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.
  

 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.

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

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.
— 

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.

Editor threatens on-line contributor for reporting abusive comments

By now we have all witnessed malicious comments on news articles and editorials by on-line readers. Most on-line communities have guidelines encouraging proper and civil conduct in posting comments along with a method to report improper comments to the on-line community moderator.

I seldom use this method because I have felt that by allowing inappropriate comments to remain on articles readers get a better insight towards the character of the agency publishing the content article. However, I have communicated concern with comments on several occasions to our local newspaper, the Casper Star Tribune. My most recent encounter was interesting to say the least.

The editorial board ran an editorial suggesting that Wyoming begin considering charter schools in an attempt to help improve graduation rate and overall academic improvement. I posted a comment supporting the idea and gave examples of how the local school district wastes money and is “top heavy”.

Moments after I commented another reader, screen name embarcadero, commented, personally attacking me and with completely off topic remarks. I reported the distasteful comment through the “report to moderator” process. I then posted another comment referring back to the editorial article in an attempt to keep any further discussion on topic. Again, moments after posting, embarcadero fired another round of similarly distasteful remarks towards me and others; also mentioning them by name. These people were not mentioned in the editorial or commenting on the article. This was especially troubling to me so I reported that comment to be removed also. My second request read as follows:

Report number two: Continued personal attacks - "Hate Group". Also in violation of the following "Rules for Commenting":

• Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Value
• Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
• Stay focused, and ask questions. Keep on the story's topic.

If embarcadero's (Sean Patrick Larvie) slanderous comments are not removed immediately I will follow-up in person on Monday April 23rd. by 9:00 A.M.

Thanks you,

Marc

 This happened in the late evening hours on Sunday so I knew that moderation would not be immediate. Consequently, with my second “report of abuse” I added that if the slanderous comments were not removed by 9:00 am Monday morning I would be following up in person.

The comments were removed as requested but later in the day I received an e-mail from the Editor, Darrell Ehrlick . It is posted here in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Smith,

William Zeiders, our online editor, forwarded a concern written by you regarding another online comment. When comments escalate or cause us concern, we review them.

Your comment is particularly concerning to me. One of the challenges anyone has is reading tone and intent into email. In this instance, I have opted to handle your comment internally, rather than follow another protocol that we could have employed. We have reviewed the comment you found offensive, like we do with all that are reported to us. However, in the future if you make similar reports that include a specific threat, then I will have to take the following action. You will be banned from online commenting on our site. Secondly, I will report it to law enforcement.

Again, I don’t believe this was your intent. However, I cannot intuit intention in email. If you have questions about our policies or have concerns, you can contact me. We must take all threats seriously, though. We have to believe you meant what you said. We will continue to take you at your word. 

Thanks for your understanding,

-Darrell

Editor Ehrlick apparently felt that by me saying that I would follow-up if the comments were not removed was some kind of a personal threat.

It is amazing to me that the chief editor of a statewide newspaper doesn’t know what follow-up means and would take it as a threat that would warrant banning me from their on-line community and secondly report it to law enforcement before consulting his dictionary. After all, Mr. Ehrlick is working in the field of journalism. The response by this newspaper and their chief editor is unfounded, absolutely absurd and completely beyond reason.

I can assure you that the comments directed towards me and others by embarcadero and then the threat by editor Ehrlick were far more concerning than me letting the Casper Star Tribune know that I would follow-up to make sure that action was taken to remove the comments as their policy outlines.

The obvious over reaction by Mr. Ehrlick suggests a number of things, not the least of which is that they truly don’t want to be bothered by well meaning readers who assume that the Casper Star Tribune is actually serious about maintaining civility within their on-line community comments area. Of greater concern should be; what is the motive behind someone who believes that reporting abuse and following-up on the report is in any way a threat which would justify banning the person reporting abuse and then threatening to notify law enforcement? Something else is obviously at play here, bubbling under the surface. When someone in Mr. Ehrlick’s position can’t correctly identify a threat in a situation as simple as this, one must ask; what is the real issue? Could it be something as simple as insecurity or is it something larger, like a clash of worldviews and an editor with an agenda?

Check out embarcadero, who is Sean Patrick Larvie, and Darrell Ehrlick’s agenda should become a little more clear as you gain perspective. Any and all who disagree with either one of these gentleman are simply labeled as bigots. I have discovered that Mr Ehrlick believes these "bigots" must be banned from commenting and reported to law enforcement. Should the head editor of Wyoming's only statewide newspaper be so prejudiced?        

Wyoming Supreme Court: Ban on abortion protest unconstitutional

BEN NEARY  Associated Press

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A state court order that barred abortion protesters from appearing at Jackson's town square last year violated the protesters' constitutional rights, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled Tuesday [April 10, 2012].

In a lengthy 3-2 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled the temporary restraining order issued by District Judge Timothy Day violated the First Amendment rights of protesters with the group Operation Save America.

Dozens of members of Operation Save America, based in Concord, N.C., descended on Jackson last May with graphic signs of aborted fetuses that they showed around town.

The group said it picked Jackson for its campaign in an effort to make Wyoming the first state in which no doctors would provide abortions. The group targeted a family practitioner whom it said was the only doctor in the state to offer abortions.

The restraining order that Jackson secured from Day last year barred the protesters from appearing within two blocks of the town square. The town's lawyer told Day that city police feared violence if the protesters came together with about 200 Boy Scouts and their families who were gathering for Elkfest, an annual auction of elk antlers.

The protesters weren't alerted beforehand that the town was seeking the court order.

"Assuming the town had established a compelling interest in the protection of its youth and in maintaining the peace, we would nonetheless find the temporary restraining order unconstitutional," Justice Michael Golden wrote for the court majority. "The town has not met its burden of establishing that the temporary restraining order ban was necessary to serve the town's interest and that less restrictive measures would not have been adequate."

Chief Justice Marilyn S. Kite and Justice William U. Hill wrote a dissent saying they believed the case was moot and that the constitutionality question shouldn't have reached the court.

"No evidence was presented in this case that Operation Save America will return to Jackson and attempt to assemble or display posters during another scheduled event such as the Boy Scouts expo and auction or, in the event it does, that the town will again file for a temporary restraining order without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard," Kite and Hill stated.

Rusty Thomas of Waco, Texas, is assistant director of operations for Operation Save America. He said Tuesday his group intends to return to Jackson next month. "I just got the news, and just tears of rejoicing," he said of the court ruling. "The timing is incredible."

Thomas said the group believes the ruling "strikes a blow for liberty and puts our government, both the federal and state authorities, on notice that the First Amendment is alive and well in the United States of America."

Flip Benham, director of Operation Save America in Concord, said Tuesday the group has applied to the town of Jackson for permits to hand out materials next month but hasn't received them yet.

"What they've done is put us off. They've said they're going through new criteria for permits," Benham said. He said the group's experience in Jackson was the first time it has ever been restrained "from presenting the gospel."

Attempts to reach town officials were not immediately successful Tuesday.

Audrey Cohen-Davis, lawyer for the town, argued before the Wyoming Supreme Court in November that it was proper for the town to secure the restraining order.

"Parents taking their Boy Scouts to the Elkfest event did not expect to have a group subjecting their children to such material," Cohen-Davis said in November.

Jack Edwards, a lawyer in Etna, represented Operation Save America.

"I think it's important to realize that the First Amendment, and the cases from the U.S. Supreme Court that have interpreted that amendment, were not to protect speech that people welcome and that people enjoy, but the basis for that amendment is to protect speech that causes arguments and dissent in the public square," Edwards said Tuesday.

The state supreme court ruling comes just days after the state of Wyoming reached a settlement with another anti-abortion group, WyWatch Family Action.

In the agreement approved last week by U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal of Cheyenne, Wyoming admitted it violated WyWatch's constitutional rights by removing anti-abortion placards from a tunnel leading to the state Capitol during last year's legislative session.

The state agreed to pay WyWatch $1 in nominal damages and $30,000 in attorney fees. WyWatch was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a national advocacy group for social conservatives.

Freudenthal allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to enter the WyWatch case to argue on the group's behalf that the state had violated the group's constitutional rights. Linda Burt, director of the Wyoming ACLU, said Tuesday that the courts decided both cases correctly by protecting public speech.

"While we disagree with both of the organizations involved in these cases, we firmly respect their right to discuss these issues in the public square," Burt said. "The remedy for speech that you disagree with is more speech, and more debate and more information, and disallowing this kind of speech that you disagree with does not support that."

Related: Original story

Mike Wallace Interview With Margaret Sanger Surfaces After Death

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/9/12

Following the death of journalist and reporter Mike Wallace, an interview he conducted with Planned Parenthood founder and eugenicist Margaret Sanger made the rounds across the Internet over the weekend.

Below are clips from the interview Margaret Sanger gave to Mike Wallace in 1957. During the interview, the full version of which can be seen here, Sanger talks to Wallace about why she became an advocate for birth control, abortion, stopping so-called overpopulation, and talks about the Catholic Church, and morality.

Angela Franks is one of the foremost authorities on the life and pro-abortion and pro-eugenics views of Sanger. She profiled Sanger for LifeNews in February:

Margaret Sanger was many things admirable: a vibrant personality, a brilliant organizer, a canny reader of the temperature of the times, a woman who built powerful institutions in a man’s world. But she was also many things ugly and even despicable: an egotist who frequently clashed with others; a free-love advocate who had a dizzying number of affairs and who hurt many men as a result; and a eugenicist who argued that “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

Even Planned Parenthood has had to drop the denials of Sanger’s commitment to eugenics and now urges us all instead to avoid judging those of another historical era. After all, as Hillary Clinton basically said in 2009, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he still did some pretty nifty things. Take what you like and leave the rest, that’s the new approach to Sanger.

Wyoming agrees to settle abortion protest lawsuit

 By The Associated Press

CHEYENNE — The state of Wyoming settled a federal lawsuit filed by an anti-abortion pro-life group.
Under the settlement, the state admitted that state officials violated the constitutional rights of WyWatch Family Action by removing a display of materials it posted in a tunnel leading to the state Capitol last year.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal approved the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit on Thursday.
Under the settlement, the state admits that it unconstitutionally prevented WyWatch from engaging in protected expression during the 2011 legislative session. The state agreed to pay the group $1 in nominal damages and $30,000 in attorney fees.

The State Building Commission, composed of the state's five statewide elected officials, this year banned all outside groups from displaying materials in the tunnel.

Changing Culture

By T.M. Moore

Christians are rightly concerned about the state of culture in our day. The fear is that, as the culture continues its decline into mere sensuality and self-indulgence, it will drag our children and us down with it.

Which makes it appropriate to ask, Are you changing culture, or is culture changing you?

For the followers of Christ there is no middle ground. We're either actively engaged in bringing the reality of God's Kingdom to light amid the cultural contexts of our lives, or we're allowing those cultural contexts to dim or obscure the light of Christ. Either the light of Christ in us is shining in the culture, or the bushel basket of the culture is turned upside-down over our heads.

All of us spend our lives in a variety of cultural settings. Our Personal Mission Fields unfold within the various cultural spheres in which we live and work. Every cultural setting is characterized by norms, protocols, and practices which embody the values and priorities of those spheres. What messages do the cultural spheres of our lives proclaim?

The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it. Thus, we who are ambassadors of Christ and His Kingdom have a responsibility to bring the manifestation of that Kingdom to light wherever we occupy space for the Lord. Our Kingdom citizenship should make a difference - in our homes, schools, work places, communities, and the like – showing that we are there, living for Christ and seeking to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Him (Matt. 5:13-16; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

The way things ought to be

Changing the culture in which we travel is a high calling and ongoing task. Can you envision ways the cultural arenas of your life would be different if they were wholly devoted to Christ and His Kingdom? If things were more the way we think they ought to be, what would that look like?

Cultivating a vision for transforming culture is the starting-place for this work, and Scripture is the place to turn for nurturing such a vision. By learning the Biblical meaning of such concepts as beauty, goodness, and truth, and then by envisioning the outworking of those concepts in our various cultural spheres, we can begin to get an idea of where we might establish goals and objectives for our own work in changing the culture around us.

"Culture" is not some abstract, far-off idea which is only amenable to shaping by academics and "cultural types." We are all involved in culture, all the time - using it, making it, and either shaping or being shaped by it. We can't escape culture, and we must not allow culture to define the values and practices of our lives. Instead, we need to take up the challenge of changing culture, in as many ways as we can to reflect the beauty of Christ, the goodness of God, and the truth of His Word.

If our culture is not the way we think it ought to be, then we can do something about that.

Culture - along with the people in our lives - is where the cutting edge of the Kingdom engages the world, through each of our lives. God is determined to bring His Kingdom to light on earth as it is in heaven, and we are the tools of His Spirit for sculpting, crafting, and creating a new world for the glory of God.

We don’t have to let the culture change us or our children. If we will sharpen our culture-making skills and take up the daily challenge of shaping the world, we might begin to see our culture start to reflect the reality of Christ's rule.

Christians are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. These are transforming attributes which bring wholesomeness and goodness to the world. Believe this, and act on it, and you may be surprised to see what God is able to do through you in bringing the light of Christ to your world.

If we’re not changing the culture in which we participate, shaping it in the ways of beauty, goodness, and truth, then we’re probably being shaped by the culture according to its own vision of the way things ought to be.

Change the culture, or be changed by it. You’re making that choice every day.

Constitution Party of Wyoming Gains Ballot Access

March 28, 2012 — The Constitution Party of Wyoming (CPWyo) didn’t miss out on ballot access this time.
After submitting more than 6,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office in Cheyenne, the CPWyo was notified this week that it had turned enough valid signatures to become the fifth recognized political party in the Cowboy State. With volunteers gathering signatures at gun shows, in parking lots and from friends and neighbors over the past 11 months, the CPWyo easily surpassed its initial goal of 5,005 signatures.

The CPWyo, which missed ballot access by a mere 388 signatures in 2010, wouldn’t settle for anything less than “Total Success,” the party’s rallying cry throughout this petition campaign, said State Chairman Rex Fritzler.

“This accomplishment is truly a tribute to our volunteers, the men and women who worked so diligently and doggedly to ensure ‘Total Success,’” said Fritzler, a retired U.S. Army veteran who lives near Glendo. “It would have been easy for us, especially after coming so close in 2010, to have quit. We could have just thrown our hands up and told ourselves, ‘Oh well, we tried.’

“But that was never a consideration, not for a minute,” he said. “We simply had too much belief in the Constitution Party and too much love for our country and our state to settle for anything but victory.”
With the CPWyo’s victory, the Constitution Party (CP) has now achieved ballot access in 14 states for the 2012 election. The fastest growing political party in the United States in terms of voter registration, the CP strives to reflect the principles of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

The party’s goals include limiting the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and restoring American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

The CPWyo plans to nominate candidates for federal, state, county and local positions at its second state convention June 7-9 at the Agricultural Resource and Learning Center in Casper.

“We’ve been energized over and over again in the last 11 months by the people who have supported our efforts to give Wyoming another choice in the next election and we’re not going to let them down,” said Fritzler, who also thanked the Secretary of State’s Office for its guidance and diligence throughout the petition campaign. “We’re looking forward to identifying constitutionally-minded candidates and supporting them in their efforts to help build a better Wyoming.”

Formed in July 2010, the CPWyo has volunteers in 20 of the state’s 23 counties and has organized groups in six counties. To learn more about the CPWyo or to become involved in the party, go to the official website at www.wyomingconstitutionparty.com.

Pastors and the IRS bogeyman

 Dr. Jerry Newcombe - Guest Columnist - 3/15/2012

This is a critical election year. Some have said it may be the most important election in our lifetime. With so much at stake, how great it would be to hear from more pastors and priests, during these times when the government encroaches on more of our freedoms.

Some fear that to preach on the moral issues of the day, like abortion or marriage, might be construed as "preaching on politics." But they are moral issues addressed in the Bible. But I recognize that elements of our culture may have turned them into political ones.

I think part of the reason many pastors and priests are unwilling to speak out on "politics" (so-called) is because they fear the loss of their tax-exempt status.

I believe that the perceived threat is far more insidious than the actual threat. The dog's bark is much more prominent than the dog's bite.

I also believe there are some who stoke this fear. For example, Rev. Barry Lynn (a liberal minister) of Americans United for Separation of Church and State sends out letters like clockwork during election years, warning pastors to not say anything too political or he'll be sure to tell the IRS on them.

For example, during the last president election, Barry Lynn sent out a letter with the headline: "Election Season 2008." He stated, "Dear Religious Leader....The First Amendment protects the right of all Americans, religious leaders included, to speak out on religious, moral and political issues." So far so good.

He goes on more ominously: "However, houses of worship…are barred from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office and may not intervene directly or indirectly in partisan campaigns. Any activity designed to influence the outcome of a partisan election can be construed as intervention. If the IRS determines that your house of worship has engaged in unlawful intervention, it can revoke the institution's tax-exempt status or levy significant fines on the hour of worship or its leaders."

Time To Occupy LCSD1!

 

1740H Dell Range Blvd., #180, Cheyenne, WY 82009

307.316.7632 (Main) 307.316.7634 (Fax)

Time To Occupy LCSD1!

Laramie County School District #1 Mission Statement: "In cooperation with students, parents, staff, and the community, [our mission] is to guarantee a high quality education in a safe and orderly environment for all students, inspiring them to become life-long learners and responsible, productive citizens."

LCSD1 filled a much-needed gap by signing a 30-day contract with Marvin and Darlene Nash of Bullying Hurts. After Alexander Frye’s bullying suicide death of Jan. 1, 2012, the kids finally had a voice they could trust.

Except that, as of Feb. 24, that contract expired; yet the Nashes still receive one to three calls daily, and they continue to answer their phones. On Feb. 29, five days after the contract had ended, the Nashes were instrumental in helping to prevent another suicide death at one of our local junior high schools. "The child cries, and a phone call is made, and the people on the other end of the phone take action; one life is saved because one voice was heard - that one life or one voice might be yours someday." I pray for the same quick response to be available through the Bullying Hurts services the Nashes provide this community, when the next child cries. Marvin and Darlene’s phones are on 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The LCSD1 board is going to implement a program that will take a year to put into place. In the meantime, who is going to fill this gap? If we have saved one life and mediated workable plans for many others through the Bullying Hurts program, then we must be on the right path. The kids are now talking because they trust the Nashes, and this is 80 percent of the battle; yet the school board will be meeting in a closed-door executive session to discuss the fate of our kids and what is truly going on in our schools.

We are asking this community to join us on Monday, March 5 at 6:00 p.m. to "occupy" this closed-door meeting, which is not legal. What affects our kids should be heard by every concerned individual!

Together we have the opportunity to make a difference today - otherwise, how many more lives are we going to lose?

Bradley and Barbie Harrington

Publisher and Editor, Liberty’s Torch Newspape

publisher@libertystorch.us

editor@libertystorch.us

307.316.7632