Rationality Lost – A Country To Soon Follow

Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir concerning the presidential election of 1960, “It showed the influence of television: for some reasons one man projects well, another does not. It showed again how much elections can be controlled by sentiment and emotion rather than by facts and experience.

Of course he was referring to the televised Nixon-Kennedy debate where Kennedy essentially won the election on his appearance and affectation rather than on the substance of his words.

Eisenhower was not a great fan of Kennedy. He believed him to be too headstrong and overconfident. He didn’t think Kennedy appreciated the deep complexity and difficulty of the issues he would be facing as president. However, Eisenhower in writing these words was more concerned about what the country was becoming rather than the 1960 election outcome.

Yes, in his January 1961 farewell speech, Eisenhower warned of a perpetual peacetime war economy. He was greatly concerned of the industry take over of military armament and the overwhelming influence it was beginning to have on America. However, his concern about the growing irrationality of American society represented a bigger concern for the general.

Eisenhower was a very thoughtful man. He made his decisions by careful consideration of the facts at hand and used his informed emotion to then guide him to the solution he sought. That’s how he led our forces to victory in the European theater of World War II and ended the Korean conflict as president.

Eisenhower prided himself in his rationality, something that was becoming increasingly scarce in 1960 America as his lament made clear. Today rationality is virtually absent from our public discourse particularly with respect to politics and government.

Rationality can be defined as the “habit of acting by reason, which means in accordance with the facts of reality”. (www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Rationality.html).

America is rapidly losing its grip on rationality as defined above. We have become a country of the unthinking and the unthoughtful and the unreasoning. We no longer act through careful deliberation based on our own individual understanding and experience. Instead we are highly conditioned to merely react to stimuli and as a result, our humanity is greatly diminished. We become little more than automatons performing on command. Our society cannot stay on this path much longer and retain our republic.

If rationality is acting according to the facts of reality, the question we must ask is what are the facts of reality? Up until the middle of the last century, the answer was obvious. Reality is the way things are. The facts do not change over time. Facts do not change with the situation.

The late, great Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said, “You are entitled to your opinion.  But you are not entitled to your own facts.”  I don’t believe Moynihan would be welcome in the Democrat Party of 2017.

Today to insinuate that objective fact exists and is immutable will incur the Left’s condemnation as a homophobe, bigot, climate change denier, or hater.  You see, there’s great power in being able to dictate what the facts are and then stampede the masses in the desired direction in reaction to certain pejorative descriptors.  It’s far easier to herd unthinking sheep than sly foxes.

And that’s what the Marxist Left’s strategy has been for several decades now – reduce our society to an unthinking, fearful, irrational herd. This is the only path to the absolute totalitarian power they maniacally pursue. A population of rational, critically thinking citizens will not mindlessly accept what is dictated to them and will challenge authoritarian control. Therefore, rationality must be corrupted.

And they have methodically worked at such a corruption through a complete subversion of our public school system, academia, the news media, the entertainment media, and the federal government bureaucracy. Virtually all of the most important societal influencing institutions have been twisted into drone creating mechanisms.

It also explains why the Left is so crazy to eradicate Christianity. Historically, the Christian faith has been the driver of rational thoughtfulness. Wherever Christianity has been introduced, literacy rates have risen dramatically. Christians have historically been readers and thinkers.

To reach the level of understanding Christians are commanded to have of their theology, one must study and learn and grow in the ability to think rationally. We must understand how to make philosophical arguments in defense of Christianity’s claims. This demands the ability to think critically and be able to sort out truth from a fog of disparate facts.

Christians launched the scientific revolution in pursuit of understanding God the Creator through his creation. Developing the laws of planetary motion or establishing the complex mathematics necessary to comprehend subatomic physics demands the ability to think rationally. Christianity fosters such use of the mind and therefore is completely incompatible with a Marxian utopia.

Barack Obama in his first inauguration speech glared at the unthinking masses before him and proclaimed that the transformation of America was about to commence. As much as Obama wants to give himself credit, America had already been radically transformed from its historical existence at that point. What’s really been happening since is the vise of control has been steadily tightened around our liberty. A republican president and Congress appear incapable of slowing the destruction of the greatest society the world has ever known. I may not vote in a federal election again.

My dear readers, Washington is a lost cause. An Article V convention of states is the only way to save the republic. Twelve states are now onboard. That leaves twenty-two more to go. The battle lines are forming.

On Fear And Quantum Mechanics

August 12, 2016

John Rhys-Davies is a rare commodity in Hollywood these days. Best known for his portrayal of Gimli, the King of the Dwarfs in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Rhys-Davies has stood up to the political correctness that has calcified Tinsel Town into a liberal monolith. He believes kimono-opening comments he has made have cost him friends as well as opportunities for other roles.

Rhys-Davies has extolled the virtues of free speech, disagreement, and debate that simply cannot be tolerated in the enlightened utopia of Southern California. He compounds his sin by stating in reference to his new film, “Peter: The Redemption”,

 “I think the film touches on something fairly important – whether you are a Christian or not, we are all heirs to Western European Judeo-Christian civilization, and your right to have your opinions directly comes from the Christians.”

Continue reading “On Fear And Quantum Mechanics”

Liberalism As Pathology

July 14, 2016

The latest national presidential election polling shows that about forty percent of registered voters are planning to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. This despite the FBI confirming that she violated criminal statutes for the handling of top secret material and then lied to Congress about it.

This forty percent will vote for her even though she was complicit in the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi and then promulgated lies about the attack for political purposes. Clinton will get their vote despite her catastrophic diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East that have left the region a seething cauldron of violence with tens of thousands dead.

How can forty percent of the electorate consider someone as incompetent, deceitful, and amoral as Clinton a viable candidate for the most powerful office on earth? The only consistent justification offered for her candidacy is that, “It’s just time for a woman to be president.” Heck, then why not Julia Louise-Dreyfus? This could have been her chance to be president for real. She would certainly be more appealing.

Truth is that this forty percent will pull the “D” lever no matter who the candidate is. The question remains though – why?

Continue reading “Liberalism As Pathology”

Supreme Judgment Does Not Come From The Supreme Court

June 10, 2016

Do you feel like our country is coming under judgment? I mean judgment as is in Old Testament, wrath of God type stuff. While we are not being overrun by plagues of locusts nor is fire falling from the sky, do you not have the sense though that America is headed for some kind of reckoning and soon? Has God withdrawn His providence that we have enjoyed since our founding?

While I am a Bible believing Christian, I haven’t spent significant time pondering eschatology – the study of the events leading to the final destiny of mankind. There are many different valid, scholarly interpretations to end time events as foretold in the Bible. The most notable and popular today is the sequence laid out in the “Left Behind” series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, but interpretations by other Scriptural authorities paint different scenarios. For me then, I have just left it as a broad narrative that one day, Jesus will return and establish His Kingdom with those that have chosen Him.

So, has the end time clock started ticking? I think it has and has been ticking for a while. When Israel was reestablished in 1948, two thousand years after its destruction by the Romans, it was an astounding fulfillment of a three thousand year old Biblical prophecy. Most Biblical scenarios include the reconstitution of the Jewish nation as the gateway event to the ushering in of the last days.

Continue reading “Supreme Judgment Does Not Come From The Supreme Court”

When He Is A She And She Is A He

April 21, 2016

When is a five foot nine white guy not a five foot nine white guy? When he asserts to today’s college kids that he is a six foot five Chinese woman. What’s hard to figure out about that? The recent Internet video by Jason Backholm of the Family Policy Institute shows our children have been conditioned to accept just about any ridiculous declaration out of political correctness.

When I was a kid, I was told over and over again that I could be whatever I wanted to be. “Whatever I wanted to be” was understood to refer to an occupation or a station in life. Today “whatever I want to be” is taking on a far different meaning. It means much less about what I might make of my life to instead, who and what I identify myself to be. Physical identity is now up to the individual and is no longer constrained by objective reality.

That’s because the concept of objective truth is now being discarded. Truth is now what we decide it is for ourselves. It’s personal. It’s situational. What’s true for me may not be true for you. Therefore, you should not try to impose your views on others since there is no universal truth. You have no right to deny what I decide I am or what’s right for me to do.

So if Senator Elizabeth Warren decides she’s a Native American, then we must accept and treat her like she’s a Native American. If Sylvester Stallone gets up one morning and decides he’s now Sylvia Stallone, then ladies you must accommodate him in your bathroom. It would offer a great opportunity to teach your daughter how to honor his (or her) choice. Welcome to the Left’s post-modern utopia!

You have to hand it to the Left. They have worked for decades to destabilize our society and we are now wobbling like a gyroscope running out of spin. Barack Obama just before the 2008 presidential election boasted that the transformation of America was about to begin with his election. Nonsense. This country has been in a state of transformation since the end of World War 2, maybe earlier. Obama was just lucky with his timing to be in office near its culmination.

While the Left has been relentless in its pursuit of a post-modern transformation of the country, they are quite selective though in how the idea of individualistic truth and morality are allowed to play out. It is considered courageous to set aside your actual physical composition as a man and live in a psychologically generated identity as a woman. This is your truth and only you can decide that truth.

However, if your belief is that when you are born a man, you stay a man and can never be a woman therefore making the ladies room off limits, well that kind of personal truth just can’t be tolerated.

Famed baseball pitcher, Curt Schilling, can testify to that. He simply expressed his “personal truth” that, “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves.” Oh the horror! He went on to comment that the respective bathrooms reflect the differences in anatomies and it is pathetic that states now need to pass laws to keep three hundred pound Gus from urinating next to your sixty pound daughter. Of course, ESPN was compelled to deprive Schilling from making a living under their employ. How brave and courageous that is. I wonder when ESPN will promote young, Caitlyn Jenner types playing in the lingerie bowl. It has to happen, right? Kind of gives a whole new meaning to their “drag” racing coverage!

Even our leading Republican presidential candidate (Trump) has stated his support for psychologically defined gender. In a clear attempt to pander to northeastern liberal sensibilities, he castigated North Carolina for messing with the issue and declared, “People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate.” How come we didn’t hear such candor prior to the North Carolina primary?

The one true conservative in the Republican race (Cruz), responded that, “Grown adult men, strangers, should not be alone in a bathroom with little girls.” He labeled his view as just “basic common sense.” What narrow-minded bigotry!

The Republican vice-presidential candidate (Kasich) when asked about the controversy began his comments with how his father was a mailman and the mike suddenly went dead.

Political correctness has become the Left’s most effective weapon for societal change. It is a despicable, Marxist inspired method to effectively neutralize the First Amendment’s free speech provisions and promote a mob rule mentality that is completely antithetical to our founding.

However, political correctness cannot be effective without the appropriate societal conditioning. It cannot be effective against a population composed of individuals who are capable of critical thinking, who understand that all truth is objective, and who believe that the individual is sovereign.

Instead, Marxist tyranny depends on a society of individuals that can be easily nudged and coerced by the masterminds. It depends on individuals that have little understanding of world history or the true nature of man. It depends on individuals with no foundational beliefs about the true nature of reality.

Look at what has unfolded during the last several decades.   The fact that we are no longer a nation of freethinking, sovereign individuals is undeniable. America has been transformed. The question is, can we awaken the hive-minded drones in time?

Personhood? That Is The Question!

April 8, 2016

Donald Trump may have inadvertently helped the Republican cause this year with his stumbling over a hypothetical gotcha question about the abolition of Roe v. Wade.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Trump stated that with abortion illegal, women seeking abortions should face “some form of punishment”. (Why is Trump taking questions from Matthews and ducking Mark Levin? Doesn’t strike me as conservative.) Trump later recanted his initial response and restated his position as only a doctor performing an abortion should face prosecution and not the woman undergoing the procedure.

I can’t begin to fathom how Trump could be so ill prepared for such a question. He should clearly understand that abortion is part of the Left’s fictitious “war on women” playbook and be ready with a thoughtful response. However, this is another example of his lack of understanding and shallow thinking on many serious issues he should be well prepared for.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t wait to pounce. And pounce she did…and then fell flat on her face.

In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press with Chuck Todd, Hillary while trying to burnish her image as a champion of women’s rights, managed to give a response that incensed everyone on both sides of the issue.

In responding to Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn, Clinton stated, “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” And with just these seven words, Hillary alienated virtually everyone concerned about the abortion issue, an amazing feat even for the world’s smartest woman.

On the one hand, she is denying constitutional protection to a “real person” and on the other she refers to what abortion promoters call an unviable lump of cells as a “real person”. Wow, what an amazing, non-sensical conflation! I would love to have the commission on all the Republican ads that will be run highlighting her incredible faux pas.

Asserting that the unborn is simply an aggregate of cells like some superfluous tumor is the bedrock of the Left’s justification for ending a pregnancy. There’s nothing of value associated with a rapidly growing fertilized egg. Just get rid of it before it becomes a real inconvenience! Besides, you ladies have the right to choose whether to permit this valueless aggregate of cells to develop into, well, a life.

And that is the question, isn’t it? When does that the growing pregnancy transition from worthlessness to pricelessness? Abortion proponents are all over the map on the question. The more reasonable assert that up until the end of the first trimester the growing pregnancy is of no value and can be destroyed. After this, abortions should be prohibited. However, more ardent supporters promote much later term terminations that require gruesome techniques I will not describe here.

There are even others that think termination of babies delivered full term is acceptable. Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, believes parents should be able to kill infants up to thirty days after their birth: “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Dang, it’s a girl! We have two already, so let’s get rid of her!

So is Singer right that what constitutes life is self-awareness and a sense of time? Or is there a set of biological parameters that instead define personhood? This is the question we as a society must answer.

However, the pro-abortion forces avoid at all costs any kind of definition of what constitutes life and instead deflect the argument to one of women’s rights. They sloganize about a woman’s right to choose and proclaim a woman has a right to decide what she does with her body. Would that mean then that a woman can choose to charge money for the sexual use of her body too? I believe we have laws against that.

The left has controlled the focus and the language of the abortion debate for too long and we must bring it back to where it belongs – when does life begin?

Singer’s assertion that personhood begins with self-awareness and a sense of time could extend well into infancy and clearly leads to state sanctioned infanticide. If we say that life begins at the second trimester, we need to have a set of biological parameters that justify the claim. Just what happens physically at an instant into the second trimester that makes a growing pregnancy life when it wasn’t just prior to that instant?

You see, we can’t answer that question. Therefore, the only way to make sure that we do not take innocent life is to define conception as when life begins.

The Left is staunchly against the death penalty because we could possibly execute an innocent man. Yet they are very cavalier when defining when abortions are permissible. With our lack of understanding when life begins, how do we know that every abortion does not kill an innocent? Isn’t the most enlightened thing we can do is to insure no possibility of innocent life being taken by affirming that life begins at conception? Of course it is.

Hopefully, Hillary’s Freudian slip will help elect a conservative this year, one who will begin rebuilding the Judiciary with solid conservative judges. Then maybe, just maybe, down the road, we can begin to eradicate this stain on our society.

Losing Our Youth

March 17, 2016

The successful continuance of our country depends on our youth and with what we see happening today, I am very concerned if America as we have known it will even exist in a couple of decades. So many of our future leaders do not have even a basic understanding of our founding documents and the principles they enshrine. They do not understand how the concepts of self-governance and personal responsibility have led to the freedom and prosperity they enjoy today.

Their ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills make them easy prey for avowed socialists promoting absurd societal models that have produced nothing but misery, poverty, and death wherever they have been instituted. I fear the kind of violence seen last week in Chicago will continue to effervesce as the hateful Left steps up its efforts to stoke ignorant rage and unjustified hatred to burn down America and remake it into their own personal utopia.

Our youth for some reason have become increasingly more anxious and depressed despite the prosperity and opportunity they enjoy. Jesse Singal documents this in a recent article at nymag.com. In the piece, Singal states: “Ever since the 1930’s, young people in America have reported feeling increasingly anxious and depressed. And no one knows exactly why.”

Singal quotes social psychologist, Dr. Jean Twenge, who has done significant research into this phenomenon, saying, “I think the research tells us that modern life is not good for mental health.”   Twenge has researched results obtained from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) that has been given to high school and college students since the 1930’s. The MMPI assesses the level of anxiety and depression and the results of her analysis are unmistakable – there has been a significant rise in the symptoms of these conditions in young people over the last eighty years. The question is why?

Twenge believes a main cause is the lack of interaction and connection with others as a condition of modern life today. It seems though we are more and more connected with our electronic appliances, we are less and less connected with our own species. There is a basic need we all have for human contact and intimacy that our electronics is stripping away.

Twenge also blames smaller families, the higher divorce rate, and couples marrying later in life. She also identifies that our youth’s preoccupation with money, fame, and image lead to higher levels of depression and anxiety. She then goes so far to cite increased female autonomy as another anxiety producing factor and states that: “…the potential tradeoff for our equality and freedom is more anxiety and depression because we’re more isolated.”

I can agree with the causal factors Twenge cites in Singal’s article, but I believe they are secondary in nature and not the principle reason for the increasing uncertainty and anxiety in our youth. I believe the true cause lies with the secular humanistic worldview that has been thrust upon them. Our kids are indoctrinated in our schools to believe that they are here through a long series of accidental, totally random events and that they have no more worth than an earthworm or the bird that eats it.

Objective, universal morality has been displaced with what’s expedient and individual. Truth has become malleable and situational. Even our sense of who we are as individuals is questioned. The late Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, Francis Crick completely undermines the idea that we are autonomous individuals with free will. In his book on the nature of consciousness, “The Astonishing Hypothesis”, he states this about the true nature of the human experience:

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Now Francis Crick is smart and our kids are told they just need to accept what he says without debate. Scientists have become our high priests of reality and our kids are pressured to just accept what they say and do not question anything.

Think about what such a view does to a young person’s developing sense of self. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose to your life. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, righteous or evil. Things just are. This robs kids of their initiative and their confidence to act in any capacity.

Kelly Monroe Kullberg in her book “Finding God At Harvard” described many of today’s college students this way:

“Students feel safer as doubters than as believers, and as perpetual seekers rather than eventual finders.” 

Our youth has no foundation anymore to base their beliefs and actions on. When there is no right or wrong, how do you make a decision on anything? When nothing is good or evil, how do you make any kind of behavioral judgment? Most people will just acquiesce into passivity but others can spiral into frustration and violence.

Our greatest defender of Christianity today is philosopher William Lane Craig. He makes the point that life without God is absurd. Without God there is simply no grounding for objective moral values that make life livable and gives us certainty and confidence on how to live. Take this away and you see what happens – anxiety, uncertainly, hostility, and depression. It’s becoming all too clear.

The Left’s Weaponization Of Science

November 5, 2015

Now that Ben Carson is leading in some national polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the left is beginning to sharpen their attacks on the former neurosurgeon.

This week, Fareed Zakaria, the CNN news host, conducted an interview with famed atheist and evolution pundit, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins who has written such best sellers as “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene”, is the face of modern atheism today and is one of the leaders of the “Brights” movement, you know the really smart people whose proclamations frame the liberal worldview today.

Zakaria asked Dawkins to comment on the fact that all but one of the major Republican candidates believe that humans were created and were not the result of natural selection acting on random mutation, i.e., Darwinism.

Dawkins replied, This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” He did soften his remark some by saying that the candidates may be stating that belief because that is what their constituency believes and that was depressing in itself.

Dawkins though singled out Ben Carson for more focused criticism and called his belief in creationism especially troubling. While the rest of the field espousing creationism is a disgrace, Dawkins asserted that a distinguished neurosurgeon holding such beliefs is far worse, because, “evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.”

Well yes indeed, biology is the bedrock of medicine but evolution has been rendered junk science based on what we now know of the fossil record and of the information content of all biological life.

We now know that the fossil record documented in the Cambrian explosion which occurred some 542 million years ago, shows that most of the major body plans around today came into being in a period of time far too short for Darwinian gradualism to have been responsible. Gradualism is the foundational principle of the evolution Dawkins espouses and this FACT refutes its validity.

While Dawkins has to acknowledge the information content of biology, he narrowly makes the point that DNA similarity between species means that we all came from a common ancestor. However he ignores the other possibility that it may mean that all species have a common designer. Engineers reuse software all the time for different devices. The very same principle could apply to biological life. Whatever you do though, do not ask Dawkins where the information came from in the first place; he’s liable to lose his blood pudding right there in front of you.

There is a bigger issue at hand though. There are two fulcrums that the Marxist left is using to undermine Western Judeo-Christian culture. The first is indeed that human life is the result of Darwinian evolution. The other is that through man’s pursuit of freedom and prosperity we are causing calamitous damage to the climate. Therefore, through evolution, the Marxists are able define who we are. Through global warming, they are can now define how we should live. It’s a complete worldview takeover and it is succeeding.

And key to the success of this diabolical strategy is the necessity to co-op science and coax out of it whatever supports the Marxists’ goals. Scientists have been seduced by grant money, department chairs, and notoriety supplied abundantly by the left. And the left has used its “Big Lie” machinery to set up scientists as the arbiters of reality, the high priests of all that is. Scientists are now the Marxists’ battering ram designed to demolish the foundational principles of America. The aforementioned Dawkins and former NASA head James Hansen are clear examples.

Because scientists are the bright ones, the educated ones, all debate is shut down. We are admonished to just listen and accept what the really smart people say. If you challenge their orthodoxy then you are labeled a denier or an ignorant fundamentalist.

The mainstream media plays an important role too. They dutifully report and support whatever the latest scientific proclamation is in support of Marxist global domination. They are the left’s attack dogs that pounce on any dissent and belittle those who offer real truth or data opposing the party line, when they really don’t have a stinking clue.

This strategy really started to take hold in the early 1990’s. Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian writing for the American Enterprise Institute in 2010 provided clear evidence of this unholy strategy taking hold. They conducted a Lexus Nexus search of a number of authoritarian scientific phrases used in print media to see how the use of such misleading phrases has risen over the last couple of decades.

The authors searched on the prevalence of such phrases as “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.” The results which clearly show a dramatic rise in the use of such terms can be seen here: https://www.aei.org/publication/science-turns-authoritarian/

Clearly global Marxism has been pounding away at our culture with this technique for a long time and it’s time to wake up and challenge everything the mainstream media is trying to manipulate us with. Get mad America and don’t take it anymore.

The Biggest Lie

September 11, 2015

Have you had enough of the falsehoods and deceit coming from our societal leaders? The steady stream of what the sophisticated elite call nuance and clear thinkers called damned lies is becoming more than nauseating.

Last week I wrote about the current “Big Lie” – manmade global warming. Every day we get another pronouncement about the horrors of carbon, you know the element all life is based on. Honestly, a fourth grader can defeat this nonsense.

Remember, “If you like your plan, you can keep it”? Tell that to the millions that have had their medical insurance policies cancelled. Of course, Washington bureaucrats have exempted themselves.

How about all those “shovel ready” jobs that turned out to be not so shovel ready?

Then there’s, “I never sent or received any classified emails on my server”. Hey Hillary, orange is the new black!

And one of my favorites, “If you give us a majority in the Senate, we will repeal Obamacare”. We gave the Republicans the Senate and what did they do? They immediately voted to fund every aspect of Obamacare. The scoundrels!

And a blast from the past just to keep things lighthearted, “I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.  There is still a sizable part of our population that wants this back in the White House.

I can go on and on rattling more of these off. The point is that these examples of deceit not only damage us in ways specific to the situations they pertain to, but they also tear at the fabric of our civil society. We are lied to every day by those paraded in the media as the ones that really matter. Our cultural foundations are being steadily eroded as a result.

The lies, dishonesty, and immorality we live with today stem from what I believe is the biggest lie of all. This lie has been promoted for over a century and has done more to destroy our culture and our sense of who we are than any other idea in history.

The Biggest Lie robs us of our value as human beings. The Biggest Lie robs us of universal right and wrong. The Biggest Lie robs us of unalienable rights. The Biggest Lie robs us of absolute truth. The Biggest Lie allows us to sacrifice sixty million unborn children and throw out thousands of years of history on what constitutes marriage.

So what is the Biggest Lie? The Biggest Lie is what your children are exclusively being taught in school. The Biggest Lie is what will prevent a college professor from getting tenure if he dares to speak against it. The Biggest lie is what tyrants used to justify the extermination of tens of millions of people in the twentieth century.

The Biggest Lie defines man as simply the result of natural selection acting on random mutations to cellular DNA. This lie says that we are merely the culmination of a long line of accidents and we really don’t have any more value than a bird, a tree, or a snail darter. Coupled with the misconception that there is nothing beyond the physical, material universe, the Biggest Lie dictates that truth and morality become expedient and are defined by whoever has the most power.

There is hope though. The viability of the Biggest Lie is rapidly eroding. All scientists agree that biological life is based on information. The DNA code in your cells is very much like the computer program that is allowing you to read this. However, it is far more complicated than anything man can do at this point. There is only one source we know of that can produce such complexity – a mind.

We now know contrary to the Neo-Darwinist view, that just making changes to cellular DNA will not get you to a new organism. That simply allows for new proteins to be synthesized and will not result in new body plans.

Scientists have recently discovered another vast amount of biological information called epigenetic information contained in cellular structures. This information governs how cells form into tissues and then into organs and new body plans. And to make sure the process of organism growth and development is properly coordinated, scientists have discovered what they call developmental gene regulatory networks. These make sure the right genes in the DNA code are executed are the appropriate time.

The bottom line is that if you are going to develop a new species, you have to change all three of these, the DNA code, the epigenetic information, and the developmental gene regulatory network in a very coordinated way. The odds of this happening by chance are virtually impossible. Stop listening to the anthropologists and zoologists (and politicians) and start listening to what the microbiologists and biochemists are saying.

The point is that the best fit to the data we have is that there is a vast intelligence behind life. This intelligence is not only responsible for the creation of biological information but also provides the grounding necessary for objective truth and morality. It is the source of our unalienable rights. This intelligence made a decision to create and impute us with immeasurable worth.

Our society has become unmoored from the understanding that there is a creator beyond space and time and that He created us for His purpose. The results of this decoupling are all around us.

Faith Derangement Syndrome – It’s Not Just For Christians Anymore

June 19, 2015

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia recently gave the commencement speech at Stone Ridge High School in Bethesda, Maryland where his granddaughter, Megan, was graduating. Scalia’s speech was humorous and upbeat and took aim at the typical coma inducing platitudes normally offered as wisdom to bleary-eyed students.

At one point in the speech, Scalia stated this about the challenges that lay ahead for the graduating class: “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.” Scalia was clearly taking aim at the typical liberal fear provoking, apocalyptical admonitions designed to chain newly minted adults to an all-smothering central government. Now if simple minded yours truly took notice of this, then surely sophisticated liberals did as well, right? Well, take notice they did.

However, instead of offering reasons as to why Scalia’s statement was false, liberal critics attack Scalia’s Christian beliefs. In Philosophy, this is called committing a genetic fallacy – attacking the source of the argument instead of the argument being made. The idea is to attack the person making a claim, discredit them and then any statement they make can just be ignored or dismissed. This is liberal for thoughtful discourse.

Barbara J. King, an anthropology professor at William and Mary, writing on NPR.org questioned in hushed, soporific tones just what Scalia meant by “Humanity has been around for at least 5,000 years or so”. Could Scalia be one of those creationists? You know, they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. She admits that it’s not clear whether Scalia is making that claim or not but does note that he does recognize creation science as a body of scientific knowledge. Oh, the horror!

Hermant Mehta, “The Friendly Atheist”, similarly chimes in echoing King about the possibility of Scalia being a young earther. (Does the fact that he calls himself “The Friendly Atheist” mean that atheists are not normally friendly?) He then adds, …it does fall right in line with the I-Hold-Loopy-Religious-Beliefs Scalia, who said in a 2013 interview that he believed in a literal devil.” Our friendly atheist then goes on to add, “It’s a sad state of affairs when someone who doesn’t accept basic science sits on the Supreme Court.” Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

And Jeffrey Tayler of Salon.com takes us there. He believes that Scalia is mentally deficient and should be removed from the Supreme Court bench because: “Scalia rejects the fact of evolution – the foundation of modern biology – in favor of the opening chapter of a compendium of cockamamie fables concocted by obscure humans in a particularly dark age, evidence that his faculty of reason has suffered the debilitating impairment associated with Faith Derangement Syndrome (FDS)”.

Tayler must not be a friendly atheist. I think he’s one of those naturally hostile atheists, you know, the ones that are always seem to be having a bad day. Check out how he describes Christian Evangelicals: “…Dugger-esque hairdos and Tammy Bakker-ian makeup, preternaturally sunny dispositions, and pedophiliac tendencies, sartorial ineptitude and obesity.” Wow, this guy really has command of his online thesaurus! Funny though, I always thought Denzel Washington was a pretty cool dresser with really great abs. I’m also willing to bet that one of the hottest stars in Hollywood right now, Chris Pratt, is a little cooler looking than Jeffrey Tayler, but please forgive me, I’m just being catty.

Tayler does get serious though in charging that Scalia is ignoring the monumental threat of anthropogenic (manmade for those of you without an online thesaurus) global warming which early generations didn’t have to face, making life today far more perilous than earlier times.

Therefore, in the mind of those like Tayler, we either accept the fact that man is destroying the planet or we are deranged. Never mind the fact that the earth’s average temperature has been flat for close to twenty years now. Pay no attention to those NOAA men behind the curtain who are frantically changing earth based temp data to support the global warming claim. All the satellite data clearly shows there’s been no warming.

How about that consensus of scientists on devastating man-caused climate change? I don’t think that’s quite right either. I can provide you a petition signed by 32,000 American scientists that do not support the notion and they are not all Evangelicals.

Tayler takes great issue with the creation account in Genesis and calls the events “manifest absurdities”. Well let’s look at what the facts of science are:

  • The universe had a beginning. Scientists to their frustration admit that the universe has a space-time boundary in the finite past no matter what hand waving you get from Hawking. Check out the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
  • The universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for intelligent life to exist. The tuning of the physical constants of nature is so precise as to be impossible to have occurred by random friendly atheist chance.
  • All biological life is based on information that can only come from a mind. Check out what Bill Gates says about DNA.
  • The fossil record in no way supports Darwinism’s required gradualism.

I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that there is far more evidence in support of the Christian worldview than that of the friendly atheist view. So who’s really deranged?

The Left’s Clear And Present Danger – Christianity

May 29, 2015

Marco Rubio, one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for president, made headlines this week with comments he made to the Christian Broadcasting Network concerning the increasing level of attacks on Christianity. He stated that “there’s a real and present danger” that the promoters of gay marriage will label the teachings of mainstream Christianity as “hate speech.”

He went on to say that “If you think about it, we are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech. Because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”

Water’s edge? I would say that we are already knee deep and the water’s rising. I am willing to bet there is already legislation in a drawer on Capital Hill codifying Christianity as hate speech with jail time recommendations.

You have to hand it to the Marxists though; they are relentless and effective. At the beginning of Obama’s first term, most Democrats as well as Obama himself wouldn’t touch gay marriage with a ten-foot pole. And now just a few short years later, the Supreme Court will soon establish a Constitutional right to same sex unions out of the ether.

As Christians, we are told to love others as we love ourselves. This is an impossible task, but we try to do the best we can. The Bible tells us that homosexual activity is a sin but set that aside for a minute. If you love someone, you want what’s best for that person. If that person is engaging in an activity that is harmful to them, you want to warn them and protect them from it.

There are reams and reams of data that show that homosexual behavior is destructive to those that engage in it. For example:

  • The lifespan of gay men is 8 to 20 years shorter than heterosexual men.
  • Homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression.
  • Suicide rates are 200% higher in gay men versus their heterosexual counterparts.
  • While comprising only 2% of the population, gay men represent 62% of new HIV infections.
  • Rates of infection for other STD’s are much higher in the gay community than the heterosexual community.

So who are the haters here – Christians who love their brother enough to tell him the truth or Leftists who promote the lifestyle as an acceptable alternative and turn a blind eye to the suffering?

The left argues that homosexual behavior is genetically based. Therefore, same sex attraction is normal and natural for a person so predisposed and should be accepted. Well, this is just a red herring. There are plenty of genetically based conditions that are destructive to the individual and society that we do not endorse and encourage. (Do I really need to list them for you?)

Whether homosexual tendencies are genetically determined or not doesn’t matter. Knowing that the behavior has such significant consequences, isn’t it more loving to steer the person with same sex tendencies away from such a lifestyle and not use them for political gain?

What Rubio alludes to is that there is indeed a war on Christianity by the left. Normalization of homosexuality is just one front in this war. The atheistic Marxists hate Christianity and attack it because it is only Christianity that stands in opposition to everything they are trying to bring about in this country.

Marxists, hungry for absolute power, want the government to be the source and determiner of our rights. With Christianity, our rights come from a transcendent creator and are immutable. The government is there to protect these rights, not create them.

Marxists promote the premise that morality is relative. There are no absolute moral principles that apply equally for everyone at all times. Therefore, the state can then determine what is moral or immoral at any point in time to suit it’s interests. Christianity is based on absolute morality. What’s moral for one person is moral for all and does not change with the seasons.

The Marxist materialistic worldview leads to a conception of man as being an accident with no more value than a tree, a fish, or a monkey. This life has no significant purpose and there is no life beyond this one. Therefore, abortion on demand at any point in gestation is perfectly acceptable and even valued. One hundred million dead in the twentieth century at the hands of Marxist dictators is just a necessary expediency.

Christianity on the other hand views human life as a precious gift. We are all created in the image of a perfect creator and therefore are of the greatest value.  We are spiritual beings with eternal life waiting for us when our time here is done. And we understand that actions taken in this life can have eternal consequences.

We have to understand that atheistic Marxism and Christianity are incompatible. They cannot coexist. Marxism is aggressive and seeks to conquer. Soon, a choice will have to be made between acquiescing or standing firm on the Word of God. Choose wisely.

The War On Poverty Is a War On America

May 22, 2015

“This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” So stated then President Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union address.

Today’s president speaking to a group of faith leaders at Georgetown University last week implied that this war was still raging and had this to say about the perceived obstacle for winning, “Talk to any of my Republican friends. They will say, No. 1, they care about the poor – and I believe them. But when it comes to actually establishing budgets, making choices, prioritizing, that’s when it starts breaking down.”

Hmmm. Republicans haven’t established budgets or made choices or prioritized? Well, let’s look at some facts. Since the War On Poverty started, our wealth spreading government has spent over 22 TRILLION dollars of taxpayer money in an effort to eradicate poverty! Yes, 22 TRILLION dollars! Can you imagine what this number would be if Republicans were cooperating with Democrats?

For 22 TRILLION dollars, we have a poverty rate that is essentially unchanged from what it was when the government first started shoveling our money at the problem. The poverty rate was 14 per cent in 2014, essentially the same as in 1967. The rate has been bouncing around between about 12 per cent and 15 per cent for decades following the overall economic cycle. There has been no progress according to the government’s own measurements.

The funny thing is that the poverty rate was actually falling sharply prior to the “War” starting. The rate stood at 32.2 per cent in 1950 but had dropped to 17.3 per cent by the start of the government attack in 1965. One could reasonably argue that we spent 22 TRILLION dollars to keep poverty at the 15 per cent level, not to eradicate it.

Actually, other government data show that there has been great economic progress by the poor. Consider the following government data points:

  • Two thirds of the poor have satellite or cable TV
  • Over half of those considered poor have a personal computer and an Xbox or PlayStation
  • Forty per cent of the poor have a high definition TV
  • Ninety-six per cent of the poor state that their children were never hungry because they couldn’t afford food
  • Nearly half those considered poor live in single family homes with forty-two per cent actually owning their home
  • The average poor in America have more living space than the average person (not poor) in Sweden, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom

This data is cited from The Heritage Foundation paper “The War On Poverty After 50 Years” written by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield.

So clearly, the standard of living for the poor in this country has progressed significantly. However, the government’s poverty percentage has remained flat. Why? Because the government does not take into account the welfare benefits the poor are receiving. The billions of dollars that are transferred to the welfare state each year are not included in the calculations.

Why would the government present such an erroneous picture? Obviously, it’s to keep the wealth transfer rolling. The argument for additional money can continue to be made if the poverty number is not improving. More money means more jobs for bureaucrats, more control of the economy, and more dependency by those trapped in the welfare web.

The original intent of the War On Poverty was not perpetual dependence. President Johnson made clear that the goal of the program was to build self-sufficiency and to raise people out of poverty. Instead, government statists have now grossly manipulated welfare programs to create a dependent underclass that will perpetually vote for increasing benefits.

The current administration has done everything it can to capture as many people as possible in the welfare web in order to establish a voting majority.   And we are very close to reaching that level. Over 100 million Americans received some kind of welfare payout last year. If a voting majority is reached, the country will collapse. Can you spell Cloward and Piven?

This collectivism now ensnaring the country is totally alien to our founding. It stands in direct opposition to the ideas of individual freedom and liberty. It destroys the concepts of personal responsibility, property rights, and self-sufficiency. In place of these, collectivism breeds jealousy and hostility among citizens. It saps the confidence that one can improve their life through their own efforts. Citizens become childlike crying at the government table for their piece of an ever-diminishing pie.

This was not what our founding fathers passed on to us. This is not what hundred of thousands have fought for and died to preserve. We were born with unalienable rights to live as free individuals and make a life that has meaning and consequence as we so decide. Our government was so established to protect our individual sovereignty and our pursuit of happiness. However, due to our complacency and lack of vigilance we have allowed this government to become the predator of liberty our forefathers so feared. It’s not too late to turn back this scourge, but it is late.

Societal Decay – Where Are The Christians?

April 30, 2015

The violence and mayhem on display in Baltimore this week illustrate the unmistakable failure of big government liberalism. It’s a scene that has played out in other areas of the country in cities where the liberal establishment is deeply entrenched.

The derangement and dysfunction we are witnessing bring into full relief the fact that liberalism is bankrupt and incapable of providing citizens with fruitful, productive, and meaningful lives. Everywhere liberalism has full rein, we see fractured families, high unemployment, rampant crime, and hopelessness.

Liberal politicians and their cronies attach themselves to the misery like leeches, bleeding the citizens of hope and opportunity. They perpetuate a cycle of misery by robbing people of their initiative and belief in their own ability to find happiness while they enrich themselves off the public largess. They cynically portray themselves as the champions of the common man while they ensnare him in a web of deceitful rhetoric and stifling bureaucracy.

Yet, the cycle of degradation continues to turn unabated. With the failure of liberalism so apparent, why does it continue to spread and bring increasing societal decay?

Those of you reading who are Christians, take a good look in the mirror. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us”. Christians have abdicated their responsibility to be the “salt and light” in our culture that Jesus called us to be.

As Christians, we have been charged to engage and influence the culture for the Kingdom. We are directed to have a solid understanding of our theology and be able to give good reasons and evidence for what we believe. Christians are to follow the example of Jesus and challenge the political authorities (the Pharisees in Jesus’ day) on actions they may be taking in conflict with the Christian worldview.

That’s not how we see Christians acting today and I believe it starts with the Church. Unfortunately, the Church is not influencing the culture for the Kingdom. Instead, the Church is conforming to the culture. Instead of standing for Biblical truth, the Church is “going along to get along”.

I’m sorry if I offend some of your sensibilities, but homosexual marriage is and will forever be destructive to society. Ancient Greeks appear to have understood this. Though their culture embraced homosexual behavior, the Greeks were against homosexual marriage. They clearly believed it was bad for their society. (Thanks to Justice Scalia for that tidbit.)

However, the Presbyterian Church officially endorses it despite the Bible clearly calling the behavior an abomination. The Episcopal Church has consecrated openly gay bishops. Certain Evangelical churches are getting a bit wobbly on this too.

We see many of the biggest and richest Christian churches today peddling a “prosperity gospel” that is preoccupied with how individual followers can gain whatever material wealth they desire. All they have to do is claim it. Speaking truth to power, influencing the culture for the Kingdom – fahgetaboutit!   Instead, say a prayer, make a tithe, and the truck of your dreams is yours! This is paganism not Christianity.

The Christian Church remains terrified of science despite the fact that so much of what we are learning about creation supports the Biblical account. On one hand, churches are aligning theology with the Darwinian account of how life began to conform to secular culture. On the other, we have the young earthers who essentially reject any evidence that does not support a six thousand year old earth and in turn alienate the Christian worldview from most thinking men and women.

The teaching we get from most churches today is shallow and superficial and it’s directly affecting our children. We are not equipping and preparing them for the attacks they will encounter when they leave the home and go off to college. There’s ample statistics that show about seventy-five percent of them will leave the faith because they can’t stand up to the secular onslaught. Churches are spending all of their effort telling kids what to believe, but are not giving them a clue as to why they should believe it or how to defend it.

Is it any wonder why Christianity is losing so many followers? Is it any wonder why its influence is waning so rapidly? Christians have become so self-centered and ignorant of Biblical truth that they are simply not equipped to engage the secular culture. It doesn’t have to be this way.

No other worldview has the wealth of corroborating physical evidence that Christianity has. The universe had a beginning like the Bible says. The universe is expanding like the Bible says. The universe is unbelievably fine tuned for life as the Bible says. All biological life is based on information and we know this kind information only comes from a mind, an unbelievably powerful mind.

The Bible’s veracity is well supported by archeological evidence and extra-biblical writers and historians. Most Biblical scholars agree that what is written in the Bible today accurately reflects what the scriptural authors originally wrote.

Wherever and whenever Christians show up and fight, we win. We have the all the tools to win the country back to the values and principles it was founded on. We just have to get engaged.

So you have money issues or health issues or relationship issues. Get over it. Your reward is not in this life. Your engagement in the cultural battle must be.

We All Are Fundamentalists

April 17, 2015

We are truly through the looking glass. The reaction and discourse surrounding various states’ efforts to pass laws similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) proves it beyond any doubt. The RFRA was passed in 1993 with great bipartisan fanfare. How things have changed since then.

Indiana’s Governor, Mike Pence, has received withering derision and criticism for signing into law language almost identical to the federal law already in place. The news media has very effectively distorted the provisions of the bill to arouse leftist ire and provide red meat to liberal talking heads. Of course, we also heard from the line reciters in Hollywood but I was pained to see Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, transform into a hypocritical ogre before our very eyes.

The state of Connecticut piled on and threatened to suspend state sponsored travel to Indiana, as did the City of San Francisco. The NCAA threatened to steer future events away from Indiana. Similarly in Arizona, the NFL indicated it might move the Super Bowl to an alternate site if a similar religious freedom bill was signed into law.   Governor Jan Brewer backed off and vetoed the bill.

Our society is making a rapid descent into a mobocracy and it is by design. Individual rights and sovereignty are being trampled under government promoted political correctness. It’s now what’s best for the collective, each individual is of little worth. Societal change is now accomplished through threats and coercion not thoughtful reasoning and reflection on history.

Make no mistake; Christians are clearly in the crosshairs of those trying to transform our civil society to a totalitarian utopia. Christians no longer have the right to refuse to participate in something that is morally abhorrent to them.

Christian bakers no longer have the right to refuse producing a cake depicting an image in conflict with their beliefs. If Christians can be compelled to bake such a cake, what prevents a Christian videographer from being compelled to film gay pornographic scenes? We are now on such a slope.

Secularists like to disparage Christians as being fundamentalists. Bible believing Christians are always described as fundamental in the mainstream media. They lay that label on you and then anything you say can just be dismissed. However, atheists/secularists/materialists are fundamentalists just as Christians are. They simply have different fundamentals than Christians.

Both Christianity and atheism are examples of what philosophers call worldviews. Worldviews are simply a way to look at the world and to make sense of it. And to be reasonably complete, a worldview needs to provide answers to a few basic questions.

For example, a complete worldview needs to provide an answer to where do we come from? Christians would answer that we were created by God in his image. Atheists would say we came from a random, accidental series of chemical/biological events.

Another question needing an answer is, why are we here? Christians would answer that we are here to come to know God, enter into a relationship with Him, and give Him glory. Atheists would say that each individual has to make up their own reasons as to why they are here since there is no ultimate purpose for existence.

A third question is, what determines morality? Christians know that it is the perfect, immutable moral character of God imprinted on all of us. Atheists really struggle with this, but ultimately it becomes what is expedient for those in power and therefore, situational and mutable.

The last question is where are we going? Christians answer that this life is only a preamble for an eternal existence with God. Atheists have to say that this life is it and there is nothing beyond it.

It’s clear now that America is trading the Christian worldview of its founding for an atheistic one. Since we are accidents with no intrinsic value and really no future, the concept of individual freedom and sovereignty are being eroded by the political correctness of collectivism for the benefit of a ruling political class.

With the atheistic worldview, there is no sanctity to life. Therefore, abortion becomes just a choice in eliminating an inconvenience and reducing the population.

With an atheistic worldview, marriage can become whatever one wants it to be – man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or – you fill in the blank.

With an atheistic worldview, morality becomes situational. What is moral today may not be moral tomorrow.

With an atheistic worldview, individual rights come from government. Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is subverted to the needs and wants of the capricious state. What you can do, what you can say, and where you can go are all decided by what is best for the government and its management of the collective.

Dear readers, we are clearly in a post Constitutional period. Being post Constitutional means that we are post Judeo-Christian founding principles as well. These principles enshrined in our founding documents are the only thing that has separated us from the misery of the rest of the world. These principles have provided us with the most successful society in the history of the planet. Why are we allowing a tyrannical few to destroy what so many have labored and died for?

The Monkey Trial Part Deux

December 11, 2014

Last week in a little noticed decision, a three-judge panel in Albany, New York unanimously ruled to deny personhood to a chimpanzee. Yes, a chimpanzee. Tommy, as the chimp is known, lives in a cage under conditions that the animal rights group, Nonhuman Rights Project, argued were essentially that of a person living in solitary confinement.

The group’s lawyer argued that chimps have qualities similar to humans and therefore deserve rights normally provided to humans, like freedom from imprisonment. While this case is a setback for their effort, the Nonhuman Rights Project intends to pursue additional cases in other states.

In a similar case in 2012, a suit was filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on behalf of five killer whales at SeaWorld charging that the captivity of the whales constituted slavery. Fortunately, the clear thinking judge in that case ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applied only to humans and dismissed the suit.

Now you might be thinking how wonderful it is to see our courts decide something in a rational manner. However, even though these cases went the right way, there is great danger lurking ahead with this issue.

Animal rights advocates are working hard to find one court that will grant to animals what our legal system calls legal standing. Providing legal standing to animals such as chimps or maybe cows or even chickens would allow lawyers to sue on behalf of these animals for whatever injustices they could creatively dream up. Need a new European supercar? Well, just sue the American Kennel Club for the injustice of keeping the dogs in cages or on leashes at the last dog show.

PETA’s attorney in the orca case indicated that even though the SeaWorld suit didn’t go their way, “progress” was made. Once one court allows such a case to proceed, there will be a stampede to bring others to trial.

In cases of this type, animal rights advocates are arguing for the granting of human rights to animals. However, what really lurks behind this is much darker. The intense desire of the core of this movement is not to bring animals up to human status but to bring humans down to the animal level.

The radical animal rights movement believes that humans are the earth’s biggest enemies. Many argue that the human population should be pared back by ninety percent so that the rest of the animal world has their equal share of the earth’s resources. They proclaim that human life is of no greater value than bacteria and deserves no special status.

Filmmaker David Attenborough sums up it up this way:

“Humans are a plague on the earth.”

This, I believe, constitutes the cultural battleground we find ourselves in today. Are humans exceptional, made in a supreme creator’s image, endowed with unalienable rights or are we of no greater worth than the common house fly? Are we the pinnacle of creation and have sovereignty over it or are we just another one of its constituents of no greater worth? The answer has enormous implications for life as we know it.

I believe Darwinism has played a key role in defining human worth down.   It has provided fertile ground for the non-exceptional view of humans to take root. Darwin’s theory of the origin life where we are simply the result of natural selection acting on random mutation removes the need for a supreme creator. We just came randomly from previous life. Humans become just another branch on the evolutionary tree and therefore have no more intrinsic value than a snail darter. By the way, don’t ever ask Darwinists where the first life came from. I have seen dislocated elbows result from their hand waving.

I have always found it interesting that Marxism began to take flight as Darwin’s theory became widely known in the culture. Marx was quite fascinated with the natural selection premise and in a letter to German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle he wrote:

“Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in the natural sciences for the historical class struggle.”

 The idea that humans have no divine spark and are just animals plays very well in a totalitarian scheme. How much easier it is to gain and hold power when survival of the fittest is the prevailing mechanism of societal structure. When humans are merely a co-equal constituent of nature, reducing the population is no different that clearing a forest. Starving millions to eliminate the possibility of rebellion is merely prudent.

When we are reduced to animals, do we not then have license to behave as animals do? What happens to the qualities of kindness, altruism, charity, self-sacrifice and honor when we simply occupy one of Darwin’s branches? The view that we are just animals promotes ruthlessness, aggression, and cruelty all in the name of survival. We have seen this repeated many times in history and it appears this new legal route is another indication that our society is headed towards the same destination.