Annihilating Jesus

Photo credit: Fr. Stephen, MSC (Creative Commons)

Thirty years ago, Naturalist John Dunphy made this shocking and bold declaration:

“The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.” – A Religion for a New Age, Humanist Magazine, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26

Every American child receives a free religious education in our public school system. The central religious belief at the heart of our public school curriculum is Religious Humanism.

The leaders and innovators in American academia have been a dominant influential force on society over the past half-century. They have systematically infused our collegiate institutions with a progressive philosophy hellbent on eradicating Judeo-Christian influences and institutions in the name of Church-State Separation. Our public schools have been utterly transformed as our Judeo-Christian values are methodically underminded and overturned.

Academia has gone so far as to essentially rewrite history. Our textbooks testify to the sins of omission carefully applied, a fitting sacrifice to the gods of humanism. The only thing worse than trivializing the faith of our founders is pretending they had none.

According to the Humanist Manifesto, signed by a collection of progressive elite intellectuals in 1933:

“Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.”

It’s time everyone take a moment to evaluate their faith. Is Jesus truely the hope for fallen mankind? Or shall we merely live for today, for tommorrow we die?

The days of shallow faith and straddling the fence are over. The souls of our children are on the line. The time is now. Who shall we serve?

Reflecting back on his controversial article in 1994, Mr. Dunphy had this to say:

“Pat Buchanan was right at the 1992 Republican National Convention when he stated that a cultural civil war rages across America….But here’s something that Mr. Buchanan neglected to mention in his address: humanism is going to win.”

We are living in a day where the lying and cheating ways of those in high places go unchallenged in order that their perception of a greater good may be advanced. Are these the people to whom you will place your faith?

Are we complicit with those who seek to bury the truth of a Savior come down from Heaven for the sins of mankind?

If we are worth His death, then He will be worth our faith.

“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.”


Photo credit: Fr. Stephen, MSC (Creative Commons)

Breaking Down Evolution, Part 1

Photo credit: atheism (Creative Commons)

There is an ideological war of worldviews, and evolution is at the heart of it.

As the battle for the hearts and minds of men wages, it often gets pretty ugly.

“After the release of ‘Evolution vs God’ it energized the hatred that many atheists have for me. …Darwinian evolution is a hill upon which atheists and evolution believers are prepared to die. It says that we are primates, that there are no moral absolutes, and there’s no God to whom we must answer.” – Ray Comfort

In this battle for worldview supremacy, everyone has some skin in the game. There are four major camps competing for recognition. Not surprisingly, scientific and religious allegiances are at the center of each of these groupings, which include: non-believing atheists/secular humanists, theistic evolutionists, intelligent design advocates, and creationists.

I will reveal my bias right up front. I fall somewhere between the last two categories. I am of the popular opinion (among Christian orthodoxy) that although the Bible is not solely documented history, it is totally reliable nonetheless.

My interest in the battle for worldview supremacy became a personal and a spiritual one. I was sick and tired of getting intellectually ‘slapped around’ and mocked for ‘not understanding the science of evolution.’ Determined to do my best to understand the ‘science,’ I decided that if evolution is true, I would give up the ‘fairy tale.’ [Note: Individuals who see themselves as a member of the 'Theistic Evolution' camp see no conflict with the science of evolution and the truths of the Bible and consider any possible conflict a matter of flawed Biblical interpretation].

I tried to objectively consider the genetic mutations and proposed transitions/intermediaries that have been presented by the scientific establishment to promote evolution of the species from a common ancestor. I also considered some of the other physical, psychological, and social variables that define the human experience. I tried to consider every domain of human experience that would lend itself to scientific inquiry (as per the dogmatic naturalist).

In doing so, I’ve come to the realization that the evidence for evolution has not really advanced in any substantial or meaningful way. New considerations (and maybe even a few exciting proposals) may develop; but overall, the same barriers remain and continue to be reaffirmed (although not publicly of course).

Admittedly, I have a more skeptical, big picture approach. An ardent and faithful supporter of evolution often finds himself harping on some ‘suspect’ evidence dependent upon unsound variables to advance the reliability of a proposed ‘find’ or ‘evidential proof.’ However, a just case can be made for the belief that evolution was (at least partially) founded and heavily promoted with purposefully hostile motives toward God. I’m not convinced it was conceived on the evidence. I firmly believe that if the science community actually followed where the evidence leads, ‘molecules to man’ evolution would be swiftly denounced.

Regardless of what we’re told, the unfortunate truth remains – evolution is merely ideology in disguise.

Evolution has less to do with empirical evidence and more to do with ideology. The promotion of evolution as scientific fact enables a humanistic form of secular elitism to dominate the culture and determine societal laws for the masses. The infiltration of secular humanism into our legal system, natural sciences, history books, and public opinion ensures a nationally established bias that honors political correctness over objective, existential reality.

To be continued…

Photo credit: atheism (Creative Commons)

The Face of Dissent

 Photo credit: scismgenie (Creative Commons)

Political Dissident – a dissenter from political orthodoxy.

Dissenter – a person who dissents from some established policy.

Political dissent is expressed dissatisfaction with policies of the government. Levels of expressed dissent may range from vocal disagreement to civil disobedience to the use of violence.

Repressive governments seek to punish political dissent. Protection of the freedom to conduct/express peaceful dissent is a hallmark of free and open societies.

Considering our established rule of law, what entity would fit the ‘political dissent’ profile?

What if the folks running the show are the true dissenters?

Occupy Corporation’s Susan Powell reports:

According to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informant ‘this administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list.’

If you are a defender of the 3C’s (more specifically an outspoken Conservative, Christian, and Constitutionalist), you can be sure you are at the top of that list!

You can also add a 4th C to that list – Capitalist.

The fulfillment of the progressive vision is at hand. According to Dissent Magazine:

Health care is at the center of our collective demands for economic security, racial justice, gender equality and a fairer distribution of wealth in our society. Winning the battles over Obamacare will advance those and other issues, and help to unite disenfranchised communities and economically squeezed working- and middle-class families to win Big Things and build a better America.

That’s the message they are touting. Reality and history paints a completely different picture, however. Opportunity and freedom will be restricted, not enhanced, by this nation’s fundamental change of direction.

Our Rule of Law has been completely turned upside down. It’s the reason why the Tea Party is so reviled by both political parties.

Short of something unforeseen, it will only get worse.

However, this Administration is experiencing some dissent from an unlikely source. reports:

More than anything, politics is about self-preservation, and the last two weeks provided numerous examples of how public opinion has turned so hard against the law that even its most ardent supporters are running for the hills. It’s not just red-state Democrats, like Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, distancing themselves from the law. It’s blue-state senators like Oregon’s Jeff Merkley and New Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen — and top blue-state recruits like Michigan’s Gary Peters and Iowa’s Bruce Braley, who voted for GOP legislation Friday that the White House said would “gut” the law. Nearly every House Democrat in a competitive district joined with Republicans to threaten the law. Without a quick fix, those ranks will grow.

Could the tide be turning? Stay tuned!

Photo credit: scismgenie (Creative Commons)

RIP Privacy; Thanks Obamacare!!


It was just the other day that I happened to come across this message of outrage and frustration expressed by one of my fellow Americans:

I just returned from an Office visit with one of my Doctors and I had to sign, which I refused to do, NEW HIPPA REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY OBAMACARE. A few of the items that I really hated were; 1) they could disclose medical information as required by Federal, State or local law WITHOUT MY CONSENT OR NOTIFICATION 2) It specifically noted that they were required to release WITHOUT MY CONSENT OR NOTIFICATION National Security and Intelligence Activities that said to ….authorized Federal or State authorities for intelligence, counterintelligence, or OTHR Governmental activities prescribed by law to protect our National Security 3) Protective Services for the President and Others which said …they were required to release WITHOUT MY CONSENT OR NOTIFICATION…to authorized Federal officials so that they may provide protection to the President, other authorized persons, or foreign heads of State, OR TO CONDUCT SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS 4) I could request this information NOT be released, which they did NOT have to abide by, ONLY IF I PAID IN FULL FOR ALL SERVICES, LABS PROCEDURES At the time of such service.

This justifiable reaction was in response to the new ACA-related language added to the new health privacy authorization/disclosure form we are now heavily persuaded to sign when treated by a health professional. But not so fast, advises The Citizen Council for Freedom.

Ever since 1996, our government has retained access to review and share our personal health records as needed (basically however they see fit, I guess.). Thanks to the legal requirements of the Economic Stimulus Law of 2009, the HIPPA privacy rule now enables up to 2.2 million entities to have access to our private health records (up from 6,000).

The Citizen Council for Freedom recommends two things:

1. Don’t sign

2. Contact your state representative and request legislation be proposed to prevent the federal government from accessing your private medical records without your consent.

What happens if we sign the consent?

Well, the government can access our records regardless. However, if we refrain from signing, a record of our consent (regardless of how informed it is) cannot be used against us if we were ever to claim a privacy rights violation. We are extremely vulnerable, especially considering the current ideological trends. This is serious!

If this weren’t aggravating enough, the repressive progressive movement also got a big jolt recently when liberal activist Sean Penn advocated the good Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, be committed for standing up for the individual rights of the American majority.

Let’s consider some of his finer points.

According to Penn, ‘there’s a mental health problem in Congress.’ Thankfully, after diagnosing the problem, Penn was quick to propose a solution in the form of state-sanctioned re-education. (Had to know those FEMA camps would prove useful).

Basically, any and all resistance could ‘be solved by committing them by executive order, I think.’ Essentially, Penn considers the call for Constitutional restraint ‘a cry for help.’

Reflecting upon the bold insights of this fine student of the arts forced me to ponder a vital question:

What planet is this guy on?

Maybe we can escort him off of ours? A trip around the moon, maybe?

But Penn is a liberal, and we all know that liberalism is the more ‘compassionate’ political persuasion. Penn does eventually go out of his way to recognize the wounded spirit of America; and despite his philosophical peculiarities, his compassion will always seemingly prevail:

“I think we should take care of him, he is in trouble.”

In trouble? Commitment?

All sarcasm aside, I fear that Penn’s willingness to ‘care’ for one experiencing a ‘personal crisis’ – a Constitutional crisis if you will – is compelling this ‘sentimental sort’ to harken back to the days of Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.

Welcome to Sean and Barry’s America! A place where we are stripped of our privacy and our dignity…. as well as our sanity.

A Culture War Worth Fighting For!

Photo credit: his grace (Creative Commons)

I think the Pope should stop doing interviews.

When it comes to Moral Law and the Gospel, we’re not talking “either/or.’ The gospel message includes (or more specifically begins with) repentance from sin, not acceptance of sin.

Are gays banned from attending services? NO. But if the Pope says gay marriage is a sin, he’s not inclusive enough? Give me a break! The media knows the answers – maybe they should stop asking!

What I really am concerned about is the NSA spying on the pope and the abrupt stepping-down of the last pope – something stinks!

The problem is ‘they’ ( the Radical Liberal Elite) want to ban sin talk as hate speech. I think we need to remind folks that divorce is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. Because if sin is deemed irrelevant, why would anyone care about a Gospel?

Government is trying to be our god.

No God, no ethics, no morals – top down, it’s now become the American Way. A lawless government will breed a lawless society that will eventually give way to anarchy. Their take-home message is ultimately “drink, eat, and be merry; for tomorrow, we die.” Except they grant themselves the power to decide what you should drink, what you should eat, and if you are to be merry (or endure misery).

We’ve seen our government lie, cheat, and steal for their own perceived ‘greater good’ – so why should we trust them?

Conservative America is swiftly tiring of the ‘assumptive language’ of the progressive machine! We are weary of the activist agendas of liberals who mockingly dismiss Biblically-defined realities while promoting secular-progressive causes that undermine the Constitution and a country founded on traditional, Judeo-Christian principles. To these lawless activists, Karl Marx is like a prophet:

Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle….Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.

Basically, Marx (using Darwin’s insights to his full advantage) insists that God is dead and that the designed purpose in nature is a fallacy. So we are to believe that Marx and his disciples know what’s best for humanity. If they are to have their way, we must step aside and let them implement their brand of ideology.

And what should come of a social system of moral-based laws founded on Judeo-Christian principles? According to Marx, we need to defy reason and our God-given conscience and blow it up!

To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness.

There is a fatal flaw in their line of reasoning, however, as the law of probability destroys the slightest inclination toward a system of complexity born (and intricately evolved) from thin air. The absurdity of uncreated creation and the utter inefficacy of unguided naturalism exposes a level of blindly willed ignorance void of rational consideration and intellectual integrity.

In 1962, renowned French mathematician Emile Borel presented the law of probability known as the Single Law of Chance as “extremely simple and intuitively evident, though rationally undemonstrable.” He went on to explain that “events whose probability is extremely small never occur” and how rational man “must act, in all circumstances, as if they were impossible.”

To ensure that the last remnant of faith in blind evolution is filed away for good in the ‘when pigs fly category’ (although it is not beneath a desperate evolutionist to maintain that a ‘flying pig’ remains within the realm of scientific possibility), let’s consider a final nail in the probability coffin. Borel asserts that the law of chance applies to ”the sort of event, which, though its impossibility may not be rationally demonstrable, is, however, so unlikely that no sensible person will hesitate to declare it actually impossible. If someone affirmed having observed such an event we would be sure that he is deceiving us or has himself been the victim of a fraud.”

Sounds like evolutionary change could be subject to the law and as such should be swiftly deemed DOA. The absurdity of abiogenesis and blind evolution is absolute. Anyone who argues to the contrary has a personal agenda for doing so.

Tragically, a significant percentage of today’s youth actively harbor disdain for Biblical Christianity and moral absolutism.

Christianity will never be PC. We have too much pride to embrace a Redeemer. Pride comes before a fall, however. And never has America been so blatantly in need of redemption.

Ironically, the idea that we accidentally evolved from random chemicals is deemed PC by today’s secular standards. Regardless, the fact that such an idea has been deemed politically correct does not make it any less absurd. Rather, the true absurdity lies in a widespread and ever-increasing cultural shift toward individual and social narcissism deeply rooted in the prideful agnosticism of the modern man. The average young adult suffers from a warped sense of entitled purposelessness.

Christian hypocrisy has also played a role. We lost our influence, and America is now reaping what we helped sow. The Culture War is alive like never before. The heart and soul of America is on the line. I can’t see America going down without a fight. But we cannot fight such an enemy on our own. It’s time to humble ourselves and give God back all honor, praise, and glory. That’s the only way we win. God will win, regardless.

Are we on His side?


Photo credit: his grace (Creative Commons)