Mothers killing their unborn, and themselves

​This is a crucial point, because it shows that progressive ideas benefit no one, and often do the most damage to the groups they’re designed to cater to. Another devastating example of this is the astronomically high suicide rate among post-abortive women. A woman who gets an abortion is six hundred times more likely to kill herself than a woman who gives birth.

Again, progressives will punt the responsibility for this staggering figure over to the other side, claiming that these women commit suicide because pro-lifers make them feel guilty and so on, but an honest person must recognize that there is something deeper at play here. When people live by the secular progressive values of our culture, all they find is misery and despair.

Quote source

Walsh, M. (2017). The Unholy Trinity: Blocking The Left’s Assault on Life,  Marriage and Gender [ebook]. Image, New York, p. 160

The failures of the prayer haters

The first salvo in this debate in recent times was fired by the then‐Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison, who moved for the abolition of parliamentary prayers in 2006. The motion was defeated without debate, with the Australian Labor Party and Coalition opposing it…

The issue soon faded from the public consciousness, and prayers seem to be firmly entrenched in the Australian federal parliament for the time being…

In October 2001, Greens MLC [Member of the Legislative Council] Lee Rhiannon moved to remove parliamentary prayer from the daily routine of the NSW [New South Wales] Upper House, replacing it with a time of quiet, personal reflection for members. The ALP, Liberals and Nationals all indicated that they would not support such a motion, and following debate, the Rhiannon motion was defeated, five votes to 31.

Prayers currently continue in both chambers of the New South Wales parliament.

Quote source

Hunter, I. (2010). “Parliament and Prayer” in fjhp, volume 26, 2010, pp. 31, 33-34. Available http://flinders.edu.au/sabs/fjhp-files/2010/3_hunter.pdf. Last accessed 15th Jul 2017

Trumping the federal intrusion of education

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling the federal government out of K-12 education, following through on a campaign promise to return school control to state and local officials.

The order, dubbed the “Education Federalism Executive Order,” will launch a 300-day review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts and directs Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to modify or repeal measures she deems an overreach by the federal government…

He said that previous administrations had increasingly forced schools to comply with “whims and dictates” from Washington, but his administration would break the trend.

Quote source
Miller, S.A. (2017). Trump to pull feds out of K-12 education. Washington Times. Available http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-out-k-12-education/. Last accessed 16th July 2017

New constitutional protection for homeschoolers

Puerto Rico is now the first among U.S. states and territories to recognize homeschooling as a fundamental right, thanks to a law signed by Governor Ricardo Rossello Nevares on June 7…

Currently in Puerto Rico, homeschooling families are exempt from public school attendance under the non-governmental entity school’s exemption. However, this action on the part of the legislature and governor will ensure that homeschooling families have the highest constitutional protections, just as we all do for rights such as free speech and free association…

By recognizing homeschooling as a fundamental right—the highest constitutional protection available—Puerto Rico has declared the value and importance of educational freedom. We applaud the efforts of all those who made this historic event possible.

Quote source

Smith, M. (2017) Puerto Rico Declares Homeschooling a Fundamental Right. Homeschool Legal Defense Association. Available https://hslda.org/hs/state/pr/201706200.asp. Last accessed 5th Jul 2017

God’s Word precedes the state’s word

The [Apostles’] Creed has vast implications concerning history because of its declaration that God is the creator of all things. This declaration immediately makes God the source of all ethics, of all morality and of all law…

Either God is the true source of all morality and law, or the state is. If God is the true source, then the Word of God must be harkened to by church, state, school, and every sphere of life as the one authoritative source of morality and law. As institutions and orders declare law, they must do it ministerially, as administrators under God. The Word of God therefore speaks to every sphere, including church and state…

Quote source

Rushdoony, R.J. (1978). The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church. Thoburn Press, Fairfax, p. 5

Nations turning from evolution in the 21st century

Turkish schoolchildren will no longer be taught about evolution, a government official has said, in another sign of the conservative direction the country is heading in under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

Alpaslan Durmus, the head of curriculum for the ministry of education, said that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was “controversial” and would be removed from school programmes by 2019.

Quote source

Sanchez, R. (2017). Turkey will stop teaching evolution in schools, education ministry says. The Telegraph. Available http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/turkey-will-stop-teaching-evolution-schools-education-ministry/. Last accessed 24th Jun 2017

Humanists show off their Biblical illiteracy

According to the humanist Joseph C. Sommer:

Jesus also erred in predicting the amount of time he would be in the tomb. At Matthew 12:40 he teaches: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Mark 15:42-45 shows that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon. But Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1 tell us he left the tomb sometime on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Either way, the amount of time was less than three nights.

But Russell Grigg refuted this type of simplistic interpretation, over 20 years ago:

The ancient Hebrews idiomatically counted a part of a day as a whole day, so that ‘three days and three nights’ could have been as short as 38 hours. This explains how Jesus could say that the time He would be in the tomb (from late Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning) was similar to the ‘three days and three nights’ of Jonah’s experience (Matthew 12:40).

It is interesting to note that in Mark 8:31 Jesus is recorded as saying, ‘The Son of Man will rise again after three days’, while in Matthew 16:21 He says, ‘He will be raised again on the third day.’ Jesus thus used the two time frames interchangeably, and there is no error or contradiction concerning the time Jesus was in the tomb compared with the time Jonah was in the fish, as sceptics have claimed.

My two cents

And to think that humanists are critical of “biblical literalism” (a loaded term). Here, it’s the humanists who are more literalist than the literalists they criticise!

It’s one thing for humanists to bemoan Christians who lack scientific literacy—but humanists need to look in the mirror, and recognise their biblical illiteracy.

I think there’s a website that indexes creationist claims about scientific data—and I imagine that humanists would endorse that site.

But one of these days, I should set up an index of humanist claims about Biblical interpretation—and the times they get it wrong. Maybe this post can comprise the first entry.

Quote sources

  1. Sommer, J.C. (n.d.) Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible. American Humanist Association. Available https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/. Last accessed 19th May 2017.
  2. Grigg, R. (1995). Jonah and the Great Fish. Creation Ministries International. Available http://creation.com/jonah-and-the-great-fish. Last accessed 19th May 2017.