SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

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

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? Continue reading

I Can See the Next Holocaust From My House

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. Continue reading

Implications of the Jaffe Memo for Christians in Society

[This is adapted from a much longer essay by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath, which can be read here. Anthony is a pro-life speaker and the president of Wisconsin Lutherans for Life.]

Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has set the pro-life blogosphere on fire with her posting of the ‘Jaffe Memo,’ a memorandum written by Frederick S. Jaffe, former vice-president of Planned Parenthood.  Jaffe apparently was in charge of PP’s population control agenda.  The memo was written in 1969.

The memo appears to be legit but I haven’t been able to find its original source.  Read it.

This memo has all sorts of blood chilling suggestions- blood chilling if the culture of death does not run through your veins, that is.  Ideas on controlling world population include:

  • Fertility control agents in the water supply
  • Encourage women to work
  • Require women to work and provide few child care facilities
  • Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
  • Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children- except for a few who would be allowed three
  • Discouragement of private home ownership
  • Allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically
  • Make contraception truly available to all

Some of my more predictable readers will go through that list and their eyes will simply glaze over for most of it.  With their eyes in a fog as they instinctively declare the above as merely an instance of “Godwin’s Law” but their blood started boiling when they saw on the list “Encourage women to work.”

Dear God, who could be against that? And who could be against making contraception available to everyone?  Clearly, this blogger is a bigot.

I included that item in order to make a very important point. Continue reading

Opposing the tyrant while drinking his Kool-Aid

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

Mitt joins Obama, Carter in calling radical Islamic mob “democratic”

by Don Hank

Mitt Romney has broken with conservative opinion in his statement on the Egyptian crisis, coming down on the side of the mob of angry Islamists and Barack Obama (see linked article):

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Romney-Mubarak-Should-Go/2011/02/01/id/384619?s=al&promo_code=B965-1

Obama, who has in fact demanded Mubarak’s immediate withdrawal, saying it “must begin now” (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41377934), is following in the footsteps of President Jimmy Carter, who — you may recall — righteously demanded, back in the 70s, that the Shah of Iran be deposed because he was not democratic enough. The assumption was that whoever replaced the Shah would, of course, be democratic.

So once the Iranian radical clerics saw that the Shah would get no more support from the US, they moved in for the kill, long knives drawn. The Shah’s overthrow paved the way for the eminently authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly took the US embassy personnel captive, as a way to say “thanks” to Jimmy Carter for all the support.

That went so well that, several years later, the democratic Khomeini’s successors eventually chose radical Islamist Akhmadinejad, who hates Western style democracy, as the leader of Iran. Democratic uprisings are now put down with an iron hand in Iran, but after all, that’s no longer important. The US democrats got what they wanted – elimination of a true American ally in the Middle East and his replacement with a man who hates America and Israel.

So now, Mitt Romney is in turn following Obama’s – and, let’s not forget,  Hillary’s — lead in denouncing Mubarak in Egypt because, after 40 years of serving as an invaluable go-between for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, why, it turns out he, like the Shah, is not democratic, never has been. Hillary was quick to scold Mubarak for not letting the Islamic radicals have their fun and organize his overthrow via the internet.

Discussion in the media generally portrays the Egyptian mob as the good guys, just as the media – and Carter – portrayed the Khomeini’s supporters during the 1978 upheaval in Iran.

But the persecution of Christians (as well as of Jews and Baha’is) was stepped up once the Khomeini was in power and Christians were forced out of their homeland. The media have forgotten that just a few weeks ago, a Coptic Christian church was burned by some of this same mob that now demands Mubarak’s overthrow.

The parallels are significant and if the lessons are clear they are clearly not learned.

If this Egyptian mob behaves the way the Iranian mob did in 1978 and the majority of Christians are driven from their homeland, remember the names:

Obama

Romney

Hillary

as being solidly behind the overthrow of a leader who played the lead role in stabilizing the region.

And then ask yourself if Mitt is your man in 2012. (But don’t forget to save a copy of the above-linked article, since Mitt has a habit of flip-flopping on everything as the wind changes directions or as he moves from one audience to another. One of his favorite lines is “I never said that.”)

Here is a brief profile for those not familiar with Mitt and his MO:

http://laiglesforum.com/mitt-romney-the-gops-bridge-to-oblivion/773.htm

‘Social issues’ are related to liberty and limited gov’t!

By Anthony Horvath
© 2010

Apparently, a letter has been written to GOP leaders by conservative homosexuals and some tea-party activists requesting that the GOP lay off its traditional pro-life stance. That would be horrible for many reasons. One reason: In actuality, de-emphasizing life issues is a threat to conservative notions about limited government and individual liberty.

The very first thing that has to be made clear is that those in the culture of death themselves strongly believe that social issues and economic issues are linked. The pro-death camp is perfectly able to present their “social issues” in economic terms. Not only are they able, but they are happy to do so.

A brief glance at history reveals this to be utterly obvious and conclusively true. To take one prominent example, the eugenics movement was very concerned about improving the race, but it was more than that. Activists’ position on these “social issues” was closely connected to the economic realities on the ground as they perceived them, as this quote from Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) will quickly corroborate:

The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of their small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. … The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community, when we become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race; when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born. [“Pivot of Civilization,” page 99-100]

Continue reading »


Anthony Horvath is the executive director of Athanatos Christian Ministries. He speaks often on pro-life issues and his ministry hosts an online apologetics conference dedicated to the defense of the family through the arts.

I Wish the GOP was the Party of No

by A.R. Horvath

Obama has been on a tear, raging against the Republicans that they are the ‘party of no.’  From a recent speech:

“There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy that we had already tried during the decade that they were in power — the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: Cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”

If only this were true!  If only the GOP were eschewing new ideas and holding tenaciously to the perfectly good old ones!  If only.   Not that I am conceding Obama’s argument, here.  Either he is an idiot or we are- or he thinks we are.  The Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble.  Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D), did, and let us remember that this ‘inherited’ recession came only in the last few months of an 8 year term.  Shame, shame, Mr. Obama.  But I digress.

As the candidate field shapes up for the 2012 presidential election there is an opportunity to lay bare the fatal flaw in GOP ‘conservatism’ in the hopes that maybe something can be done about it.   Let me be clear, this isn’t a new development.  The problems began decades ago- even before we were born.   To help me get at what I’m talking about, let me begin with what may appear to be another digression.

Much talk has been made about Sarah Palin’s intelligence and education and her suitability to be president of these united states.  And this on the conservative side!  Have we ever wondered why we need our presidents and politicians so sophisticated?

We perceive that a high level of sophistication is necessary because the issues that our politicians will have to grapple with are so hugely complex that on no one of them could the president get away with saying, “this is above my pay grade.”    The underlying assumption, however, is that these politicians are going to have to actually navigate these hugely complex issues.

Therein lies the problem.  Constitutionally speaking, precious little is supposed to be done by the Federal government.  There shouldn’t be a thing called social security.  Or a department of education.  It shouldn’t require three doctoral degrees to balance out how taxation and distribution impacts the whole economy.  In short, the reason why ‘intelligence’ is needed in government these days is because we all take as our working assumption that the job of our politicians is to tinker, tinker, and tweak.

Now, this is to be expected from the Democrats.  Continue reading

Support Czech president’s resistance to tyranny

Support Czech President Vaclav Klaus’s resistance to tyranny

By Don Hank

Recently I read an open letter written in support of Vaclav Klaus, the last holdout in Europe against the Lisbon Treaty, a document that seeks to supplant all sovereign nations in Europe in a ploy that is increasingly appearing dictatorial and anti-democratic. To understand why that is, I recommend in particular the following article showing how the EU is seeking to ban Christian speech: http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/16/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/.

I am asking my readers to likewise please send their own emails thanking President Vaclav Klaus for his principled stand against the anti-democratic elites and asking him to stand firm and refuse to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

My letter to President Vaclav Klaus:

Greetings President Klaus,

I belong to several groups that support your resistance to the Lisbon Treaty. These are groups with rapidly growing memberships primarily in the US, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

Perhaps you are already aware that there is a new web site dedicated to supporting your principled stand:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sptklaus&501

I am very happy to say that the signatures are being added at the rate of over 1,000 per day.

Our reasons for supporting this resistance come down to our belief that the EU is controlled from the top down and not from the bottom up — by the elites and not by the peoples of Europe.

Thus we are convinced that it is in no way democratic, to say the least.

Some articles supporting this contention are linked below:

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/13/you-can-help-stop-world-dictatorship/ and

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/10/16/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/

Today I just received an email from a German group that also supports your efforts. They have published an open letter to you at their site (in German):

http://ekklesia-nachrichten.com/offener-brief-an-praesident-vaclav-klaus-in-bezug-auf-den-vertrag-von-lissabon

Mr. President, it is no exaggeration to say that you are perhaps the only hope left for a free Europe. We are asking you and praying earnestly that you will continue to do not what is politically expedient at the moment but what you know in your heart is right, resisting the currents of trendy but simplistic and misguided political ideology, just as you have done in the past.

Those of us who recall 20th Century history know that the Czechs proudly resisted totalitarianism for decades under the most difficult possible conditions, out of a noble sense of loyalty to their country and countrymen. We also know and admire a famous Czech writer whose works gave rise to the world “kafkaesque,” a word that, sadly, applies to much of what Europeans now are experiencing in their daily lives, deprived of freedom of speech, thought and action thanks to EU directives translated into laws that violate their own national constitutions (see the second link above).

We believe that your people have learned through trials and tribulations the lessons of history that many comfortable Westerners, including political activists, have yet to learn, and that you have the wisdom to recognize, and the strength to resist, totalitarianism in whatever form it may appear.

Your justification in opposing this treaty is disarmingly simple, namely, that Czechia was founded as a sovereign state under a national Constitution that was written by the elected officials of a sovereign national government and that you were elected as the leader of this sovereign nation. Your Constitution therefore cannot be superseded by any foreign power without violating the will of the Czech people as expressed in their constitution. Inasmuch as the EU government seeks to override this Constitution, the EU Constitution cannot be considered valid in Czechia and must not be signed by you as the leader of a sovereign country.

May God bless you and your country.

Don Hank

http://laiglesforum.com

Your suggested brief email:

Greetings President Klaus,

I am asking you to maintain your firm stand against the anti-democratic Lisbon treaty that seeks to override the laws of your sovereign nation.

Sincerely,

[your name]

Here are the various contacts for the Office of the President in the Czech Republic, and below these are their 9 addresses ready for you to quickly paste into your browser when you send your letter to President Vaclav Klaus:

Dr. Jiri Weigl, Chancellor or the Office of the President

jiri.weigl@hrad.cz

Dr. Petr Hayek, Deputy Head of the Office of the President (communication and culture)

petr.hajek@hrad.cz

Petr Muzak, Deputy Head of the Office of the President for Economics and Organization

petr.muzak@hrad.cz

Jindirch Forejt, Protocol

jindrich.forejt@hrad.cz

Zuzana Rycova, Secretariat of the Office of the President

zuzana.rycova@hrad.cz

Radim ochvat, Press

Ladislav Mravec, Foreign Affairs

ladislav.mravec@hrad.cz

Dr. Dana Rimanova, Legal Department (constitutional law)

dana.rimanova@hrad.cz

Radim Bures, Security Department

radim.bures@hrad.cz

Libuse Schmidova, Secretariat of the Wife of the President

Ready to paste into your browser:

libuse.schmidova@hrad.cz

jiri.weigl@hrad.cz;

petr.hajek@hrad.cz;

petr.muzak@hrad.cz;

zuzana.rycova@hrad.cz;

jindrich.forejt@hrad.cz;

ladislav.mravec@hrad.cz;

dana.rimanova@hrad.cz;

radim.bures@hrad.cz;

libuse.schmidova@hrad.cz;

 

These addresses are also shown at the official web site of President Klaus:

http://www.hrad.cz/en/contacts/office-of-the-president-of-the-republic.shtml#c1

Christians Are Not to be Malthusians

This is an excerpt of an article that Laigle’s Forum staff writer, Anthony Horvath, had published at Worldnetdaily.com last week.

Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

Thomas Robert Malthus would have disagreed. The philosophical forerunner to Darwin, Malthus argued that there are limited resources, and competition for them is intense.  When there are too many people competing for those resources, you have war, famine and a continual threat to civilization itself.

For Malthus, the pie is only so big: We must reduce the number of people who want a share of it.

Christianity embodies another solution: Make a bigger pie.

In Christianity, God takes a few loaves and feeds thousands with them.  Entrance to heaven is not contingent on space available. Jesus came that we would have life, and life to the fullest. Not just for some, but all.

None of what follows is an argument for Christian indifference to the plight of other people. However, Christians should not advocate “solutions” that repress human liberty, dignity and freedom. For some reason, all of the Malthusian’s solutions do just that.

To read the whole article click here.