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):

Sunday, May 31, 2015

The Irish Reveal the True Motives Behind Same-Sex "Marriage"

Again: We were warned (more than once). The recent vote by the electorate in Ireland provides some of the best evidence yet for what we've been told for over a decade now was likely the main motivation behind the same-sex "marriage" movement.

As Brendan O'Neill noted a few days ago,

"Instead of saying 'We can finally get married', the most common response to the referendum result from both the leaders of the Yes campaign and their considerable army of supporters in the media and political classes has been: 'Gays have finally been validated.' Across the spectrum, from the drag queens who led the Yes lobby to the right-wing politicians who backed them, all the talk was of 'recognition', not marriage. Ireland’s deputy PM Joan Burton said the Yes vote was about 'acceptance in your own country'. Writing in the Irish Examiner, apsychotherapist said 'the referendum was about more than marriage equality… it was about validation and full acceptance [of gay people]'. (Tellingly, Ireland’s psychotherapy industry played a key role in backing the Yes campaign.) PM Enda Kenny also said the referendum was about more than marriage — it was a question of gay people’s 'fragile and deeply personal hopes [being] realised'. Or in the words of novelist Joseph O'Connor, the Yes vote was an act of 'societal empathy' with a section of the population.

"The official Yes campaign went so far as to describe the Yes victory as a boost for the health and wellbeing of all Irish citizens, especially gay ones. A spokespersonsaid 'the effect of legal equality goes beyond the letter of the law… it enters our daily lives and our interaction with others'. In 'embracing' gay people, Ireland had 'improv[ed] the health and wellbeing of all our citizens'. In short, the Yes result made people feel good."

O'Neill is somewhat correct here, but he's neglected one important aspect of the homosexual agenda (whether Ireland, America, or elsewhere). This isn't simply about "validation," or "recognition," or making people "feel good," or the "boosting of esteem." Neither is this about "discrimination." This is an attempt, using the full power of the law, to force the moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon all who sit under such law. And it is about revenge upon all those—past and present—who have stood, and continue to stand in the way of such "progress." And once such power of the law is obtained, the liberals behind the homosexual agenda will make good use of it. Once again, we were warned.

A decade ago, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, a supporter of same-sex "marriage," wrote 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."

The same year, Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, said, "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 added 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."

Five years later in 2010, after U.S. District Court Judge Vaugn Walker overturned the will of the California people by declaring Proposition 8--which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman--unconstitutional, Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage 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.”

Of course, few of us are unaware of the ever-growing long list of those who have suffered the wrath of the "gaystapo" that seeks to enforce the perverse homosexual agenda. Unless the legal tide in favor of homosexuality is stemmed, Christian conservatives and their like-minded political and cultural allies will continue to find themselves on the wrong side of the law in this battle. If nothing else, I suppose we will then find out who's really devoted to the truth.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, May 29, 2015

National Scouting Leadership: Physically Ignorant, Mentally Lazy, and Morally Lost

The plague continues to spread. Whether the church, para-church organizations, the government, schools, corporations, small businesses, and even blood banks, the plague of liberalism seems to know no bounds. Because of their desire (again) to compromise with God-given absolute moral standards on sexuality, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are now the latest to go further down the wide path of destruction paved by modern liberalism.

The Girl Scouts of America recently announced a policy shift and will start allowing gender-confused boys into their ranks. The FAQ section of the Girl Scouts’ website reads, “Girl Scouts is proud to be the premiere leadership organization for girls in the country. Placement of [gender-confused] youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority. That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve [him] in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.”

Interestingly, after their surrender to the liberal sexual agenda nearly two years ago that allowed for homosexual members, I thought that the Boy Scouts next would capitulate when it comes to the gender-confused. Not wanting to let the boys outdo them, and showing themselves to be fine feminazi role models for today’s young females, the adults who lead the Girl Scouts beat the Boy Scouts to the punch!

Rather than delve into gender perverseness, it seems the Boy Scouts are still hung up on homosexuality. So much so that Boy Scouts of America (BSA) president Robert Gates recently announced that the BSA’s longstanding ban on homosexual scout leaders is now in question. Noting the “open defiance” that exists with some Boy Scout councils across the U.S. when it comes to “current membership policy,” Gates said that such issues could no longer be “ignored.”

He also noted the “social, political, and ‘juridicial’ changes taking place in our country.” Gates reminded listeners of the debates raging in the U.S. over “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation,” and rightly expressed fear that U.S. courts would force a change (full-on acceptance of all things homosexual) on the Boy Scouts.

So what’s Gates’ solution? Sounding much like the modern champion of “tolerance” that he is, Gates began, “We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it would be.” He then offered a policy “that accepts and respects our different perspectives and beliefs, allows religious organizations—based on First Amendment protections of religious freedom—to establish their own standards for adult leaders, and preserves the Boy Scouts of America now and forever.”

Ahh, the sweet smell of compromise. Given Gates’ previous desire to allow homosexual scout leaders, preceded by his efforts to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the U.S. military, his recent comments come as little surprise. It’s almost as if Gates was placed in his position as president of Boy Scouts of America in order to lead the Scouts down the same path that he took our military.

Of course this is what happens when a man without (or with few) convictions is faced with making a moral decision that many will dislike. Simply put, when it comes to defending the truth on sexuality, Gates’ heart and mind are simply not in the fight.

It’s a shame, because more than ever before, America’s youth need the direction of pure hearts and sound minds when it comes matters of sexuality. For example, it would be wonderful if the Boys Scouts took the opportunity to teach young boys about the “born that way” myth. In spite of the popular meme perpetuated by the homosexual agenda, no one is “born gay.” This myth is so powerful that it has deceived even well-meaning conservatives like Ben Carson and Marco Rubio.

Since the Scout motto says, “On my honor, I will do my best…to keep myself physically strong,” it would also be nice if Boy Scout leadership told the truth on the tremendous health dangers associated with sexual immorality. This is especially the case for those involved in a homosexual lifestyle.

There are abundant data that reveal the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle. Even government health organizations who’ve fully bought into the homosexual agenda can’t deny the sad and sobering statistics when it comes to homosexuality. As the CDC notes, when compared to the general population, LGBT individuals are more likely to:

  • Use alcohol and drugs
  • Have higher rates of substance abuse
  • Continue heavy drinking later in life

Men who have sex with men account for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the U.S. and are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than are heterosexual men. Though homosexuals make up only about 2% of the population, homosexual men account for about two-thirds of all new HIV infections.

The Canadian healthcare system notes that the life expectancy of homosexual men is 20 years less than the average. In addition, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in Canada:

  • Commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average
  • Have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average
  • Have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average
  • Have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average
  • Show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average 
  • Gay and bisexual men comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases 
  • Gay and bisexual men comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year

If they are committed to the truth, Scouting organizations should also reveal to young boys and girls that, though they may experience same-sex attractions, they are not doomed to the devastation that comes from living a homosexual lifestyle. In other words, it is possible to come out of the homosexual lifestyle. In spite of the recent best efforts of liberals to suppress the truth—going so far as to make it illegalconversion therapy works.

Any organization committed to helping young boys maintain a “physically strong,” and “mentally awake” lifestyle, or committed to helping young girls “respect” themselves and to be “Courageous and Strong,” should certainly make our youth aware of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle.

Gates is right about one thing: these issues can’t be ignored. However, instead of fighting for what’s right, the former Secretary of Defense has surrendered on one of the most important moral battles of our time. How tragic that two of the oldest and most premiere youth organizations in the U.S. have taken the wide road that leads to destruction when it comes to these important truths.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Catholic Church

The Irish giving hearty approval to same-sex "marriage," as I took note of in my previous post, is another sign of the sad decline and influence of the modern Catholic Church. It seems that Frank Bruni of The New York Times, at least somewhat, agrees with me.

Though Bruni--the openly homosexual, former restaurant critic turned op-ed columnist (in other words, the typical path to advancement with the liberal media)--frames this decline in much more positive terms than I do, the evidence is unmistakable.

There are now 20 nations that have given legal status to same-sex "marriage." Those include, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Portugal, Brazil, France, Uruguay, Luxembourg and Ireland. As Bruni notes, these nations don't share a continent, or a language. "But in all of them, the Roman Catholic Church has more adherents, at least nominally, than any other religious denomination does."

As I noted, as of 2011, over 84% of Ireland identified as Roman Catholic. As Bruni put it,

"Irish voters nonetheless rejected the church’s formal opposition to same-sex marriage. This act of defiance was described, accurately, as an illustration of church leaders’ loosening grip on the country.
"But in falling out of line with the Vatican, Irish people are actually falling in line with their Catholic counterparts in other Western countries, including the United States.
"They aren’t sloughing off their Catholicism — not exactly, not entirely. An overwhelming majority of them still identify as Catholic. But they’re incorporating religion into their lives in a manner less rooted in Rome...in Europe and the Americas in particular, the church is much more fluid than [Rome]. It harbors spiritually inclined people paying primary obeisance to their own consciences, their own senses of social justice. That impulse and tradition are as Catholic as any others." (Emphasis is mine.)

In other words, as was noted last week, such "Catholicism" shows tremendous (if not complete) "indifference" towards truth, sin, salvation, and judgement. In other words, a "fluid church" is no church at all. In fact, and almost certainly unbeknownst to Bruni, a "fluid church" sounds much like a church built on shifting sand instead of solid rock. 

As Jesus said in Matthew chapter 7

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."

And great has been the fall of the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestant churches, who have abandoned truth in the name of "relevance" and "tolerance."  At least some within the Catholic Church seem to recognize this. Upon the outcome of the Irish vote, Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, said he was "deeply saddened by the result." He added, "The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelization. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity."

In other words, the "reality" of the vote in Ireland should be a wake-up call to all who follow Jesus. As more and more are calling good evil, and evil good, it is getting easier and easier to compromise with the truth. The road to eternal life seems to be getting more and more narrow and harder to find, while the path to destruction is attractive, well-lit, wide, and busy with travelers. Do not be deceived!

(Update: Just after posting this, I came across this piece from Joanna Moorhead of The Guardian. Like Bruni, she captures well the liberal worldview when it comes to the church and the truth. In complete contradiction to my take (a "fluid church" is no church at all) on what destroys the church, Moorhead declares, "The gay marriage vote has forced Catholic leaders to face a simple reality: that a church without worshippers wouldn’t be a church at all."

Of course, instead of the "bride of Christ," she sees the church much like a business. Thus, if you want people to continue to come, you must give them what they want, or at least tell them what they want to hear. Because, as she puts it, its time that the church got on board with "what most of us believe, which is that truth and right are more likely to be found in common consensus than in autocratic dictatorship." Because, as we all know, Jesus always looked to what was popular, before He decided what was "truth" and what was "right.")

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Monday, May 25, 2015

On Marriage, America's Left Should Heed the Irish

As voters in Ireland voted overwhelmingly to approve same-sex "marriage," predictably, liberals across the world, but especially in the U.S., took a "victory lap." Lost in their jubilation, it evidently escaped most liberals the manner by which Ireland hastened herself down the wide path of destruction.

Make no mistake about it, a nation that rejects the oldest institution in the history of humanity, that rejects the foundation upon which EVERY culture rests, that declares motherhood and fatherhood "absurd," is well on its way to an ugly end. However, if a nation, a state, a city, or a tribe, chooses to take such a path, it should do so in the manner of Ireland. The people, not a dictator, not a handful of judges, should decide.

Barely five years ago, marriage as the union of one man and one woman was on a 31 for 31 winning streak with U.S. electorates. The average vote was 67.5% in favor of marriage as God gave it to us. This result included the very liberal electorates of Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. The vast majority of U.S. states which have legalized same-sex "marriage" have done so at the whims of a federal judge. To reverse the overwhelming will of an American electorate in such a manner is the very definition of judicial tyranny.

Also, it cannot be ignored that the same-sex "marriage" vote in Ireland provides further evidence for the continued sad legacy of the modern Catholic Church. As of 2011, over 84% of Ireland identified as Roman Catholic. The waning influence of the Catholic Church on the grave moral issues of our time is shocking. As I've noted, this is yet another tragic result of the rotten influence of modern liberalism.

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

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

How to Kill Christianity

Much has been made of the recent Pew poll that highlights America’s religious landscape. What has drawn the most attention is the apparent decline of Christianity in the U.S. “The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining,” began the piece. Many liberals took gleeful notice. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley noted, “Secularists and their fellow travelers are ecstatic. The secular utopia about which John Lennon crooned is impending. Christianity is finally dying!”

Of course, this is far from the case, as Tooley later reveals. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, points out that it’s not Christianity that’s dying, but rather “near Christianity” that is teetering. “Good riddance,” Moore concludes.

The denominations that have lost the most “near Christians” are Catholic and Mainline Protestant. According to the Washington Times, “for every person who joined the Roman Catholic Church, six others were departing.” Additionally, in the last 50 years, the proportion of Americans belonging to one of the “Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestantism” has plummeted from one in six, to one in sixteen.

From the Anglicans at Jamestown, to the Pilgrims at Plymouth, and the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay, virtually all of the Mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. can trace their roots to those who literally founded America. The principles of American democracy were born in Mainline churches. The revivals during the Great Awakening were preached by men from Mainline churches. Many of the first colleges and universities in the U.S. were founded by Mainline churches. What’s more, eight of the first fourteen U.S. Presidents were Episcopalian. The spiritual and political roots of America are deeply embedded in Mainline Protestantism. What a tragic fall!

So this begs the question, why have the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestantism seen such a collapse? Moore reveals the answer when he notes that, what the Pew poll really reveals is that we have “fewer incognito atheists” in America. “Those who don’t believe can say so—and still find spouses, get jobs, volunteer with the PTA, and even run for office. This is good news because the kind of ‘Christianity’ that is a means to an end—even if that end is ‘traditional family values’—is what J. Gresham Machen rightly called ‘liberalism,’ and it is an entirely different religion from the apostolic faith handed down by Jesus Christ.”

Of course it would be the denominations most infected with liberalism (Is there anything liberalism can’t corrupt?) that have seen the greatest decline. As Tooley put it, “Mainline Protestantism lost its way when it forgot how to balance being American and being Christian, choosing American individualism and self-made spirituality over classical Christianity. Nearly all mainline seminaries had embraced modernism by the 1920s, rejecting the supernatural in favor of metaphorized faith integrated with sociology and political revolution.”

Such watered-down theology has produced ear-ticklers like John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gene Robinson, and the like, along with heretical nonsense such as the Jesus Seminar. For decades men (and women) like Spong and Borg made quite a name for themselves by rejecting the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, His atoning death and resurrection, every miracle recorded in the New Testament, and so on. In other words, in a tragic attempt to make themselves “relevant,” such men and women rejected virtually every tenet of the Christian faith, all the while still calling themselves “Christians.”

Unsurprisingly, it’s heretics such as these who’ve overseen such a precipitous decline in their denominations. After all, who wants to attend a church that rejects the supernatural and offers little more than worn-out platitudes and self-help advice? Who wants to attend a church that doesn’t talk about the forgiveness of sin (much less the existence of sin) and the hope of eternal life? Instead of pointing people to eternal truths, these liberal congregations have concerned themselves with “social activism.”

To a significant extent, the same thing has happened to the Catholic Church in the U.S. Though the American Catholic Church, unlike most of her liberal Protestant counterparts, has (for the most part) opposed abortion, same-sex “marriage,” and the rest of the radical sexual agenda of the left, sadly many Catholics have been all too willing to use big government activism as a substitute for charity.

As Paul Rahe put it, many years ago the Catholic Church in America “fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.”

Additionally, rabid anti-death penalty advocate Sister Helen Prejean, the inspiration of the Susan Sarandon movie “Dead Man Walking,” is doing little for the cause of “individual responsibility.” In an attempt to help Dzhokhar Tsarnaev escape the ultimate responsibility for his murderous crimes, Sister Prejean testified last week in the penalty phase of the notorious Boston Bomber.

In spite of the lack of any public expression of remorse, Prejean testified that she felt that Tsarnaev was “genuinely sorry” for his crimes. Like her Catholic cohorts who advocate for the likes of Obamacare, Prejean mistakes “state paternalism” for true charity. (Nothing says “state paternalism” like clothing, housing, and feeding a mass murderer for decades.) Again, borrowing from Mark Tooley, “Was she concerned more about his eternal soul, or his physical life, and her political cause? Let’s pray the former, but the latter seems likelier. If indeed the latter, Sister Prejean is an archetype for the modern church’s indifference to eternity, and judgment, in favor of therapeutic protection and affirmation.”

Sister Prejean is a great illustration of why the Catholic Church in the U.S. is in steep decline. Just as with its promotion of government healthcare, or a litany of other programs that push state paternalism over personal responsibility, for decades now the Catholic Church in America has shown “indifference” toward eternity and judgement. Thus, anyone fervently seeking the truth on such matters is drawn elsewhere.

By and large, the churches that are growing in the U.S. are those that unapologetically present the truth. Of course, a large or a growing church isn’t always a measure of a healthy and holy church, but when one is sincerely seeking the spiritual truths that we all at one time or another crave, most of us “seekers” know the truth when we hear it and see it. This doesn’t mean that the majority of us will embrace such truths. Jesus Himself warned us that this would not be the case.

Don’t be surprised to see the decline of Christianity continue. As it becomes more difficult and dangerous to be a follower of Christ, more and more people are going to find the “wide road” described by Jesus quite appealing. This is especially the case when so-called “Christians” are pointing the way.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

You Want Better Government, Embrace the Biblical Family

As Baltimore, and most recently Seattle, became the latest examples of the disgusting fruit of liberalism in America, it is becoming more and more difficult for liberals to explain away the devastation that their politics and policies have wrought. This devastation extends far beyond the burned police cars, broken windows, looted businesses, and even beyond the violence suffered by the human targets of riotous thugs. As I recently noted, such mayhem will continue in cities and towns all across the U.S. where liberalism is entrenched.

As Baltimore burned, an abundance of pundits correctly took the opportunity to call it like it was (and is). “After festering for half a century,” wrote Roger L. Simon, “we're witnessing the endgame of LBJ's Great Society.” At National Review, Kevin Williamson explained, “American cities are by and large Democratic-party monopolies, monopolies generally dominated by the so-called progressive wing of the party. The results have been catastrophic, and not only in poor black cities such as Baltimore and Detroit.”

At the New York Daily News, S.E. Cupp noted how slow and opaque was Hillary Clinton when it came time to weigh in on the Baltimore fiasco. Said Cupp, “Clinton’s reticence to discuss race hints at the glaring reality that Democrats simply don’t have the answers on how to end the growing inequality that creates the distrust and civil unrest we’ve seen in Missouri and Maryland.

“If any city is an example of the failures of liberal policies — from the economy to education to unemployment — it’s Baltimore, which has had a Democratic mayor for the last 48 years.

“For decades, the city’s political elite has thrown billions at development projects that were somehow meant to trickle out toward Baltimore’s impoverished areas, but that hasn’t happened.”

David French chimed in, declaring that “Blue America has failed at social justice. It has failed at equality. It has failed at accountability. Its competing constituencies are engaged in street battles, and any exploration of ‘root causes’ must necessarily include decades of failed policies — all imposed by steadfastly Democratic mayors and city leaders.”

Even the liberals at The Daily Beast pointed out how “America’s Cities Mirror Baltimore’s Woes.” Here, author Joel Kotkin noted that “the average poverty rate in the historical core municipalities in the 52 largest U.S. metro areas remains at 24.1 percent, more than double the 11.7 percent rate in suburban areas.” Kotkin goes so far as to declare that the Reagan era “was pretty good for blacks, if not for their leaders. Even as poverty spending growth slowed, the poverty rate dropped in the Reagan years to around 30 percent for African-Americans.” Kotkin concludes, “Clearly an improved economy is more important than ramping up social spending.”

Yet, when looking for “answers” or “root causes,” ramping up social spending is nearly always the liberal answer to most any social ill. Whether burning cities, rampant crime, massive unemployment, or failing schools, liberals always seek the same solution: more taxpayer money.

After the Baltimore riots, President Obama lamented that, though “there’s a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now,” under the current Congress, he would not get the “massive investments in urban communities” necessary to enact such an agenda. Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD) parroted the typical liberal drivel to Chris Wallace and declared that, in Baltimore, there needed to be more investment in education and “economic development.” Never mind that Baltimore was already spending the third highest per capita in the U.S. on its pitiful government schools.

Do you know what is the best predictor of academic success? Family success. Do you know what is one of the “most significant factors in determining whether a community offers low-income children hope of economic mobility?” According to a new study by two Harvard professors, it’s the presence of two parent families.

In spite of their best efforts to ignore or explain away what common sense and sound morality have always revealed, a few liberals are finally coming around to the notion that the biblical family model actually produces good results. So we’re finally going to see liberals cease their war on the family, right? Hardly.

While acknowledging the advantages of the traditional (biblical) family model, instead of promoting the oldest institution in human history, some liberals have recently gone so far as to suggest that in order to eliminate the “unfairness in society,” we need to abolish the family. In a profile of two British political philosophers, Australia’s ABC points out that “So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families. The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time.” In other words, these academics are merely advocating that liberals do what they so often do: if you can’t beat it, destroy it.

Ahh, but that’s just those crazy liberals across the pond. Such would never happen in America. Wrong. Even when their own attempted a campaign to highlight the link between things like out-of-wedlock births and poverty, liberals determined to hold to their orthodoxy, blasted these efforts, declaring “This campaign seems laser-focused on shaming already struggling teen parents or, ludicrously, convincing teens not to get pregnant because really bad things will happen.” Because, you know, it’s “ludicrous” to teach young people the negative consequences of sex outside of marriage.

For decades now, liberals in America have preached and promoted policies, and of course passed legislation, that has done nothing but wrought havoc on the biblical family model. Everything from the welfare state to abortion, pornography, promiscuity, homosexuality, a perverse redefinition of marriage, and the like, has undermined God’s design for the family.

Sadly, libertarians more concerned with personal pleasure than with good government (“Libertarians of Convenience” as some call them), have decided that the moral arguments they so favor when it comes to the welfare state and the like, simply don’t apply when it comes to abortion, pornography, homosexuality, marriage, and similar such issues.

As I’ve noted before, “Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on. Each of these institutions lies at the heart of any great nation.” In other words, the biblical family model is at the heart of good government. When the family is abandoned, chaos and anarchy reign. And what is so often the “solution” to such chaos? Bigger and more powerful government.

If you want good (and smaller) government, then you better support all efforts that promote the biblical family model.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World