Dear Secular Humanist: Please Keep Your Religious Views about Abortion out of Politics!

April 1st, 2013 Anthony Horvath Posted in abortion, Children & Youth, Culture, Culture Wars, Euthanasia, Evolution, Human Rights, Socialism, Society No Comments »

In our country, there is a general feeling that only positions backed by actual fact should drive public policy.  ‘Religion’ is perceived to be the realm of personal opinion.   Even Christians tend to accept the view that people are allowed to have their opinion, but they aren’t allowed to impose that opinion on others.   The result is that many Christians refrain from acting ‘politically’ because they see their own beliefs as nothing more than ‘mere opinion.’

Secularists tend to be people who have dispensed with ‘religion’ altogether, and like to think that they are entirely ‘fact driven.’

When these ideas collide, we observe something very curious:  secular humanists conclude that they can advocate for anything that they want in the public sphere, because nothing they believe is ‘religious, ‘ while distinctly Christian viewpoints are forbidden from entering the public domain, since those will be, by definition, ‘religious.’  And again, even Christians gravitate to that view.

This tends to lead to debates and discussions and policy proposals that take the ‘facts’ of the secularists as the starting points.  We are expected to proceed on their terms.  And why not?  Surely without the ‘religious’ component, those ‘facts’ are as close to actually being real descriptions of the world as one could get, right?

But what if ‘religion’ and ‘fact’ are not opposites? Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I Can See the Next Holocaust From My House

September 19th, 2012 Anthony Horvath Posted in abortion, Academe, Culture, Culture Wars, Euthanasia, Evolution, Freedom, Human Rights, life, Society, The Left 11 Comments »

Anthony Horvath is a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, Christian apologist, pro-life author and speaker, and publisher.  To learn more about his latest project aimed at combating the philosophies discussed in the essay below and how you can help, click here.


Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin, joked, “I can see Russia from my house.”

I can see the next holocaust from my house, and it is no joke.

In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors.  Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals.  In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them.  And that was in America.

In a book written in 1920 by two German experts and applauded by American experts, it was argued that it was allowable to destroy the ‘life unworthy of life.’

Who was regarded as ‘life unworthy of life’?  The handicapped, the disabled, the diseased, the mentally ill, the ‘feeble-minded.’  Really, just about anyone the experts decided was ‘unfit’ could be deemed ‘unworthy of life.’  When eugenics morphed into the Holocaust, many of its proponents quietly went to ground.  Some asked ‘What went wrong?’ but few arrived at the right answer.

Fast forward sixty years.  Enter Julian Savulescu.

You probably don’t know who Julian Savulescu is, just as your average American off the street in 1910 wouldn’t have known who Charles Davenport was.  You probably don’t know who Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are, just as your average American in 1920 wouldn’t have known who Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding were.

But you may recall a few months ago when two ‘ethicists’ quietly submitted an article in an ethics magazine arguing that the logic of abortion does not cease after the child has fully exited the birth canal.  For all the reasons that abortion on demand was justified, so too, the two ‘ethicists’ Giubilini and Minerva argued, was infanticide.  Of course, they preferred to call it ‘after-birth abortion.’

I hope that nobody misunderstands me:  Giubilini and Minerva were correct in their analysis.  If they are to be faulted for anything, it is for stopping at the newborn.

When people heard about this article there was outrage, and not a little of it spilled over onto the journal that printed the article in the first place.  That journal was “The Journal of Medical Ethics.”  Flabbergasted, the editor defended the publication of the article, saying:

“As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.”

Yes, that is quite right.  The arguments presented were not new, and have been ‘presented repeatedly.’

He continued, “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

This embattled editor of a renown journal of medical ethics is named Julian Savulescu. Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Why the West is deliberately failing

July 15th, 2012 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Banking and Finance, Christian, Culture, Economics, european union, Gay agenda, Uncategorized 7 Comments »

by Don Hank

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so…

The scientific method, while still used in scientific experiments in the laboratory and clinic, has long been abandoned in the persuasive arts, notably journalism, but also in politics. Any journalist analyzing facts based on logic and science instead of accepting the interpretation of our universe handed down from above would soon lose their job. We have long lived in an anti-scientific, and hence, an anti-natural, world and are now reaping the inevitable rewards of our denial of truth.

If we were to be honest with ourselves for just a brief moment, we would admit that Western society is deeply sinful (or in secular terms, unwholesome) and even worships sin, celebrating it with carnivals and gay parades, and teaching young children how to perform sex acts in schools. And of course, the Western world routinely commits infanticide. Romans 1:25 describes the Western world to a “t” (Paul uses homosexuals as an example but this issue ranges far wider than that):

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…

The end of that discourse on sinners describes the outcome.

…men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

A graphic depiction of some of that recompense for this particular group of sinners can be found here. I referenced that site in my commentary “The recompence of their error.”

So why do people deliberately engage in self-destructive practices that our otherwise superior intelligence should be telling us to avoid for the purposes of self preservation? Or for that matter, why do they pursue Keynesian economics amassing mountains of debt that no one could ever repay in a headlong rush to destroy our economy, our means of survival? No animal species would do that.

The answer is right there in Paul’s discourse, and this is the part Christians need to focus on when analyzing the causes of Western society’s failure to manage its laws, its immigration, its social ills, its fruitless wars, its finances and economy, its moral code, etc:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

And several verses later:

God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

Did you ever consider what that means?

GOD facilitates the destruction of the disobedient and the ungrateful by abandoning the disobedient to their own sinful desires. Paul is talking about people who worship nature instead of the Creator because they were ungrateful to Him for the blessings of life. Why would people who once worshipped nature turn around and do something unnatural, as Paul calls this behavior in this same passage? A person analyzing this without spiritual discernment might say this incongruence makes no sense and would be at a loss to explain it in rational terms. Some spiritually blind (but otherwise intelligent) analysts say that for this reason, Paul couldn’t really have meant “unnatural” when describing this behavior, and they therefore tweak the translation from the original Greek to make it say something else. (They forget that in the 4th Century, Jerome, a fluent speaker of koine Greek, rendered this term as “contra naturam” in his translation  of the Vulgate Latin Bible).

The fact is, God routinely allows people to do the unnatural—committing acts outside the laws of nature that can’t be explained by any scientific (e.g., psychological) laws. Once you turn your back on God, He abandons you and you fall into a behavior pattern designed by Satan. There is nothing natural about sinful behavior because it was not designed by God.

So if it is not natural, then is it supernatural?

No, it is not. Since God performs supernatural works—that is, works that are above nature—then Satan’s works and the works of humans gone over to the dark side might best be considered as infranatural, or beneath nature. An animal would not destroy its own economy – its food stores, for example – the way Westerner “leaders” are now doing, most notablyin the Euro Zone and the US through irrational banking practices and eradication of home industry and cheap energy by legal and regulatory means (even as they encourage other nations, notably China, to use cheap energy and high carbon combustion in competing with the West). Nor would an animal devote itself almost solely to the pursuit of sex, especially homosex, the way many humans do (although bisexuality is known in the animal kingdom, there are no known strictly homosexual animal individuals that eschew all individuals of the opposite sex).

Such infranatural phenomena are exactly why we face an imminent worldwide economic collapse. Economists, supposedly specialists in math, no longer use mathematics in their convoluted Keynesian calculations. Likewise, otherwise educated people who understand human anatomy deliberately and routinely utilize as an inlet a bodily organ designed as an outlet, a lifestyle that often leads to horrific diseases and death (see here).

But as Paul says, amazingly, GOD facilitates this mindlessness by abandoning those who abandon God — including His scientific laws. Because people stopped trusting in Him and thought they could come up with their own answers. Look around you. How do you like the results of Western secularist, humanist political, diplomatic, economic, social, military, etc, behavior? Vote for either candidate and you will get more of the same. Look at Europe. An entire continent that thinks it is smarter than God is now drowning in debt and fighting for its economic life. If this is not sufficient evidence of the God that Paul describes, i.e., a God who deprives disobedient humans of their cognitive faculties, then I can’t imagine what is.

This is why the West does not need more laws or a better government.

It needs a spiritual revival. And that revival will not happen without Westerners accepting the love, forgiveness and righteousness that Jesus taught, making a sincere attempt to do what is morally right as dictated by our God-given conscience. Americans, including the best and otherwise most civil and decent of us, are beating each other up because we think this is about people or the lack of wisdom of individuals or leaders. If people do this or that, or if we make this or that law or elect this or that politician, then we can get back on track. “How can this group or that group be so stupid?” they say of those who disagree with them.

But again, they ignore Paul’s teachings, as recorded in another letter of his:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

If you think this is too lofty and ethereal to relate to your life and the world around you, consider the antithesis, for example, in this article on John Maynard Keynes, a homosexual and pedophile who authored our current failed economic system (bailouts rewarding bad business and banking practices and other government interventions that kill free enterprise were his brain child):

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html

If we take to heart Paul’s message in Romans 1:25-27, we can easily see it was no coincidence that Keynes was both a sexual deviant (pedophile, homosexual, etc) and the author of the most perverted economic system known to humankind.

There can be no logical or scientific explanation for Keynes’ self-destructive lifestyle and destructive teachings, or of an entire civilization deliberately patterning itself after him, destroying itself economically and morally with no apparent justification. These examples of a West deliberately weakening and sabotaging itself are the best examples of unqestionably infranatural phenomena.

As incredible as it may seem to those imbued with the rigid doctrinaire humanism that is foisted on Western society by an incessant drumbeat in media, schools and universities, in cinema and on the street, Paul’s brief discourse on a God having given people up to a reprobate mind is emerging as the default explanation of a civilization marching resolutely to its utter economic and moral ruin.

So why is this explanation for Western civilization’s failure never raised in the churches of our nation?

Perhaps because God is giving our clergy over to the very same reprobate mind that Paul spoke of. They interpret the scriptures as though they were hopelessly outdated when  in fact, these ancient writings offer the only glimpse of sanity–and hope–that is left in our reprobate world.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Opposing the tyrant while drinking his Kool-Aid

December 1st, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Christian, Culture, european union, Global governance, Human Rights, Socialism 1 Comment »

You can’t have it both ways. Either you want to stop the tyrant or you want to assist him.

 

by Don Hank

 

Pat Condell has a unique way with language, as a recent video shows.

Look at this delightful phrase: ” [the EU]…will collapse under the weight of its own illegitimacy.”

It occurs to me that, due to their opposition to tyranny, atheists like Pat are actually in the same boat as biblical Christians, though seemingly at opposite poles, and our plight —  as well as our tragic inability to grasp it — is as described by Martin Niemöller in that famous quote

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist…[etc]”

A sincere and questioning mind will, absent bias and external obstructions, come round to the truth. Atheism can be a painful first step in questioning received wisdom, but it may never be the last.

National unity means joining in common cause with everyone who opposes the common enemy, at least in the opposition to that enemy and until he is vanquished. There are no superiors or inferiors in that struggle, just people yearning for their share of the rights and voice that are rightfully theirs. Their God-given rights as we say. The term “God-given” may offend some people with claims to “higher enlightenment,” but consider that it was precisely the notion that man can create rights out of thin air that gave birth to the despotic EU — just as the corollary notion that central banks – part of that same entity — can create money out of thin air contributed mightily to our current financial malaise. Those perverse ideas are twins.

I doubt it has ever occurred to Pat that his militant atheism is part of the cultural Marxism that has been foisted on Europe for generations by the very elites he rails against. After all, the Fabian Society was founded (in London) for a twofold purpose:

1. to spread socialism, and

2. to eliminate Judeo-Christian culture.

Today’s elites are the spiritual and ideological heirs to that agenda, and yet, many of their putative opponents are unwittingly assisting them in their quest to destroy our Western culture and heritage by assailing Judeo-Christianity.

Pat is part of our landscape, his words are too powerful to ignore, and he is absolutely right that the EU has stolen from Europeans. But he needs to understand that opposing only the political agenda of the Imperial Powers he rails against is an incomplete task — even a futile one — unless we oppose their social agenda as well. Opposition to the enemy’s destructiveness is a vital first step. Railing against constructive faith that ultimately can replace what that agenda has torn asunder negates that opposition.

This is because a vital second step is restoring what the enemy has destroyed, and the will to restore it comes in no small measure from our inner spiritual resources invested in a common vision of national health and prosperity.

The myth that atheism was a vital component of the Enlightenment is false. There were in fact two Enlightenments, one that sought to reconcile the thought of Aristotle, for example, with Christianity, as Lawrence de Medici had done in Florence, and the other Enlightenment – embodied, for example, by Voltaire, which taught that religion itself had held back progress and needed to be abolished. Devotees of the latter branch cite, by way of support, the difficulties that some scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, have encountered with the Vatican. Yet they seem unaware that Roger Bacon’s pioneering work on the scientific method was in fact sponsored by Pope Clement IV.

Those spiritual resources we will need to rebuild our civilization once the enemy is overcome are, to paraphrase Pat, like the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We can’t afford to throw this baby out with the bath water.

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2011/11/dose-of-cold-hard-truth.html

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Christianity and Libertarianism and the Consent of the Governed

July 29th, 2011 Anthony Horvath Posted in abortion, Christian, Conservatism, Culture, Culture Wars, Economics, Freedom, Gay agenda, Global governance, Libertarians, Politics, Socialism, The Left 9 Comments »

Originally Posted here by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence


The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul. Read the rest of this entry »

AddThis Social Bookmark Button