December 7, 2016

Election Results and Shredding the Constitution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the benefits of the 2016 American presidential election is that we have seen just how poorly leftists react to results they don't like. We have professional sidewinders [1] rioting, other people protesting the clear results of the election, evidence of Democrat voter fraud is being made more obvious that usual [2], university students needing coddling [3], and more. Calls for a lost-cause recount are giving Donald Trump move votes [4], which gives me the impression that we may never know the final tally of the popular vote.


There are cries by losing Democrats to abolish the Electoral College, and some officials say they'll go rogue. Do they want to shred the Constitution and have a banana republic?
Image credit: Freeimages / Kristen Price
One of the bigger threats to our constitutional republic is efforts to abolish the Electoral College. This system ensures that the United States doesn't have mob rule, when the heavily-populated urban areas traditionally vote Democrat and the rest of the country would be told (to quote Remo), "That's the biz, sweetheart!" Hillary Clinton lost most of the counties [5] [6], but that wouldn't matter if the election results were strictly by popular vote. No, we have the Electoral College in place with good reason [7] [8].

Those electors are chosen during the general election to cast their votes according to the wishes of the people [9] There are some in the Electoral College who plan to go rogue as "faithless electors", which would cause a constitutional crisis and bring our system of government to a screeching halt [10]. Not much chance of that happening, though. Interesting that some electors claim that they cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump. One even said it would be "dishonoring to God" [11]. Listen, Skippy, you knew the possibilities when you signed on to ride for the brand. Could you honor God by voting for Hillary if the election went in her favor? Not hardly! Sounds mighty inconsistent to me.

Matteo Renzi resigned as the prime minister of Italy [12], which has had 63 governments in 70 years. Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and we've had the same Constitution since 1789. So that's 45 administrations here, and Italy has had 63 governments in a much shorter time span. If we have rebels in the Electoral College, we will not only have a constitutional crisis, but mob rule and essentially be on the level of a banana republic: violence, devious tactics, and whining decide elections, not the process that has been working for so many years. No matter what, God has ultimate control, not any politician. 

In addition to the supporting links above, I'd like to strongly recommend that you listen to the podcast or read the transcript of Dr. Albert Mohler's "The Electoral College, Federalism, and the genius of America's Constitution".



November 24, 2016

Christians, Secularists, and Giving Thanks


Although this is written for Thanksgiving Day here in the United States, there are some important truths that are applicable beyond this day. Although some sidewinders commence to rewriting history and redefining facts to suit their own preferences, America was founded on Christian principles, and Thanksgiving Day is a unique part of it.


Secularists try to "give thanks" without thanking God who gave them life. Christians need to be mindful of thankfulness.

One bit of historical rewriting is that in 1621, the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Native Americans. Not hardly! They gave thanks to God, primarily. There are conflicting stories about that first "thanksgiving day". A few years later in 1676, the first Thanksgiving Proclamation was set up "...as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour..." Eventually, a national Thanksgiving Day was established.

Atheists, whether calling themselves humanists, secularists, "freethinkers", atheists, or whatever, have a bit of a dilemma: they are in rebellion against God and do not wish to thank or even acknowledge him. Instead, they are attempting to find different ways to "give thanks" while avoiding God, who created them and gave them life. Their "prayers" seem a lot like Christian prayers, tacitly admitting that giving thanks to God is something deep inside us.

Another atheist bigot who worships scientism and atheism.
This character is elevating his religion of atheism and scientism above God — and basic civility.
Christians need to have an attitude of thanksgiving that transcends one "official" day a year. Ingratitude is sinful and selfish.

This is where I turn you over to the author and speaker who inspired this post, Dr. Albert Mohler. There are two items. First, there's a podcast that runs just over 20 minutes that you can download or hear online, or read the transcript if you prefer. That one is "Thanks be to whom? Celebrating Thanksgiving in an increasingly secular age". Second, he has an article that I recommend for Christians to read, "Thanksgiving as Theological Act: What Does it Mean to Give Thanks?".

Wishing you a blessed Thanksgiving!

November 11, 2016

Hating Donald Trump Near and Far

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is an amazing amount of vitriol aimed at Donald Trump, his supporters, and Christians. There were many Christians who did not support him, or (like me) only did so reluctantly in hopes that he meant what he said about appointing Supreme Court judges that are pro-life [1], supporting religious freedom [2], and he promises to uphold the Constitution [3]. Whether or not appointed judges betray the values they claim to uphold (like some have done) remains to be seen. Also, there's that "down ticket thing", people running for other offices; it wasn't just a presidential election, you know.


So Donald Trump won the election. Some are celebrating, some are full of hate and rage. Ideologues hate not getting what they want. Why did he win, why did Clinton lose, and what lies ahead?

I'm cautiously optimistic, and hope he gets advisers who know what they're doing. Christians need to pray for him [4]. I'd like to recommend a Christian analysis of the election on Janet Mefferd's podcast [5]. For some interesting discussion from a secular source, I had a great time listening to analysis and callers on this podcast by Chris Plante [6].

Hillary Clinton is a monster leftist who is a radical pro-abortionist. Abortion is the modern version of child sacrifice to Molech, and she wants to make it even more accessible. More? Right now, an unfit mother can be in the middle of giving birth, say she doesn't want to continue, so the murderous doctor can shove in a knife and kill the child on the spot. It's commonly called "partial-birth abortion" [7]. Amazing how heartless people want to put this wicked woman into the highest office in the land. Don't get me started on crimes and the way she treats people...

Perhaps Trump also won because of the contempt that leftists have for voters [8], such as Hillary calling half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" [9]. (I don't recollect Donald Trump giving blanket insults for Clinton supporters.) It's also been said that people have had enough of a Clinton/Obama/Clinton political dynasty. For that matter, Obama and Clinton were pushing toward Marxist globalism and surrendering American sovereignty (Obama circumvented the Constitution with his executive orders [10], and some of us believe we were on the way to a dictatorship), and Trump's victory is seen as a win against globalism as well [11]. The trend toward globalism may be faltering, as is seen with Brexit [12]. Two others offering analysis to consider: Matt Walsh has some ideas on how leftists can come to terms with their crybaby hysteria: they lost because Clinton was lousy [13], and Albert Mohler has some interesting thoughts about how the election of Trump was a repudiation of not only Clinton, but also of political elitism [14]. 

Sneering at Trump has come from other world leaders, but that seems to happen whenever a Republican wins (or even runs for office), people commence to whining. Leftists sneer and ridicule. That's what they do, it's their nature. The United States is not yet a socialist country and we're not interested in electing leaders to please people in other countries, you savvy?

Too bad people within our borders can't grow up.

Several celebrities said they'd leave the country if Trump won [15]. That nonsense has happened before [16]. What in the world are they thinking? People will adore them so much, even though they're not close personal friends, that they'll vote for Hillary so the celebrities will stay put? Those sidewinders are just being manipulative as well as stupid.

How about schools that offer "emotional support" [17] for students because Shrillary lost and Trump won? Or the Yale professor that makes midterm optional [18] because the poor children are so upset? Or the students that burned the flag [19] because Trump won? Or the detestable people who want Trump assassinated [20]? How about the temper tantrums by leftists [21] over a legitimate election?

EDIT 11-12-2016: 
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Interesting that Republicans and Conservatives don't have these problems. Perhaps it's because we cowboy up and deal with things. Some folks say that the rest of the world is laughing at America (as if they did a survey). Not laughing because of Trump, I think it's because we're turning into a nation of wimps. Those of us who stand up for what's right scare the leftists.

Some people are upset over the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by about 337,000 votes of the 120, 212,000 or so that were recorded (not including absentee ballots and others to consider, but are including votes from tampering with voting machines [22], illegal aliens [23], votes from dead people [24], and other fraud). They're angry that the Electoral College foils their fun and will place Trump as president (the Electoral College has rarely overruled the popular vote before). In a way, the small margin of difference in the popular vote is irrelevant [25], as the Electoral College was put into place to protect citizens from mob rule [26].

I heard the Chris Plante Show for election day, and a caller remained anonymous. He was a registered Democrat who voted for Trump but had to keep his mouth shut out of fear of retaliation. I remember similar things when George W. Bush was running for president, cars would get their paint "keyed", people would be verbally harassed. Never heard of it happening the other way around, and no Republican riots happened when B. Hussein Obama was elected [27].


"But I still believe in America, and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.

"We don't just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them." 
— Hillary Clinton, November 9, 2016 [28]

Although I dislike giving narcissistic atheopaths any attention, some give me good material for examples of bad thinking and rage. Here is an astonishing vituperative attack from a bitter British tinhorn who hates God, Christians, Donald Trump, and especially biblical creationists. I've challenged him repeatedly to say why someone or something is evil based on his atheistic worldview, but he continuously dodges the challenge. That's because atheism is irrational and has no consistent foundation for morality. He has no legitimate basis to say of me, "The man is evil. As well as extremely hypocritical. And he hates the only politician who stands between the evil of Trump and the White House [29]." On what basis am I evil? What makes Trump evil? How can someone with any sense or conscience think Clinton is decent? By the way, he also does not understand the American political system.

Here is a screenshot of his bitter whining (click for larger):


Narcissistic atheopath is bigoted.

This is posted at a forum of anti-creationist bigots [30]. Yes, really. BCSE promotes censorship [31].
  • "A load of fundamentalist US Christians"
    Uh, did you take a survey? Not hardly. About 60 million votes for Trump were cast from people with a variety of religious and non-religious views [32].
  • "got into bed with the fascists"
    Loaded terminology fallacy. Fascist? He keeps using that word. It does not mean what he thinks it does [33].
  • "voted for a pathological liar"
    Documentation, please. Not just emotion-provoking rhetoric, we have plenty of that here in the US anyway.
  • "because they think he is more sympathetic to hardline 'biblical values' than the other candidate"
    He frequently uses the appeal to motive fallacy. Also, documentation would be helpful, especially since there are Christians who don't believe Trump upholds our values very well [34], "hardline biblical" or not. There are even sanctimonious professing Christians who have unfavorably judged other Christians who voted for Trump.
  • "But let's salute and remember all those other Christians, conservatives, liberals and independents who listened to their conscience."
    Is that a contradiction of the previous section? More likely, he's redefined those "other" people as those who meet his approval because they voted for Hillary Clinton.
He added, "These right wing bigots (Ken Ham on his facebook is another one) don't understand - or do understand but don't care - that there is genuine fear (and shock) within the US population at the election of Trump. As long as those awful 'anti-Christian' liberal Democrats have been shafted that's all they care about." [35] That loathsome hatred is not worth analyzing. Sure does hate Bible-believing Christians, doesn't he? It would be helpful for incoherent people to refrain from making ridiculous statements in public forums. Especially when a quick look at the facts contradicts such statements. 

Interestingly, despite this guy's arrogant ignorance (he probably gets his information from leftist Brit media and leftist American media), some people in other countries know a great deal about the American political process, even better than some Americans. I know this guy in Thailand as well as a non-citizen creationary scientist that could edjamakate a passel of Americans on what goes on.

Remember that the Democrat Party is on record for booing God [36]. You'll be hard pressed to find knowledgeable, Bible-believing Christians and biblical creationists who are loyal Democrats. Just look at their policies and actions. Hillary Clinton would continue Obama's anti-Christian and Marxist activities (I received a posted comment that was accurate, "A Clinton presidency would be the failed Obama presidency on steroids"). There are times when someone will run for office as a Democrat because he or she cannot defeat the local, corrupt Republican machine. In those cases, people vote for the candidate, not the party. Such instance are rather rare.

Leftists like anti-creationists and are in favor of the globalization initiatives of the politically-oriented pseudoscience of "climate change". (The character in the above screenshot said, "Trump denies climate change and Pence denies evolution" [37].) I found out after the election that Mike Pence is a creationist [38] (learned it from an Australian, no less), so that makes him a bad man according to evolutionists. Look up "Mike Pence creationist" on a search engine and see the evolutionists who are using the lie that he is "anti-science", which is a conflation of "science" with "evolution". I've not heard Trump discuss creation science or evolution. 

It is indeed unfortunate that anti-Christian, anti-creationist ideologues are so myopic that they hate Donald Trump even before he began his duties. The left has been slapping leather with Christians, Conservatives, and Republicans to support leftist goals. Since such a climate is actually bad for real science (see the references at "An Improper Environment for Science" [39]). Trump's pro-business views, if he follows through, can be beneficial for science [40].

Although many people in the United States and around the world express views that are decidedly anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, and anti-creationist, they must live with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. Some are angry because this thwarts their desires for the United States to continue toward apostasy, globalization, and Marxism (with the expected result of shutting down free speech and religion for Christians and biblical creationists). They demonize Trump, Spence, people who voted for him because that's their nature. They're bigots. It's what they do. Others vote Democrat because they like their traditions, and are sad that their candidate lost.

Even Hillary said we should give Trump a chance. Yes, let's. Christians, we need to pray for him to have wisdom — and safety. I believe God has stayed severe judgement on our country, and we need to pray for that as well.

November 5, 2016

An Improper Environment for Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Interesting that some cultures have made scientific advances in some areas, then just — stalled. Ancient pagan cultures had some good mathematics and observations, Mohammedans falsely take credit for various discoveries [1], Communist science was notorious for lagging behind the West (espionage was a big part of their progress [2]), and so on. For science to thrive, it needs the proper environment.

Some folks say that atheism and evolution are essential to scientific advancement. The opposite is true. Let's not lose the environment we had for scientific advancement.
Mao Zedong image on Chinese banknote
Image credit: Freeimages / Tudou Mao
Despite Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy's claims [3], belief in evolution has nothing to do with scientific progress. In reality, evolution is of no benefit to medicine [4], and has hindered scientific progress [5], and is anti-science [6]. Atheistic communism has been devastating to scientific advancement [6], and America is racing in that direction, what with the politicizing of science and all [7], [8], [9].

Do you need to be an atheist to be a scientist today? Not hardly! That pile of bovine scat has been propagated by atheopaths, but is a manipulative lie. Many of the greatest scientific minds, past and present, have not only been Christians, but creationists [7], and have not only contributed to science, but been foundational to modern science [8]. 

If you study on it for a spell, you'll see that continuous scientific advancement came from people with a biblical worldview in environments that supported science. My recommendation is that you don't fall for propaganda and trickery. I've given you a heap of information to show that science thrives in a biblically-based environment. Let's not cave in to atheists, evolutionists, and leftists who want to hijack science. Think, people! With your heads, not emotions and from propaganda. I ain't kiddin', neither!
 

October 19, 2016

When is a Fallacy NOT a Fallacy?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Simply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. People have to use logical thinking every day and seldom think about thinking. Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and other peoples used geometry, which requires logic. Logic as a discipline became more formalized with people like Aristotle. Some people will say that logical fallacies only apply to debate situations, but such an idea cannot be supported.


While some of us try to avoid errors in reasoning and arguing, we may be accused of using logical fallacies. There are times when something may resemble a fallacy, but is actually valid.
A twist on Aristotle by Luca Giordano, 1653
On the surface, spotting logical fallacies seems rather easy. Sometimes it is. Other times, the lines blur because fallacies share different names, different fallacies resemble each other, people combine them, and more. Those times are like a social media relationship status: it's complicated.

We cannot be clinical all the time, and some fallacies appear in our everyday speech. For example, reification (assigning a characteristic to something that is abstract) happens frequently. No, your car does not hate you, nature is not feeling generous today, and so on. There's no call for correcting someone who is just adding color to a conversation. When bad logic is used in a formal presentation or argument, that's a mite different. Some of us try to avoid fallacies, but they creep in now and again.

There are times when something may appear to be a logical fallacy on the surface, but we need to hold off before getting the bit in our teeth and jumping the fence with calling someone out on it. I'd like to cover a few things that can initially appear to be fallacies, but may very well be valid.


Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy occurs when an argument or evidence is rejected because of it's origin (genesis). I can't count the times when someone has rejected evidence for creation science because it came from a creation science Website and the complainer claimed that the creationists are "biased" or it is "not science". (Ironically, they often furnish material from Wikipedia, Talk.Origins, and other heavily biased anti-creationist sources from non-scientists.) When someone is trying to present a point of view, they are biased. Other times, I've seen people reject material from Fox News with inaccurate accusations of Conservative bias, but cite other news sources that are known for their leftist biases. A bit of a double standard.

That leads into my point on this: sometimes a source can be dubious. It may defy observable science, such as when Dr. Greg Bahnsen said that he saw a tabloid headline claiming, "Woman Gives Birth to Her Own Father". (Yes, some publications get away with printing weird stuff.) There can be times when a source has a proven political or social bias, so one might be careful in citing it and do some fact-checking. When accusations are made against creationary sources, it's often helpful to challenge the critic to show where the science or theology is spurious. When I've made that challenge, the mockers frequently misrepresent the material, do selective citing, or simply refuse to read it.

Here's where I had a bit of fun doing research. Iraqi transportation minister Kadhem Finjan al-Hamami claimed that ancient Sumerians had airports and space travel. That's something I reject out of hand, since there is nothing to support the claim. Another reason I reject it is that supporters of "ancient astronaut" conspiracy theories (that somehow get aired on the History Channel) are not credible. Their "evidence" may sound compelling, but saying something like, "My friend's cousin knows a high-placed military official who spoke under conditions of anonymity and told me that space aliens were moved from Area 51 to a huge underground facility outside Tombstone, Arizona" do not cut it for me. The aliens guy from the History Channel, Giorgio Tsoukalos, may seem like a nice guy and sound convincing, but some of us prefer something substantive. It also doesn't help matters much that he is heavily involved with discredited Chariots of the Gods? author Erich von Daniken's organization "A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association". Chariots is still in print.

When citing or rejecting a source, use your own discretion and experience. Perhaps you need to check your own biases at the door because you're going to find out that you were wrong about something. What can seem to be a genetic fallacy of rejecting a source may very well be based on careful consideration instead of an emotional reaction.


Ad hominem

The ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy seems to be a first resort for many atheists and evolutionists, and I've seen and experienced attacks that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would say, "Nice abusive ad hominem there", and get a reply, "No, it's not an ad hominem, it's an insult". It's a lie, too, since the insulting "facts" are fictitious. It also distracts from the discussion, as well as poisoning the well for other readers or listeners.

However, I've learned that an ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. That would be when it's a conclusion. "I have decided that you, sir, are a lying cyberstalker and a blackguard!" I've heard Chris Rosebrough analyze teachings on Fighting for the Faith and declare certain people to be heretics. That's strong wording, but he backs it up. Similarly, some people may begin a presentation of one kind or another with an ad hominem and then go into the "here's why I say that", but care must be used to avoid poisoning the well and appearing to manipulate others to agree with the presenter.

If you insult a Neanderthal, are you committing an ad hominid fallacy?


Appeal to Motive

This one can be mighty difficult to justify. An appeal to motive fallacy implies that one person knows the heart and mind of another: "You're doing this because..." No, you have no insight into someone's heart and mind. It bothers me when I read or hear brilliant people, including Christian apologists, use this fallacy. A good way to still use what resembles the appeal to motive is to use it like the ad hominem. That is, when something is a conclusion — and clearly stated as such. For example, "He says creationists are 'evil', but has not given a basis for what constitutes 'evil' in his atheistic evolutionary worldview. I have challenged him many times to answer this question, and all I get is personal attacks in return. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he cannot give a reasonable answer". I reckon that's a good way to present your belief about someone's motive.  

Conclusion

Before I wrap up, just a quick note on the straw man fallacy, which is setting up a belief someone holds, or putting words in his or her mouth, so it can be torn down. (Nice job, destroying something that is not the position your opponent takes.) People may think that a straw man is being set up when someone repeats words back. No. When restating or asking for clarification ("Do I understand that you're saying...?"), the other person has a chance to respond. It is a question, not an assertion.

Again, we are not automatons, and will use occasional fallacies in our common speech. Sometimes they appear when we're trying to make a point, but it happens. If we become aware of common fallacies and learn to identify them, it's a great help. Also, saying "in my opinion" (or something similar) can turn down the heat a bit, since the speaker is not necessarily asserting that something is proved. At any rate, try very hard to avoid using fallacies, or giving someone room to criticize you.

October 15, 2016

Nobel Pieces Prizes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite, put in his will that a portion of his estate money be set aside and awarded for five recipients each year who have "benefited mankind". The five prizes are literature, physiology or medicine, chemistry, and peace. (A sixth prize for economics was established in 1968.) Although most of this activity is in Sweden, for some reason, Alfie wanted the peace prize committee to be in Norway.


The Nobel Prizes for peace and science are becoming increasingly leftists and irrelevant. Should they be scrapped?
Derivative from Nobel Prize image, public domain in the United States
The prize for peace has come under criticism because it shows a leftist bias, including the award to B. Hussein Obama, who had done nothing to earn the prize except show up for work at the American presidency. (Years later, there is regret over giving Obama the undeserved award.) In 2016, Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos was given the peace prize. From the October 12, 2016 edition of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler:
. . .and the controversy this year has to do with the fact that Santos was awarded the prize precisely because he had negotiated an historic treaty of peace between his nation and the so-called FARC rebels. They had been fighting a civil war for decades, a civil war that had brought much mayhem and murder and a great deal of death to the nations. But what makes the story really interesting is that the peace prize was awarded publicly just days after the president was repudiated by the citizens of the nation who turned down that peace agreement with the rebels and put the president back at the starting line in terms of the negotiation.
Dr. David Coppedge thinks that the Nobel Prize for science should be scrapped. He gave sixteen reasons for doing so, although I reject his first two. Several of his points merit serious consideration, such as the fact that several more fields of science have been developed over the years, and that worthy people have been shunned by the committee.

One problem I see is that since Big Science has been enslaved by leftist owlhoots, there could be an increase in naturalistic, anti-God awards to secularist ideologues if more categories were added. People must stop uncritically accepting agenda-driven claims made by secular scientists who deny the existence and revelation of God. It can't happen with the small, biased Nobel committee that makes its own rules and answers to no one.

There are tinhorns on the Web that troll and say, "You creationists should disprove evolution and win your Nobel Prizes!" They don't know much about the prize, it's selection process, and categories. I've reminded them that there's no prize for evolution. However, secularists who award the prizes may very well come up with that category. Of course, they'd have to rescind a passel of prizes because so many evolutionary "discoveries" are disproved, re-dated, changed, and even found to be the products of plagiarism and fraud.

Sorry, cousins in Sweden. The Nobel Prizes for science has serious flaws, as does the prize for peace.

October 13, 2016

Evolution and the "Separation of Church and State"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Actually, the title of this post is slightly inaccurate. It's actually more like "Evolutionary thinking and the so-called 'wall of separation between church and state'". A story I like to tell is that I was in a discussion with someone on this:

Me: The constitution says that the church shall be separated from the state, and the school from the church.

He: Right.

Me: That's the Soviet constitution.

He: Wait...

The secularist war cry in America is often, "Separation of church and state". But that's not in the Constitution!

There's your problem, Hoss. People in this country have been beaten over the the head with the separation thing so often that they actually believe it's in the United States Constitution. It's not. It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They were worried that they'd lose their freedom of religion, and Jefferson reassured them that they have nothing to fear about the government establishing a particular denomination.

Nowadays, secularist sidewinders will use "separation of church and state" as a rallying cry when the go on the warpath against any perceived from by a dreaded theist, oh, yucky, ptui, ptui! Col. Jeff Williams of NASA read from Psalm 24 and got a slapdown in a comment because he was an employee of a US government agency. Town of Greece, New York opened town meetings with prayer, so an atheist was "offended" and had to run crying to Nanny State. The foolish complaint went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where it was finally laid to rest. Coach Kevin Wallace and public school student football players prayed before a game, so they went screaming to an atheopath organization over the "separation" thing. There are many more instances of atheistic attacks on the freedoms of Christians.

Secularists try to rewrite history and deny the fact that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Secularism has been at a walk, then trot, then canter, and is pretty much at a full gallop. Most Christians (indeed, most Americans) are not interested in forcing our beliefs on others; we're not Mohammedans, after all. You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want without governmental interference unless you're plotting treason or harm to others. A good part of the problem with the erosion of Christian freedoms is rooted in evolutionary thinking, based on the biological concept of muck-to-materialist evolution. I have some items for you to see that can help clarify:
 Until we lose our freedoms, we must continue to be faithful to God's Word and proclaim the truth.

Subscribe in a reader