The Grand Illusion...

Why Conservatives Have Lost Cultural and Political Ground to Liberals:

Conservatives accept the logically flawed premise that liberals employ. Consequently conservatives often end up not even arguing for their cause. Rather they get drawn down the rabbit hole of illusion which often helps advance the liberal argument and/or makes the conservative seem out of touch or incoherent. 
 
This tactic is successfully complete when conservatives actually adopt the liberal approach of using logical fallacies to construct and support their argument.
  

Atheism: Analytic Thinking Results in Qualified Belief, not Disbelief

It has become fashionable to assert that Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Of course position denies the definition of Atheism and skews the meaning of belief. I have included the definitions of these words at the end of the article for reference.

Analytic Thinking Results in Qualified Belief, not Disbelief

Disbelief is the result of "Intuitive″ type of thinking. Intuitive thinking is spontaneous, unreflective thinking which generally results in short, easy, binary answers like "Yes" or "No" to questions.

Belief is the result of "Analytic″ type of thinking. Analytical thinking is careful (suspicious due to skepticism), deliberative and reasoned thinking. Conclusions from this type of thinking result in qualified belief. 

People who initially answer questions in an intuitive mode, which is prone to easy binary answers, will say, "Yes" or "No." But when you engage their analytic traits, they will begin qualifying their response through a process of cognitive thinking or reasoning based upon a body of evidence whether seen or unseen. 

Consequently if an Atheist is going to present an intellectual argument, denying a supreme being or beings, they would be doing so from an analytic perspective which is grounded in qualified belief. Therefore, they too are subject to the same "burden of proof" as those they oppose. Otherwise there is no opposition and their entire argument fails by default. 

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalm 14: 1)

a·the·ism

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

be-lief:

 noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

dis-belief:

 noun

1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

 February 18, 2016
Author: Brett Kunkle
Stand to Reason Ministries

On Sunday, I returned home from another Berkeley Mission trip, where I intentionally exposed high school students to some of my atheist friends in the Bay Area. For the last six months, we’ve taught apologetics to these high schoolers from Upland Christian Academy. Now it was time for them to “get off the sidelines and into the game” and engage non-Christians with the truth. Of course, my atheist friends are more than happy to oblige, so they meet with our missions teams, challenge them with a short lecture, and then dive into some rigorous dialogue.

Without fail, a couple of our atheist guests will contend, “Religion is the cause of most wars.” This cultural mantra has been uttered so often and with so much force, it has come to be accepted as an undeniable declaration. Prominent atheists like Sam Harris contribute to the chorus of voices, arguing religion is “the most prolific source of violence in our history” (The End of Faith page 27). Richard Dawkins claims, “There’s no doubt that throughout history religious faith has been a major motivator for war and for destruction.”

But as we trained students for this trip, we equipped them with a simple question to expose such claims: “How did you come to that conclusion?” (also known as Columbo Question #2). We simply taught students to recognize when someone makes a claim and then to request their supporting reasons. When our atheist presenters were challenged to provide justification, they could only offer up the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9-11, or vague references to Islamic terrorism. Certainly we recognize religion’s role in these examples, but three or four references cannot support the claim that most wars are caused by religion.

Not only were students able to demonstrate the paucity of evidence for this claim, but we helped them discover that the facts of history show the opposite: religion is the cause of a very small minority of wars. Phillips and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lays out the simple facts. They examined 5 millennia worth of wars—1,763 total—and found that only 123 (or about 7%) were “religious in nature.” If you remove the 66 wars waged in the name of Islam, it cuts the number down to a little more than 3%. A second scholarly source, The Encyclopedia of War edited by Gordon Martel, confirms this data, concluding that only 6% of the wars listed in its pages can be labelled religious wars. Thirdly, William Cavanaugh’s book, The Myth of Religious Violence, exposes the “wars of religion” claim. And finally, a recent report (2014) from the Institute for Economics and Peace further debunks this myth.

We didn’t stop there. We showed students it gets worse for the atheists’ claim. A strong case can be made that atheism, not religion, and certainly not Christianity, is responsible for a far greater degree of bloodshed. Indeed, R.J. Rummel’s work in Lethal Politics and Death by Government has the secular body count at more than 100 million...in the 20th century alone.

Our students were able to see that a simple examination of the facts relieves religion from blame for most of the world’s wars. In addition, we were able to help cultivate in students a healthy skepticism of atheistic claims. If the skeptic will shout such an unsubstantiated claim so loudly and with so much force, what other skeptical claims might quickly fall apart under rational scrutiny? 

Gambling, Drugs, and Odd Political Bedfellows

Personal Autonomy and Big Government

By: John Stonestreet|Published: August 5, 2014 6:04 AM

 

What do legalized gambling and legalized pot have in common? They fill
government coffers and fuel social pathologies -- all in the name of
personal freedom.

 

In most political commentary, libertarians and liberal advocates of  an expanded role for government are considered to be on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. Libertarians oppose increased government revenues as an assault on personal freedom, while the people they deride as “big government” supporters argue that these revenues are needed if government is going to perform its proper role.

As it turns out, the reality is not nearly as clear as the theory. There are times when their interests coincide to the detriment of many.

This was the subject of a recent Washington Post op-ed by one-time Chuck Colson colleague and former White House speechwriter Michael Gerson. According to Gerson, both “the growth of payday gambling and the legalization of marijuana” are “justified as the expansion of personal liberty,” and at the same time “they serve the interests of an expanding government.”

The latter is, or should be, obvious: legalizing various forms of  gambling allows states to raise revenues “without the political inconvenience of requesting broad tax increases.” For instance, Maryland voters legalized video slot machines in 2008 and approved the addition of a casino just outside Washington, DC in 2012.

As Gerson pointed out, Maryland’s motives had nothing to do with “personal autonomy.” Its motives were the 61 percent tax it collects on video slot machine revenue.

The same is true of every other state with legalized gambling. State-sponsored gambling allows elected officials to provide voters with government services without asking voters to pay for the services if  they don’t want to. Instead, they can stick other people, often those who can least afford it, with the tab: between 40 and 60 percent of all video slot revenue comes from problem gamblers. And, as if to reinforce the whole “free lunch” idea, “casinos are often sited to attract working-class” customers.

And as Gerson tells us, history seems poised to repeat itself. My state of Colorado is expected to collect $114 million in its first year of marijuana legalization. Other states are watching, and it’s safe to say that many will follow the money trail. The political logic that drives the spread of legalized gambling also drives legalized drug use.

Of course, no elected official will acknowledge the cynical political calculation at work here. Instead, the preferred rhetoric is that of personal freedom. Thus, as Gerson writes, “libertarians are now,
paradoxically, providing ideological cover for irresponsible government.”

Missing in all of this is any consideration of the impact of  government’s trafficking in human weakness. Just as there is ample evidence of the damage that problem gambling causes to individuals,
families, and communities, there are reasons to be concerned about the impact of legalized marijuana, especially on children.

But all of this takes a back seat to government’s need for revenue and the libertarian desire to maximize personal freedom. As Gerson writes, “the idea of a political community upholding standards, in order to help other institutions (such as families) pass healthy cultural norms between generations, is anathema.”

As Chuck Colson pointed out on this program 15 years ago, it’s as if  government were deliberately setting about “to increase crime, divorce, suicide, child abuse, bankruptcy, and domestic violence.”

Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary. We’ll link you Mike Gerson’s excellent editorial. We’ll also link you to Focus on the Family’s resources on the scourge of gambling—as well as the Family Research Council’s work on marijuana.

As Gerson says, “politicians increasingly benefit when citizens are addicted, exploited, impoverished and stoned.” And, the oddest of  political bedfellows—libertarians and the advocates of big government—are calling it the “advance of freedom.” Gerson is correct when he says that a better word is “contemptible.”

Do You Know Why Economics Is a Moral Issue?

Summit Ministries 
August 7, 2013

Every liberal economic policy is predicated on the assumption that coercive governments are morally superior to free markets. But how would progressives react if they realized the exact opposite is true?
Bad economic ideas lead to bad — and immoral — economic decisions. As the Acton Institute’s Dr. Samuel Gregg puts it in Becoming Europe, quoting economist Arthur Brooks, the goal of a free market system of economics is not “the endless acquisition of wealth.” Rather, it is human flourishing1 — our ability to, inasmuch as we can after the fall, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, and rule over creation (Genesis 1:28).

The Bible doesn’t instruct us on specific tax policies. Nowhere does it prescribe what percentage of gross domestic product the federal government ought to be spending. But it does give us a framework from which to orient our economic thinking: people are made in the image of God and carry inherent dignity and the ability to produce good things. Economic systems that affirm these truths lead to human flourishing. It’s for that reason that the free market system, when coupled with personal virtue and community responsibility, better aligns with a biblical worldview than any other economic system. Christians ought to learn to articulate this: what is immoral is not the free market system, but the diminishment of opportunity and dignity when it is corrupted by greed or destroyed by power.
As New York Times bestselling author and Summit faculty member Jay W. Richards recently said in an interview with Summit, “If we, as Christians, care about people, economic reality is something that impinges on people in a thousand different ways. We need to learn something about it.”

Our Economic Responsibility Includes Learning Basic Principles

Aside from basic economic principles like the law of supply and demand or the function of price in a market, two key principles can help us rightly order our economic thinking.

1. Prudence
As Richards says in Money, Greed, and God, “Prudence means to ‘see reality as it is and to act accordingly’ to conform your mind, and then your actions, to reality.”2 Elsewhere in the book, Richards recounts the story of Bob Geldof, who helped organize movements in the 1980s to fight poverty in Africa, including Live Aid and Band Aid. Those movements have done little to lift struggling nations out of poverty, mostly because they misunderstand what creates prosperity. Geldof’s take: “Something must be done, even if it doesn’t work.”3

Well, his plan didn’t work. Unthinking aid creates lifelong dependence and stamps out the entrepreneurial spirit of whole nations. Though his intentions were good, the outcome was deeply immoral. “We spend too much time focusing on what we mean to do and what we like to do instead of putting serious empirical work into what’s actually going to work,” Richards said in an interview.

2. Subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity goes back to medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. Subsidiarity claims that it is wrong for a “larger or higher association” to step in and try to fix a problem when an institution closer to the issue can act.4 So, for example, when a young family finds itself in trouble, it’s inappropriate — even unjust — for the state or federal government to provide aid when extended family members, a local church, or neighbors can help the family in need.

This principle has significant implications for fighting poverty. In the face of federal welfare, poverty rates in the U.S. have remained between 12 and 15 percent for the last fifty years. Prior to President Lyndon Johnson’s welfare programs, local communities were primarily responsible for taking care of the poor. Poverty was actually on the decline in the years leading up to Johnson’s War on Poverty; federal welfare halted that decline.5

Economic Responsibility Also Means Having the Right Cultural Values

In Becoming Europe Gregg pinpoints the differences between European economies and that of the U.S., demonstrating how the U.S. can avoid plunging into the sort of economic crises in which Europe currently finds itself. At the root of Gregg’s argument is a study of the cultural values that undergird economic realities. As Gregg puts it, “. . . any given economic setting . . . is influenced by a range of value commitments, ideas, and movements.”6 In other words, economies serve as cultural barometers for their respective countries:

A market economy, for example, relies on processes such as market prices and the exchange of goods and services, institutions such as private property and rule of law, as well as actions such as innovation and economic entrepreneurship. Note, however, how every single one of these economic processes, actions, and institutions assumes a commitment to freedom.7

As Gregg explains, top-down economies necessarily restrict freedom, ignoring prudence and subsidiarity and thus denying essential truths about humans and the imago Dei. Ignoring these realities, in turn, creates a negative view of entrepreneurship. A biblical view, on the other hand, begins with God as creator. Bearing his image, we too know how to create. God wants abundance; bearing his image, we are by nature equipped to produce more than we consume.

Thus, coercive economic policies have the effect of suffocating the entrepreneurial impulse. In the European Union 45 percent of citizens preferred to be self-employed, while 46 percent preferred to be an employee. What happens in a nation when a majority of the citizens expect others to take care of them instead of taking responsibility themselves? Interestingly, too much economic despotism may actually cause people to wake up to their servitude. In China, where citizens have lived under severe state planning, entrepreneurship is much more highly valued: 71 percent of Chinese citizens preferred to be self-employed, as opposed to 28 percent who said they wanted to be an employee.8

So is it possible to avoid Europe’s path? Gregg says yes, but only if we affirm five values that stave off an immoral economic despotism and create an environment for freedom and flourishing:

1. Wealth Creation Over Wealth Redistribution. History — and the principle of subsidiarity — shows us that people benefit when they can work to improve their lots themselves. This value affirms the fact that God made people to be co-creators of culture, not passive consumers.
2. Accountability and Transparency: Truth Over Falsehood. In a true market economy, people are held accountable for poor economic decisions by the outcomes of those decisions. A culture of bailouts and corporate welfare undermines this value.
3. Justice: Rule of Law Over Rule of Men. None of these values will amount to much if the government fails to enforce just laws. In addition to protecting the innocent and punishing wrongdoers, securing justice provides a climate of stability in which wealth creators can reap the rewards of their risk and create greater abundance.
4. Property Rights Over “Dirigisme.” Dirigisme is simply the government stepping into the private sector to directly manage wealth. Leaders who regularly threaten to diminish private property rights create uncertainty, diminish investment, and generate a climate of fear.
5. Hope Over Fear: Openness vs. Defensiveness. Productive people are not the bad guys, and our government ought to stop portraying them as such.

So how do we reclaim the moral high ground from those advocating leftist policies? Bill Whittle thinks he knows. Bill is the “Virtual President” whose mock presidential addresses have gone viral on the Internet for articulating what our president should say. Whittle suggests using simple questions to communicate three central components of free market morality: freedom, private property, and virtue:

1. On freedom: ask, “Are you the kind of person who wants to be left alone, or are you the kind of person who likes to tell other people what to do?” Leftists assume that they are so smart that they deserve to coerce the rest of us. But very few people will admit to wanting to be a busybody.
2. On private property: ask, “If you believe in ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,’ are you willing to donate your smart phone and other possessions to charity? How can you justify eating every day when others are starving?” Why do they expect others to make their sacrifices for them?
3. On virtue “Do you believe it is okay to hit someone and take their stuff if they have more stuff than you do?” If it is not okay on a personal level, it’s not okay for governments to do it either. Obviously we all must pay taxes. But to base tax policy on jealousy is to institutionalize theft.

People may not have a clear idea of what freedom, private property or virtue are, but when you put these simple questions to them, you’ll leave them thinking. You might even get them to see the moral basis of the free enterprise system.

Notes

1. Samuel Gregg, Becoming Europe: Economic Decline, Culture, and How America Can Avoid a European Future (New York: Encounter Books, 2013), 300.
2. Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 46.
3. Ibid, 45.
4. Ibid, 51.
5. Ibid, 47.
6. Gregg, 41.
7. Ibid, 8.
8. Ibid, 19.

Pulpits Are Silent

Jeremiah 5:26-31

For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich; they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the Lord, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?” An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?

Despite what the political parties would like you to believe, the problem in America is not the politicians, it is the pulpits. I hate to break the news to you, but most of America’s pulpits are filled with cowardly men unwilling to address the issues that have swept over our country like a tidal wave.

I am about fed-up with what I see. How did we ever get such man-pleasing leaders? All that our fore-fathers held dear is being destroyed before our very eyes and hardly a peep from the pulpit. They don’t want to hear it. It's the pulpiteers that I am talking about. They are concerned with being too harsh, they tell me that “Jesus is in control,” that they are not “called” to fight evil and that "we should pray for our enemies.”

What we need is a return of the Voice of God thundering through the prophets standing in America’s pulpits. Not the prissy purpose driven therapeutic Christianity drivel passing as the Gospel today. Few of the feminized-preachers of the day can hold a candle to those who ushered in The Great Awakening which led to the American Revolution, and the abolition of slavery -- two world-changing events spearheaded by the pulpit.

·         Public schools are destroying the faith of Christian children and the pulpits are silent.

·         Legislation is introduced to remove the rights of parents and the pulpits are silent.

·         Children are taught they came from apes and the pulpits are silent.

·         Millions of children are “medicated” to control their behavior and the pulpits are silent.

·         Gambling is promoted to pay for schools and the pulpit is silent.

·         Precious babies are being murdered in the womb and the pulpits are silent.

·         Planned Parenthood kills babies with our tax dollars and the pulpits are silent.

·         Judges make laws and the pulpits are silent.

·         Tolerance trumps Truth and the pulpits are silent.

·         Sodomy is granted legal protection and the pulpits are silent.

·         The institution of marriage is crumbling and the pulpits are silent.

·         Obama says the Sermon on the Mount justifies gay marriage and the pulpits are silent.

·         Government has replaced God as defender and provider and the pulpits are silent.

·         Faith-based initiatives invite the government into the Church and the pulpits are silent.

·         The IRS muzzles the voice of the Church and the pulpits are silent.

·         Taxes are levied to do the work of the Church and the pulpits are silent.

·         The Church locks arms with compassionate-conservativism and the pulpits are silent.

·         Children’s service agencies separate family members and the pulpits are silent.

·         Self-help books replace the Bible and the pulpits are silent.

·         A Purpose Driven Life is elevated above dying to self and the pulpits are silent.

·         Leaders say Christians and Muslims worship the same God and the pulpits are silent.

·         The Constitution is ignored and the pulpits are silent.

·         Pagans pray to open a session of Congress and the pulpits are silent.

·         Our elected officials lie and steal and the pulpits are silent.

·         Private property is stolen by government and the pulpits are silent.

·         Mother Earth is protected more than Father God is defended and the pulpits are silent.

·         Illegal aliens over-run our borders and the pulpits are silent.

·         The entertainment industry celebrates debauchery and the pulpits are silent.

Learning from Young Atheists

Learning from Young Atheists

What Turned Them off Christianity

By: Eric Metaxas|Published: July 1, 2013

 

Have you ever asked a young atheist why he or she doesn’t believe? Well, one researcher did. And the answers may surprise you.

 

It’s something most Christian parents worry about: You send your kids off to college and when they come back, you find they’ve lost their faith. The prospect of this happening is why many parents nudge their kids towards Christian colleges, or at least schools with a strong Christian presence on campus.

But in many ways, the damage has been done long before our children set foot on campus. That’s the message from a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly.

My friend Larry Taunton of the Fixed Point Foundation set out to find out why so many young Christians lose their faith in college. He did this by employing a method I don’t recall being used before: He asked them.

The Fixed Point Foundation asked members of the Secular Students Associations on campuses around the nation to tell them about their “journey to unbelief.” Taunton was not only surprised by the level of response but, more importantly, about the stories he and his colleagues heard.

Instead of would-be Richard Dawkins’, the typical respondent was more like Phil, a student Taunton interviewed. Phil had grown up in church; he had even been the president of his youth group. What drove Phil away wasn’t the lure of secular materialism or even Christian moral teaching. And he was specifically upset when his church changed youth pastors.

Whereas his old youth pastor “knew the Bible” and made Phil “feel smart” about his faith even when he didn’t have all the answers, the new youth pastor taught less and played more.

Phil’s loss of faith coincided with his church’s attempt to ingratiate itself to him instead of challenging him. According to Taunton, Phil’s story “was on the whole typical of the stories we would hear from students across the country.”

These kids had attended church but “the mission and message of their churches was vague,” and manifested itself in offering “superficial answers to life’s difficult questions.” The ministers they respected were those “who took the Bible seriously,” not those who sought to entertain them or be their “buddy.”

Taunton also learned that, for many kids, their journey to unbelief was an emotional, not just an intellectual one.

Taunton’s findings are counter-intuitive. Much of what passes for youth ministry these days is driven by a morbid fear of boring our young charges. As a result, a lot of time is spent trying to devise ways to entertain them.

The rest of the time is spent worrying about whether the Christian message will turn kids off. But as Taunton found, young people, like the not-so-young, respect people with conviction—provided they know what they’re talking about.

Taunton talks about his experiences with the late Christopher Hitchens, who, in their debates, refrained from attacking him. When asked why, Hitchens replied, “Because you believe it.”

I don’t know what that says about Hitchens’ other Christian debate partners, but it is a potent reminder that playing down the truth claims of the Christian faith doesn’t work. People don’t believe those they don’t respect.

Here’s something that one of the students told Larry Taunton; he said, “Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.”

Folks, that’s pretty sobering. This puts the ball in our court. Are we living lives that show our children that we actually believe what we say we believe? And here’s another question—do we actually believe it? I have to say, as a parent I’m taking this very seriously. If possible, join me in reading Taunton’s excellent article. Come to BreakPoint.org  for other resources to equip young adults to contend for the faith.

My Apology to Mormon Readers

Mike Adams | Jun 05, 2013

Dear Stacey:

You have written demanding an apology for my recent characterization of the Mormon religion as "non-Christian." I am happy to write a public letter of apology to you and to the countless Mormon readers who responded negatively to my characterization.

I am sorry that so many of my Mormon readers have brazenly accused me of ignorance of their religion and suggested that I read the Book of Mormon. I am sorry that they were unaware that I read the Book of Mormon back in 2006.

I am sorry that the science of genetics has refuted claims made in the Book of Mormon concerning the relationship between Native Americans and Semitic people. These refutations undermine the entire historical premise of the Book of Mormon.

I am also sorry that while archeological discovery supports the claims of the Bible it clearly does not support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Battles that were supposed to have occurred in specific locations in North America simply never took place. The archeological evidence just isn't there.

I am sorry about the plagiarism of the Holy Bible that runs through the Book of Mormon. I am sorry that Mormons cannot see that Joseph Smith's refusal to reveal the golden tablets is strong evidence of their nonexistence. The heavy plagiarism in the Book of Mormon puts the lie to the rest of the story of Smith, the former seeker of the lost treasures of Captain Kidd.

I am sorry that my Mormon readers have put all their eggs in one basket by constantly writing to me quoting Matthew 7:16. So I am sorry that I must now apply that verse to the very first Mormon.

I am sorry that among the 33 well-documented plural wives of Joseph Smith, there were close to a dozen unions in which the wife was already married to another man.

I am sorry that in his lifetime, Joseph Smith married four different pairs of sisters. I am sorry that Joseph Smith married a young woman and also married her mother.

I am sorry that some of Joseph Smith's marriages were the result of religious coercion secured only after he told the prospective bride that marrying him would ensure the bride’s place in heaven. I am sorry that Smith also coerced teenagers into marrying him by promising their families a place in heaven.

I am sorry that Joseph Smith kept fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball from marrying her sweetheart Horace Whitney because he wanted to marry the teenager instead. I am sorry that Joseph Smith also asked Helen’s father Heber C. Kimball to give him his wife.

I am sorry that before he eventually married Helen, Joseph Smith gave her a 24-hour deadline to give in to his offer of a place in heaven. I am sorry that two years after the death of Joseph Smith, Helen married her old sweetheart Horace Whitney. I am sorry that the marriage between Helen and Horace was only temporary because Helen was already "sealed" by marriage to Joseph Smith for eternity. I am sorry that Horace Whitney was "sealed" to an already dead Mormon woman before his “temporary” marriage to Helen.

I am sorry that after her mother died, Joseph Smith approached teenager Lucy Walker with a command that she marry Smith with the threat of eternal damnation as the punishment if she refused. I am sorry that the year before Joseph Smith died, he said the following to Lucy: “I will give you until tomorrow to decide (whether to marry me). If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.”

I am sorry that the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith claims to have transcribed from the golden plates given to him by the Angel Moroni, says the following: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, Saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:24).

I am sorry that Joseph Smith said the following shortly before his death: "(W)hen I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my father, so that he may obtain kingdom among kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

I am sorry that Smith’s polytheism is not consistent with John 14:6. I am also sorry that since these are the words of Christ, polytheism cannot be Christian. Moreover, I am sorry, my Mormon friends, but the the words of Christ trump the words of Joseph Smith who will never be God.

I am sorry that Mormonism teaches that Christ was not there in the beginning, that god was just a man who became God by following a moral code he did not create, and that we may all become gods by following the same moral code that predates the existence of Jesus. I am sorry that the theological mess caused by Joseph Smith is irreconcilable with the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Finally, I am sorry that my Mormon readers have unfairly accused me of criticizing Mormonism without doing my homework. But I am glad I did. Now I understand the significance of Galatians 1:6-9.

The Magician's Twin - The Case Against Scientism - C.S. Lewis

School District Reverses Policy, Allows Equal Access to Religious Viewpoints

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) recently assisted a Church in gaining equal access at a public school to distribute materials related to release time religious and moral instruction. Under California law, parents are permitted to request that their children be released from school supervision for a limited period every month in order for their child to receive religious and moral instruction that the child does not receive from the public school.

Unfortunately, the school district had a policy that prohibited anyone from distributing “religious materials” including information related to the release time religious and moral instruction that was authorized under state law. To make matters worse, the district allowed distribution of secular materials and specifically targeted religious materials for discrimination.

After discussing the issue with our client, the ACLJ drafted a letter explaining that the school’s policy constitutes viewpoint discrimination against religious speech and that the policy violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on restricting free speech. In addition, we explained that the policy was facially inconsistent with the state law which allows supervised release time for religious and moral instruction.

Thankfully, after church representatives presented the letter to the school district explaining the law, the school district has agreed to change its policy to comply with First Amendment requirements and give equal access to all viewpoints. The Church will now have equal access to distribute material related to the release time religious and moral instruction.

The ACLJ is pleased with this outcome and looks forward to continuing to vigilantly protect and ensure the ongoing viability of religious freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.

Vote "Yes" on Wyoming's Constitutional Amendment A

Constitutional Amendment A is an amendment to the WYOMING Constitution and does not change our U.S. Constitution. It is an amendment that was sponsored by our dear friend Senator Leslie Nutting (R-Cheyenne) in 2011. The goal was to make sure that Obamacare or future federal mandated healthcare programs cannot be implemented against the will of the people in Wyoming. The need for this Wyoming Amendment is quite clear when we are all being faced with Obamacare' s burdensome tax (or should I say penalties) when fully implemented. We hope we can count on your support of this amendment as well as your help in spreading the word of how important it is to vote YES on it.  

  

Click here to view the ballot language. 

In the event President Obama is re-elected, this amendment is the ONLY protection the citizens of Wyoming have against Obamacare!

However, the Wyoming Watchdogs  (not affiliated with WyWatch) is an organization who is spreading misinformation about this amendment, stating incorrectly that it creates new powers or new rights for the legislature to control healthcare in Wyoming. The Wyoming Legislature already has these powers with or without the ballot initiative known as Constitutional Amendment A.

Here is a part of the legislative record of Wyoming Watchdogs (again, no affiliation to WyWatch):

• They opposed the constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage.
• They opposed the sanctity of life bill nicknamed the ultrasound bill.
• They opposed a 2nd amendment rights bill ran by Wyoming Gun Owners Association.
• They opposed the Constitutional Amendment to defend you from Obamacare in its original form (not just in its amended form that passed the House and the Senate).
• They called Representative Bob Brechtel "dangerous to Wyoming" publicly.

The Wyoming Watchdogs claim to be conservative, but they have helped the progressive, liberal left with their efforts at the state legislature more than they have defended the sanctity of LIFE, MARRIAGE, and Constitutional FREEDOM. Can you trust them or anyone associated with them?

 

WyWatch has never been one to think that we are more intelligent than the average citizen. Our job, or mission as we see it, has been about analyzing legislation or documents and seeking out experts who can help us understand important nuances. When conflicts of interpretation come up, we work diligently to get these expert opinions to you, our members.

Because WyWatch has learned it is best to seek PROFESSIONAL and EXPERT opinions on issues concerning our state statutes and constitution we went to a Hillsdale College graduate attorney and a Harvard Law School graduate who worked for Home School Legal Defense Association, which resides on Patrick Henry College's campus. These two fine attorneys did an excellent job of reviewing the ballot initiative known as Constitutional Amendment A and we would be thrilled if you would take the time to read their analysis.

Click Here to view Steve Klein's comments from the Wyoming Liberty Group (the Hillsdale graduate).

Click Here to view Scott W. Somerville's comments who worked for HSLDA for years which is associated with Patrick Henry College.

However, I want to point out something to you. Steve Kline from the Wyoming Liberty Group took the arguments from a concerned patriot who did a side by side comparison of the original amendment vs. what actually passed both houses with overwhelming majorities, and refuted the side by side arguments. Steve's comments are in RED.

The other attorney, Scott W. Somerville, reviewed the ballot language and the enrolled act that passed both the house and the senate in 2011 and did a beautiful job of explaining the importance of passing Constitutional Amendment A.

We encourage you all to compare what you hear and what you read between now and November 6th with what these constitutional attorneys have written. We hope that the links to the two documents we provide above will solidify your trust in the legislative and lobbying process that WyWatch uses now and will continue to use in the future.

If you have any further questions we will be happy to discuss them with you or better yet, put you in touch with the experts who can answer them for you. We are not afraid to tell you that we depend heavily on alliances with experts across the country to make sure what we do is not only Biblical, but also Constitutional. We hope we have earned your trust enough to depend on us for that. 

Principal Replaces ‘God Bless The USA’ With Justin Bieber’s ‘Baby’

The principal, Kilmeade explained, banned “God Bless the USA” because she felt it was “too grown-up” for the young children to sing at their “moving up” ceremony, particularly a line about starting over with one’s children and wife.

A Hailstorm of Tax Hikes Heading for Wyoming

Wyoming Liberty Group  | By Sven Larson
June 14, 2012


On Thursday June 14, the Heritage Foundation releases its “Taxmageddon” report. Taxmageddon is a $494-billion tax increase waiting to hit the U.S. economy on January 1, 2013. Time is running out for Congress to prevent this disaster, but even if it does, the Wyoming economy could be hit by its own hailstorm of tax hikes.

The Wyoming Tribune Eagle reports (Wednesday June 13):

"An increase in the state’s fuel tax is on the table. Toll roads are not. On Tuesday a state legislative supercommittee reviewed ways to raise money for Wyoming highways. The group will develop a draft bill for state lawmakers to consider in 2013. The draft bill will include a proposal for a higher gasoline tax, based on the committee’s direction. The amount has not been determined. It will also include increases in motor vehicle registration and driver license and services fees. It will apply a sales tax to fuel, too."

A higher gasoline tax is nothing new. In October 2010 the Transportation Committee sponsored a bill that would phase in a ten-cent increase over three years. The idea was to take the state gasoline tax to 24 cents per gallon. Conservative estimates showed that the higher tax would cost drivers $35 million extra per year, though some estimates suggested higher numbers.

These proposals are not the only ones that will raise our taxes. The 2012 legislative session authorized counties to seek voter approval for a one-cent increase in sales taxes. At the end of the legislative session some legislators also speculated about a one-cent increase in the state sales tax.

It is not good for Wyoming that whenever our legislators talk about our economy, their conversation centers in on tax increases. This is not a good trend, especially since there is a risk that the state will face spending cuts up to $75 million.

When spending cuts are coupled with tax cuts they are good for the economy. When spending cuts are coupled with higher taxes, the opposite is true. This combination increases government’s drainage of resources from the economy. Government is a burden on the private sector already as it is; we don’t need to increase that burden by having government take more of our money and give even less back.

Even if at the end of the day there will be no spending cuts, higher taxes will be bad enough for the Wyoming economy. It is fair to assume that the gasoline tax increase would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the 2010 proposal, phased in over three years. Furthermore, let us also assume that all counties vote to raise the sales taxes by one percent. Lastly, we add a one-cent state sales tax increase and allow the higher total sales tax to cover gasoline as well.

A simulation using a so called CGE macroeconomic model of the Wyoming economy gives a rather disturbing picture of what these proposed tax increases would do to the Wyoming economy. The following numbers are for 2015 and compare to a scenario without any tax increases:

• There will be 6,800 fewer private-sector jobs;
• Private corporate investments will be $110 million lower;
• Wyoming families will have $458 million less in disposable income;
• Local governments will see a net loss of $28 million in tax revenue.

Depending on what type of spending cuts would be added to this, the net effect could be considerably worse.

There is no doubt that Wyoming needs better roads. However, massive tax increases is not the way to pay for them. A much better approach is to build closer ties between road usage and the cost of that usage. A gasoline tax is an imprecise instrument in this respect: the gasoline tax affects all drivers, even those who do mostly local driving. At the same time, interstate drivers are increasingly able to get through the state without paying anything for using our highways. More and more passenger cars can, for example, travel the entire stretch of the I-80 through Wyoming without filling up even once, leaving Wyoming drivers with the entire bill for road maintenance.

The tax hikes currently being discussed will actually increase the incentives of out-of-state drivers to avoid a gas fill-up within our borders. This makes it even more surprising that our legislators are entirely unwilling to consider a tolling system or find cost reductions.

By talking tax increases and generic spending cuts, our elected officials are showing us that they are stuck in the same old conventional thinking about government’s role in the economy. Rather than trying to squeeze a fiscally obese government into an economy that is already too small to fit into, our lawmakers should reconsider what role government should actually play in our economy. A smaller, leaner government with fewer spending programs is more able to focus on such things as highway maintenance–and the net burden on taxpayers would go down in the bargain.

The road to a smaller, leaner government goes through principles-based, thoughtfully executed structural elimination of entitlement programs. That takes time, but Wyoming has the financial padding to take that time. Best of all, the payoff from concentrating government to non-redistributive functions are enormous for the state economy.

Death of Common Sense

The Gay Divorcees

There are more than you might think.
By Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate for National Review

Announcing the results of his long-term “evolution” on the subject last week, President Obama revived the debate over gay marriage. In the widespread discussion, however, there is one question that’s rarely asked: How interested are gay couples in getting married?

Heretofore at least, the answer seems to be “not really.” Since 1997, when Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples, 19 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships; and the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them — equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States. This number does not appear to be low because of the fact that only a few states have allowed full “marriage”; indeed, in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state.

This dearth of early adopters is not peculiar to America. Research conducted in 2004 by Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Sweden’s Stockholm University, seems to confirm the trend. Anderson looked at legal partnerships in both Norway and Sweden and found that in Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, only 1,300 homosexual couples registered in the first eight years, compared with 190,000 heterosexual marriages; in Sweden, between initial passage in 1995 and a review in 2002, 1,526 legal partnerships were registered, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity: 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 — the year it was legalized — and that number dropped to 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, less than 2 percent of marriages in the Netherlands were between same-sex couples.

Controlling for the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals does little to explain the enthusiasm gap. For rates to be similar, we would have to pretend that only 0.5 percent of the population of Sweden, 0.7 percent of the population of Norway, and less than 2 percent of the population of Holland is gay. In fact, the numbers tend closer to an average of 4 percent, which suggests that heterosexual couples are up to eight times more interested in registering their relationships than homosexual couples. It is, of course, possible that the estimated number of homosexuals is wrong, but, if anything, gay-rights groups tend to argue that the projected numbers are too low, and statistics show that the numbers of self-identified gay citizens are going up in every Western country.

Enthusiasm for marriage is somewhat lopsided by gender. Divorces, too. According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples in the United States are lesbian. (Solely on the “marriage” front, in Massachusetts’s first four years, this statistic was 62 percent.) While data in the United States are clearly limited, Scandinavian countries have been at this a little longer. Denmark was the first country to introduce recognition of same-sex partnerships, coining the term “registered partnership” in 1989. Norway followed suit in 1993, and then Sweden in 1995. Again, Stockholm University’s study seems to confirm the American trend. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men. This should not be surprising: In the United States, women request approximately two-thirds of divorces in all forms of relationships — and have done so since the start of the 19th century — so it reasonably follows that relationships in which both partners are women are more likely to include someone who wishes to exit.

The debate over marriage does not necessarily hinge on its popularity among the eligible, and advocates of gay unions would no doubt assert that “equality” is not a numerical proposition as quickly as their opponents would aver that the very idea is a hopeless category mistake. But it is nonetheless worth noting that there is no particular groundswell — even in states and cities that have both legal gay marriage and significant numbers of homosexuals — and that, when gay couples do decide to get married, they are more likely than their straight equivalents to change their minds later.
— 

Cultivating Courage

The First Cardinal Virtue

By: Eric Metaxas

Sometimes it takes courage to do the right thing. But what is courage, and why does the Church need it in spades?

The day before Chuck Colson fell ill at the Break the Spiral of Silence conference, he filmed a series of “Two-Minute Warning” videos on a topic he felt was crucial for the survival of our culture and our nation: The cultivation of virtue.

So starting today and continuing through the next three Wednesdays, you can watch the final four “Two-Minute Warnings” Chuck recorded — all at ColsonCenter.org.

Just as there are laws we must follow for physical health, so too there are laws we must follow for the health of the soul. That's what virtues are: laws for a healthy soul. And healthy souls are a prerequisite for a healthy civilization. As John Adams once wrote, “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.”

Greek and Roman thinkers placed a high value on cultivating virtue. And four virtues in particular — prudence, justice, courage, and temperance — they ranked as the cardinal virtues, meaning that they are foundational to all the others. For example, courage is a cardinal virtue because doing the right thing — practicing any of the virtues — under pressure takes moral courage.

So what is courage? It’s not the absence of fear. Courage is overcoming a natural fear. Courage means saying yes to right action even at risk of pain or loss, just as Chuck did during Watergate.

At that time he was offered a plea bargain: He could plead guilty to something he didn’t do and be charged with a misdemeanor, or he could face years in prison. But Chuck could not swear to a falsehood. Instead, he pled guilty to a different charge, and he and his family paid the price. The story is all in “Born Again.” If you’ve never read it, we have it for you at the Colson Center bookstore online.

Another important aspect of courage is that it is not a momentary, one-time thing. Courage sticks with a challenge, however difficult, until it is finished.

The fact is, friends, we’re facing a challenge in America today that’s going to require a good dose of courageous stick-to-itiveness. That challenge is defending religious liberty. Chuck made it very clear in his final months and days — and I agree with him — religious liberty is under assault in America today like never before.

We have been alerted to the danger, and we must act, regardless of the risks. The Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has just completed a statement on this topic called “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.”

As Catholic scholar George Weigel points out, the document not only tackles the so-called HHS contraception mandate, it highlights “state laws that impede the Church’s service to immigrants, attempts by state legislatures to turn religious communities into bureaus of state government, discrimination against Christian students on university campuses, and restrictions on the Church’s capacity to draw on public funds in its service to orphans and victims of human trafficking.”

The bishops rightly say, “Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.”

Folks, they are right. And even though we will face a lot of opposition, this is a battle worth having. But we will need courage.

Editors Note: This week’s “Two-Minute Warning” is hosted by John Stonestreet and Timothy George. Next week, Chuck Colson’s pre-recorded broadcast on the cardinal virtues starts. In total, we have an eight-part series, four of which Chuck recorded.

A Savage Attack

Redefining Bullying By: Eric Metasxas

A few days ago, Americans got a lesson in hypocrisy -- and of how dangerous it can be to redefine words.

It all began when the National High School Journalism Conference invited a gay rights activist named Dan Savage to speak to students in Seattle about the need to prevent bullying. But it turned out that this was a lesson Savage badly needed to learn himself.

To the shock of the students, Savage launched a vicious attack on the Bible and Christian beliefs. As he put it, “We can learn to ignore the [BS] in the Bible about gay people.” Of course he didn’t say "BS." As Savage continued his attack, some students broke into tears. Dozens of offended students walked out of the auditorium. As they left, Savage heckled them with vulgar words I can’t repeat on the air.

One of the teachers present — Rick Tuttle of Sutter Union High School in California — said the speech “took a real dark, hostile turn ... It became very hostile toward Christianity.”

Savage later apologized for using vulgarity to describe the students. But he refused to back down on his other comments —including his offensive comments about the Bible.

Now, what are we to make of this conundrum?

First, I think we can safely assume that the term “bullying” has gone the way of “tolerance.”

Tolerance used to be defined as a willingness to put up with the beliefs or practices of those with whom we disagree. Today, tolerance means we must accept the beliefs and practices of others as correct — or risk being called a bigot. It's interesting that this redefinition of tolerance almost always involves debates over homosexuality — and it always seems to be people on just one side of the debate calling those with whom they disagree “intolerant.”

I mean, when was the last time you heard a Christian accusing a gay-rights activist of intolerance because he refused to acknowledge that biblical teachings about homosexuality are correct?

And now we're seeing the same kind of redefinition going on regarding the word bullying. If you so much as whisper that you believe that true marriage can take place only between one man and one woman, you're accused of bullying.

You and I need to be aware of changes in word definitions that are used as weapons against Christians. But we need to do a couple of other things, as well.

First of all, whatever the subject, we must always take care to make our case winsomely, and with great civility. No one should ever be able to truthfully accuse Christians of bullying, including the kind of verbal bullying Dan Savage demonstrated last week.

This insistence on graciousness and civility for those on the other side of these issues was the hallmark of what Chuck Colson believed, and let it be ours as well.  As for intolerance towards homosexuals, Christians ought to be — and often have been — the first to volunteer at AIDS hospices, to demonstrate kindness to the children of same-sex couples, and otherwise display the love of Christ to those with whom we have such different views. In other words, we should demonstrate love and true tolerance. In this way, as the Bible teaches, we heap ashes upon the heads of those who dislike us for our views.

Second we need to pray for people like Dan Savage — so filled with anger and hurt — that their eyes would be opened to God's love and mercy, just as we pray for our own loved ones.

Finally, three cheers for those high school students who refused to sit still and listen to attacks on their faith. We should never be bullied into silence.