Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Morality’

Morality and Atheism: Who Makes The Rules?


This content is sponsored by BY RICHARD E. SIMMONS III 

“There is truth, and there is falsehood. There is good, and there is evil. There is happiness, and there is misery. There is that which ennobles, and there is that which demeans. There is that which puts you in harmony with yourself, with others, with the universe, and with God, and there is that which alienates you from yourself, and from the world, and from God…The greatest error in modern times is the confusion between these orders.” – Charles Malik, Former Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, President of the United Nations General Assembly | Unsplash Siyuan @jsycra

We live in a time where people are truly perplexed over what has gone wrong with our world. There seems to be so much instability in people’s lives. When you look into what’s happening within our culture and world, there seems to be so much moral confusion. How does a modern person determine what is right or wrong?

Max Hocutt, professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama says:

“The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules? God or men? The theistic answer is that God makes them. The humanistic answer is that men make them. This distinction between theism and humanism is the fundamental division in moral theory.”

Hocutt is correct. The problem then becomes if morals and ethics are determined by men, who makes these decisions? Who determines how we ought to live? How should we conduct our lives?

To personalize it, how do we determine what is moral if there is no God who reveals to us what is right or wrong? Is it determined by our feelings, by our ability to reason?

If there is no God, who or what is a guiding force in our lives? We must conclude what Richard Dawkins rationally describes in his book River Out of Eden:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference, DNA neither knows or cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Think about what he said. If God does not exist, then what are we as human beings? We are purposeless products of biological evolution, which means all morality is subjective. It is based on your opinion.

This has such an impact on a culture when there is no moral compass. You just follow your DNA, wherever it leads you. Richard Dawkins admitted this in a radio interview with radio host Justin Brierley, as Dawkins makes it clear that human morality is nothing more than the outcome of the evolutionary process:

Brierley: “When you make a value judgment, don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good? And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.”

Dawkins: “My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.”

Brierley: “So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.”

Dawkins: “You could say that…Nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.”

Brierley: “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.”

Dawkins: “You could say that, yeah.”

This is astonishing that the world’s most prominent atheist could not emphatically say that rape is immoral. Though he may not believe this is true within his heart, he seeks to be a consistent Darwinian atheist.

However, Dawkins does believe that it is not good for a society always to follow Darwinian morality because it is “ruthless.” He says,

“I have always said that I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to the way we should organize our lives and morality. We want to avoid basing our society on Darwinian principles.”

Dawkins, on the one hand, says that we live our lives based on our DNA, but then introduces a moral code by telling us not to follow our DNA. The more I read of Richard Dawkins, the more I recognize how inconsistent he can be.

The individual who has had the most to say about atheism and morality is the great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He clearly stated that there is no absolute right or wrong. For this reason, he had much contempt for Christianity, because it elevated such beliefs as love, morality, and humility. You can’t build a civilization of power on these beliefs.4

Nietzsche predicted that the English-speaking world would seek to abandon a belief in God, but would attempt to hold on to Christian values. However, he predicted correctly that when societies reject God, Christian morality itself will eventually disappear. The reason is because it will be more difficult to motivate people to be moral, for they will naturally follow their selfish instincts and desires.5

Dr. Arthur Leff, now deceased, was a brilliant professor at Yale Law School. Back in 1979, he published an article in the Duke Law Journal titled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law.” Today, it’s considered a very important and prominent essay. It is uncertain what Leff believed about God, but what troubled him was that if there is no God, then there’s no way that one can make any kind of case for human morality, particularly human rights. Here is a paraphrased summary of what he said:

You can say it is wrong for a majority to take advantage of any minority by force, but that is an opinion and not an argument. You can assert all sorts of things, but what you cannot do is say one point of view is morally right and all others are not. If someone says it is all right to enslave a minority, and you say no, it is wrong, who is to say your view of morality is right and theirs is wrong? Maybe it helps to frame it this way: if there is no God, who among us gets to impose their will on everyone else? Who gets to establish the moral laws that people are to follow? These questions are so intellectually troubling that you would think there would be more legal and ethical thinkers trying to come to grips with this.

Leff’s words suggest that if there is a God, then He would make the law for us to follow. We’d base our law on Him. And this, by the way, is how Western civilization was built, with biblical truth as its foundation. We require a moral foundation on which to build a culture. As T.S. Eliot penned many years ago:

“It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe… have been rooted.”

Returning to Leff’s argument, his words also suggest that if there is no God, then moral law has to be grounded in human opinion. So, we must ask, who gets to establish their human opinion as law so that everyone has to obey it? Why should your view of morality have privilege over my view? Ultimately, what you end up with is that those in power will make sure their moral values prevail. Of course, that’s what happened in Nazi Germany.

I close with this quote from Charles Malik, Former Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, President of the United Nations General Assembly:

“There is truth, and there is falsehood. There is good, and there is evil. There is happiness, and there is misery. There is that which ennobles, and there is that which demeans. There is that which puts you in harmony with yourself, with others, with the universe, and with God, and there is that which alienates you from yourself, and from the world, and from God…The greatest error in modern times is the confusion between these orders.”

Get your copy of Richard’s newest book Reflections on the Existence of God on Amazon or at reflectionsontheexistenceofgod.com. Preview Chapter 1 for free here!

Richard E. Simmons III is a Christian author, speaker, and the Executive Director of The
Center for Executive Leadership, a non-profit, faith-based ministry in Birmingham, Alabama.
His best-selling titles include The True Measure of a Man, The Power of a Humble Life,
Wisdom: Life’s Great Treasure, and his newest book, Reflections on the Existence of God.
Follow Richard on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn @thecenterbham. Tune in to
Richard’s Reliable Truth Podcast on your favorite podcast app.

This Physical Education Textbook Chapter on ‘Riflery’ will Blow a Liberal’s Mind


waving flagBy Gary DeMar July 19, 2016

What’s happened in America with guns? Why is it that tens of thousands of high school students took riflery classes for decades and there was very little gun violence in the United States?

I came across a Physical Education textbook that included chapters on riflery and archery – implements that shoot pointy projectiles.

PE_Rifle_CoverThe book Physical Education for High School Students was originally published in 1955 with a revised edition in 1960 and a second edition published in 1970.

Here’s the opening paragraph from the chapter on “Riflery”:

The United States of America was built, it is said, with three implements: the axe, the plow, and the rifle. The axe, in the hands of the stalwart pioneer, felled trees to clear the way for fields of grain. It also provided timber to build the houses, barns, and fences of our farms. The plow cut into the virgin soil of our foothills, plains, and prairies to grow the food for a young and hungry country. The rifle brought down the deer, bear, and other game to give the hardy frontiersman and his family food and clothing. It also stood as the only means of defense against his enemies, both savage and civilized.”

Throughout the chapter on Riflery there are very good instructions on how to use a rifle properly and safely. There’s even a picture of an “assault weapon.”

PE_Rifle_03

The chapter ends by declaring “Shooting is probably the safest of all sports. . . . By practicing a few simple rules every shooter can become a safe shooter.” This next sentence will make a liberal’s head explode: “One of the greatest sources of pride for the National Rifle Association is the splendid record in the safe handling of firearms set by their junior members.” The NRA is praised by a public school textbook!

The issue is not only the safe handling of firearms but the character of the person handling a firearm. Moral relativism cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgis the operational worldview of the day. Everything is up for grabs. It’s OK to kill unborn babies, redefine marriage, and even change your sex. In fact, you don’t even have to change your sex; you can just declare yourself to be whatever sex you want. It’s topsy-turvy morality, and if you say so, then you’re a racist and a homophobe who does not have the right to express your opinion.

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and resident Village Atheist recently said that death is the end of everything. This means there is no Ultimate Judge of our deeds in this life. So what is the moral objection to killing someone? Who says anything is ultimately morally wrong? No atheist can account for objective morality. 

There was a time when people believed that one day they would be judged for the deeds done in this life. God was considered to be the Supreme Judge of the world.” Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse Monticello in 1822:

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

Not anymore. Even the views of Thomas “Separation of Church and State” Jefferson would not be welcome in our nation’s government schools. Evolutionary atheism is the operating religion of our nation’s elites and the institutions they control. This new religion promotes “survival of the fittest,” “nature, red in tooth and claw,” with the benefits of rape thrown in for good progressive measure.

Evolutionary atheism is the operating religion of our nation’s elites and the institutions they control. This new religion promotes “survival of the fittest,” “nature, red in tooth and claw,” with the benefits of rape thrown in for good progressive measure.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Barbara Reynolds, former columnist for USA Today, writes about the effect of evolutionary dogmatism in our nation’s schools:

“Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in favor of evolution creates an atheistic, belligerent tone that might explain why our kids sometimes perform like Godzilla instead of children made in the image of God.

“While evolution teaches that we are accidents or freaks of nature, creationism shows humankind as the offspring of a divine Creator. There are rules to follow which govern not only our time on Earth, but also our afterlife.

* * * * *

“If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.”1

Reynolds’s comments are reminiscent of what C.S. Lewis wrote: “We make men without chests and we expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and we are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”2 We strip men and women of the certainty that they are created in the image of God, and we are surprised when they act like the beasts of the field.


  1. Barbara Reynolds, “If your kids go ape in school, you’ll know why,” USA Today (August 27, 1993), 11A. 
  2. C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, [1947] 1972), 35. 

fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Commentary: America is Spiritually, Morally, and Financially Bankrupt


waving flagCommentary By Pamela Adams April 2, 2016

Benjamin Franklin once said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” 

The Democratic Party has two candidates who are falling all over themselves trying to outdo the other in making people “easy” or comfortable in their poverty.  Candidates Sen. Bernard Sanders and Hillary Clinton both want to prove that they are the one willing to give away more free stuff:

  • free college,
  • free rent,
  • free phones,
  • free abortions,
  • free birth control,
  • free healthcare,
  • free food.

You don’t need to work or even try to become successful.  The government will take care of you.  The only thing that neither wants free is the American people or their speech.

That being said, the GOP race evidences another aspect of Franklin’s quote.  Americans are not just comfortable in their monetary poverty, they are also equally comfortable in their spiritual poverty.  On Good Friday, the National Enquire ran a story ‘claiming’ candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) – R allegedly had affairs with five women.  Anyone bothering to read the article realized it was written as a defense lawyer’s dream.  It was filled with “allegedly”, “claimed”, “supposedly” and other such words that mean, “You can’t sue us because we didn’t actually accuse anybody of anything.”  It is essentially a page out of CBS News’ National Guard story against George W. Bush that was completely based on fake documents, but that didn’t matter.  The story itself was too important.

However, it’s not the fact that a hit piece was used. Such things are expected in elections. What’s troubling is the public’s reaction to it. The best example is Michelle Collins of “The View,” who giddily admitted she hoped this scandal was true, because Cruz lives by a “crazy moral code.”  She wants to see a man like that fall.

Another co-host, Candace Cameron Bure, a devout, unapologetic Christian, called Collins out on her statement, rightfully pointing out that Ted Cruz (TX) – R’s so-called “crazy moral code” is actually a biblical lifestyle.  Though Collins relented to that fact, she continued to ramble on about wanting to see him fail because “he’s not a good guy.”

Why does she think he’s not a good guy?  Because he believes life begins at conception and that he doesn’t think taxpayer money should fund the abortion clinics known as Planned Parenthood?  Or is it because he believes in traditional marriage and Christian business owners shouldn’t be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding?  Maybe it’s just because he believes in the Constitution and that States have more rights than the federal government.  Trump has said many times he would stop such attacks on Christians.  If that is the case, this attack on Christian values should offend his supporters even if they dislike Cruz. In a similar fashion, the Black Lives Matters protesters at Trump rallies who intentionally attempt to paint him and his supporters in a bad light should equally offend non-Trump supporters.

We have gone from a people who rightly looked up to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, not because they were perfect men, but because they tried to be honorable, virtuous men. They sacrificed everything for liberty and freedom for all posterity.  But America is now so incredibly comfortable in our spiritual poverty that people are actually delighting in the fact that Cruz could be destroyed by what appears to be a completely false story because it damages a faithful Christian.  Are we so morally void of any decency that, as many have said, they actually don’t care whether it’s true as long as it destroys Cruz while completely dismissing what it does to Heidi Cruz, her girls, the five suspected women and their families?AMEN

Since the time of Woodrow Wilson and the progressive war on America started discrediting Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin, we have crushed our moral compass and discarded our national role models.  Resulting is our comfort in our ethical poverty including coveting, greed, pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce, open affairs, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, gossiping, and bearing false witness. In our enlightened world, we can openly violate the Ten Commandments as long as it gets us ahead.  We have become so comfortable and lazy in our spiritual poverty we jump on Twitter to call people “bitch”, “whore”, “slut”, “stupid”, threaten and delight in the thought of a gang rape.  We are becoming morally bankrupt towards others simply because they hold a difference of opinion or support another candidate.Different Free Speech Ideologies

2016 Americans name-calling and election-time mudslinging is nothing new in American politics.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had just as nasty of a campaign as we are seeing today.  But there was one big difference.  The insults of the 1800 election were hurled through articles written by Adams and Jefferson themselves with a few willing newspaper participants.  Today we are barraged with a 24-7 news cycle, talk radio, “The View,” podcasts and Twitter.  Rather than watching the back and forth of two candidates trying to out maneuver the other, we as a population are throwing verbal assaults at each other and refusing to find common ground.

For a population that has felt crushed under the foot of Obama and political correctness, Trump has given people the feeling of freedom to say whatever they want.  At the same time, the anonymity of the Internet has given us the protection to attack anyone with a differing opinion.  It is liberating.  But in a civil society we need to function under our own personal moral compass or we fall under the weight of our own depravity.  As it says in 1 Corinthians 10:23: “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial.  “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying.

Adams supporters and Jefferson supporters were able to come together after the election because the insults lobbed were between the two candidates, not the common man.  How are we as a people going to unite after a year of personal insults, personal attacks, and personal threats against each other? Some hurling those insults openly profess they don’t want to unite, often saying, “We don’t need you anyway,” and “Get out of the way or get run over.”  America, we are in real trouble and unless we enrich ourselves spiritually, or at least morally, it doesn’t matter who becomes president, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders or Trump, we are done as a free republic. We will require a dictator because we will become so uncivilized that society will demand someone come in and put a boot on the neck of those who can’t control themselves.

As Franklin warned, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” 

Is it possible for Trump and Cruz supporters to be civil with each other when we both claim we want to disrupt the establishment, stop ISIS, end illegal immigration, stop refugees, strengthen the economy, and limit the reach of the government?  We share common wants and beliefs.  Why can’t we share common civility?  If we can’t, we will share a common poverty, both in spirit and in the wallet, under Commandant Clinton or Bernard Sanders. 

But that’s just my 2 cents.
Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

shall notVigilance-2

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

  • First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
  • Second: “Shall not be infringed”
  • Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
  • Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
  • Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
  • Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
  • Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
  • Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
  • Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.tie it down

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.Tree of Liberty 03

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”christianity

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,  pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

two ways to enslave a nation theBible moral people John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1 John-Adams-Poster-Principles-of-Freedom JohnAdamsFaithQuote4 freedom democracy freedom combo 2

Pedophiles Now Demanding Same Constitutional Rights As Homosexuals


waving flagPosted on June 29, 2015 by

Big Gay Hate Machine

For the past several years, I’ve been warning that once homosexuality and same-sex marriage is legalized, that other sexual perversions such as pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality will demand their equal rights also.

On Friday, the US Supreme Court legalized homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which is the same as issuing a death sentence upon our nation in the eyes of God. As soon as the high court’s decision was made public, pedophile activists left the playgrounds and children’s stores to launch their campaign for legal status using the very same arguments that homosexuals used. Pedophiles are claiming that this is just another sexual orientation just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. If they are legally recognized then there is no reason why pedophilia is not legally recognized as well.

Along with their argument that pedophilia is just another form of sexual orientation, they are claiming protected status under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was passed in 2009 by the liberal Democratic Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama which states in part:

“It also creates a new federal criminal law which criminalizes willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon) when:

“(1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person or (2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction…” 

“Subsection (a)(2) of § 249 protects a wider class of victims. Subsection (a)(2) criminalizes acts of violence (and attempts to commit violent acts undertaken with a dangerous weapon) when motivated by the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person.” [Emphasis mine]

Pedophiles are citing reports issued by the American Psychiatric Association which refers to pedophiles as ‘minor-attracted people.’ In 1998, the APA also issued a report stating:

“…the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from  childhood sexual abuse experiences.”insane

Additionally, a couple of Canadian psychologist claimed that pedophilia is just another form of sexual orientation in the same way that heterosexuality and homosexuality is. Once the Supreme Court opened the door for one form of sexual perversion and sin, the precedent has been set for the justification and legalization of other sexual perversions and sin. They have turned America into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah and we all know what happened to them.SCOTUS GIANTEvil is Good

As America continues to turn its back on God and slides down the slippery slope of sin, hedonism and debauchery, our days are limited before the final wrath of God rains down upon us.

freedom combo 2

‘After Birth Abortion’ – Yes, You Read That Right


http://genfringe.com/2014/04/birth-abortion-yes-read-right/#ue68iYrMEdzfjhLI.99

Posted by on April 16, 2014@CarlyDHill

baby carriage

You know the world is upside down when the phrase “after birth abortion” exists.  Wondering what that means?  It means just what you think.  Killing healthy babies after they are born.

Two years ago, two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva wrote a medical ethics paper with this shockingly horrible “after birth abortion” concept.

The original paper states,

“…’after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled…Both a fetus and newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life.’  We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her…[A]ll the individuals who are not in a condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons.  Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life…”

People, this is where moral relativism has taken us.  We’ve gone from saying it’s okay to dismember and decapitate a baby, as long as it’s in its mother’s womb to saying that babies born healthy, really, aren’t people.

I have a three year old.  If I were to be home alone with her and faint or something – she’d get by for a few hours, but she can’t reach the food in the pantry.  She doesn’t know how to unlock the front door.  We’re working on 9-1-1, but pretty much, she’d be helpless after a while.  So, where would the guys who wrote this paper draw the line?  You might say, “Oh, surely they wouldn’t support killing a three year old who can at least feed herself and go to the bathroom,” but my question is, with their line of thinking, where do you draw the line?

Regular, run-of-the mill abortions show how sick we are – and what little regard we have for human life – but supporting the idea of killing healthy infants?  I’m speechless.

See – liberals who support moral relativism, who say “Love, peace, love, love, whatever works for you is what is right” think that they are being open-minded and loving, but really, they are advocates for a society void of morals.

A society void of morals becomes so numb to evil and so consumed with self, that they might suggest something unthinkable like, say, killing children.

Conservatives are the antagonists in this country right now – at least, that’s what the President will have you think.  Conservatives are made out to be the ones who are hateful and insensitive – but the people who are proposing concepts like “after birth abortion” are the same ones who are shouting that they are “bleeding hearts.”

Religious and political arguments aside — CNN recently reported on a study done by Yale that proved babies as young as 3 MONTHS OLD entertained with a puppet show featuring a “good” and “bad” character would take a cookie from the good character.  Almost 90% of infants preferred the “good” puppet and even chose to “punish” the bad puppet when they were given the chance – showing that even babies have a sense of JUSTICE.

Can you believe that?

As a Christian, I believe that humans are made in God’s image.  We are born sinners, but also with a natural sense of morality.

America was founded on religious freedom, yes, but also Biblical principles.  Read this article to see just a few quotes from our founding fathers.  They weren’t all Christians, but the majority were – and they all feared God.  They wrote out a plan for a FREE nation – one that didn’t force any religion on anyone, but one that was based on a Christian worldview.

I’m not for a forced-Christian country.  That’s ridiculous.  Politically, I say, the less government the better.  But, no matter where you stand on any issue, and no matter what you believe or who you worship, you can’t argue that Biblical morality produces the healthiest type of culture.

The 10 Commandments (NOT suggestions)

  1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
  2. You shall not make idols.
  3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
  4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
  5. Honor your father and your mother.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not commit adultery.
  8. You shall not steal.
  9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  10. You shall not covet.

Bottom line, morality is real.  Morality is important.  Morality is not subjective.  As soon as we start thinking of truth and morality as something that is subjective, we see medical ethics papers like this one pop up.

Abortion in utero is just as horrible as killing an infant, but many of us (myself included) become so desensitized to how widely accepted abortion is in our culture, that we are only shocked by a story like this.  There is really no difference between regular abortions and concepts like this.  And we need to keep reminding ourselves of that, lest we forget the REALITY and stop fighting for the unborn and infants alike.

Read more at

Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/29/Vladimir%20Putin-America-is-Godless-Turns-Away-from-Christian-Values

by Robert Wilde 29 Jan 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”

In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.

The law on religious sensibilities was approved in the wake of a protest in Moscow’s largest cathedral by a female punk rock group, Pussy Riot. State-run television said the group’s “demonic” protest was funded by “some Americans.” Russia’s newfound embrace of traditional values has prompted a rise in Orthodox vigilantism. Extreme groups such as the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers, an ultraconservative faction who adopted a slogan “Orthodoxy or Death,” are gaining prominence.

It was not that long ago that the United States was accusing Russia for being a “godless nation.” On March 8, 1983, Ronald Reagan said this about Russia to an audience of evangelicals:

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness–pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

History supports the 40th President of the United States’ remarks. According to a 1995 Russian presidential committee report, Soviet authorities executed 200,000 clergy and believers from 1917 to 1937, many of them crucified, scalped, and otherwise tortured. Thousands of churches were destroyed, and those that survived were turned into warehouses, garages, or museums of atheism.

Moreover, another 500,000 religious figures were persecuted and 40,000 churches destroyed in the period from 1922 to 1980, the report said. Half the country’s mosques and more than half the synagogues were also destroyed. “Clergymen were crucified on churches’ holy gates, shot, scalped [and] strangled,” said Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Commission for the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression. “I was especially shocked by accounts of priests turned into columns of ice in winter,” Yakovlev said. “It was total cruelty.”

“Lurch” Tells the World the Priorities President Obama and the State Department; Killing Christians is Okay, Banning Same Sex Marriage is NOT


Kerry Condemns Nigeria for Ban on Same Sex Marriage Not for Slaughter of Christians

For the past several years, Muslims have been attacking Christians in countries like Nigeria and the United States government has said nothing to condemn the slaughter.

Like many nations in the area and in the Middle East, Nigeria is predominately Muslim.  However, there is a significant Christian population that lives in the northern regions of the African nation.  However, Nigeria’s Muslims are determined to eradicate their country of any and all Christians.

I’ve written in the past of Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria.  In one attack, a Muslim suicide bomber attacked a Christian church during services, killing 15 and wounding 40 others.  Since many Christians attend church on Christmas Day, this has become a favorite time for Muslim attacks.  On one recent Christmas Day, Muslims bombed several Christian churches in northern Nigeria, killing at least 25 and wounding dozens more.  After these Christmas Day attacks, the Obama administration issued an impersonal short condemnation and nothing more was said or done.

In mid-November last year, Ann Buwalda, Executive Director of Jubilee Campaign said that around 1,200 Christians had been killed in northern Nigeria.  She didn’t say how many more had been wounded in the attacks, but surely it was several thousand.  Speaking to the Christian Post, she said:

“We documented 1,200 Nigerian Christians in the North of Nigeria who were killed, some by Boko Haram, some by Fulani herdsmen. These two types of attacks are persistent within several of the Northern Nigerian states.”

“With our statistic of more Christians have been killed in Northern Nigeria than the rest of the world combined.”

“Statistically, we are looking at approximately 60 percent of the world’s Christians that were killed for their faith last year was in Northern Nigeria.”

With Nigeria being the center of Christian genocide in the world, all US Secretary of State John Kerry can condemn Nigeria for is their recent ban on same sex marriages.  After Nigeria passed its law, Kerry released an official statement through the State Department saying:

“The United States is deeply concerned by Nigeria’s enactment of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act.  Beyond even prohibiting same sex marriage, this law dangerously restricts freedom of assembly, association, and expression for all Nigerians.”

What about the freedom of Nigeria’s Christians to assemble, associate and express their faith?  When they do assemble, they always do so in fear of being attacked by members of the religion of peace, or so we are told.

Kerry’s statement condemning Nigeria’s new law suggested that such a law was in conflict with international law.  But isn’t the intentional genocide of any group of people a violation of international law?  Shouldn’t the world community, as well as the US, be up in arms over the murder and wounding of thousands of Christians?

Both Barack Obama and John Kerry claim to be Christians, but they are so busy protecting the sinful and abominable lifestyle of homosexuals that they can’t be bothered to protect Christians who seems to have a much stronger faith than their own.

How many Americans would go to church on Sunday morning if they knew there was a chance that they could be the subject of a bomb attack?  I bet many of our nation’s churches would be nearly empty.  But the Christians in Nigeria hold their faith dearly and are willing to risk their lives just to worship Jesus who died for them.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s actions and lack thereof are sickening to me as are those of President Barack Obama.  Their liberal anti-Christian agendas are more important to them than the lives of Christians.  Obviously gays mean more to them than Christians who hold to God’s Word.  What does that say about their own Christian faith?

Supreme Court Opens Doors For Voter Photo ID and Early Voting Restrictions


by   http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/supreme-court-opens-doors-for-voter-photo-id-and-early-voting-restrictions/

The Obama administration has used Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to stop states from passing election laws that required photo IDs or that regulated or restricted the time and dates of early voting.  Attorney General Eric Holder used it nullify voter ID laws passed in Texas and South Carolina prior to the 2012 elections.  Since Obama took office, at least 30 states have tried to pass some kind of voting law to require a valid photo ID or to restrict the number of days available to early voting.  Obama and his henchmen have used Section 5 to attack every one of those laws and squash the states’ rights to enact them.

They claim that the laws, especially in a number of southern states, are discriminatory against blacks because they are less likely to have a photo ID and they are more likely to vote in early elections than white voters.  Passing such laws were deemed by Holder to be intentional means to suppress the votes of poor blacks in order to boost Republican advantages at the polls.

However, the US Supreme Court disagreed with President Obama and Attorney General Holder when they just rendered a 5-4 decision to strike down Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act.  In his opinion on the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

“The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems.  Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

Obama is already calling on Congress to update the formula used to determine voter racial discrimination so that Section 5 can once again be applied.  With the partisan divide in Congress, I don’t expect this to be rectified any time soon, which would allow states like Texas and South Carolina to once again enact their voter ID laws.

Naturally, all of the civil rights and minority groups are up in arms over the decision of the court and claim that this will allow more racial discrimination at the polls.  But I really wonder how they justify their claims.  Most of the poor blacks they are referring to receive some type of government assistance in the form of food stamps or other welfare programs.  Everyone that I know that receives any form of government aid has to have some form of identification, many require a photo ID.  I personally know someone who gets food stamps and Medicaid and they had to have a photo ID to get them.

So why is it discriminatory for a state to require someone to have a photo ID to vote, but not discriminatory to require a photo ID to get government aid?  The only discrimination I see in requiring a photo ID to vote is that it discriminates against voter fraud, which is one of the pillars of the Democratic Party and probably how some of their people have been elected, including Barack Hussein Obama.

Atheist Monument Opposes Ten Commandments with no Alternative


http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/atheist-monument-opposes-ten-commandments-with-no-alternative/#ixzz2Wb8b8RLA

The courtyard outside the Bradford County Courthouse in north Florida will include quotations from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the founder of American Atheists. It will also include a list of Old Testament punishments that mandate the death penalty. The atheist monument will stand next to a copy of the Ten Commandments.

Atheists have no moral standing in critiquing any moral law system. Atheism cannot account for morality. Morality is not a thing. It is not made up of atoms. Morality cannot be derived from the stuff of the cosmos or extracted from our DNA. As a result, atheists can’t argue against murder, genocide, rape, theft, or any other moral aversion. In fact, the category “morality” does not exist in a matter-only worldview.

Atheists have put together the “enjoy yourself” campaign. Here’s there logic:There's No God_enjoy Self

There’s No God. So Stop Worrying and Enjoy Yourself.

What if people enjoy killing, raping, stealing, and eating people?

If there were a set of commandments that said, “Thou shalt not drive red cars,” “Thou shalt not live in four-side houses,” and “Thou shalt not hop, skip, and jump,” there is nothing within atheism that could fundamentally raise an objection.

Arthur Leff (1935–1981), who taught law at Yale Law School, concluded that, given atheistic assumptions, no way to prove that “any particular act, no matter how horrible, is normatively wrong.” Leff stated:

“I will put the current situation as sharply as possible: there is today no way of ‘proving’ that napalming babies is bad except by asserting it (in a louder and louder voice), or by defining it as so, early in one’s game, and then later slipping it through, in a whisper, as a conclusion.”[1]

In Leff’s analysis, “‘good’ becomes just a function of nosecounting.”[2] Was he exaggerating? I don’t think so. Look around us. Where is an absolute moral standard to be found? If you say religion, you’ll never be hired by a major university or sit on the Supreme Court.

Many don’t remember how then-Senator Joe Biden grilled Clarence Thomas on his belief in Natural Law. Thomas knew that any dialog with Biden over the idea that there is a God-given law would have doomed his nomination. Thomas was smart to let Biden ramble and get his analysis of Natural Law wrong, and impossible to account for, given evolutionary assumptions which America’s new religion.

But it’s worse than that for the atheist. There is no basis for the categories “good” and “evil” in a matter-only cosmos. Anything that’s left of the idea of fixed moral laws is an illusion that will soon fade as our nation becomes consistent with what it has mandated from the courts and taught in our schools.

The acceptance of the atheist monument by civil officials and the courts as somehow being equal to the Ten Commandments is a prime indicator that secularism is on its death bed. Let’s pray that we all don’t end up there with them.

Decapitated Head Found Left in Womb


Abortion Horror Hits Michigan When Decapitated Head Found Left in Womb

By now you’ve seen and heard about the House of Horrors as it has been referred to in the news.  Abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia ran a clinic in the poorer area of the city and preyed upon thousands of young women who couldn’t afford to go anywhere else.  He has been charged with the death of one woman and four newborns, although reports from different sources clearly indicate that he has killed many more than four live born babies.

Last July we learned about 24 year old Tonya Reaves who went to a Chicago area Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion.  Not only was her unborn murdered at the clinic, so was Tonya.  She was hemorrhaging after the procedure but the staff at the clinic failed to call for help until several hours later.  But by the time help arrived and she was transported to a hospital, it was too late.  Her one year old son will never know his mother and it seems no one at the clinic was ever punished for their neglect.

Other women have died at the hands of abortion doctors and clinic workers, but that rarely ever makes the news.  In fact, Tonya Reaves death at the Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic happened on the same day that James Holmes went into the theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire.  We heard lots about that, but virtually no media covered the murder of Reaves because it would paint a negative image on abortion and they can’t let that happen, can they?

Now we are hearing about another abortion horror story, only this time it’s coming from Muskegon, Michigan.  Dr. Robert Alexander, the abortionist in question, has had several of his patients sent to the emergency room after botched abortions.  According to one OB/GYN who has seen several of Alexander’s victims:

“Dr. Alexander perforated the woman’s uterus so badly that it was hanging on by two blood vessels.  The decapitated head of a fetus was in the woman’s abdomen and the large intestine had been grasped and pulled away from its blood supply and into the vagina. The woman required a hysterectomy, colonoscopy [colectomy?], and several units of blood to save her life.”

The worse part of this is that there were multiple complaints filed against Alexander for his negligence, but those complaints were not taken seriously by the Michigan Board of Medicine.  In 2009, Dr. George Shade, chairman of the board responded to a complaint by stating that no investigation was needed.  Further investigation revealed that Alexander had served time in prison for selling illegal prescriptions and had his medical license suspended.  Upon his release from prison, Dr. George Shade helped Alexander get his license re-instated by becoming his mentor and helping him.

Eventually in December 2012, Alexander’s clinic was shut down.  When police entered the clinic to investigate a break-in on Dec. 26, 2012, they found what they described as unsafe and unsanitary conditions, not too dissimilar to that of the clinic that Gosnell operated in Philadelphia.  They found blood dripping from the p-trap of a sink, dirty and stained medical equipment, improper storage of needles, a leaking ceiling and bags of trash next to lab equipment.  The fire department also discovered that the clinic had been illegally dumping chemicals and other liquids down the drain.

Fortunately, Alexander is no longer murdering babies in Muskegon, but that doesn’t mean he can’t go elsewhere and start again.  The OB/GYN doctor that reported finding the decapitated head in the mother’s womb commented about the clinic being shut down, saying:

“I, for one, was very happy to hear he is no longer practicing in Muskegon, but I fear for women anywhere this man would go.”

In this case, it was Alexander’s connection to Dr. George Shade, that allowed him to continue to butcher women and babies and run another House of Horror.  All it takes is one or two shootings for liberal Democrats to react and take action against guns.  How many of these incidents will it take before they take action to shut down the bloody institution of abortion?  Sandy Hook saw the death of 20 kids.  Abortion kills between 750,000 to 1,300,000 kids a year.  You weigh the difference and tell me there isn’t an agenda on both issues.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/abortion-horror-hits-michigan-when-decapitated-head-found-left-in-womb/#ixzz2SXWNBcMU

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: