For my Christian friends who are left wing …

Introduction and Disclaimers

As President, Donald Trump often lacked character, sensibility or statesmanship  – and sometimes all three. Too often, President Trump was Petulant Trump.

I will not attempt to defend the indefensible, nor am I calling everyone who didn’t vote for Donald Trump to repent. But this post isn’t really about Donald Trump, who I wish didn’t prevail in the 2016 Republican primaries.

A worldview transcends one president. On policy and integrity, there are countless preferable Republicans – Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, and Nikki Haley among them.

Respectable people have foreign policy or geopolitical disagreements, and they span “an” economic spectrum, even crossing the centre line. I stress “an”, not “the”, for totalitarian economics is theft, as is strangling private industry or crowding out interpersonal or religious charity.

Understood? I’m not a Trump supporter, and some respectable Christians are left of centre on some issues. And, those brothers and sisters are my target audience. 

The heriachy of values

If you could only own one book, would it be a Bible?

This question demonstrates that everyone operates with a hierarchy of values. 2020 answered “is a pharmacy or a casino more essential” quite clearly. You’d probably cancel Netflix before your plumbing services, or buy food before concert tickets.

2020 also proved that people don’t agree where religion ranks on a league table of societal importance.  Prior decades proved this too, in that Sunday church attendance ranges from “weekly” to “never”. 

Freedom to obey the Bible

Quoting the English theologian Carl Truman, “[Young people] have a hard choice to make in the next decade. You really do kid only yourselves if you think you can be an orthodox Christian and be at the same time cool enough and hip enough to cut it in the wider world. Frankly, in a couple of years it will not matter … how much fair trade coffee you drink, how many craft beers you can name, how much urban gibberish you spout, how many art house movies you can find that redeemer figure in, and how much money you divert from gospel preaching to social justice: maintaining biblical sexual ethics will be the equivalent in our culture of being a white supremacist.”

The 2020 Democratic Party Platform outlined one of the critical differences between the two major parties. I quote, “We will reject the Trump Administration’s use of broad religious exemptions to allow businesses, medical providers, social service agencies, and others to discriminate.”

The Apostle Paul urged believers to pray for governments “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

Bluntly, the Democratic Party seeks to prevent Christians living their daily life in godliness. Their platform would place your brothers and sisters in Christ in an “obey God or obey man” scenario.

These situations have lifelong legal consequences, and legal consequences bring personal and familial consequences. The Democratic Party is a threat to every Christian family and church community, regardless of the skin colour of its members.

 
One question I would encourage every Christian who voted for or voiced preference for the Democratic Party to answer is “where is my off ramp”, “when do I abandon ship” or “when do I make a right turn?” 

As distant as you may be from the conservative party on gun policy, health care, environmental issues, immigration, industrial relations, or another issue, the left wing alternative is already the town hall meeting where Christians are unwelcome without draconian censorship. The religious freedom of how many brothers and sisters needs to be threatened before you abandon the Democratic Party vehicle?

The trajectory from opposing some freedom to live according to the Scriptures isn’t towards a grand bargain or truce, or reversing a few steps so that Christians are only marginalized in some employments. The trajectory is increasing marginalization, then ostracism, then persecution. Can anyone say with any sincerity the Democratic Party is becoming less hostile to Biblical convictions?

To use a maritime analogy, the Democratic Party is a hostile warship encroaching upon a community called religious liberty. If you are supporting the Democratic Party, perhaps you aren’t firing the canons, but you are part of the maintenance crew helping the encroaching warship. Your Christianity bans you from steering the ship, and that ship intends to one day fire those canons against your brethren (and you), yet you are willingly a “long term pawn” offering material support to this Democratic Party?

There have been several Supreme Court decisions where if only the justices nominated by Presidents of the Democratic Party had voted, the freedom of your brothers and sisters to live according to the Scriptures would have been ruled illegal, and precedents would be established for marginalization to permeate the nation, especially anywhere under a progressive governor. Already. Past tense. And the Democratic Party continues a bottomless downward spiral into anti-Christian social liberalism. 

Do you pray that your brothers and sisters will be hurled before a court for refusing to lend their professional skills or creative talents to the celebration of baby killing or sexual immorality? Within the Overton Window, what political issue eclipses this in a Biblical heriachy of values?

Finally, while I respect many people who ideologically diverge from me about the size and scope of government, enlarging the size of a government which desires to impede religious freedom requires considerably more caution than it would in a homogenous religious climate. 

Is voting to enlarge something which may exclude Christians prudent? Especially when Christians would  additionally need to pay for their own alternative, and with less take home pay? Ask “will the government do this virtuously” before enlarging the government do that thing materially.

Social progressivism would force Christian service providers to the poor and needy to choose between their fidelity to Biblical sexuality and their ministries of lovingkindness. “Help the widow, the orphan, the poor, or the impaired? Not with Biblical sexual ethics!”

The lives of babies

Unquestionably, the Republican Party continues to be imperfect on abortion.
That said, the legal road is treacherous, with the Democratic Party for decades opposing any supreme court nominee they aren’t confident supports Roe vs Wade and the judicial activism which spawned it.

Yet, the imperfect Republican Party with a pro-abortion senator not merely in rather blue Maine but deep red Alaska, remains infinitely superior to the Democratic Party on this issue. Where the Republican Party has an anti-abortion reflex, the Democratic treasures abortion as a sacrament.

For example, the “Mexico City Policy” which restricts overseas abortion funding was implemented by Republican Ronald Reagan, repealed under Democrat Bill Clinton, reinstated under Republican George W Bush, repealed again under Democrat Barack Obama, reinstated again under Republican Donald Trump, and a third repeal under Democrat Joe Biden is impending.

 
Surely, “what is your view on the legality of the murder of millions of babies” is itself a character issue. A politicians view on abortion is a character issue. Is there actually a greater character issue pertinent to politics today?

If someone said “I support chattel slavery” or even “I’m partial towards a political party which supports chattel slavery”, would this be a serious character issue or just a policy difference? Then, would not consistency mean being pro-abortion or even partial towards a pro-abortion political party is also a top priority character issue?

If character disqualifies Donald Trump, character even more strongly disqualifies the Democratic Party. 

But, the pandemic?

I’m Australian, where community transmission is zero most days, basically everything is open, barely anyone is wearing a mask, and the economy is roaring back.

I would give most northern hemisphere leaders between a C- and a D- on pandemic management, Trump included. But, although I’m doubtful Trump could pass a seventh grade science exam, he made one exceptional call in handling the pandemic.

Recall, that amid criticism from particularly China and the UN, Donald Trump closed the American travel border with China. Joe Biden accused him of xenophobia. When Donald Trump made this decision, which gave a green light to other nations to slow (relatively speaking) the global spread, Joe Biden (and other Democrats) were playing partisan identity politics with a pandemic. Which means with human lives.

You can be a statesman, practice identity politics, or neither, but you cannot be a statesman while pushing identity politics. Identity politics is a magnetic obstruction to a moral compass, and thereby disqualifies you as a statesman. 

As President, Joe Biden will also learn that you cannot govern beyond where the people respect you. You can only exceed public opinion to a degree until public understanding becomes public animosity. Trust amid disagreement or controversy is earned by character, not by office. Shutting down an economy without bipartisan public respect can endanger peace and national unity. 

The Democratic Party is blinded by identity politics in ways the Republican Party is not. That this extended into geopolitics should frighten everyone, including American allies who have legitimate strong foreign policy criticisms of Trump. Yes, I have several.

To return to my maritime analogy, why would you act as the aerial support to a hostile navy?

What about third parties?

I completely understand taking a “long term view” and declining to vote for Donald Trump. Particularity in light of his character floors, abstaining between the major parties was a respectable decision. I hope Trump 2024 doesn’t materialize.

 
Third parties tend to fall into three categories. Far left parties (e.g. Green Party) should be rejected from a Biblical worldview – they would nuke religious liberty as soon as the opportunity arose. But, while I understand lodging a protest vote for a Libertarian Party or an “America Alone” Party, these vehicles are not credible longer term.

Libertarianism espouses or incorporates the progressive marketplace understanding of personhood. If personhood issues such as marriage, gender, and euthanasia are “choose your own identity or adventure” chapters, issues such as abortion will be too. From using the pro-abortion dictionary, to supporting sports participation according to gender identity, the Libertarian Party evidences so.

This is because personhood is a holistic concept designed by the creator. Libertarianism is an ideology suspended in mid air, the ideology half way down a dystopian slippery slope made of banana peels. Rights without ontology are arbitrary. The Libertarian Party today has a more depraved understanding of personhood than the Democratic Party had one decade ago. Libertarianism without social conservatism is social liberalism in slow motion. Otherwise, it would be social conservatism!

What about the “America Alone” parties? Imagine if Civil War broke out in the USA. Could any state defeat the other 49? Or, imagine if war engulfed the entirety of Africa. Could any singular country withstand all the others? Even if the answer is “yes”, could you promise so in 2030 or 2040?

Some paleoeconservatives operate upon such a priori assumptions about American strength. Can you guarantee that the United States will always be the strongest global power? Can you guarantee that the United States will always be stronger alone than any coaltion or adversarial nations?

Therein lies the importance of alliances between countries. Especially with China on a global quest from Africa through Europe to the Pacific to make relatively  free countries more neutral between communist powers and relative freedom, and entice more neutral countries side with the communist power over the free world, “America Alone” is ideologically naive.

It would surrender to China’s ambitions to isolate the United States and her most loyal allies on the global stage, from economics, to trade, to navigation, to geopolitics.

Perhaps, an excellent third party will arise. I highly doubt it, because such a party would need to go through several elections of rolling out the victory carpet for the Democratic Party by siphoning and gathering voters who favour Republican over Democrat. The best strategy for such a third party would be to only run in Democrat strongholds to avert playing a spoiler effect.

I question the wisdom of anyone who competes for voters who prefer the Republican Party to the Democratic Party in swing states. If third parties hadn’t been so unsuccessful, the supreme court would already be stacked against religious liberty. I guarantee, Amy Barrett would not be on the Supreme Court had right wing third parties siphoned away more Republican voters.

A long term commitment to a third party mirrors calling the hospital in Los Angeles for an emergency in Miami. In the real world, it simply isn’t productive.

It’s not like third parties merely failed to perform in elections between a John F Kennedy and a Ronald Reagan in calibre. They failed to perform against the notoriously polarizing candidacies of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. The major parties served up mouldy sliced bread rather than fresh artisan sourdough, yet still the third parties can’t take market share.

In reality …

That leaves one option. A normative vote for the Republican Party, at least for President, House, and Senate. There may be an exception here or there, but I think we only need to read the confirmation votes for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to know the exceptions proves the rule.

The Democratic Party is the enemy Navy, and the Republican Party is the only plausible deterrent Navy. 

A lesson from the Olympic Games about gender

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games demonstrated that both men and women can be outstanding athletes. And the Olympic Games evidenced that men and women are different.

1. Swimming:

In every swimming event, the men’s gold medal time was considerably faster than the woman’s gold medal time.

Katie Ledecky was the stand-out female freestyle swimmer, but if she had competed against the men, she would have placed 43rd behind Matias Koski of Finland in the 400m and 45th behind Noah Mascoll-Gomes of Antingua and Barbuda in the 200m. Similarly, against the men, Hungarian superstar Katinka Hosszu would have placed 37th behind Criss Lahrichi of Morocco in the 100m backstroke, second last in the 400m individual medley and last in the 200m individual medley out of classified swimmers.

The winning men’s 50m freestyle time was 11% faster than winning women’s 50m freestyle time, and the winning time in the men’s 4x200m freestyle relay was 10% faster than the winning time for the women. If Katie Ledecky were to have competed against the men, she would not have qualified for the Olympic Games, let alone won five medals, four of them gold.

If “male” and “female” are subjective categories, there would be a moral imperative to allow men who identify as women to compete in the female swimming races. Merdan Ataýew of Turkmenistan could choose to identify as a women, and win the women’s 100m backstroke by two seconds! Mikita Tsmyh of Belarus came second last in the men’s 200m backstroke, but could have won the women’s event by more than five seconds. Ryan Murphy could have won the women’s 100m freestyle swimming backstroke!

2. Athletics:

Once again, the winning male performance(s) would have comfortably won the gold medal in the corresponding women’s event.

Usain Bolt won the men’s 100m in 9.81 seconds; Elaine Thompson’s winning time of 10.71 seconds would have earned her a tie for last place with Macedonian Riste Pandev in the second heat, but consigned her to last place behind Indonesian Sudirman Hadi in the fourth heat. Long distance running races are harder to compare, because a different pace is set especially during the opening laps race to race (e.g. the men’s 1500m final was more than ten seconds slower than both men’s semi-finals), but Kenyan runner Faith Kipyegon’s gold medal winning time in the women’s 1500m would have earned her last place in the first men’s heat by six seconds, and last place in the very slow men’s final by more than twelve seconds.

In the high jump, the winning men’s jump by Canadian Derek Drouin was 17% or 41cm higher than the jump that won Spaniard Ruth Beitia the women’s gold medal on count-back; in fact, the women’s gold medal jump would have placed last even in the men’s qualifying round by 20cm. In the pole vault, the winning men’s vault by Brazilian Thiago Braz da Silva was 1 meter and 18cm higher than the winning women’s vault by Ekaterini Stefanidi of Greece. Jeff Henderson won the men’s long jump with a jump 1.25 meters longer than the jump that won gold for Tianna Bartoletta in the women’s competition.

Despite the discus used in the men’s competition being twice as heavy with a circumference more than twelve centimeters longer than the discuss used in the female competition, German athlete Christoph Harting’s gold medal winning discuss throw using the male discuss would have won the silver medal in the woman’s event behind only Croat Sandra Perković. Although the men’s shot put is almost double the weight of the women’s shot put (7.26kg for vs 4kg for women), the top six male shot puters threw the men’s shot put further than the female gold medalist threw the much lighter women’s shot put. The men’s gold medal winning javelin throw traveled 27% further than the winning female throw.

3. Cycling:

Despite the course for the men’s road time trial being considerably longer than the women’s course, (54.5km compared to 29.8km), the average speed for Swiss cyclist Fabian Cancellara was considerably faster than the average speed for American Kristin Armstrong who won the women’s event.

Moving to the velodrome, in the qualifying rounds of the individual sprint, British track cyclist Jason Kenny was fastest among the men at an average speed of 75.4 kilometers per hour, while his compatriot Backy James was fastest in the women’s event at an average speed of 67.2 kilometers per hour; James’ time was fast enough to win the women’s competition, and would have been fast enough to come last in the men’s competition. In the team pursuit, even though the female British team set a new world record of 4 minutes and 10 seconds, they were still five seconds slower than the slowest run by the last placed men’s team (exempting the Dutch team which did not finish due to a crash), and 8% or almost twenty seconds slower than the British men’s team.

4. Canoeing and rowing:

In the slalom K-1, the men’s gold medal winning run by British athlete Joe Clarke was more than ten percent faster than the fastest run by Spanish woman Maialen Chourraut – and her gold medal run would not have been fast enough to qualify for the semi-final. In the K-1 200 canoe sprint, the semi final or gold medal winning performance by Lisa Carrington from New Zealand would have earned her last position in every single heat, let alone in a semi final or the final in the men’s competition. Similarly, across the rowing events, although the wind can add more than one minute to times, from the single, double or quadruple sculls to the cox-less pair to the coxed eight, the gold medal winning times for the men were much faster than those recorded by the fastest women.

5. Weightlifting:

I must disclose that I don’t follow weightlifting; I would be unable to list even one weightlifter. Yet, the data from the recently completed Olympic Games demonstrates that men are stronger the women.

The 69 kilogram competition is the only weight division that appears on both the men’s and women’s Olympic programs. In a 69kg competition, participants must weigh less than 69 kilograms; if a competitor weighs more than 69kg, they must compete in a heavier division. In the woman’s competition, Xiang Yanmei from China lifted 116kg in the snatch and 145kg in the clean and jerk, for a total of 261 kilograms. In the men’s competition, her compatriot Shi Zhiyong lifted 162kg in the snatch and 190kg in the clean and jerk, for a combined total of 352 kilograms.The Chinese man lifted more than 25% more than the Chinese woman.

The lightest men’s competition is the 56 kilogram division, where Long Qingquan who also represented China won the gold medal, lifting a combined total of 307 kilograms. 307 kilograms is the exact weight that (I’m running out of ways to say “weightlifter from China”) Meng Suping who weighs more than 120 kilograms (265lbs) lifted to win the gold medal in the heaviest women’s division – the +75kg. A 307kg combined lift would have placed her third last in the men’s 69kg division, and exactly last in the men’s 77kg division (72kg behind the much lighter gold medalist).

6. Team Sports:

Very few (if any) women would be able to qualify for the Olympic Games in a men’s team sport.

As impressive as the US women’s basketball team is, having won every gold medal since Atlanta (inclusive) in 1996, no female player would be good enough to be selected for the Dream Team. Similar comments could be made about the Brazilian beach volleyball teams, the Dutch field hockey teams, the German football (soccer) teams, the Danish handball teams, the New Zealand rugby sevens teams, the Russian volleyball teams, or the Italian water polo teams.

While I would be happy for “mixed beach volleyball” to be an additional Olympic sport (similar to mixed doubles tennis), it would be dangerous and immoral to create a mixed team in a sport such as rugby sevens, or permit men and women to compete in the same competition in many individual Olympic sports such as boxing and wrestling (I’m not a fan of boxing, especially female boxing, regardless). Mixing a sport such as swimming or rowing or cycling or running would destroy female sport (and sinful if the rationale involves denying the distinction between men and women), but mixing some sports would also be physically dangerous.

Earlier this year, it was reported in the Daily Caller that, “High school girls in Alaska are crying foul after a male sprinter took home all-state honors in girls’ track and field. According to local reports, it was the first time in Alaskan history that a male athlete competed in the girls’ state championships.” I hope that this practice is not mainstreamed in the education system or the Olympic Games, and especially where women would be placed at higher risk of injury.

7. Tennis:

There are five tennis competitions in the Olympic program; women’s singles, men’s singles, men’s doubles, women’s doubles and mixed doubles. Monica Puig might have upset German world number two Angelique Kerber to win Puerto Rico’s first gold medal, but she would not win one set in one hundred against a fit Andy Murray. The Russian team of Ekaterina Makarova and Elena Vesnina won gold in the women’s doubles, but they would have been no match for the men’s gold medal winning Spanish team of Mark Lopez and Rafael Nadal. Elena Vesnina also won the 2016 Australian Open mixed doubles title (partnering Bruno Soares, and defeating Horia Tecau and Coco Vandeweghe) in the final; obviously, she would not have thought it fair if the tournament organizers told her she would partner with Vandewedge against the two male players in Soares and Tecau.

These obvious points all come together on the mixed doubles court; I don’t mean that the Belorussian team were unable to defend their gold medal because one of their 2012 gold medalists is pregnant (that would be the woman, Victoria Azarenka – in case someone of this gender clueless is unsure). In mixed doubles, one person of each gender – that is one biological man and one biological woman, (not a pangender and a mirrorgender or some other assortment of made up gender identities) constitute a mixed doubles team. The male player and the female player have different roles on the tennis court; the best chance to break serve is when the opposing female player is serving, and a key tactic is to try to ensure that the male player on your team is able to dictate play with his ground-strokes, while limiting the opportunity for the opposing male player to hit clean ground-strokes towards the female partner. It would be unfair to be able to enter an all male pairing into the mixed doubles draw. Why? Because men and women are different.

8. Conclusion:

Time and length prevent me from providing further examples from Olympic sports, and I am not denying that the achievements of many female athletes were as impressive as the male athletes. Yes, Katie Ledecky’s performances in the female events were more impressive then male performances that were several seconds faster. Kristina Vogel, Kim Brennan, Danuta Kozak, and Simone Manuel are a few more outstanding female athletes I had not yet mentioned.

And, once again, the Olympic Games has highlighted that God designed and created men and women to be different. We cannot celebrate the male and female performances at the Olympic Games without celebrating that God created them male and female.

Genesis 1:26-27, “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

A Christian response to Orlando

Unsurprisingly (and rightly), last weeks Islamist terrorist attack in Orlando is still in the news headlines. As it is possible that there will be further Islamist terrorist attacks directed against the LGBT community in the future, Christians must equip themselves to respond appropriately.

Firstly and unequivocally: the terrorist attack was an immoral act of mass-murder, to be condemned in the strongest terms. My prayers remain with the families, and all those who lost people they care about – including members of the LGBT community.

I hope that the points below can help you understand how we should react to a terrorist attack like the one in Florida.

(1) We should be saddened to hear about the deaths of 49 people. Romans 12 tells us to weep with those who weep, and people are certainly justified to be weeping. But for the grace of God, it could have been one of your or my family members or friends pursuing a sin that drove them to that bar, never to return home. The loss of 49 lives is a tragedy. I wish every one of the casualties was still alive – I wish every bullet missed.

(2) While Christians and non-Christians alike know in their heart or conscience that murder is “wrong”, and objectively so, Christians are able to understand how heinous terrorism is, and why it is so heinous. Murder is not the mere rearrangement of chemicals, or the killing of what happens to be the most evolved species today (as animals we supposedly evolved from once were). Terrorism is the unchangeable callous destruction of the pinnacle of God’s creation, people made in His image.

(3) Although it can be temping to support every act of a victim – and the 49 were the victims, period, – a crime against a person does not absolve that person of wrongdoing. If a person in moral disgust shot up a strip club, people dealing cocaine or people merely gossiping, the correct response would not be moral approval of stripping, drug dealing or gossip. It is possible to mourn the loss of human life, without supporting what a person was doing while they were murdered.

(4) Applied to homosexuality (and other sexual sins), nothing can alter the fact that homosexuality is a sin (and that other sexual sins really are sins). Christians are to believe the Bible, and the Bible does teach that “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” and “nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

(5) Who should we blame? Omar Mateen should be blamed for the 49 murders, period. Not the NRA, nor the Editorial Board of the NYT, nor the Brady Campaign, nor insert conservative Christian group here, are guilty of the murder.

What about guns? While there is a legitimate debate about gun ownership, and most people would fall somewhere between “I am against civilians carrying on a plane departing Los Angeles for Houston” and “I am against confiscating guns from those civilians under attack by Boko Haram, ISIL and the Taliban”, a gun can only ever explain “how” a crime was committed; a gun is never “why” a crime is committed.

Like a knife, an axe or a shovel, a gun is a tool, a “how”. Whatever we say about guns, Omar Mateen wanted to murder these LGBT humans (gun or not); the next terrorist might use a bomb, many in the Middle East use gravity from balconies. It is incumbent that we blame the evildoer for his or her evildoing. Chamberlain erred politically, but it was the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg.

(6) So, “Why” did Omar Mateen murder 49 people? Even Cosmopolitan Online ran the headline, “Orlando Gunman Reportedly Scouted Disney World Before Attacking Gay Nightclub.” While we cannot hesitate to call this an attack on the homosexual community (the attack was not “random” – he would not have attacked ISIL, which he pledged allegiance to), this was an attack on something which contradicts his worldview, which could have been an attack on anything which isn’t compatible with his worldview.

Next time, the target might be a Shia mosque, a shop which sells bacon, an institution where women are educated, or a Christian church. The next target might be someone who has apostatized from his belief system.

And, what is his belief system? Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiʿi, Hanbali, Ẓāhirī; if you don’t recognize these terms, they are the five schools of Sunni jurisprudence. As none of us want a repeat of Orlando, or a repeat of Paris, or a Repeat of Brussels, a good question to know the answer to would be “What is the punishment for apostasy according to each school?” Once you have found the answer to that question, answer the same question for blasphemy. Soon, his belief system will reveal itself.

Gender Identity and Christian Education

The headline reads, “Allow students to participate in sex-segregated activities and access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity.” – U.S. Government.

According to the U.S. Government, “Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender. A person’s gender identity may be different from or the same as the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education have explained that a school “must allow transgender students to access such facilities consistent with their gender identity” including “restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing and athletic teams.”

How should Christians respond?

a) Christians must recognize a clash of worldviews. This “joint guidance” wasn’t written out of the blue. The catalyst behind the guidance is the belief that biological men can actually be female and biological women can actually be male.

Therefore, a school must “treat a students gender identify as the student’s sex” and “must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.” This secularist worldview is incompatible with the Christian worldview where “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

b) Christians must recognize that this facility policy is consistent with the ideology that is imposed by the government; what is taught is the classroom mirrors the policy on bathrooms. According to the DOJ and DOE, school staff and contractors will use pronouns and names consistent with a transgender student’s gender identity.”

This means that if one day he who is Nate decides to be Kate, the school will be an environment where students are taught to and pressured to regard Nate as a girl and refer to him as she.

God commands Christians to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6) and “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). While, in God’s common grace, it is possible for a Christian child to play football under an unbelieving coach or learn the cosine rule from a math textbook authored by an unbeliever, Christian children should not be educated from a worldview and a community of hostility to the Christian faith.

In order to ensure that a formal schooling “builds upon” what is taught at home and in the church, I would encourage Christians to abandon public schools. In many ways, the recent announcements  from various state governments and now the Federal Government will merely bring what was already taught in the classroom into view in the bathroom. Perhaps, that a male teenager can now share facilities such as “restrooms” “locker rooms” and “shower facilities” with your daughter (where she may very well be in her underwear or even naked) will merely be the alarm bell to alert many to the fact there is a fire in the school, and they must evacuate.

c) Politically, Christians ought to support politicians at the federal, state and local levels who believe that people should be required to use facilities that correspond to their biological gender – their chromosomes. This means state politicians with a moral backbone to say “no” to the Federal Government, even if this means losing funding or facing the wrath of certain corporations.

The politicians who are least likely to bow to the transgender agenda will be Christians who believe that God made males male and females female and as created people all are to accept that. There will certainly be several non-Christian politicians who continue to accept what everyone accepted until recently – that ones gender is not decided by what one subjectively feels – and we should be ready to work alongside them.

Christians would be gravely mistaken to believe that this law which requires public schools to “allow students to participate in sex-segregated activities and access sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity” will merely impact public schools or even the entire public sector.

A subsequent step will be for the government to use anti-discrimination laws which prohibit or restrict discrimination on the basis of gender identity to say that private business cannot deny a biological man who identifies as a woman access to female facilities. If you own a restaurant with a separate male bathroom and a separate female bathroom, or if you own a gymnasium or swimming facility with one room for biological men and another for biological women, the day is probably coming when you will be forced to obey God or obey man.

d) We – Christians collectively – must ensure that Christian children have access to a Christian education. Whenever public education becomes morally off limits for Christians, obviously, the solution is not to abandon education and raise Christian children to be mathematically and scientifically incompetent.

The guidance from the Departments of Education and Justice of the Obama administration explicitly states that “as a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not … treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities.”

The government imposition of radical gender theory on public schools will already pose a challenge for poorer Christian families in state schools, who lack the skills or financial means to home school or send their children to a private Christian school.

This challenge will only intensify as state and federal governments increasingly make compliance with the LGBT agenda a condition for any school to receive any government funding. Many Christians will be placed in a situation where the they will be forced to pay taxes to fund a public school system they regard as morally reprehensible, and also pay for the the entire home schooling or private schooling of their children.

The cultural revolution will continue, and its proponents will continue to promote and enforce a genderless society. Previously, by redefining marriage via the Supreme Court they enshrined a genderless view of marriage in the court of public opinion; now, social progressives are attempting to create a world where gender itself is void of gender  distinctions between men and women, between boys and girls.

As Christians, we need to remember that “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female”, and foster schools and school communities where such basic moral frameworks and truths are reinforced to the next generation. May God guide us as we do so in this increasingly hostile political and cultural environment.

 

Abortion and incrementalism

As human life begins at conception, and the unjustified taking of human life is murder, we must conclude that abortion is murder. A Christian should not pursue an abortion, and abortion should be civilly punished. I am always thankful that pro-life Christians can agree on this.

Framing the issue:

However, among the pro-life, while we share the ideal to end abortion, there is some debate about how to combat abortion politically. Should a Christian support incremental measures to reduce abortion, or should a Christian take a more “all or nothing” approach?

Should we support a bill that that limited the legality of abortion to after x number of weeks? Or, a bill that instituted a ban on abortion except in the cases of rape and incest? Or, should we only support a bill that illegalized all abortions from conception with no exceptions?

As of April 1 2016, abortion is not illegal in the Unites States. This is not an April Fool’s Day joke – you just need to commit the murder before the victim is old enough. In other words, if you were born in the U.S.A. after Roe vs. Wade, there was a time when it was legal for someone to murder you.

Even when dealing with this immorality, I would encourage a Christian to be disposed to support any incremental measure that will reduce the number of abortions.

A case for incrementalism:

Suppose that you and a representative cross section of the general population settled a new county. An early task would be to establish a government and legislate some basic laws. Hopefully, the essence of one”basic law” would be “murder is illegal.” No, it should not be legal to decide to poison someone on a Saturday afternoon.

Should this bill that would ban after birth first degree murder come up for a vote, it would be most unwise to argue “I cannot support this bill, because in failing to illegalize all abortions, it does not ban all murders. This piece of post birth legislation implicitly advocates pre birth abortion.”

How would you vote on a bill proposing, “This law will make forced abortion illegal, but women may continue to have their own baby aborted”? If such a bill came up in China to outlaw forced abortion, it would be unwise to argue “I cannot support this bill, because in failing to illegalize all abortions, it does not ban all murders. As this piece of legislation would only ban forced abortion, it implicitly advocates all other abortions.” Hundreds of millions of babies have been murdered in forced abortions.

The logical conclusion of opposing incremental measure to combat abortion would be to oppose every law that illegalizes murder, unless the bill would make murder illegal in all circumstances from conception. Logically, this is a recipe for anarchism.

I have already pointed out that as nations and states need basic laws, often a less than ideal law or an incremental move in the moral direction is often the best option at a given point in time. I would also like to briefly discuss the place of civil legislation within the comprehensive christian worldview.

The Bible and what we witness in the world around us clearly attest that this world is not perfect – perfection awaits the life hereafter. Utopianism in a fallen world is alien to the Christian worldview. In an imperfect world, there will not be perfect justice – an amount or degree of justice where justice is enforced sometimes is preferable to no justice at all where injustice prevails always. We would have to settle for anarchism if we were not incrementalists to some extent.

I rarely encounter people who would issue an ultimatum that because our laws do not protect property perfectly, they would not support any laws that protect property. Similarly, we should not take this approach to human life, where we would not support any law that combated murder comprehensively or abortion specifically unless the law protected life perfectly.

King Asa and incrementalism:

King Asa reigned for forty one years in Jerusalem as the King of Judah. In 1 Kings 15:11-14, we read that “Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord, like David his father. He also put away the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made. He also removed Maacah his mother from being queen mother, because she had made a horrid image as an Asherah; and Asa cut down her horrid image and burned it at the brook Kidron. But the high places were not taken away; nevertheless the heart of Asa was wholly devoted to the Lord all his days.“

Putting away cult prostitutes and removing idols yet failing to take away the high places is incrementalism on idolatry. He would have done even more right in the sight of the Lord had he wanted to take away the high places, but other factors prevented him from doing so. I would enthusiastically vote for King Asa who would combat cult prostitution even though his platform would not extend to removing the high places. I would enthusiastically support an incremental law that that put away cult prostitution even if it fell short of also removing the high places.

In the present day, many groups and individuals who oppose incremental measures to combat abortion call themselves “abolitionists”, a reference to the successful efforts of particularly Christians in previous centuries to abolish slavery. William Wilberforce and John Newton are two men I cannot wait to meet in the life to come.

It is noteworthy that the abolition of slavery was actually incremental – slavery was abolished incrementally. Before slavery was actually abolished through the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, many other indispensable anti-slavery acts passed the British Parliament. These included, the Slave Trade Act 1788 which limited the number of slaves permitted to be carried on each ship, and the Slave Trade Act 1807 which abolished the Atlantic Slave Trade.

In conclusion, I would encourage Christians (and everyone else) to be disposed to support any incremental measure that will reduce the number of abortions, and use this as one incremental stepping stone to hopefully outlawing abortion completely and upholding the value of all human life, created in the image of God.

If and how should abortion be punished?

Today, the BBC reported “Trump says punish women for illegal abortions.” The article expounded that “He had proposed “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if they were made illegal.”

Last year, Donald Trump said that he became pro-life because “friends of mine” decided against having an abortion “and that child today is a total superstar”; but, Trump added that he would “probably not” oppose the abortion if that child was a “loser” rather than an “astounding person.” On abortion, Donald Trump is not pro-life – he is a nationalist – this is the same style of reasoning used by Social Darwinist eugenicists.

I would ask my fellow pro-lifers: is this the man you want to represent the pro-life cause in a debate against Hillary Clinton? Perhaps, would Donald Trump inflict significant damage upon our pro-life message?

While it is unfair that journalists always ask Republicans far more difficult questions on abortion than they ask Democrats, (e.g. how often are Democrats asked if they support any restrictions on abortion at any time in the third trimester?), it is inevitable that journalists will ask pro-lifers (who predominately at least lean Republican more than Democrat) the “gotcha” or “time to discredit you” questions on abortion.

How could we respond?

1. For politicians: While we should not answer with a lie, we should answer these questions wisely. Just as a too lenient punishment for theft is preferable to no punishment for theft at all, it is not improper to initially propose a less than ideal punishment regarding abortion. If rape was legal in a geographical area, and you were running for the corresponding political office, it might be wise to propose a penalty that will at least convict rapists and get them off the streets, even if you would ultimately want to institute a tougher and more just punishment. The Republican Party Platform proposes “appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers”; reducing the number of abortions by punishing the abortionists would be a wise starting place.

In 2013, the New Times stated that only “Nine states … do not have specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.” Another political answer would be, “Dozens of states already prohibit abortion at some before the baby is born, so we could at least apply or extend such punishments to abortions performed on babies at earlier stages in the womb.” I would urge pro-life politicians to at least imply that the “thing” being aborted is nothing less than a human being – we cannot make our moral case against abortion while describing abortion as merely a moral equivalent of liposuction.

2. Ted Cruz commented on Trump’s remarks, “On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life.” Ted Cruz is correct – it is paramount to promote a cultural respect for life.

As most of us are not politicians, we can sometimes talk about moral issues in ways that politicians cannot in public. Questions regarding the ideal punishments for abortion are an obvious example. In a more moral society, I don’t know what civil punishments most pro-life politicians would support regarding abortion. Would they think it ideal to punish the abortionists for performing an abortion at any time after conception, and limit the punishments on those who sought out the abortion to the second trimester? I don’t know – they might think that is too strict, or they might think it is not strict enough.

However, regardless of what certain politicians believe, in promoting life in our very speech, we would often be able to say “as human life begins at conception, ideally abortion would be punished in the same way as other murders.” We should want to articulate what the crime of abortion actually is before we propose the ideal punishment for it.

As I wrote last year, “Mathison summarized our argument well: “The fetus is a human being. … When the male gametocyte (sperm cell) unites with (or fertilizes) the female gametocyte (oocyte or egg cell) to form a zygote, a new, genetically distinct individual human being is formed. … The fetus is a living individual human being. The unjust killing of a human being is murder. If these two statements are true, and both are true, then the only conclusion we can reach is that abortion is murder.”

It would be prudent for me to clarify and assure you that I do not endorse vigilantism against women who choose to have an abortion, those in the medical field who perform abortions or public figures who are supportive of their choices. I also do not endorse ex post facto law: in other words, if abortion is banned on January 1 2018, those who had abortions before that date would not be punished. I believe that the government should ban abortion because abortion is murder, and only after the law has been made should they punish anyone who breaks the legislated law. Those complicit in an abortion should be punished in the same way as those complicit in other murders.”

 

The Georgia Edition: Religious Freedom and the Sexual Revolution

ATLANTA (Reuters) – Georgia Governor Nathan Deal said on Monday he will veto a so-called religious freedom bill passed by the state legislature that has drawn national criticism for discriminating against same-sex couples.

The measure, which states that no pastor can be forced to perform a same-sex wedding, was recently passed by the Republican-controlled legislature.

Under the bill, faith-based groups could not be forced to hire or retain an employee whose beliefs run counter to the organization’s, while churches and religious schools would have the right to reject holding events for people or groups to whom they object.

Only last month, the NYT Editorial Board voiced their opposition to a “religious-freedom law protecting business owners and others who refuse to serve same-sex couples for religious or moral reasons.” They opined, in “the public sphere … they are not free to ignore any law that doesn’t align with their personal religious views on marriage.”

Today, the Governor of Georgia went one step further, vetoing a bill containing zero protections for the religious freedom private companies and individuals, but merely designed to protect the religious freedom of pastors, churches and religious organizations.

Unsurprisingly, progressives such as the Washington Post applauded; “Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal did the right thing vetoing a bill that would have legalized discrimination against same-sex couples in the name of so-called religious freedom.”

This Georgia case is not an isolated one. On March 4, the Associated Press reported that, “Florida law will specify that churches can’t be forced to marry same-sex couples.” The bill “passed on a 23-15 (15!) vote with only Republicans in favor and Democrats joined by only one Republican in opposition.”

If Christian pastors and churches, and Christian schools and Christian organizations do not have religious freedom, can we even say that religious freedom exists?

Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin and marriage is in its essence between one man and one woman. Oppositely, many people today believe that Christians are “discriminating bigots” “on the wrong side of history” for believing as we do.

A man and a woman unite in marriage (marriage is the beginning of a family), and said heterosexual unions are the foundation of human society. Therefore, state-mandated positive recognition of homosexuality and Christian freedom were always incompatible (they are competing foundations). As there is only one creator, that the other side of a moral antithesis would pursue anti-Christian laws was foreseeable.

Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, has spoken. Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female? From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What about Adam? Calvinism and the human will

What about Adam? This is an argument I regularly hear from often well- meaning non-Calvinists in defense of libertarian free will.

Though we might sometimes disagree on what the Bible teaches, we should want to affirm what the Bible teaches. In this post, I would like to detail what the early chapters of Genesis actually teach us about the will of man and the sovereignty of God.

(a) The freedom of man is limited by the existence of God.

Genesis 2:3 “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.” Could Adam have chosen to bless a day himself?

Genesis 2:16-17, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Could Adam have made himself unaccountable to God for keeping this command?

Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Could Adam have deemed “he shall bruise your head” to be unnecessary?

Genesis 3:24, “He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.” Could sinful Adam have remained in the presence of God?

(b) The freedom of man is limited by the creation and providence of God.

Genesis 1:26, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Could Adam have chosen to place himself under the dominion of the fish of the sea?

Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Could Adam have chosen to not be created in the image of God?

Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ” Could Adam have chosen not to become a living creature?

Genesis 2:8, “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” Could Adam have chosen to originally be put outside of the garden in Eden?

(c) The freedom of man is limited by his humanity.

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Could Adam create the heavens and the earth?

Genesis 1:4, “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” Could Adam speak light into existence?

Genesis 1:21, “So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.” Could Adam create a sea creature or a winged bird?

Genesis 2:1, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” Could Adam have undone God’s creation of the stars, or created some stars himself?

(d) The freedom of man is limited by his moral nature.

Genesis 2:20 “The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.” Was there a chance that Adam was going to kill all the animals, rather than name them?

Genesis 2:23 “Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Was there a chance that Adam would have been repulsed be Eve?

Genesis 2:25, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” Was there a chance that Adam was going to be ashamed of being naked with his wife before the fall?

Genesis 3:12-13, “The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Was there a chance that Adam and Eve would have accepted the blame for their own sins?

Yes, people do make voluntary choices.

Adam wanted to give “names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field” (Genesis 2:20).

Adam really meant “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:23).

Adam and Eve truly desired to eat the fruit “she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6).

Adam chose to blame Eve, and Eve chose to blame the serpent “The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” (Genesis 3:12-13).

From when God first created man, man has never been free from accountability to God, the creation and providence of God, the limitations of human finitude, or the limitations of his moral nature.

A Super Tuesday evaluation, and a tentative endorsement.

Firstly, please pray for Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton and Sanders. We should “seek the welfare of the city.” Probably only an FBI investigation can (and legally should) prevent Clinton from becoming the Democrat nominee now. If she then becomes President, I hope and pray that she will be a good President.

On the Republicans: Cruz greatly exceeded expectations by winning three states (Texas, Oklahoma and Alaska, to add to his earlier victory in Iowa), the Cruz/Rubio combined vote was higher (often significantly higher) than the Trump vote in most states, and Trump has fewer delegates than the Cruz/Rubio combined tally. This means that the current trajectory is for a brokered convention to select the nominee rather than for a Trump victory prior to the convention.

Between March 5 and March 12, before the big “winner takes all” primaries start on March 15, more than 300 delegates are up for grabs: states including Kentucky, Louisiana and Michigan will vote in this time period, with delegates being won proportionally. A larger field minimizes the chance of Trump getting enough (often 50%) of the vote to take all the delegates in certain states (a smaller field would have resulted in this in Massachusetts and probably also Alabama) and keeps the Trump vote percentage lower (Trump is still the second choice of a minority of voters).

A smaller field will increase the amount of delegates won by non-Trump at the district level (Cruz and Rubio would have both won more delegates at the district level in Virginia and Texas had the other not been running) and will prevent sizable non-Trump votes from not being counted because the non-Trump candidate finished below the (often 20%) minimal vote threshold (e.g. Rubio’s more than 15% yet less than 20% of the vote was largely ineffectual in Alabama, Vermont and Texas). Honestly, though this is not an attention grabbing headline, no political journalist can be 100% sure which approach will better serve to prevent Trump from becoming the Republican nominee.

But, on March 15, everything changes. There will be critical “winner takes all” primaries in Florida, Illinois and Ohio, and a winner takes all caucus in Missouri. In the previous “winner takes all” primary in South Carolina, Donald Trump secured 50 out of 50 delegates despite trailing Cruz-Rubio combined by a margin of 45% to 33%.

On March 15, 295 delegates are on the line. This is almost as many delegates as Donald Trump has won as I am writing this (219). Before March 15, conservatives and Republican leaning moderates who do not want Donald Trump to become President must coalesce behind one candidate.

This one candidate is not Ben Carson – Ben Carson is a phenomenal surgeon, and a man of character, as are his voters – their loyalty is admirable. I trust that a majority of Carson voters do not want Donald Trump to be President, and this is why Ben Carson needs to drop out so that his supporters can get behind someone who can actually defeat Trump. As Ben Carson lives in Florida, perhaps he could run for the important Senate seat that will be vacated by Marco Rubio? Dr Carson will certainly have my endorsement. I would urge Ben Carson to turn his presidential campaign into a Florida senate campaign.

This one candidate is not John Kasich – I believe that John Kasich was indispensable to the Republican party during the Clinton years, and he has made some very important reforms as Governor of Ohio. John Kasich is putting all his eggs in one basket: Ohio. But, the problem is, even if John Kasich wins in Ohio, there are several other critical states voting on March 15, where John Kasich will only serve to take more votes away from Cruz/Rubio combined than he is taking away from Donald Trump: Kasich would be splitting the non-Trump vote for no gain. Even if Kasich wins in Ohio, he will hand the nomination to Trump on Florida-Illinois-Missouri shaped silver platter. Kasich is polling at under 10% in all three states. Perhaps Kasich should stay in to take votes away from Trump in the Massachusetts and Vermont like states, but he must drop out before Ohio.

We must coalesce behind either Cruz or Rubio before March 15. Really, come March 15, the only question that we who are non-Trump need to ask is, “Will a Rubio-Cruz ticket or a Cruz-Rubio ticket give us a better chance of defeating Trump?”

And, the answer to this question is becoming quite obvious. Even if we were to suppose that it is inconsequential that Cruz has won four states compared to one state for Rubio, that it does not matter that Cruz has received a much higher proportion of the vote than Marco Rubio (the spoiler effects of votes for Carson and Kasich basically cancel each other out, when comparing the support for Cruz and Rubio), and that it is beside the point that Cruz leads Rubio by 116 delegates and has more than twice as many delegates as Rubio (and furthermore that the delegate difference between Cruz and Rubio is presently greater than the delegate difference between Trump and Cruz), there is one rather indisputable fact that I don’t see changing.

I commend all those voters who would pick both Cruz and Rubio over Trump. So, intuitively, do you believe that more Cruz voters would prefer Trump to Rubio, or do you believe that more Rubio voters would prefer Trump to Cruz? It would be a suspension of common sense to suppose the latter. And, we have the polling data to substantiate this.

According to an NBC survey, (“Poll: Trump leads, but when it comes to second choice, Cruz is on top”), Donald Trump is the second choice of only 9% of Marco Rubio supporters, but Donald Trump is the second choice of 30% of Ted Cruz supporters. Simply put, Donald Trump’s vote will go up by three times as much if Ted Cruz drops out as it will go up if Marco Rubio drops out.

Is it possible that between today and a few days before March 15 Rubio will become a better chance than Cruz to defeat Trump? Yes, but as things stand today, I would recommend that we unite behind Ted Cruz for Republican nominee and President of the United States.

So, here is my suggestion. Sometime before March 15, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio need to hold a joint press conference – I would suggest in Florida. At this press conference, Marco Rubio will suspend his presidential campaign, and endorse Ted Cruz. Then, Ted Cruz will announce that Marco Rubio will be his running mate.

Then, united behind a Cruz-Rubio ticket, we will try our utmost to defeat Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times: where disobeying God is moderate, and Christian freedom is deranged.

I read the New York Times, especially the opinion pieces from the Editorial Board, because it a barometer of progressive elitism. Call it a “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer” kind of thing. Here is “today in the opinion section of the New York Times.”

Exhibit A: A Georgia Bill Shields Discrimination Against Gays.

The NYT Editorial Board opined about “religious-freedom law protecting business owners and others who refuse to serve same-sex couples for religious or moral reasons.” According to them, “the First Amendment already provides this protection to churches and religious organizations.” But, “when they enter the public sphere, and particularly when they benefit from taxpayer dollars, they are not free to ignore any law that doesn’t align with their personal religious views on marriage.”

According to the NYT, your freedom of religion ends at the front door of your privately funded church or religious organization. Christian schools and universities (they receive taxpayer dollars), and especially for profit business must comply with the unbiblical demands of the sexual revolution.

Exhibit B: Veto South Dakota’s Transgender Restroom Law.

As the title suggests, the NYT is arguing against a “discriminatory bill” that will make the state of South Dakota “the first to designate some public restrooms at schools off limits to transgender students.”

According to the NYT, the law should not “mandate that students use public restrooms based on “the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes”; oppositely, the law must “allow transgender students to use restrooms based on their gender identity.” If you have a school aged daughter, she should get changed with some young men.

Exhibit C: Senate Republicans Lose Their Minds on a Supreme Court Seat.

Apparently, only having eight Supreme Court Justices is “a political crisis that the nation has never seen before” – “Mitch McConnell … seems to have lost touch with reality and the Constitution”, they proclaim. Of course, when the Democrats tried to block the nominees of Reagan and Bush, they simply “pushed hard for Republican presidents to pick ideologically moderate nominees.”

But, Republicans are “so far to the right … it is hard to tell whether they can hear how deranged they sound.” In the worldview of the the NYT, Obama was right to filibuster the nomination of now Justice Samuel Alito who would support a “religious-freedom law protecting business owners”, yet the four Democrat appointed justices who opposed such a law in Burwell vs. Hooby Lobby are “moderate”.

The New York Times: where disobeying God is moderate, and Christian freedom is deranged.