Tag: state

David Silverman’s Regret

What happens when you defeat your opponent only to unleash something worse? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember the new atheists? For a while, they were all the rage with people talking about them regularly. They made atheism more public than it had been before. While they had declared a war on religion, it was mainly Christianity. After all, Sam Harris began writing The End of Faith when 9/11 took place, and yet most of that was not geared towards Islam but Christianity.

And what is Sam Harris doing today? He’s well-known now for his remark about the 2020 election that he didn’t care if Hunter Biden had the bodies of dead children in his basement. All that mattered was getting Trump. Whatever you think of Trump, Harris’s statement is extremely problematic. He was willing to go with a known lie and sacrifice truth and lie to the public because, well, he knows what is better for them.

Silverman looks at what he saw and is aghast at it. I was recently pointed to an article he wrote on substack.

I cannot quote it entirely seeing as it is behind a paywall. (Remember, I have a Patreon below) However, I do have a friend who quoted a large part of it in sharing it. Basically, it’s about how the new atheism was supposed to destroy religion and thus create a utopia of freethought and rationalism where the days of insane religious ideas was behind us.

It didn’t work out that way.

First off, I am in no way saying the new atheists were really a formidable force. They weren’t. I have several blogs here on that front. However, they were certainly a force rhetorically. They had cute little slogans that seemed sensible, but most people weren’t interested in the unpacking necessarily to show their numerous errors.

Second, I am also sure if he were alive today that Christopher Hitchens would be one against this movement as well. That cannot be known for sure, but I do remember him as being one very interested in American history. When he visited SES for a debate, I was told he was impressed by the seminary and even offered to teach a course on Thomas Jefferson.

Third, and this is really important, I do want to commend Silverman on this. It takes a lot of guts to write a public article and say “I was wrong.” Silverman did that. We should not be attacking him for this. We should be commending him.

Now let’s look at the part that I have to quote.

I failed to consider that the members of my movement could reject skepticism yet label this rejection as skepticism to excuse their actions—and get away with it! I never envisioned that every significant player in the movement (save the fledgling Atheists for Liberty, on which I currently serve as Advisory Board Chair) would abandon our core principles and embrace the political hard Left, forsaking every belief and individual that was even slightly to the Right. I did not anticipate that the movement would leave the movement, become swallowed in Critical Social Justice, and lose its relevance and effectiveness in the process. I did not see it coming.
Man by nature is a religious creature. If you remove something for him to worship, he will find something else. That something could be himself, his own happiness. God is often a restraint in many ways on what a man can do. If a man knows there is a judge that He will stand before someday who has all the omni qualities, that can affect his living. If he knows what he does impacts for eternity, that should definitely affect his living.
While there is often something consistent between Christians and the right, the atheist movement saw it necessarily so. So why jump on the bandwagon to defend the LGBT group? Well, they oppose the Christians so let’s go for it! Anything that opposes Christianity is a friend since Christianity is seen as a great evil that has to be eradicated.
If man becomes the god, ultimately, that will pass to the state and who will become the new rulers? It will be those who consider themselves the elites. (Perhaps the term “brights” comes to mind?) It is a parallel with how the new atheists saw Christianity. After all, their opponents were the ones who were people of faith (Which they did not understand) and the new atheists were the people of reason. Obviously, reason is superior to faith. Right? Obviously then, what should be rejected are the standards the Christians lived with.
Thus, get rid of all of this outdated morality, especially when it comes to sex. Get rid of anything that is said to be “Faith-based” (A term I don’t like anyway.) If the Christians tend to want the people on the right to be our governing leaders, then we will reject that. Whatever we can use to paint Christians as the enemy, it will be done. If your identity is not to be found in Christ, then it will be found in your tribe instead.
So, what has happened since we “killed God”? Not atheist Utopia. We won the booby prize—the religion of wokeism has completely taken over the Left side of politics, splitting both families and the nation itself. Riding on a wave of vapid emotion and a juvenile refusal to apply skepticism, the Woke Left—mostly atheists—have embraced this belief system as though it were the greatest new religion ever. Maybe it is.
Any attempt by man to bring about Utopia on Earth has always failed. Always. My ex-wife was once going through a book about how what was being sought was progress and not perfection. Progress though requires a true goal. If progress is just wherever you are going, then everything is progress. However, if you are going the wrong direction, progress is turning around and going the other way.
Silverman is also right in that this has split families and our nation. The best way to split the nation is really to split the family. The family is the foundation. Remember that meme that was shared years ago before the Supreme Court redefined marriage about what would happen if “same-sex marriage” was allowed?
That bottom one? Yep. Happening now. It didn’t start falling apart when marriage was redefined, but that was a killing blow in many ways. I blame a lot of this going all the way back to the sexual revolution. We unleashed a power that we did not know what it was capable of.
And ironically as a Christian, I think what the chart says would happen didn’t, since two people of the same sex can’t marry each other no matter what the court says.
Could it be the sexual standards of Christianity had a point? Could it be there was a reason abortion was a great evil and reproduction was a great good? Could it be that there was a reason that marriage should be for life for the majority of people and that marriage isn’t about your personal happiness? Could it be there’s a danger that happens when sex is removed from the confines of marriage? Could it be there was a reason marriage was established as between one man and one woman?
The new atheists also saw Christians making their decisions based on emotion alone, something I have spoken against as well here, but made a mistake of thinking themselves immune to that. After all, they were the men of reason. They would not fall to such a thing. Unfortunately, they have. One of the surest signs you will fall for something is that you think you cannot fall for it.
I have said before that I am the man who has avoided pornography throughout my life. So in my dating life, I throw caution to the wind. Right? Wrong. Nowadays, I don’t go up elevators alone with women or ride in cars with them and if on a date, I would never go back to her place or have her come to mine. The moment I think I am above the temptation, I have started my fall.
However, lacking a deity, it allowed wokeism to reside within—and be propagated by—the state. This is why the Left has adopted it. We may have subdued the lion of Christianity, but we failed to eradicate religion; we merely revealed that the lion might have been safeguarding us from the Woke Kraken. This creature is now unshackled, entrenched in our government and education system, and is literally coming for your children.
Pay attention to that first part. Remove the deity, and the deity becomes something within. What is the means of the new evangelism? It is the State. When the Christians disagreed with you, they disagreed. They didn’t try to force their way. When the left disagrees, here comes the power of the State!
Silverman did not eradicate religion as was his goal. He instead just moved it somewhere else. He defeated in his mind what was the greater evil without realizing that that “evil” was keeping something else at bay. Chesterton said years ago that before you remove a fence, you should see why it was put up in the first place.
Christianity did serve to contain man’s great evil and propel him to something greater than himself, and not the state. It still does for many of us. It teaches us that there is a real king named Jesus and we owe our allegiance to Him. It teaches us that there is a real right and there is a real wrong and there is a purpose to our lives here and we are to seek more than just the temporary good.
This idea—that atheists should stop resisting and instead actively promote Christianity, perhaps even joining churches, in an attempt to fortify it so that it may defeat wokeism—is gaining traction. Evan Riggs wrote in the European Conservative: “This is a call for sheer pragmatism… Of the two inescapable religious choices before us, Christianity is undoubtedly the better option.” My friend Peter Boghossian echoed a similar sentiment, tweeting, “Better to believe that a man walked on water than all men can give birth.”
I have been pleased with what I have seen from Boghossian and Lindsay lately on this front, two writers I have critiqued on their work on atheism before. However, a word of caution to the atheist movement. You might just wind up seeing that there is a lot more reason and truth to Christianity than you thought. Be prepared. The king will not be used. Christianity is not a means to an end. We go with Christianity not because it produces the best end result, which it does, but because it is true.
Maybe you should consider that question as well.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Why White House Pride Flags Should Concern You.

It this just a harmless celebration? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Bud Light is losing. Target is losing. Call of Duty is losing. Even recently, Starbucks has said that they’re not going to have Pride material on display in their stores. (To which, if you can, stop by and get a drink then.) The line in the sand was drawn at children. Going after the children was way too much.

However, that memo hasn’t reached the White House where pride flags have draped the building. What does this mean? The problem with this is that it gives more power to the state.

Now all of this is going to be done from a viewpoint that will not use the Bible so no one can say that I’m just going by the Bible. I do contend the Bible does agree with my position, but I can make it without it.

So what about marriage? Sometimes people ask me if I believe in same-sex marriage. I always ask what marriage is. If you realize that marriage is a man-woman unit, then you realize you might as well ask if I believe in triangular squares. But why is it a man-woman unit?

Marriage is this because it is the building block of a society because within it is found the one act that is capable of producing children. We have made a mistake in thinking that we can have wanton sex without children and not have consequences. This does not mean that infertile couples or couples too old to reproduce can’t marry or even shouldn’t marry, but it does mean the public end of marriage is children. It is not the couple’s happiness, as good as that might be. It is not feelings of love towards one another, though that should be pursued. In the end, it is children.

The state does not come before marriage. Marriage comes before the state. No families? There can be no state. Marriage is a reality that we discover. Some people who want to bring the Bible into this will point to polygamy, but polygamy is if anything multiplying the man-woman unit beyond necessity.

This is also why interracial marriage was never invalid. Interracial marriage still has the man-woman unit in it. Removing that was actually a recovery of marriage and not a changing of it. However, changing the persons in the roles on an essential difference, their gender, DOES matter.

Now some can say that same-sex behavior exists in nature, as it does, but that doesn’t mean it is something we normalize for our species. After all, eating one’s own young also exists in nature. Are we going to pass a law saying that is allowable?

So the State creates something, an artificial reality, and they want to call it marriage also. The problem now is if the State produces it, the State will have to defend it. It’s their baby after all. In essence, this becomes a new religion of sorts. You do not question the dogma and if you do, the State comes against you.

And yet, in the new “marriage”, what benefit does society get? Why should the State care about the feelings of the people involved? When my ex-wife and I applied for our marriage license, we were never asked about our feelings or personal happiness. We were just to show that we were of age and of the opposite sex and not close relatives. That was it.

Redefining marriage gives the State more power and in the long run will have it be that if you question the dogma, you are guilty of treason. In the past, we destroyed the bodies of children in the womb. Now we are also destroying them outside the womb through “gender-affirming” care and puberty blockers.

The Bud Light pushback though has changed things. What this should show us is that when people work together and stand up, especially for their children, they can have an effect. Even if you are of the LGBT community, this should concern you. A state that can rule in your favor can make you the enemy the very next day.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is Holston Home Practicing Hate?

Was a Jewish family the victim of hatred? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In a news story, a Jewish Couple went to Holston United Methodist Home for Children. They applied to adopt a child, but they were turned down because of their Jewish faith. Immediately, the conclusion was hatred and discrimination. Is this what’s really going on? Is the home anti-Semitic?

No, actually. Let’s suppose a family came that was Messianic Jewish and this included being Jewish by birth. They had come to embrace Jesus as the Messiah and agreed with the statement of faith of Holston. Would they get to adopt? Yes.

It’s not about being Jewish in the sense of genetic, but about is the child going to be raised in a home where their spiritual needs will be met, including being raised to believe in Jesus. The Holston group doesn’t want them to be put in a family where they will be told something false about Jesus and risk having their soul be lost forever. Whatever you might think of their actions, that is not a bad motive.

Now some secularists might complain, but that is misunderstanding the way a religious faith operates. Meeting the material needs is good, but meeting the spiritual needs is absolutely essential. A Christian organization cannot in good conscience deny such needs.

Suppose it was a Jewish organization that wanted to insist children be adopted into the Jewish faith and would not let anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah or disbelieves in God adopt a child. That is their freedom. Suppose a Muslim organization didn’t want to give a child to a family that denied that Muhammad was a prophet. That was their freedom. Suppose an atheist organization didn’t want to have a child placed in the home of a crazy religious fanatic. That is their freedom. No adoption agency is obligated to give you a child because you want one.

This is also not denying that the families could be good and loving families. It is just saying that the belief system is the most important aspect. Rightly or wrongly, that is how it is and Holston should not be forced to act within their statement of faith.

In another link about this story, there is an interesting quote.

“The Tennessee Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, promises religious freedom and equality for everyone. Tennessee is reneging on that promise by allowing a taxpayer-funded agency to discriminate against Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram because they are Jews,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director at Americans United. “Laws like House Bill 836 must not stand when they allow religion to be used to harm vulnerable kids and people like Liz and Gabe who want to provide those children with safe and loving homes.”

It’s amazing that within the first two sentences, Luchenitser contradicts himself. The Tennessee Constitution promises religious freedom. Then he says because of that, the Holston agency cannot turn down a couple because they are Jews. However, that is part of the religious freedom of Holston, to see that children are raised in Christian homes.

No one’s religious freedom is being denied except for Holston’s honestly. They are being told they have to put a child with a family even if it goes against their statement of faith. The Jews are allowed to be Jews still and there are plenty of other organizations they can adopt from.

I’m also unsure what is meant by religious equality? Is this saying that all religions are equal? All one needs to do is study them to see that isn’t the case. Is it saying that all religious beliefs don’t matter? That’s something the state should have no say on. What it is doing now is essentially saying “Yes, Holston. We understand you think a child needs to be raised in an environment where they can grow up to embrace Jesus, but we don’t think that matters and you must agree with us.” The people complaining that Holston is discriminating are wanting to push a discrimination of their own actually.

In reality, discrimination is to some degree unavoidable. We all do it. We all have to do it. If I drive somewhere and I don’t think the area is safe, I lock my doors. (I do that anyway, but I definitely make sure my car is locked if I think there’s danger.) When we choose where to go to school or who to marry or who to babysit the kids, we discriminate. A person could show up at your door and say “I want to babysit your kids for you” and you have no obligation to let them do it.

Imagine being an atheist and hearing someone wants to tutor your elementary school children. Okay. You might be interested. Then you hear that they’re a young-earth creationist who wants to teach them science. Do you accept that? Are you being discriminating if you say no? Are you denying a child an education?

The problem with a story like this is it pulls at emotional heartstrings way too easily and most of us think on how we feel about the story instead of how the story is. When you hear the story, it’s too easy to assume anti-semitism at the start. When you look, it makes sense why Holston is doing this, and you could think they are wrong in their beliefs and/or actions still, but I would hope you would at least understand it.

Also, whatever faith you are or lack of faith you are, remember that as soon as the state takes a side on any religion whatsoever, they could just as well do the same to you. Do I want the state to determine that all atheist households are unfit homes and no one can let a child be adopted into one? No. I want every organization to have the freedom to choose who they want the child to adopt to barring some physical exceptions, such as registered sex offenders definitely can’t adopt.

Some have said the state should cease funding the Holston Home. If they want to, they are free to do so. The state can tell them that unless they adopt to all, then they can’t get federal funding. I don’t think I agree with that, but the state doesn’t owe them anything. Technically, we could even say it should be up to the state taxpayers since they are the ones who are providing the state with the money anyway.

There is no doubt this is a complicated issue hinging on personal and religious freedom. One thing to avoid is accusations of moral turpitude. I can understand why the Jewish family wants to adopt. I can understand why Holston only wants to adopt to Christians as is clear from statements on their website.

That’s also the first step in resolving this. Truly understanding where everyone is coming from.

Too bad we never seem to get to that step.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

No Twitchy. I Am Not Celebrating

Would I celebrate a redefinition of marriage because it’s two conservatives? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many of you know that politically, I’m a conservative. I would say on that spectrum, I’m somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Normally, Twitchy has been a favorite site to go to to see some of the hilarity that can take place on Twitter. Yesterday was not one of those days. While Allie had an appointment, I was sitting in a waiting room and I get an update. Conservatives celebrate the marriage of two gay conservative men. (And it’s lovely!)

This has to be a parody. Right? I mean, there has to be some joke I’m missing.

No. There wasn’t.

The whole idea was a narrative had been busted. Here were two homosexuals who were conservatives marrying and fellow conservatives were celebrating. See! Conservatives don’t really oppose the redefinition of marriage! We’re celebrating homosexuals marrying!

That’s just ludicrous really. It would be like saying I oppose two atheists getting married, but I will celebrate when two Christians get married. I celebrate marriage the way it is and the way that every culture has seen it since the dawn of history. I do not celebrate an artificial creation of the state.

You see, if you’re a conservative, one of the things you want is limited government. Government is put there largely to help keep evil in check, but if it extends its power too much, it can become the evil. Should we really think that we have the power to redefine marriage to make it be whatever we want it to be?

I mean, there are people who say it’s fine because there are two consenting adults, but if we can make this change, why not the others? Why does it have to be two? Why does it have to be adults? Why does it have to be consent? (And if we get rid of consent, does rape qualify as some kind of marriage?) Now as soon as you say that marriage requires X, then you are saying that marriage is something and that something cannot be changed.

What has happened here is that the state has made an artificial creation and called it marriage. What is the result? For one thing, it changes the rules for everyone else. It means that every other marriage relationship is on par with a union of two men or two women. These relationships give the same benefit to society that a man/woman marriage does, but they don’t. One obvious reason? These relationships can never naturally produce children. They will require heterosexual activity for that.

Furthermore, with this change, the government will be in charge of this and defending this. If the government says it is true and some people resist, then we are in essence enemies of the state. Someone who is wanting to follow their conscience and not serve a homosexual ceremony can be forced into bankruptcy because they could not bring themselves to do what they think is wrong. These people have been happy to serve them on any other occasion and glad to refer them to someone else. It’s already started in America. Why should I think it won’t get worse?

Will we get to a day where someone who says that homosexuality is a sin is brought before the government for a crime? We could even grant the person is wrong for the sake of the argument, but that is their freedom of speech and of religion at that point. Why should we sacrifice that?

I have no doubt that we will get to this day. I know of some liberals who say they want no “tolerance” for the right. It was a great virtue when they were not in the favor of the state, but now that they are getting there, it is becoming less and less of a virtue. We’re getting to the point where someone can be penalized because they didn’t use a gender the person identifies with for that day.

The cry raised up here is that this is a theocracy, but it’s not. It’s simply remaining in line with human tradition for a few thousand years and there is no new major information I know of that has led to any justification for a major change. It also does not mean going and criminalizing homosexual behavior.

So Twitchy, I am not celebrating. I do not want to see the state give more power and infringe upon the freedom of the majority of the people due to a decision to think we have the power to change a metaphysical reality. I will stick with celebrating marriage as it has been seen for thousands of years.

Someone alert me when Twitchy becomes conservative again.

In Christ,
Nick Peters