Stop spouting facts... the science is settled!

According to Wikipedia, scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Followers of scientism tend to be zealots, more devout even than the average followers of traditional religions. What makes them especially stubborn is that they tend to not think of their beliefs as their “religion;” instead, they think scientism is simply the default way of thinking for any person and so they cannot comprehend any argument made from a different point of view. To them, if something can't be examined scientifically, it can't be true.

Now, you would think that people who practically worship science would welcome scientific debate. They say they do. Actually, they brag that they do. In the new Cosmos series, Neil deGrass Tyson offered these five, simple rules for science:

(1) Question authority.

(2) Think for yourself.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

(5) Remember: you could be wrong.

Ignore the self-contradiction going on here – like, how can someone test the idea that we should test ideas by evidence? My point in citing these “rules” is to show how skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of science. According to Tyson, I'm not supposed to accept a conclusion just because someone in authority says it's true. I'm supposed to think for myself. Right? I could be wrong but maybe it's the person making the claim who is wrong.

There are real scientists who are skeptics. At the risk of sounding cliché, scientific advancement often comes when people think outside of the box. Science Alert once published a list of 8 scientific papers that were rejected during peer review before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Obviously, these authors were on to something and the scientific establishment just couldn't see it. How often has one radical idea, one that other scientists may have thought sounded crazy, turned out to be true? Maybe we should ask Galileo.

Devout members of scientism aren't skeptics. They claim to be but they aren't. They blindly follow the majority opinion without question. You can often identify them by their frequent use of the phrase, “The science is settled.” To them, truth is whatever is accepted by a majority of scientists. Anyone who disagrees is considered a heretic. Actually, they don't call them heretics – they call them, “science deniers” but, in scientism, it means the same thing. Doubters of some scientific theory aren't ever called “skeptics” or “free thinkers;” they're “deniers.”

Let me give you a few examples of scientism's doctrine. The first is obviously evolution. I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard rabid evolutionists defend their theory by saying no credible scientist denies that evolution happened. Note the use of the word “credible,” but never mind blatant No True Scotsman fallacy. Truth is not decided by popular vote. Evolutionists often refuse to debate creationists on the grounds that “the science is settled,” “there is no debate among scientists whether evolution is true,” and debating the theory with a creationists gives the impression there is still doubt over the theory. Followers of scientism want to squelch any dissent over evolution by suing public schools who want to “teach the difficulties,” rejecting any creationist paper submitted for peer review, and even protesting a privately funded, religious organization like the Creation Museum.

Another long standing doctrine of this godless faith is climate change. Once upon a time, it was called “global warming” but after decades of no noticeable increase in the global, mean temperature, they had to replace “warming” with the much more ambiguous term, “change.” Actually, none of the dire predictions made by these alarmists have happened. In 2008, ABC aired a video montage showing all the terrible things that would happen by 2015 because of climate change: New York flooding, hundreds of miles of scorched earth, and skyrocketing food and fuel prices. I remember 2015. It was nothing like the predictions made by the video but followers of scientism aren't embarrassed by their failed predictions; The “science is settled” concerning climate change and bad things are going to happen unless we do something now. //RKBentley shakes his head//

Bill Nye was recently embarrassed by Tucker Carlson when he tried to pull that “the science is settled” crap. Carlson was asking basic questions about climate change and Nye was obviously making up the answers. Before we spend trillions of dollars on this “crisis,” we need to have some answers: the most fundamental question is, is there even any warming? The trend for the last few decades says no. If it is happening, to what extent are humans causing it? If we could stop warming, should we? What is the earth's temperature supposed to be? Every air-breathing animal produces carbon dioxide. Humans produce about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Even if we converted the entire world to 100% emission-free energy, humans will still produce billions of pounds of CO2 every day just by breathing. How can that be bad? Plants require CO2. What will happen to our forests if we could reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? These are legitimate questions but they are heresy to dogma-driven zealots like Nye. A real scientist on CNN recently brought up some of these points and Nye scolded CNN for, “having one climate change skeptic, and not 97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change.”

The most recent political discussion which followers of scientism have weighed in on is the transgender issue. Scientists now “know” that things like gender identity or even our biological sex aren't immutable but exist on a spectrum. You would think that after 6,000 years of human history, the science would at least be settled about who is a male and who is a female. Wrong! Now we're being told that doctors sometimes got it wrong when they checked “male” or “female” on a birth certificate. I'm a 51 year old white guy. Why can't I identify as a 65 year old person and start receiving social security? Why can't I say I'm a black guy and maybe qualify for affirmative action programs? But I can say I'm a woman and folks like Nye will rush to defend my delusion as being normal, usual, and healthy. Anyone who disagrees is a hate-filled, homophobic, bigot. Colleges are adopting strict policies requiring the use of gender-neutral pronouns. If I call a female, “she,” suddenly I'm the one who has the problem. Several years ago, I wrote about California's ban on gay-conversion therapy for minors. Really? So after little Johnny was abused by an uncle, he seeks help because he doesn't like the sexual feelings he now has toward men and the only acceptable response is, “You're gay, Johnny, you can't change it. You'd better learn to live with it!”

Bill Nye has said that being a creationist suppresses critical thinking. I believe Nye's religion of scientism is a far worse assault on critical thinking than being a creationist could ever be. He does not want debate. “Science deniers” must be ridiculed and insulted until they have lost all credibility. Maybe they should even be put in prison. Nye and folks like him have their minds are made up. Stop confusing them with facts. The science is settled.

Rejecting a straw god

I've been blogging for a while now; this month makes nine years. My online discussions with critics, however, go back over 20 years to the old, AOL chat rooms. I've been on FaceBook and many online forums like CARM where I've engaged atheists head to head – not just answering the comments left on my blog. I read other people's blogs, watch their videos, and listen to their arguments. Suffice it to say, I've heard about every reason there is that people use to reject God. Yet in all that time, all the different arguments I've heard can be grouped into just a few different categories.

Before I get into the categories, let me just say that I have my doubts that these are the real reasons why people reject God; they are merely the excuses they give. I think, deep down, they ultimately reject God because of their sinful, prideful, rebellious nature. They would prefer to continue in their sin rather than submit to God. They want to live life how they please and simply are trying to convince themselves there will be no judgment at the end of it. But since these are the excuses they give, they are what I will use.

Keep in mind that critics will seldom limit themselves to just one of these categories. Usually, it's only one of these things that will first cause someone to doubt, but once he has rejected the idea of God completely, he always embrace the other things as well. Here are the categories I've seen.

Some people claim to reject God because of the “bad things” they see in the world. It's common for people to say things like, “Why does God allow bad things to happen?” This includes not only people doing bad things but also natural disasters like earthquakes, plagues, famines, or tsunamis. Sometimes, there will have been a personal tragedy in the persons life, like the loss of a loved one or maybe a divorce or abuse. They believe that God doesn't act at these times because there is no God.

Other people claim to reject God because they reject the biblical standards of morality. They will point to passages like 1 Samuel 15:3, where God commanded Saul to destroy the city of Amalek and describe it as genocide. They say a loving God wouldn't condemn things like homosexuality. Dan Savage once said that the Bible was “wrong” on slavery so how can we trust it on things like sexuality? They also question the “fairness” of God forgiving really bad people or condemning “good” people who reject Him. They aren't just questioning why God let's bad things happen, but claim God Himself is bad. Critics believe if there were a God, He wouldn't act like this.

People also claim to reject God because they see no evidence that He exists. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people ask, “If there is a God, why doesn't He just show Himself?” These critics see the universe operating according to fixed, physical laws and we don't really need to invoke a god to understand them. Just a few months ago, I blogged this quote: Why is God so stingy with direct evidence?... [T]he supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible.... A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature. These critics believe if there were a God, He would make Himself known in an obvious way.

I could include people who reject the Bible on the grounds that they claim it contains contradictions and so can't be divinely inspired. This is more of an argument for agnosticism than atheism. That is, they may still think there could be a god, they just don't believe it's necessarily the Christian God of the Bible. This category isn't really relevant to my point today. I just raise it in case people later try to claim I didn't think of it.

As we review this short (but nearly exhaustive) list of reasons, we see a theme begin to develop. These people aren't merely searching for God and not finding Him. Instead, they've imagined how they think God should act but they can't find a god that acts like that! In other words, they aren't really rejecting God, they're rejecting a straw god, one they've created in their own imagination.

If we look at these reasons objectively, we can see they're non sequitur. Take the first excuse, for example: bad things happen so there can't be a god? How exactly does that follow? It's sort of like saying, “doctors are supposed to heal sick people but, since there are still sick people, doctors must be imaginary.” You can see how that doesn't work. The second point suffers the same way. It makes no sense to say, “I don't think homosexuality is a sin so if God thinks so He must not be real.” Finally, no one can seriously claim that God can't be real because He won't appear on the evening news and tell us He's real. OK, maybe they do claim that but it still doesn't make sense.

There is a God. He is loving but He is also just. The bad things that happen in the world are His judgment for our sins but He has made salvation available to all who believe. He has redeemed His people by shedding His own blood and He will restore His creation where there will be no more death. He also has made Himself known through His prophets, through His word, and through His Son, who became flesh and dwelt among us.

It's no wonder some people can't find God. They're looking for a capricious god who loves sin. They're not rejecting God; they're rejecting an imaginary god who doesn't exist.

It's OK to say someone is wrong!

It's the law statewide in WA but will soon be coming to a restroom near you – the end to gender discrimination! What discrimination? They mean the barbaric practice of having separate facilities (restrooms, locker rooms, spas, etc) for men and women. How archaic it is that modest people do not want to disrobe in front of people whose gender is different than their own!

It's the usual tactic of liberals to force the majority to kowtow to the minority. Last time it was gay marriage. It wasn't enough that a gay couple had the right to have a ceremony and call themselves married, liberals wanted to make everyone else to treat them as married. Now they're doing the same thing with gender-confused persons. They can't just pretend to be another gender, we're being forced to accept their stated gender.

The problems I have with this are the same problems being discussed by everyone else. Why do I have to share a locker room with a woman because she's confused about her gender? And what's to stop a grown man from using these laws to spy on little girls in restrooms? If a man wants to wear a dress and say he's a woman, he can. There wasn't a law against it. But now there are laws that say women have to welcome him into their locker rooms and restrooms. What about my rights? What about my right to privacy? What about my right of association? What about my right of religion? It's the majority that is made to feel uncomfortable for the sake of sparing the feelings of the minority. It's insane.

But none of this is really the point of my post. Instead, it's about this twisted attitude of tolerance that says we must accept people for who they are. Here's a short video that really drives this point home.

At the end of the video, the interviewer sums it up well. How can we discuss complicated issues if one side believes no one should ever say another person is wrong? A 5'9”, grown, white man could say he's a 6'5”, 7-year-old, Chinese woman and enter the first grade. You can see the college students hemming and hawing in the video, struggling to be tolerant of what they knew were ridiculous claims, but they just couldn't bring themselves to say the interviewer was wrong. It's funny, because I'm sure these same students would have no problems telling me I'm wrong to believe in creation or that Christians are wrong to call someone a sinner.  It's my opinion that this brand of tolerance is dangerous. 

I've heard about a strange disorder called xenomelia (literally, “foreign limb” in Greek). People with this disorder do not identify with one or more of their extremities. They might feel like their foot, for example, doesn't really belong to them. Victims of xenomelia will often ask doctors to amputate the intruding limb. Fortunately, most doctors will refuse.

My point in raising xenomelia is to demonstrate that the correct treatment for victims of dysphoria is not necessarily to indulge their disorder. Since we don't amputate the healthy limbs of people with xenomelia, why should we perform gender-reassignment surgery on people with gender-identity disorders? From a Federalist article we read:

[A] study commissioned by The Guardian of the UK in 2004 reviewed 100 studies and reported that a whopping 20 percent (one fifth) of transgenders regret changing genders.... The review of 100 studies also revealed that many transgenders remained severely distressed and even suicidal after the gender change operation. Suicide and regret remain the dark side of transgender life.

I'm not a medical doctor – but neither are most of the liberals (or these college students) who are pleading for tolerance and acceptance of the transgendered. It seems to me the jury is still out on the best treatment of gender-confused people and this rush to normalize them isn't helpful to anyone, especially the victims. I believe we've let political forces influence our medical decisions. It will not surprise me if laws are passed that ban counseling for gender-identity disorders if the goal is to rid the victims of the desire to change genders.

But this phenomenon to “not judge” people for how they identify themselves isn't limited to gender-identity. We see similar “tolerance” of other types of body modification like tattooing, piercings, gauging, and even more extreme examples. There are also examples of people obsessed with improving appearance through plastic surgery and boob jobs. At what point do we tell people they're harming themselves? Or are we just supposed to indulge any behavior because that's how they identify themselves?

Yet more than all that, I feel this attitude is especially dangerous in the Church. How many times have you heard Christians say something like, “we have to hate the sin but love the sinner”? I agree, but part of loving the sinner is to tell them they are sinners in need of forgiveness. We cannot water down the gospel by telling people, “Jesus loves you just as you are.” If we allow people to think it's OK if they are gay or a philanderer or a drug user or whatever other vices they may have, we're telling them they don't need a Savior!

1 John 1:8-9 says, If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The key to the gospel is repentance. Unless a person is convicted of his sin, he will not feel the need to repent. If we are telling people they have no sin, the Bible says we're lying! If we love people, we need to tell them the truth. It's for their own good! It's OK to tell people they're wrong!

ABC is a bunch of intolerant bigots

Several months back, I wrote about how many, large corporations seem oblivious to the feelings of millions of Bible believing Christians while simultaneously being hypersensitive to even the slightest offense against gays. When one member of the Robertson family on A&E's “Duck Dynasty” made a comment in support of traditional marriage, A&E's first reaction was to throw him off the show. A southern cuisine restaurant chain, Cracker Barrel, pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise off the shelves. However, the public outcry against both companies was so severe, they almost immediately reversed their positions. Both companies offered half-hearted apologies.

Now, ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, has a show slated to air this fall called, The Real O'Neals. The show has been described as a “semi-autobiographical” comedy inspired by Dan Savage – who is also credited as the show's executive producer. I've written about Dan Savage on my blog before. His bio champions him as the founder of the “anti-bullying” movement known as, It Gets Better. He's more notoriously known for his perverted sex columns, his incendiary anti-christian comments, his invitations to GOP presidential candidates to perform oral sex on him, and for just being an abrasive jerk in general.

So let's get this straight: A&E wanted to throw Phil Robertson off their show based on his views on gay marriage while ABC gives a bombastic theophobe his own show. Obviously, Hollywood has made its priorities clear. A&E, of course, reversed their decision in the face of public protest. ABC, on the other hand, has stood firm on its decision to air the show in spite of the protest it has received.

I've watched the official trailer for the show. It begins with the narrator saying, “The O'Neals are your typical, Irish, Catholic family.” Really? From the video we see that the parents are divorcing, the older son admits to an eating disorder, the daughter runs scam fund raisers and pockets the money, the family priest drives a Lexus - oh, and the main character is gay. Yeah, that's a real typical Catholic family. //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

In one scene, a young girl in a Catholic school girl uniform is pressuring the main character (the gay one) into having sex (how cliché) when she produces a giant box of condoms. The scene cuts to the boy standing in front of the mirror admiring a male, underwear model in a magazine. I guess he's trying to psych himself up for sex with the girl. He chickens out and flushes the condoms which causes the toilet to overflow. Desperately plunging the toilet, the boy pleads to a statue of the Virgin Mary on the toilet by saying, “Come on, girl. You've got to help me out.” Hmmm. Can't ABC see how this might be offensive?

Now, ABC has every right to make the show. But I also have the right to say I will refuse to watch it. I also have the right to tell everyone I know not to watch it. I have every right to say I hope the show fails miserably (which I'm sure it will) and that ABC will lose millions of dollars just for having produced it in the first place. I have the right to wish that every company who advertizes on the show will hear a million protests from angry consumers, all promising to boycott their products for supporting such trash. Finally, I have the right to say that I'm sick and tired of corporations that thumb their noses at their Christian consumers all in the sake of “tolerance” and “fairness.”

ABC! You're not tolerant or fair. You're a bunch of anti-christian theophobes who has embraced the crowned Prince of intolerance. Savage is a bigot of the worst sort who has nothing in common with the values once held by Walt Disney. You have made your bed and now you will lie in it. It's values like this that have contributed to the overall decline of TV and movie audiences. You habitually offend the beliefs held by millions of people. ABC, if this show represents your corporate values, then your viewership will continue to decline. Maybe later, you'll regret having aired the show. You were warned.

By the way, I won't accept any apology. My rant is over. Carry on.

Too Quick to Forgive

The Bible commands us to forgive. Sometimes, though, someone may have committed such a great wrong against us that we have trouble forgiving him. In those cases, we feel justified in holding a grudge. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear – if the sinner repents, we are to forgive him.

Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Luke 17:3-4

The words of Jesus are clear: we rebuke the sinner but then we forgive him if he repents! Christians, in general, tend to be very forgiving. In the case of our personal dealings with other people, it's probably always the best thing to do. Don't hate. Don't hold a grudge. Just forgive. However, from a political perspective, I believe we're a little too quick to forgive.

I was reading and article online about the Fire Chief in Atlanta who was just fired for having written a book (completely on his own time) that discussed his Christian perspective on sexual morality. Considering that this is a municipality, a governing body, punishing a person for expressing his religious beliefs, I don't see how this is not a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The mayor of Atlanta said, “I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Now that's funny. I guess he means, “discrimination of any kind against gays.” He seems to have no problem with personally discriminating against Christians.

Now, I hold government bodies to a different standard than I do private employers. I believe the state cannot be allowed to discriminate at all. We could not, for example, have a fire department that refuses to enter a black neighborhood or a police department that refuses to arrest white people accused of crimes against blacks. On the other hand, I believe private individuals and employers should have the right to discriminate. If this fire chief worked in another capacity for a private employer, I wouldn't be arguing that his rights were violated. However, I would still hold it against that employer.

The fire chief article included a link to the Duck Dynasty fiasco that happened about a year ago. I don't watch the show, but I understand one man on the show expressed his religious beliefs about gay marriage and A&E, the channel which carries the show, tried to drop him from the show. Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain that offers southern style cuisine, also said it would no longer sell Duck Dynasty merchandise. Well, the backlash they received from the public was so severe, both reversed their decisions within 48 hours.

Since both A&E and Cracker Barrel are private businesses, I believe they were acting in their rights. They shouldn't face government fines for their decisions but these employers need to be held accountable by the public. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of businesses discriminating against Christians for the sake of tolerance toward gays.

When A&E and Cracker Barrel made these decisions, the public let them know they didn't like it. But even though they reversed themselves, I wonder how repentant they were. A NY Daily News article quotes A&E as follows:

“We at A&E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold,” the network’s statement continued. “But ‘Duck Dynasty’ is not a show about one man’s views.”

Hmm. That doesn't sound very repentant. To me it sounds like they're saying, “We still hate Robertson's views but we're going to keep him on the air because we don't want to lose all the viewers who agree with him.” I would have liked to hear something more like, “We were wrong and acted rashly. Robertson expressed his deeply held religious beliefs and we should have respected his right to do so. We believe in tolerance and that should include tolerating even those views different than ours.”

Cracker Barrel was slightly more contrite. Another NY Daily news article says:

You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores. And, we apologize for offending you.... We respect all individuals' right to express their beliefs.... We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different. [They should apologize for their poor grammar. They should have used “differently.”]

Do see what I mean by only, “slightly more contrite”? You told us we were wrong. We apologize for offending you. We didn't mean to have you think we don't respect everyone's beliefs. Where's the part where they said, “We were wrong”?  We're constantly being abused by intolerant businesses and government officials and we accept their non-committal apologies. 

1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins.” What kind of “confession” is it if I said, “Forgive me, God, if I've done anything wrong”? In such a weak prayer you're not even admitting to any sin, let alone confessing one.  If these companies would admit to being wrong, I would forgive them. But since they don't, I won't. They need to be held accountable for their sins. We need to make them see that we won't forgive them until they repent. If we hold their feet to fire every time they make a bad decision, they might become a little more circumspect. Maybe they'd reconsider their corporate philosophies. Maybe they'll stop making such bad decisions in the first place.

Shut up and write the check!

So, I've told you before that liberals are brain damaged. Here's another example.

Liberals claim to be tolerant, right? I think their favorite Bible verse is, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” It's probably the only verse some of them know. If a person wants to have sex without being married, with multiple partners, or even with same sex partners, it's none of my business. What happens between consenting adults is a private matter and my opinion of the behavior is not welcome. I even hear similar things from Christians: how, if a young, single woman gets pregnant, we need to support her as a church and not judge her. Does any of this sound familiar?

Here's where the brain damaged part comes in. Liberals are champions of the “right to privacy” but what happens when these people contract a sexually transmitted disease or a young girl gets pregnant? Often they seek out public assistance!

How many millions are we spending on AIDS research? How about welfare, food stamps, and rent subsidies to single mothers? And don't forget the tax payer money going to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions! When these people were engaging in their reckless behavior, it was a private matter; now that they have to face the consequences of their bad decisions, it's suddenly not so private anymore. Now they expect to be supported by the public.

It's not just the people who engage in this type of behavior that bother me; it's also the enablers, those who defend them. The same people who are telling me not to judge those who do these things are also telling me I have to pay more in taxes to help them.

It's rather pathetic. Liberal elitists view themselves as tolerant (by not judging others) and compassionate (by wanting to support them). What they don't understand is that this kind of tolerance and compassion only exacerbates the problem. People need to be told that bad decisions have consequences. They need to hear that having a child before being married virtually guarantees a lifetime of poverty. They need to be told that abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and STDs. They need to understand that “safe and legal” abortions can have severe and lasting physical and psychological side effects. We also need to stop subsidizing poor choices with government programs that only perpetuate poverty.

If the public is paying the bills, then shouldn't the public have a say in the matter? What is wrong with telling young men and women it's a bad idea to have sex or to live together without being married? Yet if I say this, then I'm the one accused of being “intolerant” or that I'm trying to force my religion on everyone else.

Liberals are 100% backward in their thinking. The compassionate thing to do is to tell people it's wrong to engage in certain behaviors. If we truly care for these people, we need to set them on the right track. The liberal solution is that I should shut up and write a check!

Morals are Silly!

Morals are silly! That's not my opinion, it's the title of a YouTube video posted by a girl calling herself “healthyaddict.” Healthyaddict is an atheist who posts videos where she usually bashes Christians and occasionally defends atheism. In this video, she's responding to another video by a person posting as “Jesusfreek777” and she attempts to explain where morals come from. As usual, I'm going to recommend you view the video before I begin discussing it. It's only 3:12 long. Go ahead. I'll wait. //RKBentley taps his foot patiently//

I didn't choose this video because healthyaddict is the most articulate defender of atheism. Frankly, I've heard other, more articulate atheists make these same points. I picked this video because healthyaddict is very brief and I believe she is more representative of the casual way people usually make this argument. By the way, I spend about as much time looking at material critical of Christians as I do examining material defending Christians. When I talk about the unbelievers' arguments, I want to fairly represent their views and not build a straw man of their position. In this case, you can hear healthyaddict's position in her own words. I can't be accused of misrepresenting her.

Are we all agreed? Then let's move on.

She opens her video with the comment that “morals are silly” but she never really addresses what she means by that. It's very strange. From there, she changes direction and begins explaining her theory on the origin of morals. It's to this point that I'm going to respond.

Healthyaddict says that morals come from natural selection. That's not a big surprise because that's all that atheists or evolutionists ever have as an explanation. She's a little vague, though, in that she doesn't explain how this mechanism works. Is she saying that morality is a conscious act where we choose behavior that offers the greatest survival advantage or is morality an evolved trait where we instinctively act in ways that offer the greatest chance for survival? Either way, I will show you why she's wrong.

For her first example, she says that if we go around killing people “then the species would die off.” I guess she's saying that if we killed people carte blanche, then eventually we'd kill everyone. That's a little overreaching, don't you think? Again, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth but I'm going to try to help her out. What she might be trying to say is that if we go around killing people, we are more likely to be killed in revenge. Therefore, if we act peaceably toward our neighbors, we're more likely to be left alone by them and, so, are more likely to live longer, have more kids, and pass along the trait of being peaceable.

This sounds plausible at first but it fails under scrutiny. First, it's well known that animals often fight and kill each other – even members of the same species. Sometimes, they fight for reproductive rights where the victorious male is allowed to mate and the defeated male is dead. This actually strengthens the species as a whole by removing the weaker males from the gene pool. If survival of the fittest is the goal, why would it necessarily be morally wrong for humans to kill each other if it were for something like the love of a woman?

Furthermore, under the “don't kill and you won't be killed” theory, would imperialism be objectively immoral? In the US, under our Manifest Destiny mission, we militantly displaced whole nations of American Indians, killing many of them and forcing many more onto reservations. Since this allowed the invading, white men to prosper, it must be moral by healthyaddict's standard.

Healthyaddict also attempts to tackle the dilemma of altruism. Why do humans do things that are a cost to them and a benefit to others? It doesn't make any sense according to evolution where everything is measured only by its survival benefit. Healthyaddict suggests altruism is a sort of reverse to the “don't kill and you won't be killed” principle; altruism is a “do this and they'll do it back to you” strategy. She gives the example of chimps picking bugs off other chimps. They do it in the hope that later, some chimp will pick bugs off them. I think healthyaddict needs to look up the definition of altruism. If you are expecting something in return, then it isn't altruism by definition. When people give money to starving children in third world countries, they never expect the children to someday repay them. Neither does the giver imagine that someday he might find himself in a third world country and will need some, middle class Westerner to give him food.

About 2 minutes into the video, healthyaddict undoes her entire point. She says, “I do think some things are very core when it comes to altruism, not killing each other generally, not raping each other. I think that's kind of like a universal standard because of natural selection.” You can see that the idea of morality by natural selection is so vague as to be meaningless. It's far more subjective than objective. No behavior could really be called immoral if an argument could be made that it offers some survival value. Yet she uses words like “core” and “universal standard” when it comes to the immorality of things like murder or rape. Is there a “core,” “universal standard” of morality or isn't there?

Immediately after stating that some things are universally wrong, healthyaddict points out that some attitudes of morality change over time. She uses the example of homosexuality. Now, homosexuality does not convey any survival benefit. Evolution hinges on reproduction and attraction to the same sex guarantees there can be no offspring. If perpetuation of the species is the objective, then homosexuality should never be viewed as moral. So if attitudes toward the morality of homosexuality have changed, something other than natural selection must be the standard by which it is judged. I would ask healthyaddict, what is that standard? What makes murder and rape always wrong and homosexuality sometimes wrong?

Healthyaddict highlights the futility of the atheist's position. Atheists strive mightily to demonstrate that there is no transcendent, absolute standard of morality. They know to acknowledge the existence of immutable morality strongly suggests there must be a transcendent Judge of right and wrong. So they equivocate and change the meaning of morally “right” to mean “what is expedient.” Yet when it comes to things like rape and murder, atheists immediately label them as absolutely immoral.

Liberals Aren't Pro-Choice About Being Gay

In a pledge to continue defending Planned Parenthood, President Obama made the following remarks:

For you, and for most Americans, protecting women's health is a mission that stands above politics. And yet, over the past year, you've had to stand up to politicians who want to deny millions of women the care they rely on, and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.

In this brief paragraph, Obama has repeated a talking point I've already heard a thousand times – namely, that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. I'm sure you've heard that too. Liberals are all about individual rights and leave-the-government-out-of-it when it comes to a topic like abortion. But when you're talking about something like being gay, liberals suddenly aren't pro-choice anymore. In that case, politicians are happy to interject themselves and liberals welcome the intrusion. California just passed a ban on gay conversion therapy for minors.

Now, I know what liberals are saying. They're saying that homosexuality is not a “disorder” and so gay teens don't need to be converted. They're saying that gay teens need to be protected from uptight parents who are forcing them to see counselors in order to “cure” them of their gayness. They're saying that we need a law to protect these young people from forced into a “straight jacket” by a homophobic society (that's a pun). In that light, a law like this almost has a certain appeal. Never mind that their previous pleadings were for lawmakers to say out of practicing medicine; in this case, they need lawmakers to protect them from sinister doctors and parents!

These arguments have a hollow ring to them, however, when you stop to consider that this is an outright and absolute ban on “conversion” counseling. It doesn't matter what the parents want. Neither does the doctor's opinion matter. Not even the “gay” child has a choice anymore. The practice is banned! So, if a boy who was sexually abused when he was 8 starts having gay feelings when he hits puberty, he is not allowed to seek counseling if the objective is to rid him of the gay feelings!

Consider too that we are talking about minors. When we're talking about statutory rape laws, we start with an assumption that underage teens lack the maturity to make certain decisions or give their consent to have sex. Kids at puberty are vulnerable and impressionable. If they are confused and are struggling with emerging, sexual feelings, why do the gay activists insists we should trust these kids to make adults decisions about their orientation?

Once again we see liberals victimizing individual liberties in pursuit of their political agenda. In this case, they're victimizing the most vulnerable in our society – children. When it comes to abortion, liberals consider themselves “pro-choice” but that's a lie because they don't give the babies a choice. In the matter of gay rights, neither the kids nor parents are given a choice. After little Johnny was abused by an uncle, he seeks help because he doesn't like the sexual feelings he now has toward men. The bleeding heart response is, “You're gay, Johnny, you can't change it. You'd better learn to live with it!”

Oh, yeah. That's real compassionate!

No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!

You know, I've about had it up to here with liberals. I'm not talking about the rank and file Democrat, mind you, though they're annoying enough. I'm talking specifically about liberals in elected office. They go far beyond annoying.

A certain amount of “bleeding heart” can be attributed to altruism. Feed the hungry, help the poor, and similar objectives may be noble ideals but liberals and conservatives have different ideas about how to address them. The problem with liberalism is that, the more committed one is to the idea, the more irrational he must be. A quest for tolerance, for example, virtually drives liberals to be intolerant. It's unavoidable. So I've resigned myself to the fact that, if I wish to contend in the arena of ideas, I will have to suffer listening to the hypocrisy of liberals. Oh well.

However, when we're talking about elected liberals, we're talking about something else all together. Because of their political office, they are in a position to force their ideology onto people. They're not just annoyances, they're despots!

Just recently, Dan Cathy, the President of Chick-fil-A made some comments about how he supported the biblical definition of marriage and expressed his concerns that America's attitudes toward gays might bring a judgment from God. Whether or not anyone agrees with Mr. Dan's comments is not the point. No one can argue that Mr. Dan has a first Amendment Right to say them. The First Amendment not only protects his free speech, it also protects his right to hold his religious beliefs. And just in case you haven't read the First Amendment lately, I will remind you that it specifically forbids the government from infringing on our freedom of speech or prohibiting the free exercise of our religion. In other words, the First Amendment doesn't restrict what I can do – it restricts what the government can do.

Of course, liberals politicians will never let something like the Constitution stand in the way of their particular brand of justice. In response to Mr. Cathy's comments, Boston Mayor, Thomas Menino said the following:

“I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.”

Isn't that strange? I mean, what would liberals be saying if a conservative mayor said something like, “Because of their favorable view of gay marriage, Starbucks is not welcome in our city”? No doubt they'd be protesting that mayor just like they are now protesting Chick-fil-A. Liberals are blind to their own intolerance.

Other liberal politicians have made similar remarks. One Chicago alderman, Joe Moreno said, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago." Gee. How much more blatant can they be? Do I need to remind the alderman that free speech specifically means that one can express his political or religious views without consequences? I suppose I must because he doesn't seem to get it. If a private citizen suffers political reprisal for expressing his political or religious views, he doesn't have free speech!

Would liberals dare say the same thing of black owned businesses?  What about a Muslim owned business? Never mind.  The hypocrisy of liberals in this case is an ancillary issue. What concerns me more is the blatant attack on religious liberty. Democrat mayors and other elected officials are specifically abusing the powers of their office to exact punishment on a privately owned company because of the religious beliefs of its president. This should be grounds for their impeachment.

These people should be ashamed but they're not. They remind me of the Democrats of old who stood on the steps of schools in the segregated south and refused to let black students enter. The Mayor of Boston might as well post a sign at the city limits: “No Christian Owned Businesses Allowed In Boston!”

Bigots! Tyrants! Bullies! Despots! Did I mention how they annoy me?

Obama Quote Mines the Bible

President Obama's recent flip-flop on gay marriage really comes as no surprise. The writing has been on the wall for a while. His justice department has refused to defend DOMA; he ended the “Don't ask don't tell” policy, allowing gays to serve openly in the military; and he's a flaming liberal. Hello?! Did anyone really think he was ever sincere in the 2008 campaign when he told Rick Warren, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix”? With his interview yesterday, the cat is now officially out of the bag. His views have “evolved” and now he is in favor of gay marriage. I can only speculate as to why he waited until after the NC referendum to make his announcement.

What really bugs me about his announcement (OK, a lot of things about it really bug me as we'll see) is his lame appeal to the Bible. In his interview, he tried to use his alleged, Christian beliefs to support his position:

[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

I'm already on record as an official doubter of Mr. Obama's Christian faith. Comments like this only serve to reinforce my conclusion that his faith isn't genuine. As I will show below, his feigned piety cannot conceal his true feelings.

Comments like these are squarely at odds with the left's usual disdain toward matters of faith. It was only a few days ago that I discussed the offensive remarks made by Dan Savage. In that instance, Savage, a liberal, attacked the Bible because of its stance against homosexuality. Now, Obama, a liberal, cites the Bible to support his “tolerance” of gay marriage. So which is it, folks? Are liberals having a little trouble deciding on which side to butter their toast?

Also, what about the so called “separation of church and state”? Usually, the left accuses conservatives of wanting to establish a theocracy. Here, Obama is using his faith to justify his position on a political issue. Granted, he hasn't established a gay marriage law but, as discussed already, he has advanced the gay agenda via executive order. Did these decisions stem from his religious beliefs? Why is it a bad thing if a conservative legislates according to his faith but a good thing when a liberal does it?

When liberals cite the Bible to justify their stance on anything, it usually demonstrates their gross ignorance of the Bible. They don't seem to understand that the work of feeding the poor, caring for widows and orphans, and taking care of the sick were jobs given by Jesus to the church! Liberals want Caesar to do the things of God. I am not the least bit interested in shirking my responsibilities as a Christian only to let the government steal money from (aka “tax”) us in order to do the things Jesus commanded His believers to do.

Finally, I'm further annoyed by Obama's obscene abuse of Scriptures. The Golden Rule? Are you serious, Mr. President? The Golden Rule is a fine principle to live by but if it's going to be abused like this, it could be used to support anything. If I wanted to legalize drugs, I could cite the Golden Rule. If I wanted to support polygamy, I could cite the Golden Rule. If I wanted to promote incest, I could cite the Golden Rule. If I wanted to read pornography, I could cite the Golden Rule. In that same vein, Mr. Obama cites the Golden Rule to support gay marriage.

By the way, I just heard today that Nancy Pelosi has also come out on the side of the President saying that her “Catholic faith” prevents her from discriminating against anyone. Ummm, Mrs. Congresswoman, are you aware of the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality?

This is a type of quote mining. Mr. Obama is using a single passage to suggest the Bible supports his view while ignoring the many other places where the Bible specifically denounces his position. If he's going to resort to the Bible, why doesn't his consider Matthew 19:4-6? Jesus Himself defined marriage saying, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” This is not a vague platitude that Obama can spout as a “justify anything I want” proof text. Jesus said marriage was intended by God to be one man and one woman for life. It's not a man and a man; it's not a woman and a woman; and it's not one man and many women.

The President would like to say his position stems from his belief but it's a lie. He is using his beliefs to shape the Scriptures rather than letting the Scriptures shape his beliefs. He pretends piety while making moral judgments that directly contradict the absolute morality of the Bible. He then wishes to use his twisted understanding of Scriptures to bludgeon us.

I suspect the average Obama supporter would seldom undertake to read anything a large as the Bible. Remember that mobs tend to think in soundbites. But it is precisely because the Bible is so voluminous that they are able to find tiny nuggets of truth they can seize upon. I can almost hear them saying, “This passage is good, the rest is evil.” It is only for the reason of quote mining the Bible that liberals even concern themselves with it.

Faith and liberalism don't mix well.

Dan Savage Bullies Christian Students

Dan Savage is a gay advocate, a newspaper sex advice columnist, blogger, and supposed “anti-bullying” champion. He's perhaps most acclaimed for his “It gets better” campaign aimed at encouraging young gays who are being bullied. I also think he's gay. Needless to say, he's a controversial character but he caused quite a controversy of a different sort a few weeks back with his comments to a group of aspiring, high school journalists. In the midst of what was supposed to be an anti-bullying speech, he launched into a rant against the Bible in front of high school students, where many of the students responded by walking out. The video of his remarks is provided below.

A lot has already been said about Mr. Savage's remarks and I don't want to bore anyone by echoing what has already been written on 1,000 other blogs. Suffice it to say that I agree that Mr. Savage has the right to say what he said. I also have the right to call him an idiot. In the arena of free speech, some people say things that will offend others and Savage pushes offensive speech to the extreme. But if he couldn't say it, there wouldn't be “free” speech, would there?

I am a little curious about this venue, though. I've only heard it described as a “conference” for high school journalists. Are these public school students? Is this a government sponsored event? If so, then I most certainly do object to Savage's remarks. Actually, I object to them in any case but if this is a government sponsored event, then I object on the grounds of the free exercise clause in the first amendment. No one would deny that a public school ordinarily shouldn't bring in anyone who speaks to endorse the Bible. Neither should they bring in someone who openly criticizes the Bible. Regardless of that, even if this wasn't a government sponsored event, I still think the language Savage used was not appropriate for high school aged students. Many of these young adults were not old enough to get into an R-rated movie. They didn't need to be hearing R-rated language. However, this isn't really the point of my post.

I'm also a little amused at the irony of the remarks. This alleged “anti-bullying” hero, in the midst of an “anti-bullying” speech, proceeds to verbally bully the Bible believing students in the crowd. Some might say he was simply speaking against those who would use the Bible as grounds to mistreat gays. Really? Who in the audience did that? He didn't know if any of them have ever bullied anyone. It's obvious that his remarks were against all Bible believing Christians. When those students, not guilty of anything Savaged alleged, walked out in protest (at least one in tears), he referred to their protest as a “punk ass move.” It just strikes me as self-defeating that a person would be so intimidating if his objective is to persuade people to stop bullying others. However, this isn't really the point of my post either.

Like I've already said, I don't want to echo what has already been discussed elsewhere on the net and other media. There were at least two things I've not heard being discussed anywhere. First, I was a little surprised at some of the comments made by people who criticized the students! I heard more than a few people say that, if these students are aspiring journalists, they need to learn to be objective. They shouldn't walk out and refuse to listen to points of view they might happen to disagree with. I have to laugh at the insincerity of these critics. I believe the people who make this point are themselves theophobes who are looking for still another excuse to ridicule Christians. Like most people who reject the Bible, they're not rational. They cannot apply their logic consistently nor have they thought through their position. For example, what about the students heard on the tape who hooted, hollered, and applauded Savage's remarks? Where's their objectivity? If a good journalist shouldn't protest views he disagrees with, shouldn't he also not cheer wildly views he does agree with? These amateur critics, who pretend to know what a good journalist should do, haven't picked up on that point.

This is sort of an ancillary point but I believe those students who cheered Savage are representative of the alternative media today. I heard the other day that CNN's viewership has tanked. Newspapers all across the nation are folding. Do you know why? It's because these outlets pretend to report the news objectively but cannot conceal their seething liberalism. Nobody is interested in hearing their bias.

The second thing I noticed about Savage's remarks is the same point I've raised several times before. He said the Bible is “wrong” on human sexuality. Such a notion suggests there is some absolute “right” view of human sexuality. OK, then – where is it? I ask in earnest. Show me where has been written the absolutely true and correct standard of sexual conduct. I don't believe such a thing exists outside of the Bible.

Mr. Savage speaks as though he has authority on the subject yet he has no authority beyond his own opinion. And even though many might laud his opinion, I defy him to lay his finger on some absolute rule that transcends opinion. Without such a transcendent standard, Mr. Savage's opinion carries no more weight than my own. As a matter of fact, my opinion likely carries more weight because mine is the opinion held by the majority of people. If rights are determined by the majority, I don't even need to appeal to the Bible to condemn homosexuality. I could say homosexuality is “wrong” on the simple grounds that most people think it's “icky.”

Mr. Savage has retreated a little from his remarks in the wake of the backlash that followed. However, he will never turn away from his course. I hope he makes more remarks like this because it will only shine more light on his error. It's still sad, though. He doesn't see how wrong he is nor does he know how lost.

It's Now A Crime to Tease Someone

I was a little surprised to hear the verdict in the “webcam spying” case. Actually, I wasn't surprised; it's more like concerned. According to Philly.com, “Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy and bias intimidation Friday in a webcam spying case that focused national attention on the harassment of gay teenagers.” [bold added]  It's the “bias intimidation” part that really scares me.

From what I understand about the case, the 20-year-old defendant had witnessed, via his webcam, his gay roommate kissing another man. He tweeted about it and jokingly said he would invite others to view the next encounter. In spite of some early rumors surrounding the case, no videos of the act were made and certainly nothing was posted on YouTube. The gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide, allegedly out of humiliation over the incident.

From the article, a gay-activist attorney said of the verdict, “The verdict today demonstrates that the jurors understood that bias crimes do not require physical weapons like a knife in one's hands.” Really? I don't think the jurors understood very much at all. The article cites one law professor as saying, “The jury appeared to find that Ravi's intentions were not out of hatred or bias but the jurors believed Tyler Clementi perceived them as such.”

Let's set aside the “invasion of privacy” charge for a moment. What exactly is bias intimidation? From this verdict, it doesn't need to be a threat or even need to be intended to intimidate. It simply has to be perceived as intimidating. Remember, we're not talking about the KKK burning a cross in the front yard of a black family. In a case like that, there is overt intimidation and the possibility of violence is very real. In this case, no one threatened the gay student. They merely teased him. More precisely, they didn't even tease him – some people joked about him online. There was never any threat of violence. The “victim” wasn't scared; he was humiliated.

Is this really the precedent we want to set? If you make a joke about someone – never intending to harm him – you could still go to jail? Are gay people so thin skinned that we need to arrest people who are perceived as “insensitive”?

Let's apply this same standard to another demographic. Should we arrest people who make jokes about blacks? Some liberals would say yes so that doesn't work. Let me think... what other group might we use? What about... oh, I don't know... let's say, Christians. If someone makes insensitive remarks about Christians, is it a hate crime?

Let's suppose for a moment, that some atheist blogger wrote a scathing piece about Ken Ham and said hateful things like, “Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.”

Oh, wait a minute, PZ Myers did write that about Ken Ham on his blog. So, is this “bias intimidation”? Isn't Ken Ham being ridiculed because of his religious beliefs? Myers may not be intending to intimidate Ham but, according to this new standard, there need not be any threat of violence. Mr. Ham only needs to feel humiliated. If Mr. Ham, in a fit of depression and humiliation, should jump off the Brent Spence bridge, PZ Myers would probably cheer. No liberal would think for a minute that Myers should face 10 years in jail for his blatant assault on Ham's religious beliefs.

Isn't a person's religious views protected from hate speech or is protection only reserved for a person's sexual orientation? For the record, though, I believe the whole notion of “hate speech” or “hate crimes” is misguided. We already have laws protecting people against violence. What need is there to protect them against ridicule? Sticks and stones, as they say. If I cried “hate speech” every time someone tried to shame me for my religious beliefs, half the cyber-world would be under arrest.

Once again there is a glaring, double-standard in the liberals' application of “rights.” They're not interested in equal treatment of everyone. Tease a gay, go to jail. Ridicule a Christian day after day for years, win the adoration of millions of liberals everywhere. Have I mentioned before that liberals are hypocrites?