casualties.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Monday, April 7, 2014

The Fruit of Liberalism

Is there anything that liberalism can’t corrupt? From the conscience to communities to corporations to families, churches, schools, and government, its destruction seems to know no bounds. Tragically, the evidence is all around us.

Earlier this year the FBI published its crime statistics for 2013. As noted by a few in the conservative media, the ten most violent cities in the U.S. are all led by democrats. As most would deduce by the use of common sense, (but I’ll provide you with the data anyway) large U.S. cities in general are significantly more violent that rural areas. According to CDC data, nearly 60% of gun homicides in the U.S. occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metro areas.

Of course, the political machine in most every large U.S. city is dominated by democrats. All of the 12 largest U.S. cities are led by democrats. Additionally, a report released last year by the real estate website NeighborhoodScout.com revealed that America’s 25 most dangerous neighborhoods all happen to be black—and we all know which political party black Americans overwhelmingly prefer (in spite of what liberalism has perpetrated upon the black community).

And what is the liberal answer to this violence? Make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain the necessary means to defend themselves. As the most recent Fort Hood shooting teaches us: good guys—or girls—with guns stop bad guys with guns.

Not only does liberalism breed crime and violence, but also debt and poverty. A recent study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranks the states according to their fiscal solvency. The top five states: Alaska (#5), South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming (#1)—all very red states where much of the economic boom has been due to fiscal responsibility and an increase in fossil fuel production, both despised by most liberals.

The bottom five states: California (#5), Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey (#1)—all deep blue states (yes, even with Chris Christie in New Jersey) plagued by high taxes and enormous debt, which includes massive public pension liabilities.

What’s more, as Forbes Magazine pointed out in 2012, “the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24 percent and 32 percent, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961.”

As the author points out, this is due to the “Curley effect,” which is a political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” In other words, a politician or a political party can achieve long-term political dominance “by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.” Of course, lately democrats have had significant success with this political strategy on a nation-wide scale.

Besides the ballot box, people can also vote with their feet. Thus, as Obamanomics continues to stifle economies where state and city democrats are eager to tow the liberal line, many residents are simply deciding to uproot themselves and their families. The top ten states that Americans are fleeing: New Mexico (#10), Kansas, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and New York (#1).

Half of these states currently have republican (not necessarily devoted conservative) governors, but with most, this is only a recent phenomenon. Additionally, all of the states except for Kansas voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

In addition to national, state, and city balance sheets and arrest records, our government schools (K-12 along with colleges and universities) are another place to take note of when looking at the rot produced by liberalism. In fact, such rot is more prominent in the government schools, as for decades the federal courts and the Department of Education have ensured that liberal philosophy dominates these classrooms.

One need look no further than how government schools are forced (or eagerly choose in many cases) to deal with the moral issues to see the tragic effects of liberalism on so many of our youth. From abortion to sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, Darwinian evolution and the like, there are many examples of how liberalism in the government schools is undermining traditional (biblical) American values. However, currently there is nothing that better illustrates where liberal philosophy will ultimately take our youth than the issue of “transgenderism.”

The transgender lie is infecting more and more school districts. Last year California infamously became the first state to pass a law giving special privileges to “transgender” individuals. Thus, government school children in California now have the “right” to use whichever bathroom or locker room they choose, along with the “right” to decide whether to participate in boy or girl sports activities.

Led by liberals, other states will follow. Inevitably the courts will get involved, and just as we are perhaps staring at a redefinition of marriage across all of the U.S., gender redefinition could become a part of the legal code throughout America. This is madness that can come only from a mind and soul corrupted by liberalism. As the Kinks mildly put it in 1970: “Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.”

Even the church is not immune to the perverse effects of liberalism. In 2012, Ross Douthat of The New York Times asked, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” Nothing exudes “Liberal Christianity” like the Episcopal Church. As the Times put it, “It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.” In other words, it sounds a lot like the Church in Thyatira (Revelation chapter 2) who “refuses to repent of her immorality” and will thus be thrown onto “a bed of suffering.”

In 2012, while Episcopalians were voting to approve same-sex unions, they also voted to make it illegal to “discriminate against anyone” (which is pure folly). The objective was to give an official recognition and blessing to “transgenderism.” 

As the “good” Reverend Susan Russell, a deputy from the Diocese of Los Angeles, noted, “It is not just a good day for transgender Episcopalians and their friends, families and allies. It is a good day for all of us who are part of a church willing to take the risk to continue to draw the circle wider as we work to live out our call to make God's inclusive love known to the whole human family.”

The “human family” is where liberalism has wrought the most destruction. Using legislation and the courts, liberal support of abortion, pornography, homosexuality, the welfare state, and a redefinition of marriage, has “succeeded” in wreaking great havoc with the institution upon which our whole culture rests. Like the “Curley effect,” this social engineering has yielded significant political gains for democrats. For once the family is destroyed, where else but Big Government will tens-of-millions of Americans look for sustenance and salvation?

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Dealing With a "Rape Culture"

Recently, in Time Magazine, feminist and Democratic advisor Zerlina Maxwell bemoaned the supposed “rape culture” that exists in the U.S. She did this while taking to task fellow Time essayist Caroline Kitchens for writing of “rape culture as a theory over-hyped by ‘hysterical’ feminists.” Reading each column, they both make some valid points, but both also fall far short of the truth when it comes to dealing with the tragic consequences of a culture obsessed with sex.

Maxwell suggests that a culture where men sexually violate women flourishes because there are no “great social consequences” for men who perpetrate such acts. Kitchens declares this nonsense and notes that “Rape is a horrific crime, and rapists are despised. We have strict laws that Americans want to see enforced.” In addition, Kitchens downplays the role of “film, magazines, fashion,” and music such as Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” when it comes to creating a “rape culture.”

Maxwell and those like-minded want to pretend that the actions and behaviors of women play no role in whether they are victims of sexual assault. However, no one should be surprised that when a woman acts and dresses like a prostitute, there are immoral men who are all too willing to treat her as such. (This is especially the case when alcohol is involved.) Immorality breeds immorality.

Speaking of prostitutes, they are a tragic example of what often results when women use their bodies as a means to an end. Prostitutes are more likely than any other group of women ever studied to be, among many other terrible things, victims of rape and homicide. As noted in 2008 by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, “The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering.” According to a study by The American Journal of Epidemiology, the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women—working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34. The Journal concluded, “Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States.”

Why are men more violent toward prostitutes? Because in prostitution, a woman’s humanity is removed. She becomes little more than a commodity to be consumed. Thus, a very unhealthy attitude toward women in general is fostered. Studies have shown that men who regularly use prostitutes are more likely to be sexually aggressive with women who are not prostitutes.

So what does this have to do with women in general? After all, the vast majority of women are not prostitutes. This may be the case in a literal sense. However, in the sex-saturated culture that exists in the U.S., there are many women and men who would never consider themselves prostitutes but who do nothing more than profit from selling their bodies.

In spite of Kitchens’ implications, this behavior has had tragically profound consequences for our culture. In our household we often refer to the Hollywood film sluts (whether big screen, TV, or music videos), those who grace the pages of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (and other such magazines), and those who parade down the runway of a Victoria Secrets “fashion” (read: sex) show, as "high-priced harlots." Thus those behind such productions (usually men) are little more than pimps eager to line their pockets.

Our media (internet, TV, magazines, billboards, and so on) is filled with these images. Even everyday commercials—for butter, milk, body spray, plumbing products, dusting spray—use sex to sell, both to men and women, boys and girls.

Decades of our children have been, and continue to be, brought up with such smut. For nearly three generations now we have had boys becoming men who have seen women portrayed like this (despite, in some cases, the best efforts of their parents) all of their lives. It is little wonder then, that, instead of marriage and family, they now seek “friends with benefits.”

As they take notice of what draws the attention of today’s young males, young girls are often duped into emulating the attractive and scantily clad women they see on TV and the internet, and in movies and magazines. Walk through any mall or park during warm weather. You will see girls from pre-pubescent age on up with their bodies barely covered.

As my lovely wife recently noted, “Females must begin to take some responsibility by dressing for respect instead of for sex. What we wear says a lot about us, whether we intend it or not. It isn’t fair for us to dress like sluts and expect men to behave themselves like gentlemen. It goes both ways.” (See her recent post on modesty here.)

It is also little wonder then that we now live in a “hook-up” culture, where women and men both are a means to a selfish sexual end—which has, among other disastrous things, led to over 40% of American children now being born out of wedlock. Most of these children are raised without a father. Much of the violent (including rape) and criminal behavior exhibited by boys and young men today is at least partly the sad result of growing up without a father.

Yet, instead of promoting (biblical) marriage, feminists like Maxwell advance education as the answer. She asks, “How about we teach young men when a woman says stop, they stop?” (Yeah, because they haven’t heard that one before!) And: “How about we teach young men that when a woman has too much to drink that they should not have sex with her, if for no other reason but to protect themselves from being accused of a crime?”

How about we teach young men (and women) of the value of marriage and family? How about we teach them of the dangers of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle? How about we teach men and women that, once they create a child, it is not okay to kill it in the womb? Maxwell and her cohorts are the chief cheerleaders for abortion in the U.S. As Mother Teresa taught us, abortion breeds violence: “Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.”

Also, how about we teach boys to be men, and girls to be women? According to family and feminism expert Suzanne Venker, many men have decided never to get married because “women aren’t women anymore.”

“Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically,” says Venker. She concludes that today’s women are “angry” and “defensive” because “they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

In other words, feminists like Maxwell are mourning a culture that they helped create, and, with their unwavering support of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and they like, are continuing to damage. Little will change until these efforts stop.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World