Government control

I really don’t want to be or to come across like one of those black helicopter conspiracy theory nuts, but we have been down this road of unfettered Federal government control before.

It was not pretty then and it will be less so now due to the lack of the restraining hand of a shared semi-christian culture.

Any time a group of people who are convinced that they are smarter than everybody else and that they care more than everybody else assumes reins of power (incidentally, with the white house, the house of representatives and now 60 votes in the senate, make no mistake, the power of these “do-gooders” is completely unfettered), then the rest of us will pay the price for their hubris.

Here is an excellent post summarizing some of the greatest hits of centralized American government in the past and how they are connected to now.

To an outsider, the Fernald school in Waltham Massachusetts looked like any other educational institution. During the school’s hay day in the 1920’s and 30’s, few passers-by would have guessed the dark secret lurking behind the brick walls – a secret penetrating to the heart of American liberalism.

Fernald was no ordinary school. Set up in 1848 with funds from the Massachusetts State Legislature, the institution was designed for the incarceration of “feeble-minded” children. Throughout the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of low-intelligence (though not necessarily retarded) children were warehoused at Fernald in unspeakable conditions. Treated like animals and denied any affection, these “human weeds” were considered genetically inferior from the rest of society.

In his book The State Boys Rebellion, Michael D’Antonio shows that one of the purposes behind the Fernald school was to prevent these “idiots” from reproducing and diluting the gene pool. Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, put it even more succinctly: “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”

It was not until the 1960s that the school began releasing their children to live in the outside world.


Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to hush it up, it is a fact of history that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the National Research Council, Planned Parenthood and the pre-1960’s Democratic Party, all supported the right of the US government to engage in Eugenic selection, while thirty states adopted legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals or classes. Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical libertarians, on the other hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition to such policies.

The underlining premise behind the American eugenics movement was the view that irresponsible individualism in breeding would act as a cancer on the human gene pool, harming posterity. Government held the future of the human race in its reigns and could improve the evolutionary direction of the nation – and indeed the world – through strategic intervention.


Nevertheless, the ideological coordinates behind these abuses remain as intact as ever within the minds of American left, although they have found a myriad of different expressions.

Consider, for example, the widespread assumption that the state has the vocation to act as a supra steward of the human race. In January, James Hansen of NASA (known as the “father” of the global warming movement), told the Guardian that Obama “has only four years to save the world.” Hansen painted a chilling picture of the apocalyptic future awaiting us if government failed to assert drastic measures like the “carbon tax.”

It is not hard to see the continuity Hansen’s remarks have with the eugenics politics of the last century. In both cases, the underlying premise is that the state holds the future of the human race in its reigns, and unless significant freedom is surrendered over to them, irresponsible individualism will destroy our chances – or our children’s chances – on this planet.


The American left has not departed from this basic utilitarian criterion. Consider the justification liberals are constantly giving for using taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research (which involves the destruction of humans at the embryonic stage). They tell us that such research is justified because it can save lives. In other words, the end justifies the means when the end is the greater good of the human race. We see this same callous utilitarianism in the other ethical debates over killing innocent human beings: whether the killing of innocent humans occurs at the embryonic stage (certain forms of stem cell research), the foetal stage (abortion) or the elderly stage (euthanasia), these practices are defended by an appeal to the greater good either of society or (in the case of euthanasia) of the individual who elects to kill himself. As with the social Darwinism of the 20th century, the casualties of this utilitarian approach are inevitably the weakest and helpless members of society.

emphasis added.

Go read the rest of the post and also get the book. I am telling you that Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, is one of the most timely and important things you can read to understand the current political moment.

Have you noticed that the treasury department is taking over banks and not letting them pay back the money that gave the treasury control? have you noticed that GM and Chrysler are being unceremoniously delivered over to ownership by the government and the United Auto Workers Union? Do these things worry you any at all? they should.

We are on a very bad path. a very bad path indeed.

hat tip to vitamin z


truth in love

Paul reminded the Ephesian church that only with truth would there be mature Christian unity and only if truth was spoken in love.

Truth cannot be ducked or minimized in any way, but it must be softened with compassion. It is not compassionate to downplay or minimize or disregard truth.

Dr. Mohler wrote about this the other day in the context of homosexuality.

first the truth:

The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?

Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.

Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality–and taught to esteem marriage as God’s intention for human sexual relatedness.

The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender–what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God’s gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.

but with compassion:

And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well–compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.

Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.

Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love–and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.

Go read the rest. Great stuff.

evolution doubts

Keith Mathison has reviewed James Le Fanu’s book Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves.

It sounds interesting:

What is potentially more interesting in this case is that Le Fanu does not raise his doubts from the perspective of Christianity or even Intelligent Design. On the existence of a Creator, Le Fanu seems to be agnostic (p. 122). His argument is more basic. He argues that Darwinism should be objectively judged like any other scientific theory and concludes that if it is judged objectively, we have to conclude that Darwinism is insufficient to account for all of the facts of nature. To demonstrate this, he focuses most of his attention on the discoveries of the New Genetics, in particular the Human Genome Project, as well as research into the workings of the human brain. He argues that purely physical and material processes alone do not account for all that we encounter and that there must be some kind of non-material biological phenomenon in existence as well.

Le Fanu spends a considerable amount of time criticizing the weaknesses of Darwinism as science. He claims that Darwinism has survived as long as it has only because it is often formulated in such a way that it becomes immune to any and all criticism. Furthermore, he argues, in this one case, scientists prefer what many of them know to be a bad theory to no theory at all. This, he believes, results in Darwinism being a hindrance rather than a help to good science. He writes, “The greatest obstacle to scientific progress, after all, is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge” (p. 108). Darwinists, he argues, have locked themselves into a self-made intellectual prison that prevents them from seeing, much less exploring, the truly interesting questions about life.

I would like to recommend again the book Who was Adam for anyone interested in seeing creationists’ attempt to formulate a truly scientific model for creation that accounts for the fossil evidence and genetic advances.

Don McElroy has been relentlessly pilloried by the media and “scientific community” for having the temerity to express doubts about darwinian evolution that are similar to those expressed by Le Fanu. His confirmation as Chairman of the Board of Education is currently pending in the Texas Senate. This might be a good time to express support for him to your Texas state senator, especially if you live in Senator Watson or Shapleigh’s district.

Mathison expects the same treatment for Le Fanu from the notoriously open minded, tolerant, willing to learn and admit error scientific community:

One does not have to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to predict the response that Le Fanu’s book will receive from the defenders of Darwinist orthodoxy. (Simply witness the response to Ben Stein’s film Expelled). We can expect shrill and dismissive book reviews, articles, and blog comments accusing Le Fanu of everything from incipient senility to mental illness to (worst of all) being a “creationist.” Ironically, most of these comments and “reviews” will be written by people who have not read Le Fanu’s book. In the scientific world, Le Fanu has committed the equivalent of blasphemy. He is the newest “Danish cartoonist” of Darwinism.

“tolerance” is a one-way street

Have you noticed that “tolerance” these days is a one way street. Basically it means we all have to like and celebrate whatever gets crammed down our throat and in return we get to be mocked hated and ridiculed.

As Exhibit A, take the way Miss California was treated during and after the recent Miss U.S.A. pageant when she expressed her belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Andrew Breitbart says it was a set up.

At the point in the pageant when the young lovelies are asked questions by those who pick the winners, the flamboyantly gay man (who by day pries into the private lives of stars and scrawls human DNA-spewing phalli under the faces of those he doesn’t like) asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she approved of gay marriage.

It was a setup.

Miss Prejean is a student at San Diego Christian College – the kind of place activist gay leftists are at war with, where Christians preach what they practice.

Andrew has also noticed how the activists are selective in the targets for their concerted outrage.

On display at the Miss USA event was the activist left’s pageant of selective bullying, a concerted strategy to go after low-hanging fruit like Mormons. But the left leaves off its hit list members in good standing of its normal coalition – its “rainbow” coalition. In California, one of the gayest places on the map, blacks and Hispanics – who disproportionately disapprove of same-sex marriage – get a stunning pass from outraged proponents of gay marriage.

Since 9/11, the highly organized gay left has also been deafeningly silent on Islam’s anti-modern approach to homosexuality – let alone same-sex unions. The mullahs in Iran somehow get a major pass while the director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento is targeted for ruin. This contradiction is not subtle. Indeed, it’s obvious and pathetic

and Andrew wonders if this approach will have success for the homosexual community.

I fear the vicious and hypocritical path that the activist gay left is headed on will eventually be met with a backlash. If it already hasn’t. Activism goes both ways and somehow the majority has a way of having its say. Unless the gay community polices itself better and registers its displeasure against these pitiful and selective acts of political retribution, many tolerant Americans who hold the same beliefs on marriage as Mr. Obama and the Dalai Lama are going to begin to register their displeasure at the voting booth and through consumer boycotts against those who employ or support the thuggish tactics of Perez Hilton and his ilk.

our response to these kinds of tactics from the likes of Perez Hilton is obvious. But I wonder if the contradictions inherent in their approach will ever catch up with them in the larger population. I doubt it.


Driscoll is doing a series of articles on spiritual gifts. Since he is charismatic, his series would be different than mine, but it is quite good nonetheless.

His latest post is on the spiritual gift of wisdom.


The gift of wisdom is the ability to have insight into people and situations that is not obvious to the average person, combined with an understanding of what to do and how to do it. It is the ability to not only see, but also apply the principles of God’s Word to the practical matters of life by the “Spirit of wisdom” (Eph. 1:17).

how to know if you have it:

Here are some questions to ask yourself:

When studying God’s Word, do you find that you discover the meaning and its implications before others do?
Do you seem to understand things about God’s Word that other believers with the same background and experience don’t seem to know?
Are you able to apply biblical truth in a practical way to help counsel others to make good life choices?
Do you get frustrated when people make foolish decisions that damage their quality of life, because you know what they should have done instead?
Do you find that when people have important decisions to make, they come to you for prayer and biblical counsel?
Do you find that when you counsel people, God the Spirit gives you wisdom to share with them from Scripture, which they accept as God’s truth to them through you?

a lesson in faith from Hebrew midwives

Kevin DeYoung points to Exodus 1:17 for a lesson in faith from Hebrew midwives.

here it is:

“17But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.”

and here is Kevin’s conclusion:

The bottom line is that we will never display strength in the face of temptation, or courage in the face of opposition, or boldness in the face of disapproval unless we think it a bigger deal to disobey God than to disappoint men. In Jesus’ day, many believed in him, “but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God” (John 12:42-43). Without the fear of God in our lives, we may manage to look like decent, respectable, nice people, but we will not receive the glory that comes from God. We will not shine as light and preserve as salt. And we would have killed Moses.

Now for further study, reconcile Exodus 1:17 with Romans 13:1-7

secret agent man

Kevin Roose, raised a liberal Quaker, from Brown University enrolls at Liberty University in order to write a book. Hilarity ensues.

Bryan P emailed me this story last night and it is kind of intriguing.

two bits in particular struck me:

Yet, some students also grilled him about his relationship with Jesus and condemned non-believers to hell.

After a gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in April 2007, a Liberty student said the deaths paled next to the millions of abortions worldwide — a comment Roose says infuriated him.
Roose said his Liberty experience transformed him in surprising ways.

When he first returned to Brown, he was shocked by the sight of a gay couple holding hands — then shocked at his own reaction. He remains stridently opposed to Falwell’s worldview, but he also came to understand Falwell’s appeal.

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly — for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

He’s even considering joining a church.

First, as a side note, have you ever noticed how simplistic the prose is in USA Today? I haven’t either until I was snipping these two quotes. Wow.

Second, I wonder why did that comment about abortion infuriate him? Any time there is anger, I get curious.

Third, isn’t it interesting that Roos professes to be more open to the faith now? Even after experiencing Liberty University’s version?