#2061 (8/31) "Jack Phillips and the Freedom to Be Christian - Dissenting from the Sexual Revolution"

"JACK PHILIPS AND THE FREEDOM TO BE CHRISTIAN - DISSENTING FROM THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION" - by John Stonestreet & Roberto Rivera, Breakpoint.org, August 28, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-jack-phillips-and-the-freedom-to-be-christian

We were told the new sexual orthodoxy wouldn’t impact anyone who didn’t want to endorse it. Well, that was false. 

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding reception.

To understand this case in the midst of all of the misreporting and, shall I say it, fake news, please read Ryan Anderson’s recent article on the topic in National Review. Anderson noted that the Court announced its decision to hear Phillips’ case on the second anniversary of its decision in Obergefell, which made so-called same-sex “marriage” the law of the land.

While the timing of the announcement may have been serendipitous, the connection between the cases isn’t. In his dissent in Obergefell, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty.”

Even before the Chief Justice wrote those words, the clash between religious liberty and the new sexual orthodoxy, including, but not limited to, LGBT rights, was well underway, and Phillips was among the earliest examples. Why this clash? Well, as Anderson tells readers, “liberal advocacy groups [have] decided that civil liberties aren’t for conscientious objectors to the sexual revolution.”

Twenty-five years ago, the ACLU played a role in securing the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, the same ACLU opposed the application of that Act to the Little Sisters of the Poor in their battle against the HHS contraceptive mandate. And the current threat to religious liberty and freedom of conscience isn’t limited to the usual suspects such as government or the ACLU. As Anderson reminds us, “As the law insists that social conservatives are like racists, big businesses and other institutions will bring their own pressure to bear on anyone who dissents.”

For instance, Anderson describes, “The American Bar Association has promulgated new model rules of professional conduct that make it unethical for lawyers to ‘discriminate’ on the ‘basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status,’ including in ‘social activities,’ which . . . would include ‘church membership and worship activities.’”

At the heart of this challenge to religious freedom is what Anderson calls “the never-ending expansion of anti-discrimination statutes. What started out as well-justified efforts to combat racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism have morphed into laws protecting against the [harm to dignity] allegedly inflicted by anyone who disagrees with progressives about human sexuality.”This alleged “harm to dignity” is the rationale behind Colorado’s attempt to punish Jack Phillips, whose “offense” was that he was unwilling to completely affirm the current sexual orthodoxy, a refusal that somehow “diminished” someone.

This is of course silly, and underscores Anderson’s argument that “Ultimately, our goal should be to convince our neighbors that what we believe about sex is true,” and, “In the meantime we need to convince them that what we believe is at least reasonable and poses no harm to others.”

Part of that convincing includes standing up for everyone’s religious liberty, not just our own. “Provided they don’t harm the common good, violate human rights, or otherwise offend justice,” Anderson writes, “Muslims should be free to be authentically Muslim, just as Jews should be free to be authentically Jewish and Christians should be free to be authentically Christian.”

A lot is at stake in this Phillips case. But the battle for religious freedom isn’t limited to the courts. It’s also being waged, as Chuck Colson liked to say, over the backyard fence and in the public square.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Read Ryan Anderson’s article in National Review. And equip yourself with the actual facts in the Phillips’ case set to be argued this fall before the Supreme Court.
"The Continuing Threat to Religious Liberty" - Ryan T. Anderson | National Review | August 3, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450087/religious-liberty-under-attack
"U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Colorado Cake Artist Jack Phillips’ Case" - Marissa Mayer | Alliance Defending Freedom | June 26, 2017; https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2017/06/26/breaking-u.s.-supreme-court-will-hear-colorado-cake-artist-jack-phillips-case

#2060 (8/30) "Rescuing iGen - Teens Raised on Smartphones Need an Escape Plan"

"RESCUING iGEN - TEENS RAISED ON SMARTPHONES NEED AN ESCAPE PLAN" - by: Eric Metaxas & G. Shane Morris, Breakpoint.org, August 22, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-rescuing-igen/ [AS I SEE IT: Oh wow, do I know the truth of this article! Every chance I get, I try to place myself in the breakroom when I have my meal breaks so that I can meet with others and engage them in conversation - hopefully to introduce them to the gospel message. But it never fails that whenever I walk into the room, EVERYONE has their eyes glued to their smartphones and rarely is there any conversation going on. And this is not just the teens and young adults; I've seen those my age doing the same thing! It makes me hesitant to start a conversation because they all are so focused on their phones that I can't tell if they are engaged in something important. Yesterday, I found a college student so occupied that I finally just spoke up and apologized for interrupting her but said that I wanted to ask her a question. In the short time we had together, we had a great conversation (yes, that old thing) and I was able to pass on to her a gospel tract and challenge her to take 10 minutes to read the critical first half and let me know her thoughts the next time we met. THAT was probably the most satisfying time I've ever had at my job! And so, if you find yourself among people who are engrossed with their phones, may I challenge you to go ahead and interrupt them. YOU may get to share with them about being ready to face eternity, something definitely more important than whatever has them so occupied with their phones! (P.S. - I'm one of the last people on earth who does not have a cell phone so I have hope of never getting lost in the world of smartphones.) - Stan]

Imagine the best memories of your youth. Now imagine all of them replaced by a screen. Unless we can outsmart phones, this will be reality for a generation. 

It seems like millennials are always texting, swiping, browsing, Snapchatting, Instagramming, or wasting time in some other way on a device, and dinosaurs like me have been quick to complain about it. But it turns out millennials, most of whom remember cassette tapes and graduated high school with flip phones, were old enough to ride the technological wave of the 2010s without getting sucked under.

Writing at The Atlantic, Jean Twenge points out that there’s another, younger generation that got pummeled by the smartphone revolution. Those born after 1995, typically called “generation Z,” were just entering their teen years when Steve Jobs introduced the world to the iPhone. Appropriately, Twenge dubs these young people, “iGen.” 

Unlike millennials, these kids cannot remember a time before the Internet. Like laboratory mice, they’ve been the unwitting subjects of a historic experiment. What effect has this had on them? Twenge paints a bleak picture, and it goes far deeper than the typical concerns about diminished attention spans. Smartphones and other devices have shaped these teens’ worlds, from their social lives to their mental health.

Teen suicide has skyrocketed since 2011. One survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that teens who spent ten hours or more a week on social media were 56 percent more likely to experience symptoms of depression. According to two national surveys, those glued to screens at least three hours a day were 28 percent more likely to suffer sleep deprivation.

It doesn’t end there. The younger generation is spending less time outside than any other crop of kids—ever. Twelfth-graders in 2015 spent fewer hours out of the house than eighth-graders did in 2009! They don’t get their driver’s licenses as early as their parents did, they’re more than twenty percent less likely to have jobs, and they aren’t even interested in spending time with friends, at least not in person. The number of teens who regularly get together socially has dropped by an astonishing forty percent since 2000.

Where are they spending all their time? Well, mostly at home, in their rooms, staring at screens. One teenager described the crater she’d left on her bed from spending all summer Snapchatting. Another admitted, “I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

“iGen,” Twenge concludes, “[is] on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades.” And overuse of technology and social media is the most obvious culprit.

Well, here’s the good news, and I know you’re ready for it: Research indicates that much of this is reversible. Kids and teens who spend an above average amount of time with friends in person are 20 percent less likely to say they’re unhappy. Fewer hours spent staring at a screen correlates with better sleep. And as blogger, Andrew Sullivan, put it recently, cutting back on online time just makes you feel human again.

“If you were going to give advice for a happy adolescence…” writes Twenge, “it would be straightforward: Put down the phone, turn off the laptop, and do something—anything—that does not involve a screen.” Restricting your kids’ smartphone use may not sound like the best way to stay on their good side. And if they’re older, you’ll need to explain yourself, and reach agreements as a family about technology, not simply lay down the law. Why not show them this commentary?

You may find that your teens are more open to setting boundaries around screen time than you think. After all, their devices are not fulfilling them. Members of iGen may be in a better position than anyone to understand that there’s nothing smart about being enslaved to a phone.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Studies show that we are more fulfilled when we have face-to-face, relational interaction. So encourage friends and family to take sufficient time away from screens. When technology replaces most in-person contact, it’s time to set some boundaries–and not just for the younger generations.
Screens and Teens: Connecting with Our Kids in a Wireless World- Kathy Koch | Moody Publishers | March 2015; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780802412690
"Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?" - Jean M. Twenge | The Atlantic | September 2017; https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198
"iParent: Gender Trends, Online Friends & the Soul of Your Child" - Don Pearson | Pot-Boilers.com; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9780578089287

#2059 (8/29) "Those Who Don't Fight Evil Fight Statues"

"THOSE WHO DON'T FIGHT EVIL FIGHT STATUES" - Dennis Prager : Aug 29, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/08/29/those-who-dont-fight-evil-fight-statues-n2374394

All my life, I have known this rule about people: Those who don't fight the greatest evils will fight lesser evils or make-believe evils. This happens to be the morally defining characteristic of the left. 

During the Cold War, many liberals and nearly all conservatives fought communism, but the left fought anti-communism. The left opposed American military buildups and regarded the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union as nothing more than two scorpions in a bottle fighting to the death. They loathed Presidents Nixon and Reagan, not Communist Party Secretary-General Brezhnev. They regarded Reagan's labeling of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" with contempt. Typical was the reaction of one of America's best-known intellectuals, Henry Steele Commager, then a professor of history at the Amherst College. He said, "It was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I've read them all." With regard to fighting communism -- which, aside from Nazism, has been the greatest evil in the modern world (it killed and enslaved far more people than Nazism) -- the left was an obstacle, not an ally. The left in the West and elsewhere did far more to enable communist evil than to stop it.

The same holds true with regard to the greatest evil in the world at this time: totalitarian Islam, or Islamism. The left is doing precisely what it did during the war against communism: It's fighting the anti-Islamists, not the Islamists. Just as it labeled anti-communists "cold warriors" and other derisive epithets, the left labels those fighting Islamism as "Islamophobes" and, of course, "racists." In the moral order as perceived by the left, it is the anti-Islamists who are the enemy of the good. In this battle, the left fights American conservatives -- and Israel, the country in the front line against Islamism. In a nutshell, rather than fighting evil, the left fights those who fight evil.

Therefore, if you have moral clarity, you are not on the left. If you have moral clarity, you can be a liberal, a conservative, a centrist, an atheist, a believer, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a black, a white, a Latino, an Asian, a Native American, a gay, a straight or a bisexual. But you cannot be a leftist.

The problem, however, is that people want to feel morally good about themselves, and no one wants this more than the left. It has written the proverbial book on moral self-esteem. Therefore, it does not merely believe that it is morally superior to all others; it knows it is. Leftists know they are more compassionate, more enlightened, more intellectual and more intelligent than conservatives. And they know that they care more about the "downtrodden," the "marginalized" and the "disenfranchised" than conservatives.

But to feel good about yourself, you have to fight against something bad. Since the left doesn't fight real evil (that would take moral courage in addition to moral clarity), it has to fight lesser evils or made-up evils. For example, the left relentlessly fights racism in America, even though America is the least racist multiracial society in history; it relentlessly fights sexism in America, the country that has afforded unprecedented equality and liberty to women (but it does not fight the terrible sexism that pervades the world's most women-suppressing societies -- those in the Muslim world); and, of course, it fights Nazis and white supremacists -- who, though evil, constitute an utterly negligible threat to America today. Fighting Nazis in Germany between 1933 and 1945 was an act of moral heroism. Given their negligible numbers and nonexistent power, fighting Nazis in America in 2017 is an act of moral onanism.

There's a lot more on the list of made-up or lesser evils that the left fights instead of fighting real evil. It fights religious Americans, specifically religious Christians and especially evangelicals. Now that's an enemy worth fighting -- those mean Christians (and Jews) on the religious right. And it fights conservatives, or at least the conservatives who fight them.

And, of course, it fights global warming. Leftists have convinced themselves that the real fight against evil in the world today is not against Islamism; it's against carbon emissions.

And now, we can add statues to the list. The left was AWOL against communism, and it's AWOL against Islamism. But it's in the vanguard of fighting statues.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]


"When Parody Becomes Reality, You Know There's a Problem" - Bernard  Goldberg : Aug 29, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/bernardgoldberg/2017/08/29/when-parody-becomes-reality-you-know-theres-a-problem-n2374310

#2058 (8/28) "A Psychiatrist Who Defied the Transgender Movement..."

"A PSYCHIATRIST WHO DEFIED THE TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT - Chuck Colson on Dr. Paul McHugh" - by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.org, August 25, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-a-psychiatrist-who-defied-the-transgender-movement/

John Stonestreet: Two months ago, I introduced you to a leading psychiatrist who opposes the transgender movement. Chuck Colson told us about him 12 years ago.

Back in June I told you about renowned psychiatrist Paul McHugh. He’s won numerous international awards for his work, but he’s recently been labelled a hack by the transgender movement. Why? Because he once banned sex reassignment surgeries at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

He’s also publicized a study that shows a suicide rate 20 times higher than the general population for those who have undergone such surgery. And another that showed that up to 80 percent of children with transgender feelings simply outgrow them.

Well, Chuck told us about Dr. McHugh years ago on BreakPoint. Here’s Chuck:

Chuck Colson: You see them at night in big cities: men dressed up as women, complete with makeup, jewelry, and high heels. Despite their best efforts, it’s not a pretty sight. Nor is the sight of men who take a more drastic step: undergoing so-called sex-re-assignment surgery.

When these surgeries were first performed at Johns Hopkins University in the early seventies, one psychiatrist—Paul McHugh—started asking questions about the wisdom of this. After all, the outcomes were not women, but grotesque caricatures of them.

When McHugh became psychiatrist-in-chief in 1975, he decided to test the claim that men who underwent sex-change surgery were psychologically better off. He also wanted to study the outcomes of sex-reassignment surgeries performed on baby boys with ambiguous genitals.

So McHugh encouraged the research of a colleague, psychiatrist Jon Meyer, who was following up men who received sex-change operations. Meyer found that most of the patients he located did not regret their surgery. But in every other respect, McHugh writes, “they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before [the surgery].”  “I concluded,” he wrote, “that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness.” Wouldn’t it be better, he thought, to concentrate on fixing their minds instead of taking the far more drastic step of re-arranging their genitals? Thanks to the research of Meyer and others, it became possible to do just that—to make sense of the mental disorders that were driving the request for the surgeries.

McHugh then turned to the practice of sex-reassignment surgery for baby boys with ambiguous genitals. For years doctors had told parents that their child’s sexual identity would conform to environmental conditioning: They would happily grow up as girls. But a study found exactly the opposite. These re-engineered boys endured “prolonged distress and misery.” When they discovered their true genetic heritage, most of them began to live as males.

Given that there’s no evidence that sex reassignment surgery helps either adults or children, why did doctors recommend it in the first place? The answer is that psychiatrists were enamored of the feminist theory that sexual identity was determined, not by biology, but by cultural conditioning. Psychiatrists went along with this despite the fact that animal research had long shown that male sexual behavior is directly derived from exposure to testosterone in utero. And so today, the transgendered movement is firmly protected by rigid codes of political correctness. You’re a bigot if you say that a person is made a certain way and can’t change his gender.

Well, thanks to this research Johns Hopkins no longer performs sex-reassignment surgeries. But trendy ideologies are being used to argue for a host of feminist causes—like women in combat. When you hear them, tell people about the psychiatrist who took on the ideologies and proved gender isn’t a preference or a choice. These psychiatrists found out indeed that human nature can’t be manipulated, that the Bible was right all along—we are made, male and female, in His image.

Editor’s note: This commentary first aired on June 5, 2005. Johns Hopkins University has recently, and tragically, resumed sex-reassignment surgeries.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As Christians, we need to be prepared to care for the victims of the culture’s confused gender ideology, bringing truth and restoration in the name of Christ. Read more about Dr. Paul McHugh’s work by clicking on the links in our “Resources” section.

God and the Transgender Debate- Andrew Walker | Good Book Co. Publisher | August 2017; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9781784981785

"Opposing the Transgender Craze: How to Become a Scientific Heretic" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | June 5, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/06/breakpoint-opposing-the-transgender-craze/
"The Wisdom to Know the Difference: Is Sexual Identity Malleable?" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | June 15, 2005; http://www.breakpoint.org/2005/06/wisdom-know-difference/
"Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution" - Paul McHugh | Wall Street Journal | May 13, 2016;https://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

#2057 (8/27) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Suicide and the Logic of Utility - Wrong Worldview, Disastrous Result"

"SUICIDE AND THE LOGIC OF UTILITY - WRONG  WORLDVIEW, DISASTROUS RESULT[PART 2 OF 2]" by: John Stonestreet, Breakpoint.org, August 16, 2017, http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-suicide-and-the-logic-of-utility/ [AS I SEE IT: I continue to pray regularly for several teens whose emotional struggles caused them to do cutting. I shared this with a co-worker and she told me that several years ago a local middle school student committed suicide after  a "perfect storm" of negative incidents. Heartbreaking! My prayer has been that the Christian students who know of others hurting in such ways will take the lead in reaching out to them, if only to say "I'm here for you." - Stan]

What gives us our worth? How we answer that question will shape how we live. And maybe how we die.

[Last Wed., in post #2053] we discussed Aaron Kheriaty’s alarming article in First Things about America’s suicide epidemic—and how the Church can counteract one of its leading causes: Loneliness. The kind of loneliness that leads to depression and self-destruction.

But Kheriaty zeroes in on other causes as well, cultural factors that I want to address today. Kheriaty begins his article with a chilling story, about a straight-A California high school student jumped in front of a commuter train. “His suicide note provided no clear reason for his act,” Kheriaty wrote. “There were no apparent signs of mental illness, and he was not a bullied misfit. His death followed two other student suicides just three weeks prior, one from the same school, and one from a nearby private high.”

It’s heartbreaking. And I’ve seen a similar cluster of teen suicides even here in Colorado Springs. But it’s part of a national trend. “Let these numbers sink in,” Kheriaty writes: “Suicide is now the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults.”

As I mentioned [in Part 1], social isolation is certainly a factor. But Kheriaty sees another factor—one I think is critically important. “In a meritocratic age, we are valued for our usefulness,” Kheriaty says. Rich kids and poor kids alike “are increasingly told that they are valuable only insofar as they contribute to a productive society.”And so, parenthood, belonging to a church, civic involvement, “have receded in significance before the SAT and earning power.”

And here’s where Kheriaty nails it. “When the useful replaces the good and efficiency becomes the highest value, human beings are instrumentalized.” People become “subject to a logic of utility.”

So what happens to students when they don’t nail that SAT or make the varsity team? What happens when they don’t see themselves as useful? Or when they reach their lofty goals only to find that they’re exhausted and empty? That they did not find meaning in their achievements?

While this utilitarian view of the universe can sap the individual soul, on a societal level it has grave consequences—from the Gulag to Auschwitz to Planned Parenthood clinics to so-called “right-to-die laws.”

As Kheriaty reminds us, the law is a teacher. And right-to-die laws send a clear and satanic message: When life becomes too painful, or when you no longer feel useful, well, kill yourself.

Small wonder, as Kheriaty notes, “two British scholars [have] published a study showing that laws permitting assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington have led to a rise in overall suicide rates in those states.” Part of the reason, no doubt, is that “publicized cases of suicide tend to produce copycat cases.” Just a few weeks ago, for example, the Washington Post reported that web searches for how to kill yourself shot up dramatically when Netflix began airing its suicide drama “Thirteen Reasons Why.”

Folks, this is another example of why worldview matters—and why we devote our ministry here at the Colson Center to helping believers understand, defend, and proclaim the Christian worldview. A worldview that asserts that each and every human has value not because of what he or she can produce or do, but because we’re made in God’s image. As Chuck Colson said years ago on this program: “Human beings are of such inconceivable worth that God sacrificed His own Son to save us from sin—not only the sin of underestimating each other’s worth but also of ‘fall[ing] short of the glory of God.’

“That is an estimation of human worth beyond our comprehension. … Each of us is destined to live for eternity. As C. S. Lewis put it, no one has ever met ‘mere mortal.’” That’s a message every despairing soul needs to hear—and experience.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - We are created in God’s image and our worth comes directly from the One who created us. Neither utility nor productivity can influence that worth. As Christ followers, our message should be one that reinforces the fact of God’s love, concern, and care for all individuals.
"Dying of Despair" - Aaron Kheriaty | First Things | August 2017; https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/08/dying-of-despair
"America’s Suicide Crisis: Dying for Lack of Hope (Part 1 of 2)," - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | August 14, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-americas-suicide-crisis/
"Internet searches on suicide went up after ‘13 Reasons Why’ released by Netflix"-  Madhumita Murgia | Washington Post | July 31, 2017; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/07/31/internet-searches-on-suicide-went-up-after-13-reasons-why/?utm_term=.bbe47f1d3bec
"Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?" - Jean M. Twenge | The Atlantic | September 2017; https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

#2056 (8/26) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Unborn Babies Learn Language in the Womb Weeks After Conception"

"UNBORN BABIES LEARN LANGUAGE IN THE WOMB WEEKS AFTER CONCEPTION" - Andrew Wood, July 31, 2017 | http://www.lifenews.com/2017/07/31/unborn-babies-learn-language-in-the-womb-weeks-after-conception/

I recently came across an article referencing a study performed by the University of Kansas on a fetus’ ability to distinguish between languages while in utero. This article wasn’t written by the pro-life lobby or a pro-life advocate. No, this article was written by a science editor over at CBS News who proudly calls herself a feminist in her Twitter profile.

In the current journalistic and political culture that is littered with fake news accusations, it is truly a welcomed sight to see honest reporting on studies that would dare point to the intricacies and truth of life in the womb.

Pro-life advocates have spent years seeking to convince the world that life begins at conception. We have held rallies, paid lobbyists, opened pregnancy centers, and protested. This work has not been in vain as we continue to see a shift in polls, but this work alone will not provide the ultimate shift in thinking. I believe, however, that this work, coupled with scientific research and scholarship, will prove our original hypothesis to be correct: life begins at conception and deserves our (excuse the rhyme) protection.

We have seen a trend in studies over the last couple of decades as research continues to point to the importance of parents talking with their children by using an expanded vocabulary. This model of discussion in the home prepares a child’s brain and proves to signal intellectual health for their future. It is remarkable to see that these studies on babies post-birth have now driven researchers to focus their study to the awareness of a fetus in utero. Pro-life advocates have argued for years that the only difference between an infant and a child in the womb is development, size, and proximity. This is oftentimes scoffed at by our detractors as they scream ‘but science!’

The ‘but science’ argument is a tired one and no longer produces helpful debate. Why? Because science is on the side of life as we no longer are forced to wonder what development in the womb looks like. You can look at app after app on this or you could just visit the Mayo Clinic to learn about development. Regardless of where you choose to acquire the information, the truth of life in the womb remains.

We know that our work is fruitful when those that make the ‘but science’ argument are now being forced to attack the very science that they cherish so much. Pro-life advocates have believed all along that science would prove us to be correct. We knew this because of the evidence of life.
There are approximately four million births every year in the United States. This doesn’t happen spontaneously or in a vacuum. Every birth and every person we come in contact with daily points to the truth of life in the womb.

This is why we can make our case with confidence. Even the very existence of those that would disagree with us points to the truth of our beliefs. Now, we can argue on whether or not a woman’s choice has more value than the actual life existing in the womb, but the argument on whether or not there is an actual life in the womb has, in my estimation, been settled.

This is why the aforementioned article brought me joy. It shows that there are researchers and journalists out there seeking to speak truth. They were not pushing a political agenda necessarily; they were simply letting the science take them where it may.

Is it newsworthy that fetuses in utero are aware of and can distinguish between languages? This question is best answered by a comment left by a reader of the CBS article: "…If true, this may be a step towards determining exactly when fetuses become self-aware, which to me would be a devastating blow to the pro-abortion movement. Something of this magnitude might even change my mind on the issue."

Keep working, praying, and believing and soon, I believe, the tides will shift and the truth and science of it all will align as abortion becomes unthinkable in a civilized society. To steal a line from one of my favorite hymns, what a day of rejoicing that will be!

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews Note: Andrew serves as the Executive Director of Hope Resource Center, one of the largest pregnancy centers in the Southeast, located in Knoxville, TN. When he is not discussing and promoting life issues he is at home with his wife, Erin, and their three kids, Gavin, Summer, and Evelyn. This originally appeared at PregnancyHelpNews.

#2055 (8/25) "Al Gore's Hype"

"AL GORE'S HYPE" - John Stossel : Aug 23, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2017/08/23/al-gores-hype-n2371854 [AS I SEE IT: Why can't people understand that the former VP has become rich by promoting his scary stories and getting the government to buy into his "solutions" that we end paying for as taxpayers? He's just another former liberal politician whose found a way to make money by duping people. Shame on him! - Stan]

I was surprised to discover that Al Gore's new movie begins with words from me! While icebergs melt dramatically, Gore plays a clip of me saying, "'An Inconvenient Truth' won him an Oscar, yet much of the movie is nonsense. 'Sea levels may rise 20 feet' -- absurd." He used this comment from one of my TV shows. The "20 feet" claim is absurd -- one of many hyped claims in his movie.

His second film, "An Inconvenient Sequel," shows lower Manhattan underwater while Gore intones: "This is global warming!" My goodness! Stossel doubts Al Gore's claim, but pictures don't lie: The 9/11 Memorial is underwater! Gore is right! Stossel is an ignorant fool!

But wait. The pictures were from Superstorm Sandy. Water is pushed ashore during storms, especially "super" storms. But average sea levels haven't risen much. Over the past decade, they have risen about 1 inch. But this is not because we burn fossil fuels. Sea levels were rising long before we burned anything. They've been rising about an inch per decade for a thousand years.

In his new movie, Gore visits Miami Beach. No storm, but streets are flooded! Proof of catastrophe! But in a new e-book responding to Gore's film, climate scientist Roy Spencer points out that flooding in "Miami Beach occurs during high tides called 'king tides,' due to the alignment of the Earth, sun and moon. For decades they have been getting worse in low-lying areas of Miami Beach where buildings were being built on reclaimed swampland."

It's typical Al Gore scaremongering: Pick a place that floods every year and portray it as evidence of calamity.

Spencer, a former NASA scientist who co-developed the first ways of monitoring global temperatures with satellites, is no climate change "denier." Neither am I. Climate changes.
Man probably plays a part. But today's warming is almost certainly not a "crisis." It's less of a threat than real crises like malaria, terrorism, America's coming bankruptcy, etc. Even if increasing carbon dioxide warming the atmosphere were a serious threat, nothing Al Gore and his followers now advocate would make a difference.

"What I am opposed to is misleading people with false climate science claims and alarming them into diverting vast sums of the public's wealth into expensive energy schemes," writes Spencer.

Gore does exactly that. He portrays just about every dramatic weather event as proof that humans have changed weather. Watching his films, you'd think that big storms and odd weather never occurred before and that glaciers never melted.

In his first movie, Gore predicted that tornadoes and hurricanes would get worse. They haven't. Tornado activity is down.

What about those dramatic pictures of collapsing ice shelves? "As long as snow continues to fall on Antarctica," writes Spencer, "glaciers and ice shelves will continue to slowly flow downhill to the sea and dramatically break off into the ocean. That is what happens naturally, just as rivers flow naturally to the ocean. It has nothing to do with human activities."

Gore said summer sea ice in the Arctic would disappear as early as 2014. Nothing like that is close to happening.

Gore's movie hypes solar power and electric cars but doesn't mention that taxpayers are forced to subsidize them. Despite the subsidies, electric cars still make up less than 1 percent of the market.
If electric cars do become more popular, Spencer asks, "Where will all of the extra electricity come from? The Brits are already rebelling against existing wind farms." I bet most Gore fans have no idea that most American electricity comes from natural gas (33 percent), coal (30 percent) and nuclear reactors (20 percent). 

Gore probably doesn't know that. I'd like to ask him, but he won't talk to me. He won't debate anyone.

Critics liked "An Inconvenient Sequel." An NPR reviewer called it "a hugely effective lecture." But viewers were less enthusiastic. On Rotten Tomatoes, my favorite movie guide, they give "Sequel" a "tipped over popcorn bucket" score of 48 percent. Sample reviews: "Dull as can be." "Faulty info, conflated and exaggerated."

Clearly, Nobel Prize judges and media critics are bigger fans of big government and scaremongering than the rest of us.

 [bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy (Kindle Edition) - by Roy Spencer (Author)

#2054 (8/24) Happy Birthday, William! "The Light of William Wilberforce - Get to Know Him Again for the First Time"

"THE LIGHT OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE - GET TO KNOW HIM AGAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME" - by: Eric Metaxas & Stan Guthrie, Breakpoint.org, August 24, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-light-william-wilberforce/ [AS I SEE IT: Mr. Wilberforce is definitely one of the saints of history I am most looking forward to finally meeting in heaven. While not mentioned in this article, one of the best movies made in recent years is the story of this incredible man, "Amazing Grace." This being his birthday, I do hope to view that movie again tonight. - Stan]

In dark times like this, it’s great to celebrate the birthday of a man who brought the light of Christ into his world. I want to re-acquaint you with him.

Back when I was a lad, a certain breakfast cereal company attempted to stir up enthusiasm for its corn flakes by stating, “Taste them again for the first time.” Well, in this time of cultural darkness and tumult, I’d like for you to reacquaint yourself with my personal hero—a man whose faith and persistence are sorely needed today, whose 258th birthday we celebrate today.

Can you guess? I wrote a book about him called “Amazing Grace”. Yes, you got it, it’s the English parliamentarian William Wilberforce, a true giant of the faith, who lived from 1759 to 1833. After his dramatic conversion to Jesus in 1785, Wilberforce made two consequential decisions that changed the world—actually, make that three: first, stay in politics, at a time when the conventional wisdom held that politics was too dirty a business for Christians; and second and third, work for the abolition of the slave trade in Britain and for what he called “the reformation of manners” in a society that was scraping bottom morally.

So, how bad was it? Well, besides the dehumanizing brutality of the slave trade, British society in the late 1700s and early 1800s was reeling from rampant alcoholism, horrible child labor abuses, prostitution, and even mistreatment of animals through “pastimes” such as bear-baiting. So if you think today’s American degradation sets some kind of record, look at the pre-Victorian era in England again for the first time.

Wilberforce had his work cut out for him—and, work he did. Tirelessly. As another one of my heroes, Chuck Colson, said, “He could not stand idly by and see the imago Dei of each person, the image of God, abused. His fiercely unpopular crusade against the slave trade ravaged his health and cost him politically. He endured verbal assaults and was even challenged to a duel by an angry slave-ship captain.”

But Wilberforce didn’t stop there. He fought for prison reform and founded or supported over 60 charities. Did you know, by the way, that he founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? And he championed the British and Foreign Bible Society.

I think it’s patently obvious that Western culture needs men and women like William Wilberforce, whose faith was translated into persistent action. Certainly we need to be reminded that all of us, no matter our race or religion, are equal in dignity, and that racism and other forms of bigotry are an obscenity in God’s world. Wilberforce never wavered on this point and was a brave and sometimes lonely voice that fought against the spiral of silence in a corrupted culture.

Yes, Wilberforce was a fighter, but he had the faith to fight differently. He even treated his enemies with decency and respect. And he often worked with those who disagreed with him on other issues. For him, politics wasn’t simply about “winning.” It was about seeing what others could not see and standing up for the glory of God and the good of his neighbors—even those who were bound in chains and carried away from home in the dank bowels of a slave ship.

William Wilberforce, though born 258 years ago today, remains a man for our time: a time when racism slithers back into our national discourse, political polarization takes over, and when the culture seems headed for the abyss. While we can’t bring Wilberforce back, we can celebrate and emulate him.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Discover more about the man who fought for decades to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain. Check out the links listed in our Resource section, and get a copy of Eric Metaxas’s book, “Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery.” It’s available at the online bookstore.
Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery- Eric Metaxas | HarperOne Publishing | November 2007; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9780061173882
"BreakPoint: Happy Birthday, William Wilberforce: A Hero’s Legacy" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | August 24, 2009; http://www.breakpoint.org/2009/08/breakpoint-happy-birthday-william-wilberforce/
"Abortion: What Would William Wilberforce Do?" - Eric Metaxas | Christianheadlines.com | January 20, 2014; http://www.breakpoint.org/2009/08/breakpoint-happy-birthday-william-wilberforce/
"Changing the World: The Passions of William Wilberforce" - Eric Metaxas | Christianheadlines.com | May 6, 2013; http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/breakpoint/changing-the-world-passions-of-william-wilberforce.html
William Wilberforce - Wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

#2053 (8/23) "America’s Suicide Crisis - Dying for Lack of Hope (Part 1 of 2)"

"AMERICA'S SUICIDE CRISIS - DYING FOR LACK OF HOPE (PART 1 of 2)" - by: John Stonestreet & David Carlson; Breakpoint.org, August 14, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-americas-suicide-crisis/ [NOTE: Be sure to check out THIS SUNDAY'S post #2057 for the second part of this discussion.]

America’s suicide rate is out of control. And the Church has a solution. But will we employ it? 

How bad is America’s suicide problem? Well, it’s so bad that Americans’ overall life expectancy has declined for the first time since the 1930s. As Aaron Kheriaty writes in First Things, the suicide crisis in America has reached epidemic proportions. Rates are growing coast to coast, in rural and urban areas, among the poor and the rich, the young and the old. What in the world is going on, and what do we do about it?

In his article, Kheriaty, director of the Medical Ethics Program at Cal-Irvine, describes a witch’s brew of factors behind this epidemic of death—ones we’ve talked about for years on BreakPoint: social fragmentation, an overall decrease in religious involvement, utilitarianism, and—yes—the growth of assisted suicide laws.

But in the end, Kheriaty boils the problem down to one word: Despair. Despair, as in the utter lack of hope. In 1995, Robert Putnam first raised a red flag in an essay and subsequent book, “Bowling Alone.” He noticed that while more Americans than ever before were bowling, the number of bowling leagues was declining. Folks were bowling alone. Similarly, fewer Americans were attending school board or town meetings, volunteering, or even getting together with their neighbors. And this was long before the isolating effects of internet, social media and cell phones. I doubt that back then Putnam could have imagined a family of 4—mom, dad, sister, and brother—out to dinner together but each one staring into their own mobile devices. But you’ve seen it, and so have I.

This isolation breeds loneliness. And loneliness can be a major factor behind depression, which in turn can set people on the road to self-annihilation. Now, Kheriaty notes that clinical depression can and does have chemical causes as well, but, as he writes, “Your serotonin and dopamine levels may be out of kilter, but you may still have a problem with your Tinder compulsion and dinners alone in front of the television.”

So while depression can be a serious mental illness that needs medical and psychological treatment, aloneness is curable. And that’s exactly where the Church should be jumping up and down, waving its arms saying, “Come here! Come here! Join us!”

“We now have a sizeable body of medical research,” Kheriaty continues, “which suggests that prayer, religious faith, participation in a religious community, and practices like cultivating gratitude, forgiveness, and other virtues can reduce the risk of depression [and], lower the risk of suicide.” One study of 89,000 people showed that those “who attend any religious service once a week or more were five times less likely to commit suicide” than those who don’t. And “of the 6,999 Catholic women who attended Mass more than once a week, none committed suicide.”

And it’s not just identifying as religious that matters—participation does! “Self-identified Catholics who did not attend Mass had suicide rates comparable to those of other women who were not active worshippers.” Obviously, church—or for that matter, synagogue or mosque—attendance reduces isolation. And of course, all three Abrahamic faiths “have strong moral prohibitions against suicide.” But in the end, what religious faith provides is meaning, belonging, and ultimately hope for something beyond us or our circumstances and our self-isolation.

“Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden,” Jesus says, “and I will give you rest.” We, my friends, need to bring people to Jesus. Chuck Colson liked to say that Christianity offers the world a great proposal—a better way to live and flourish—an invitation to the wedding feast of the Lamb. We have the invitations . . . are we passing them out?

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Resources
"Dying of Despair" - Aaron Kheriaty | First Things | August 2017; https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/08/dying-of-despair
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community- Robert Putnam | Simon and Schuster | August 2001; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=0743203046

#2052 (8/22) "Trump Lays Out a Winning Strategy for Afghanistan"

"TRUMP LAYS OUT A WINNING STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN" - Luke Coffey / August 21, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/21/trump-speech-on-afghanistan [AS I SEE IT: As most Americans, I have grown tired of the endless war in Afghanistan and wonder if the loss of more than 2,000 brave Americans and the hundreds of billions of dollars already spent is worth prolonging our involvement. It's tempting to want to just throw in the towel and leave, but that does nothing to give honor to the great sacrifices we have already made. The President is right to clarify our mission and provide a context in which we can finally leave when we have accomplished that mission. It means admitting to our wrong-headed nation-building strategy of the past and moving forward to secure an achievable victory. Americans need to get behind our President as he seeks to do this. - Stan]

In a prime-time speech, President Donald Trump announced a strategy for victory in Afghanistan based on the fulfillment of concrete objectives rather than a set timetable. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters /Newscom)

After months of speculation and delay, President Donald Trump has sided with the expert advice of his military and national security team on the way forward to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

In what was by far his best and most statesmanlike speech since taking office, Trump outlined a new approach Monday night to the ongoing war in Afghanistan: a laser-like focus on counterterrorism, jettisoning the quixotic nation-building rhetoric of the past, helping the Afghans defeat the Taliban insurgency (not doing it for them), lifting onerous restrictions placed by the Obama administration on the way the military conducts warfighting, and pressuring Pakistan and its support for certain elements of the Taliban. Crucially, Trump made clear that under his watch, progress in Afghanistan will be measured by conditions on the ground and not by a politically driven and artificial timeline—a major departure from President Barack Obama.

What Trump outlined in his speech tonight was a reasonable, realistic, and responsible strategy to ensure America achieves “an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made” in Afghanistan.

There were three important takeaways from Trump’s speech.
     First is his commitment to send more trainers to Afghanistan and stay committed to the mission there, even though, in his own words, it went against his initial instincts. This shows that he trusts his commanders and national security team.
     The commitment to send more U.S. trainers is particularly important. The war being fought in Afghanistan today is not the same war from 2001 or even 2009, when the U.S. was leading combat operations. Today, the Afghans are in the lead, and the U.S. mission is one of training, advising, and assisting. Ultimately, it is the Afghans’ country and their war. We are not there to fight for them, but to help them fight and win.
     The Afghan security forces are that country’s ticket to long-term security and stability. If we continue to mentor, train, and fund the Afghan military, the Afghans will be able to take on the insurgency themselves. Not only will this help the Afghans prevent their country from becoming a hub for transnational terrorism, this will eventually establish the security conditions inside which a genuine political process can take place. This is why Trump’s decision to increase the number of U.S. advisers and mentors is so important.

     Second, the president was right to state very clearly that the U.S. is no longer in the business of nation building, and that we do not seek to bring our way of life to Afghanistan. We are there for national security alone—ours and the Afghans’. For many years, America’s mission in Afghanistan was often defined by lofty rhetoric of “nation building” and “bringing democracy.” Consequently, the inability to produce what public opinion considers tangible and achievable results 16 years on has disappointed many.
    Success in Afghanistan is not when 100 percent of its districts are under the complete control of the Afghan government, or when there are no more suicide bombings. Nor is success in Afghanistan achieved when every road is paved, every girl goes to school, or everyone gets the right to vote. These things are very important in themselves, and we should hope for them, but they are neither the reasons why we went to Afghanistan nor the reasons we should remain there. It is welcome that Trump gets this.

     Finally, another important aspect of Trump’s speech—and arguably the most important in the long run—was the emphasis on a regional strategy.
    The main focus here, of course, is Pakistan and its nefarious role in harboring and providing succor to elements of the Taliban. As Trump stated very clearly: “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups.”
This will likely be the hardest aspect of his strategy to achieve. Both of Trump’s immediate predecessors also made overtures to the “regional” approach to Afghanistan, but neither delivered. 
    Pakistan cannot have it both ways, and the U.S. has a great deal of leverage to use to help Islamabad change its ways. If Trump is seriousness about this and has the political will to truly pressure Pakistan, then his regional approach will succeed where it has failed for others.

So can Trump’s strategy bring success in America’s longest war?
    Success will be achieved when Afghanistan is stable enough to manage its own internal and external security to a degree that stops interference from outside powers, allowing the country to resist the establishment of terror bases that were there before. Nothing more and nothing less.
In that context, the current war in Afghanistan is winnable.

We need to start measuring success by achievements on the ground and not by unrealistic expectations based in nation building. Trump’s speech is a great place to start.

We also need to realize that patience is required. Success in Afghanistan will be measured in years and decades, not 24-hour news cycles and 140-character-long tweets.

The strategy Trump outlined is a prudent way to assure that we can meet our strategic security objectives. It will send all the right messages to our allies and foes alike, be they in Europe, Afghanistan, or the rest of South Asia. Now is not the time to turn our backs.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Luke Coffey oversees research on nations stretching from South America to the Middle East as director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 

"6 Takeaways as Trump Recommits US to ‘Defeat the Enemy’ in Afghanistan" - Fred Lucas / August 21, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/21/trump-recommits-us-to-kill-terrorists-and-defeat-the-enemy-in-afghanistan/

#2051 (8/21) "The Group That Got Ignored in Charlottesville"

"THE GROUP THAT GOT IGNORED IN CHARLOTTESVILLE" - Ben Shapiro : Aug 16, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2017/08/16/the-group-that-got-ignored-in-charlottesville-n2368998 [AS I SEE IT: REAL news -as opposed to FAKE news - tells the FULL news story. It doesn't shine the light on one side vs. another. I believe that that is all the President was trying to do in his statements. - Stan]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "alt-right" is evil. White supremacism is evil. Neo-Nazism is evil.

I've been saying these things my entire career; I've spent more than a year slamming various factions on the right that refuse to disassociate from and condemn popularizers of the racist alt-right. The media, too, have spent inordinate time covering the rise of the alt-right and tacit acquiescence to it from White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and President Trump. So when an alt-right piece of human debris drove a car at 40 mph into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, last Saturday, injuring 19 people and killing a 32-year-old woman, the level of scrutiny on the alt-right forced Trump to condemn various alt-right groups by name. Good.

But the media have remained largely silent about another group: Antifa. Antifa is a loosely connected band of anti-capitalist protesters generally on the far left who dub themselves "anti-fascist" after their compatriots in Europe. They've been around in the United States since the 1990s, protesting globalization and burning trash cans at World Trade Organization meetings. But they've kicked into high gear over the past two years: They engaged in vandalism in violence, forcing the cancelation of a speech by alt-right popularizer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley; a few months later, they attacked alt-right demonstrators in Berkeley; they attacked alt-right demonstrators in Sacramento, California, leading to a bloody street fight; they threw projectiles at police during President Trump's inauguration; they attacked pro-Trump free-speech demonstrators in Seattle last weekend. They always label their opponents "fascists" in order to justify their violence.

In Charlottesville, Antifa engaged in street violence with the alt-right racists. As in Weimar, Germany, fascists flying the swastika engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Antifa members flying the communist red. And yet, the media declared that any negative coverage granted to Antifa would detract from the obvious evils of the alt-right. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times tweeted in the midst of the violence, "The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park." After receiving blowback from the left, Stolberg then corrected herself. She said: "Rethinking this. Should have said violent, not hate-filled. They were standing up to hate."

Or perhaps Antifa is a hateful group itself. But that wouldn't fit the convenient narrative Antifa promotes and the media buy: that the sole threat to the republic comes from the racist right. Perhaps that's why the media ignored the events in Sacramento and Berkeley and Seattle -- to point out the evils of Antifa might detract from the evils of the alt-right.That sort of biased coverage only engenders more militancy from the alt-right, which feels it must demonstrate openly and repeatedly to "stand up to Antifa." Which, of course, prompts Antifa to violence. 

Here's the moral solution, as always: Condemn violence and evil wherever it occurs. The racist philosophy of the alt-right is evil. The violence of the alt-right is evil. The communist philosophy of Antifa is evil. So is the violence of Antifa. If we are to survive as a republic, we must call out Nazis but not punch them; we must stop providing cover to anarchists and communists who seek to hide behind self-proclaimed righteousness to participate in violence. Otherwise, we won't be an honest or a free society.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"Far-Left ‘Antifa’ Agitators on the Rise in the Age of Trump" - Ken McIntyre  / Kevin Mooney / August 17, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/17/far-left-antifa-agitators-on-the-rise-in-the-age-of-trump
     "When self-described anti-fascists showed up in force Saturday to oppose a rally of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, some of them turned violent, according to media reports and eyewitness accounts.
    President Donald Trump did not specify radicals who operate under the banner of Antifa, an abbreviation for anti-fascist or anti-fascist action, when he said Tuesday that “both sides” bore responsibility for the violence and bloodshed that left three dead and dozens injured.
   It is hard to know at this juncture how many of the hundreds of counterprotesters considered themselves affiliated with Antifa. Nor is it clear how many of them were among those who squared off against the white supremacists marching in downtown Charlottesville, trading punches and blows, some with lengths of wood.
   The full facts await the findings of a Justice Department investigation of the Charlottesville violence announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
   “Antifa is a coalition of hyperviolent activists who are far-left anarchists or communists,” said Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the Washington-based Capital Research Center. “They could be considered domestic terrorists. They are not legitimate actors in the democratic process.”
"Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a 'major gift to the Right'" - by Steven Nelson | Aug 17, 2017,http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/noam-chomsky-antifa-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right/article/2631786
"Harvard Professor Calls Out Antifa for Trying to ‘Tear Down America’" - Nick Givas / August 22, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/22/harvard-professor-calls-out-antifa-for-trying-to-tear-down-america

#2050 (8/20) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "The Eichmann in All of Us - CHUCK COLSON ON THE ROOT OF EVIL"

"The Eichmann in All of Us - CHUCK COLSON ON THE ROOT OF EVIL" - Breakpoint.org, August 18, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/08/breakpoint-the-eichmann-in-all-of-us/

Eric Metaxas: What is going on in our country? Why all the anger and hatred? As Chuck Colson reminds us, the answer is as old as humanity.

 In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, a national argument is underway. I’d like to say it’s a national debate, but no one seems to be listening to each other. So, who’s to blame for the racism, identity politics, and escalating violence and on and on?

Well, earlier this week on this program, speaking about Charlottesville, John Stonestreet got to the root of the problem. It’s called the Fall. “Understanding the biblical concept of the Fall,” John said, “keeps us from finding the enemy only in the other, as if the problem is always outside of ourselves. No, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, ‘the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.’”

John is absolutely right. And what he said reminded me of a brilliant BreakPoint commentary delivered by Chuck Colson way back in 1994 about Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. Why do human beings perpetrate evil? It’s the Eichmann in all of us.

Here’s Chuck Colson:

Chuck: For you and me, the answer to that question is as close as our faith, as close as our own hearts. Christians, of all people, should never be surprised at the evil that infects every human being—even the most ordinary of people.

A dramatic illustration of this truth took place thirty years ago, when Israeli agents captured Adolph Eichmann, one of the masterminds of the Nazi holocaust, and brought him to Israel to stand trial for his crimes.

Among the witnesses called to testify against Eichmann was a small, haggard man named Yehiel Dinur. He had survived brutal torture in the death camp at Auschwitz. Dinur entered the courtroom and he stared at the man who had presided over the slaughter of millions— including many of Dinur’s own friends. As the eyes of the victim met those of the mass murderer, the courtroom fell silent. Then, suddenly, Dinur literally collapsed to the floor, sobbing violently. Was he overcome by hatred? By memories of the stark evil that Eichmann had committed?

No. As Dinur explained later in a riveting interview on “60 Minutes,” what struck him was that Eichmann did not look like an evil monster at all; he looked like an ordinary person. Just like anyone else. In that moment, Dinur said, “I realized that evil is endemic to the human condition—that any one of us could commit the same atrocities.” In a remarkable conclusion, Dinur said: “Eichmann is in all of us.”

This is what the Bible means when it talks about sin. In our therapeutic culture, people cringe when they hear words like evil and sin. We’d prefer to talk about people as victims of dysfunctional backgrounds. But there are times when it becomes obvious that those categories are simply insufficient—times when the evil in the human heart breaks through the veneer of polite society and shows us its terrifying face.

Eric Metaxas: Folks, what happened in Charlottesville will be the focus of a lot of talk for the foreseeable future—especially as protests and counter protests pop up around the country. So, as Chuck went on to say, why not use these events “as an opportunity to press home to your family and your friends the profound truth of the biblical teaching on sin.”  That the events unfolding on our TV screens and newsfeeds “ought to remind us that all of us are in revolt against God,” and that the “only salvation for any of us is repentance and grace.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Chuck’s comments are a reminder of the apostle Paul’s words in his letter to the Roman church. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Eric has encouraged us to proclaim Christ’s grace and forgiveness as we repent and trust in Him–the only antidote to evil.
 "How Could She? Eichmann in Us All" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | November 18, 1994; http://archive.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/13376
The Gulag Archipelago- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn | Harper Perennial Publishers | August 2007; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780061253713

#2049 (8/19) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Iceland Claims to Have 'Eradicated' Down Syndrome By Aborting Every Baby Who Had It"

"ICELAND CLAIMS TO HAVE 'ERADICATED' DOWN SYNDROME BY ABORTING EVERY BABY WHO HAD IT"-MICAIAH BILGER   AUG 15, 2017   |http://www.lifenews.com/2017/08/15/iceland-claims-to-have-eradicated-down-syndrome-by-aborting-every-baby-who-had-it/ [AS I SEE IT: Here's a horrible story about what happens when society decides that certain individuals are not worth giving life. With all the attention these days drawn to "hate" groups, we need to see abortion as in essence an instrument of hate that must be spoken out against. - Stan]

Mainstream news channels rarely draw attention to the negative side of abortion, but CBS News did so this week with a report about Iceland’s near 100-percent abortion rate for babies with Down syndrome. “… few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland,” the report begins. “Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women — close to 100 percent — who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.”

Just a handful of children with Down syndrome have been born in Iceland in the past decade. Two are born each year, on average, but the rest are killed in the womb. For most of the children who were born, their mothers decided not to have prenatal screening tests.

This deadly discrimination against babies with disabilities is a problem in countries across the world, not just Iceland. In 2014, the Danish government reported 98 percent of unborn babies who tested positive for Down syndrome were aborted. CBS reports the rate in France was 77 percent in 2015, 90 percent in the United Kingdom and 67 percent in the U.S. between 1995 and 2011. Some put the rate even higher in the United States, but it is difficult to determine the exact number because the U.S. government does not keep detailed statistics about abortion.

In many of these countries, late-term abortions are legal in cases of fetal anomalies, such as Down syndrome. The UK, for example, prohibits abortions after 24 weeks but allows wide exceptions for late-term abortions involving fetal anomalies.

Iceland hospital counselor Helga Sol Olafsdottir does not see any problem with the fact that so many women are having their unborn babies aborted because of Down syndrome. This systematic discrimination is simply a “woman’s choice” in her mind.
     According to the interview with CBS: Olafsdottir tells women who are wrestling with the decision or feelings of guilt: “This is your life — you have the right to choose how your life will look like.” She showed [CBS reporter Elaine] Quijano a prayer card inscribed with the date and tiny footprints of a fetus that was terminated. Quijano noted, “In America, I think some people would be confused about people calling this ‘our child,’ saying a prayer or saying goodbye or having a priest come in — because to them abortion is murder.” Olafsdottir responded, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication… preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder — that’s so black and white. Life isn’t black and white. Life is grey.”

The issue is not gray. It’s very clearly wrong, says Penny Nace, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America. “This is eugenics and barbarianism at best,” Nace said. “These individuals have no less worth than anyone else.”
     Iceland and many other countries are killing human beings in abortions simply because they have a disability. Down syndrome varies in severity, but most people with the genetic disorder live into their 60s. Some even live on their own, hold down jobs, go to college and get married.
     “What is the next headline going to be? That a certain country has eradicated all females. Oh wait, China has already been down that road. There is no limit to this train of thought of devaluing human life,” Nace added.
     Reports in pro-life, conservative and even mainstream news outlets indicate the problem is not limited to Down syndrome. Unborn babies with health problems as minor as a cleft lip also are being targeted for abortion, as are girls.

Pro-life groups are fighting back against this modern form of eugenics, and disability rights groups are becoming more involved, too.
     Earlier this year, the organization Down Pride wrote a letter to the United Nations about abortion discrimination against babies with Down syndrome in Iceland and Denmark. They urged the UN to think about how these practices and attitudes could expand to babies with other disabilities.
     “The system of utilitarianism will not stop at Down syndrome,” the organization wrote. “Within the not too distant future other groups will be identified: risk for autism, schizophrenia, low IQ? Children with these conditions also easily cost 1 to 2 million euros.”

Abortion is a great evil in so many ways. Amazing new scientific advancements are giving us a better picture of unborn babies’ lives, but some people are using that knowledge to discriminate and destroy lives through abortion, rather than celebrate them.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"Eliminating Down Syndrome Children Is Not Something to Be Proud Of" - Chuck Donovan / August 16, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/16/eliminating-syndrome-children-not-something-proud/
"... Research done by Dr. Brian Skotko, who co-leads the Down Syndrome Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, has shown that:
    99 percent of people with Down syndrome are happy.
    97 percent of people with Down syndrome like their identity.
    99 percent of parents love their child with Down syndrome.
    97 percent of brothers and sisters, ages 9-11, say they love their sibling.
Women must be allowed to know these facts.
      What is happening in so many countries around the world today is a surrender to fear, a succumbing to the harsh judgments lodged against those who are different, a prejudice against the weaknesses and imperfections more visible in some but surely present in us all.
     For these reasons, advocates, conscious that life is never easy, will continue to call for the dissemination of truthful and current information about the unique gifts people with Down syndrome offer this world, and for laws and policies that protect these precious souls from acts of lethal discrimination in the womb."
"CBS Applauds Iceland for “Eliminating” Down Syndrome By Aborting Babies Who Have It" - Katie Yoder, Aug 15, 2017; http://www.lifenews.com/2017/08/15/cbs-applauds-iceland-for-eliminating-down-syndrome-by-aborting-babies-who-have-it/