Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

The idea of protesting in an attempt to garner support to make a moral change is not new. With each movement, there exists a side that champions a series of issues and a counter-protest that opposes the change. In recent days, some have advocated for racial justice by marching to affirm the value of Black lives. Others are concerned about election integrity and the rule of law in that area. Both of these primary causes are attempting to evoke social reform and call for justice in the midst of perceived injustice. Yet, undergirding both of these cries for justice is an assumption that justice matters, that we as humans matter.

This may seem like I am stating the obvious, but the implications are buried and broad.

The fight for justice assumes that objective moral values (i.e, it is a good thing to be a firefighter) and obligations (i.e., if you see a house burning, you should call the fire department) actually exist. In other words, these moral obligations and values exist independent of subjective human opinion. If moral values and obligations were all subjective (such as your favorite genre of film), one is merely advocating for a personal preference. Yet, it seems absurd to suggest that Black lives only have subjective worth or that election integrity is a matter of preference.

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

However, in a world that increasingly follows a cultural philosophy of post-modernism and post-Christian thought, the consequences for such thinking tend to go unopposed. You may ask yourself, “what does it all really matter? People can do good things without a belief in God and can collectively make moral progress by reasoning together!”

Yes, people can do good things without ever affirming God’s existence. People can also join together and make a more just society without ever consulting Scripture. However, they cannot ground why these pursuits matter without an objective starting point.

In a world where subjective (relative) life goals and one’s own “truth” reigns supreme, there exists no room for objective meaning, purpose, truth, value, or even justice. Although this is done in the name of tolerance to prevent a violation of one’s own sovereign will, the implications are far more catastrophic than what it is trying to prevent.

In short, since nobody can be right in a relativistic framework, nobody can be wrong. If nobody can be wrong, there exists no basis to decry injustice or celebrate justice.

If all life is devoid of objective meaning, there is no difference between someone who fights for justice or works to suppress it. In the end, they are simply two groups of humans exerting energy over causes they feel deserve more attention. The signs they carry display words that demand a moral change in a world without the possibility of moral progress or absolutes. The causes that motivated protest are also just as insignificant as the people doing the marching.

The “Noble Lie”

As I hope you can see, the above worldview is incompatible with any activist or anyone who has ever felt wronged. It is for this reason that the proposed solution of a “noble lie” was introduced. In a nutshell, the view proposes that we all know life is meaningless, so we tell ourselves lies that everything we are interested in has some sort of significance, even though it ultimately does not.

The problem with the “noble lie” is that it promotes self-delusion and is self-defeating.

Remember, the problem that the “noble lie” supposedly solves is the incapability of living in a world without absolutes. Yet, it is proposed that we absolutely (or objectively) all create “noble lies” to live in the world. Furthermore, it is viewed by proponents as being “noble” or a benefit to society. How can we know it is noble when we have no ground on which to base what is noble and what is not??

This is the self-defeating web that is woven when one marches without a foundation.

So What’s The Solution?

First and foremost is to notice the great consequences these various views hold. With God, we have an objective basis for meaning, morality, truth, and justice, as these are all rooted in His nature. This is only heightened by looking at this whole problem from a Christian worldview where humans are made in the image of God and are of infinite worth. Moreover, the cross of Christ for the forgiveness of sin is open to all (old, young, rich, poor, and any color or creed).

Lastly, Christianity offers a solution to unpunished evil that occurs on Earth (remember, we have grounding to say something is evil in this worldview). God is the ultimate Judge to whom all are called to give an account. Some may choose to live what appears to be an ethical mantra of trying to “be a good person,” but these attempts are in vain.

Although they appear attainable in relation to other humans (such as comparing your sins to that of a serial killer), these aspirations soon fall short when matched to a Holy and Perfect God who is the standard of good. This is why salvation, offered through Jesus Christ as a result of His death on the cross, is a gift. It comes after surrendering a false hope in a subjective standard of good and humbly asking to receive the pardon of which none of us is worthy.

So to conclude, when calls for justice are given with an impassioned plea of “No justice, no peace!” it is my hope that the points raised here will remind you of the foundations needed to even argue for such justice. Additionally, I hope that the consequences of holding a purely relativistic or subjective worldview are clearer to you now than before your reading of this article.

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Fazale Rana

At last. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

The ride has been long and dark. And there is still a ways to go before we exit to the other side, but we will arrive there soon.

The emergency approval and first distributions of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines give us all hope that we will soon see an end to the COVID-19 pandemic and return to some semblance of normalcy by the end of 2021.

As a biochemist, I find it a remarkable achievement. Within the span of months, we have gone from experiencing the first cases of COVID-19 in the US (most likely in early 2020) to having two vaccines that appear to be highly effective against the SARS-2 coronaviruses less than a year later. Prior to this accomplishment, the fastest that we have been able to develop a new vaccine is four years.

This success reflects the resolve of governments around the world who have worked collaboratively with public and private research teams. It also reflects the hard work of life scientists and biomedical investigators who have labored tirelessly around the clock to understand the biology of the SARS-2 coronavirus, translating this knowledge into public health policies, treatments for COVID-19, and ultimately, vaccines to prevent infections and halt the transmission of the virus.

As a Christian, I see a divine hand in the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccines, reflecting God’s providential care for humanity.

To fully unpack this theological idea, I need to begin by describing the science that undergirds the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and offer a brief history of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.

Messenger RNA Vaccines

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines belong to a category called mRNA vaccines. The chief component of these vaccines is a laboratory-made mRNA designed to encode a viral protein, usually one that resides on the virus surface. (Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines contain mRNA that encodes the SARS-2 coronavirus spike protein. This protein coats the virus surface and plays the central role in the binding and entry of the virus into the host cell.)

Vaccines made from mRNA were first proposed by life scientists in the early 1990s. The principle behind mRNA vaccines is straightforward. Once injected into the patient, the mRNA finds its way into immune cells, where the cell’s machinery translates the synthetic viral mRNA into copies of the viral protein. Some of these newly made proteins are broken down inside the cell, with the fragments becoming incorporated into major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I). The MHC-I is transported to the cell surface, becoming embedded in the plasma membrane. Here it presents the viral protein fragment to the immune system, triggering a response that leads to the production of antibodies against the viral protein—and, hence, the virus. Initially, this process provides sterilizing immunity. More importantly, it triggers the production of memory T cells and memory B cells, providing long-term immunity against the viral pathogen.

Once the viral protein is translated, the synthetic mRNA undergoes degradation. Once this breakdown occurs, the mRNA component of the vaccine becomes cleared from the patient’s cells.

“Schema of the RNA Vaccine Mechanism” by Jmarchn is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Challenges Developing mRNA Vaccines

While the principles behind mRNA vaccines are straightforward, life scientists have faced significant hurdles developing workable vaccines.¹ These technical challenges include:

Lack of mRNA stability.RNA molecules are inherently unstable, readily hydrolyzing into their constituent components. Once injected in the patient, naked mRNA rarely survives long enough to make its way to the target cells. Even if it does find its way into the cell’s interior, it may undergo breakdown before it can be translated into high enough levels of the viral protein so that an immune response becomes triggered.
Low rates of translation. All mRNA molecules are not equal when it comes to their rate of translation. Those RNA molecules which encode viral proteins often have certain sequence characteristics that make them appear unusual to our cells’ machinery, preventing these molecules from being efficiently translated into proteins.
Difficulty in delivering mRNA into cells. It is a real challenge for the mRNA component of the vaccine, once it has been injected into the patient, to make its way into the interior of target cells, because the mRNA has to penetrate the cell’s plasma membrane. This penetration process (and tendency to traverse the cell membrane barrier) is influenced by the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA (which, in turn, determines the mRNA’s physicochemical properties). Also, some cell types are more amenable to mRNA penetration through their plasma membranes than others. It is rare for sufficient levels of “naked” mRNA to cross the cell membrane so that the immune system can be activated.
Reactogenicity of the mRNA. The mRNA component of the vaccine can trigger an adverse reaction in some patients, causing an unintended immune response that can lead to anaphylactic shock.

Despite these serious challenges, life scientists and biomedical researchers have continued to pursue mRNA vaccines because of the significant advantages they offer compared to both conventional and putative next-generation vaccines.

Advantages of mRNA Vaccines

Some of the advantages of mRNA vaccines include:

Safety. Vaccines using mRNA are inherently safer than vaccines made up of inactivated or attenuated viruses. These latter types of vaccines can cause infections in the patients if the viral particles are not adequately inactivated or if they are not completely attenuated. Also, because the production of these vaccines involves handling live viruses, the risk to the workers is real, potentially leading to an outbreak of the disease at research and production facilities.

Compared to DNA vaccines (which are being pursued as a potential future generation vaccine type), mRNA vaccines have virtually no risk of modifying the patient’s genome—in part because mRNA will degrade once it has been translated, never making its way to the cell nucleus.

Ease of development and manufacturing. Researchers have long held the view that once these technical challenges are overcome, new mRNA vaccines will be much easier to develop than conventional vaccines. (The rapid development of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines attests to this view.) Vaccines made from mRNA are also much easier to produce than conventional vaccines, which require viruses to be cultured. Culturing viruses takes time and adds complexity to the manufacturing process. In other words, mRNA vaccines are much more amenable to mass production than conventional vaccines.

Clearing the Technical Hurdles

Over the course of the last decade or so, life scientists and biomedical researchers have learned ways to overcome many of the technical issues that are endemic to mRNA vaccines. In fact, by the end of 2018, researchers had successfully developed mRNA vaccine technology to the point that they were on the verge of translating it to widespread therapeutic use.

Through these efforts, researchers have learned that:

The stability of the mRNA can be improved by making modifications to the nucleotide sequences, particularly in the 3′ and 5′ untranslated regions of the molecule. RNA stability can also be enhanced by manipulating the coding region of the molecule, increasing the guanine and cytosine content. These changes can be affected without changing its coding information. mRNA stability can also be improved by complexing it with positively charged materials. (These types of complexes readily form because RNA molecules are negatively charged.)
The translatability of the vaccine’s mRNA can be enhanced by making changes to the mRNA sequences in the 3′ and 5′ untranslated regions and through the preferential use of specific codons. These changes lead to the production of high levels of the viral protein, once the mRNA makes its way into the cells.
The reactogenicity of the mRNA can be minimized in a number of different ways. For example, adverse reactions to mRNA can be reduced by incorporating nonnatural nucleotides into the mRNA. Complexing the mRNA with other materials can also minimize adverse reactions to the mRNA. (The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine uses a positively charged, nonnatural lipid to complex with the vaccine’s mRNA, reducing its immunogenicity and stabilizing the mRNA.)
The delivery of mRNA to cells can be dramatically improved through a variety of means. The vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna both make use of lipid nanoparticles to encapsulate the mRNA. The development of lipid nanoparticles to facilitate the delivery of mRNA to cells has been perhaps the biggest breakthrough for mRNA vaccines. Not only do these nanoparticles facilitate the entry of mRNA into cells, but they protect the mRNA from degradation before reaching the cells.

Even though the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines represent the first-ever mRNA vaccines used on humans, they took nearly three decades to develop thanks to the tireless efforts of life scientists and biomedical researchers. This developmental history includes numerous studies in which their safety has been assessed, leading to significant improvements in vaccine design, ensuring that any adverse reaction to mRNA vaccines is negligible.

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

This concerted effort has paid off. And, in large measure, these previous studies have made it possible for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna scientists to rapidly develop their COVID-19 vaccines. At the point when the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic, researchers had already developed mRNA vaccines for a number of viral pathogens and tested them in animal models. They had even progressed some of these vaccines into small-scale human clinical studies that included safety assessments. Bioengineers had already started work on pilot-scale production of mRNA vaccines, along the way developing GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices) for the manufacture of mRNA vaccines.²

In effect, when the pandemic broke, all the researchers at Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna had to do to develop their COVID-19 vaccines was to know the right sequence to use for the vaccine’s mRNA. In other words, the scientific and biomedical communities just happened to be poised and ready to go with mRNA vaccines when the first outbreaks of COVID-19 appeared around the world.

Harvard medical doctor Anthony Komaroff puts it this way:

So, 30 years of painstaking research allowed several groups of scientists—including a group at Pfizer working with a German company called BioNTech, and a young company in Massachusetts called Moderna—to bring mRNA vaccine technology to the threshold of actually working. The companies had built platforms that, theoretically, could be used to create a vaccine for any infectious disease simply by inserting the right mRNA sequence for that disease.

Then along came COVID-19. Within weeks of identifying the responsible virus, scientists in China had determined the structure of all of its genes, including the genes that make the spike protein, and published this information on the Internet.

Within minutes, scientists 10,000 miles away began working on the design of an mRNA vaccine. Within weeks, they had made enough vaccine to test it in animals, and then in people. Just 11 months after the discovery of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regulators in the United Kingdom and the US confirmed that an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 is effective and safely tolerated, paving the path to widespread immunization. Previously, no new vaccine had been developed in less than four years.3

We were literally at the point of matriculating mRNA vaccines into large-scale human clinical trials at the precise point in time that the COVID-19 outbreak began. If this outbreak occurred even a few years earlier, I question if we would have been able to develop effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 with the same speed and have the capacity to rapidly produce and distribute large quantities of vaccines once the mRNA vaccine was ready to go. The rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been made possible because of the advances in mRNA vaccines that have occurred over the course of the last few years, yielding the technical knowledge to rapidly develop and manufacture mRNA vaccines. In fact, some biomedical scientists consider mRNA vaccines to be the ideal vaccines for this reason.

As a Christian and a biochemist, I can’t help but see God’s providential hand at work in the timing of the COVID-19 outbreak. It happened precisely at the time that advances in mRNA vaccines would allow for a rapid response. The remarkable confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic with the advances in mRNA vaccines has one of two possible explanations: It’s either a fortuitous accident or a reflection of God’s providential timing and faithful provision to humanity.

As a Christian, I choose the latter explanation.

You might say that mRNA vaccine were prepared in advance for such a time as this.

The Christian Left: The New Referee of Morality?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

Only in the twisted ethos of today’s Christian Left is a maskless man considered a cold-hearted murderer, while an abortionist is celebrated as a heroic social justice warrior. With seemingly no regard for the scales of justice, the spiritually ‘woke’ Democratic Party is willfully bending the rules of right and wrong to favor their own ethically bankrupt agenda and to ensure it triumphs in the state — no matter the cost. Although they claim to be religiously devout, the Left ignores natural law and has abandoned the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our nation is built.

Arguments from Silence

Responding on TikTok to the question of “Isn’t the Bible against abortion,” a self-identifying “queer lady pastor” answers, “No, not really. The Bible doesn’t say much. Jesus definitely doesn’t say anything [about abortion].” Using what is referred to in philosophical and historical analysis as an argument from silence, this female TikTok pastor attempts to reject the notion that Christianity necessitates a pro-life position due to her claims that the Bible fails to mention abortion. Arguments from silence offer notoriously poor reasoning and little logical proof for her cause.

Although they claim to be religiously devout, the Left ignores natural law and has abandoned the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our nation is built.

For instance, suppose in the next Super Bowl a receiver gets behind the coverage and Tom Brady hits him in stride. As the receiver sprints toward the end zone, the beaten defender pulls out a gun and shoots him in the back five yards short of the goal line. Imagine the uproar if after the referees confer among themselves regarding a flag on the play for pass interference, the final call were presented as, “Upon further review, since nowhere in the rule book does it explicitly say that you can’t shoot a player at the five-yard line, we’re going to assume the commissioner approves of the defender’s freedom to choose. The play stands as called.”

While the rulebook might not explicitly mention that the murder of another player is against the rules, everyone in the stands possesses an innate knowledge that such behavior is not only against the rules — it’s a crime against humanity!

Obvious Sophistry

The Christian Left might claim to be very “devout,” but such reasoning demonstrates, much like the referees in the example on the field above, that they aren’t fit to determine right from wrong. It is as if they pretend not to know what the rule book says about the most important matter of the law — the protection of life — and then assume, contrary to the evidence, that God supports their egregious behavior.

This kind of reasoning is obvious sophistry.

While it’s true that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, this doesn’t at all mean that it’s permitted. Even a brief glance at the scriptures reveals that it was unthinkable to the God-fearing Hebrews to kill a child (children were a blessing from the Lord) and abortion was already prohibited by the 10 Commandments (i.e. “You shall not murder.”) Likewise, the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention felony home invasion either, but it is already prohibited by “You shall not steal.” You have to be willfully blind to think otherwise.

Self-appointed Referees

Religious conservatives understand that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens from evil. Government is not commanded to insert itself in every aspect of life or provide services that individuals normally do (the government may do those things, but that’s not its primary charge). Paul writes, government “rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Ironically, the Left, as the self-appointed referee of morality, eagerly embraces this role to punish the wrongdoer by assuming they themselves — and not scripture, natural law, or the Constitution — are able to define what is wrong and what is right. Take for instance calls from the Left recently to pressure cable providers to “punish” conservative media outlets by removing them from their platforms. Rather than protecting the unborn or defending First Amendment rights, the Left is busy silencing and fighting free speech!

Promoting Evil

With their support for government-paid abortion, the Left is actually promoting evil. After all, what could be a greater evil than murder? Rulers who don’t want to prevent a murder — and actually want to pay for it — are failing in their primary mission. That’s why being pro-life is a necessary, but not the only, condition for our vote. Being pro-life doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a ruler, but being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies them.

Likewise, religious progressives who elevate debatable and less critical issues to supreme importance, while simultaneously offering support of abortion, stand as co-conspirators in the deaths of the unborn. To the Christian Left, climate change trumps abortion, as if allowing the possibility of the river next to the stadium rising two inches a hundred years from now is a graver sin than allowing 800,000 babies to be murdered this year. Jesus would charge them, like he did the politicians of his day, with “neglecting the more important matters of the law.”

The Christian Left is Unleashing Chaos

The job of a good referee is not to affect the outcome of the game one way or the other, but to ensure the game is played fairly by the established rules. The rules are in place to allow fair competition among the players while protecting the players from unnecessary harm. One could imagine what would happen to the game of football if out-of-bounds were overlooked so that fans could walk on and off the field as pleased; if there were quotas on players based on sex and race; and if the players were fined based upon the penalties of their predecessors. It would be chaos. Yet, this is exactly what the left is doing to this country.

All of this is being sold by the Christian Left as some kind of biblical social justice. There is nothing just or biblical about abortion (the same could be said about illegal immigration and the redistribution of wealth). While we cannot question their good intentions, there is no doubt about their inevitable bad results.

If our nation hopes to recapture even a semblance of true justice, as well as our founding freedoms, we must reject the empty ethics of the Left, and revisit the spiritual and ethical guidelines found within our Judeo-Christian roots and the Constitution.

Editor’s note: Watch Frank Turek discuss these issues with Randy Robison on LIFE Today Live.

Progressive Ideology and the Hijacking of the Christian Faith

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

As only the second Catholic to hold the office, President Joe Biden continued a nearly 70-year-old tradition by addressing America during the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month. While Biden is far from the first Democrat to address the crowd, in the new era of the ascendant Christian left, much more is at stake. In years past, Democrats almost seemed comfortable being viewed as a faithless party. But since mid-terms are usually catastrophic for the party in power, Democrats must soon find a way to convince voting Christians that Jesus would look more like a liberal than a conservative.

In order for progressive ideology to gain a stronger foothold among the masses, Biden and the woke democratic party must do two things: One, they must create animosity toward conservatives and traditionalists who hold to biblical ideas regarding social issues, and two, they must create a sense of moral superiority by growing an elite group of people — namely the Christian left.

A ‘Woke’ Socialistic Agenda as a Christian Alternative

The left, unable to demonstrate moral superiority based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, must attempt to pass a “woke” socialistic agenda as a more Christian alternative. That’s where progressivist priorities — such as government-run universal healthcare, climate change, and open borders — are ostensibly a nod to Christian charity (as long as you only pay attention to the intent and not the results).

Animosity is fostered by tarring half the electorate with the political extremism that carried out the Capitol riot. The left insists that anyone associated with Trump, including evangelicals, must be immoral and evil (important note: this judgment does not apply to anyone associated with the hundreds of riots in 2020). By never letting a good crisis go to waste, the Christian left is using the Capitol crisis to sow doctrinal confusion and temporarily defend their position — as the keepers of true morality and righteousness — thus distracting from the truly anti-biblical agenda of the democratic party, namely abortion rights and the destruction of the biological two-parent family.

Distraction and Deception

Distraction is the key to accomplishing leftist goals — to hijack anything, you need to distract (and deceive). Progressive Christians distract by using moralistic-sounding language while redefining the words with leftist definitions. For example, the very word “progressive” sounds good, yet it assumes some kind of moral progress. Progress toward what? An ultimate standard of good? Such a standard can only exist if God exists. Without being “endowed by our Creator,” all talk of rights (and wrongs) are reduced to mere human opinion.

But if progressive Christians are truly progressing toward God’s standard, then why do they continually support policy positions that are clearly contrary to His standard — a standard known clearly through natural law (“we hold these truths to be self-evident”) and Scripture?

They do what many with a bad case do. They distract and deceive by not only redefining the standard but redefining the moralistic sounding words they use to sell the new standard. We might say that they come as an “angel of light.” Here are a few examples.

Freedom to Choose

Who can be against freedom and choice? No one, unless you ask them to complete the sentence. Freedom to choose what, murder? Should we have the freedom to rape and choose slaves too? And why does a woman have the freedom to choose to kill her children, but not the freedom to choose where she sends them to school?

Inclusion, Tolerance, and Diversity

This sounds good as well. But it really means that every diverse viewpoint and behavior is to be heard and celebrated except those that do not agree with the left. God-honoring viewpoints — like those held by Jesus and his apostles — will not be tolerated. Ironically, in the name of “inclusion tolerance and diversity,” the Christian left will exclude anyone agreeing with Jesus! (Forget the church — it’s the left that convicts people of heresy, and always without a trial.) And why do people call themselves Christians when they disagree with Jesus? Progressive Christian is an oxymoron.

Equality

Again, who can be against that? No one if it means the biblical and American ideals that we are all created as equal images of God, and that the law should not show favoritism but treat everyone equally. However, that’s not what the Christian (or secular) left means by equality. To the left, “equality” now means two things:

1) All sexual behaviors and gender identities must be embraced as normative (again contrary to the Bible and common sense), and anyone who disagrees will not be treated as an equal but cancelled; and

2) Everyone is entitled to the same outcome. (Equality of opportunity has become “equity” meaning equality of outcome.) Biden’s recent equity executive order flips the Bible and Martin Luther King on their heads. Instead of judging people on the content of their character, we are being ordered to judge people based on the color of their skin. Quotas and reverse discrimination are likely looming as agencies in the executive branch are pressured to find and correct inequities of outcome (not just opportunity). This despite the fact that the Bible does not command or predict equal outcomes (not even in Heaven!).

While we should strive for equal opportunity under the law, no society in history has ever produced equal outcomes among all groups. That’s because such outcomes are usually determined by several factors that can’t be equalized by the government, including talents, motivation, and personal behavior. In fact, Jesus contradicted the democrat insistence on equity when he said that talents (resources) would be taken from those that failed to use and grow them and given to those that did — even those who had more!

In our next column, we’ll cite a few more ways Christian leftists are attempting to hijack the Christian faith and expand their political influence.

How To Be Friendly To People Who Oppose You Politically

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jiménez

Christians can get so worked up over politics that they can sometimes blow their witness.

Sadly, this is something we see more frequently on social media. It seems like no matter what your political views are, someone will be offended or will publicly attack you over your support of a candidate they feel is dangerous to the American way of life.

A big reason for Americans’ aggressive behavior is because their views run deep into what is referred to as “identity politics.” Politics is no longer about aligning with a specific political party. Nowadays, people’s political views are intertwined with their religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and social or economic status.

If left to its own devices, identity politics can bring out the worst in people. That’s why Christians shouldn’t rush to placate political labels at church. It can send the wrong message and cause a rift with other church members.

Without question, the American church is at a crossroads between faith and politics, which is very disturbing.

So then, what can you do to overcome this contention and bring some clarity and unity back into the Christian community?

Well, for one thing, when you’re knee-deep in a discussion about politics, don’t let secondary issues impede your progress in finding common ground. It’s possible for Christians to have thoughtful debates over politics without biting each other’s heads off.

To avoid letting a conversation surrounding politics from getting too heated, follow these three steps:

Step number one, be cordial. Peter wisely states, “Show proper respect to everyone” (1 Pet. 2:17). It’s okay to critique the other person’s political views as long as you don’t turn into a disrespectful critic of their political party. Avoid getting defensive and cutting the other person off. Your ultimate objective is not to prove the other person wrong but to improve the relationship. No progress can occur if you’re not willing to show respect and listen to the other person.

Step number two, be biblical. Much of the time, political conversations consist of citing a political pundit to back up an opinion. You might be right positionally, but make sure your argument is based primarily on biblical truths rather than from sources that feed your ideological position. As a follower of Jesus Christ, make sure politics do not overshadow the gospel and doctrinal truths. In so doing, you will keep the main thing the main thing and find more important areas of agreement.

Step number three, be reasonable. If you love people and good ideas, you will spend adequate time sharpening your arguments and learning from others. As you debate with someone who holds to a dramatically different political opinion, you will want to be clear and logical when presenting your positions; while, at the same time, remaining teachable (see Phil. 4:5; Js. 3:7).

No matter how intense a political debate may get within the four walls of the church, make it your goal never to let politics ruin your relationships with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

By applying these three steps, you are sure to have friendly interactions with those who don’t share your political views.

Pope Biden and the New Theocracy of the Christian Left

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek & Lucas Miles

After four years of accusing conservatives of violating the First Amendment by attempting to establish an American theocracy, the conclave of the Christian Left sent the ceremonial white smoke of affirmation through the metaphorical chimneys of our nation’s capital as The Times announced a more “religiously observant” neo-papacy, headed by none other than President Joe Biden, himself.

The Christian Left’s Theocracy and Hypocrisy

No longer identifying as simply Catholic or Christian, Biden’s deeply praised spirituality has adopted qualifiers, such as Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity, proving that the left takes no issue with an American theocracy, as long as democrats are able to exchange the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the holy Marxist trinity of diversity, acceptance and social justice. In this America, President Biden’s pro-abortion beliefs are lauded as “steeped in Christian rituals and practices,” while simultaneously Leftists derogatorily refer to Amy Coney Barrett’s pro-life agreement with the Church as “dogmatic.” Contrary to what The Times says, Biden is not only, not “religiously observant” of the Church’s most important moral teachings, he denies them through his policies. In the new theocracy of the Christian Left, such Biblical defiance is not only desired, it is the very definition of devotion.

Biblical Defiance Required

Forget forgiveness of sins, repentance, and the cross. The new religion of the left initiates its members through forced acceptance of global warming, racism, and pro-abortive child sacrifice. Fueled by a nearly state-run liberal media, the Christian Left holds their new pope’s doctrines, ratified by cowardly executive orders, as infallible and the ultimate expression of not only faith but science, as they “solve” every problem from poverty to pollution. To deny their logic — that allows grown men in girl’s restrooms and invents more than 100 genders — is heretical and will land one in certain “ex-communication” from the church of the state through total political and financial cancellation. Severe offenders even risk being refused access to the left’s most divine sacraments, Twitter and Facebook. This new progressive theocracy considers it perfectly legitimate to be a card-carrying member of the Christian Left and still supports anti-biblical ideals, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, despite mountains of biblical evidence to the contrary. For the church of Biden, there are no contradictions here — after all, the archaic mumblings of biblical orthodoxy are no match in their minds for the religiously enlightened dogma of its past saints, like Darwin, Marx, and Obama, as well as the theocracy’s holy mother herself, Margaret Sanger.

Straining a Gnat, Swallowing a Camel

They assert that liberal Christians can not only overlook abortion, but they can celebrate it, because of the plethora of other pro-life issues that the Democrat party addresses, like universal healthcare, the dangers of global warming, and open borders. So it’s perfectly legitimate, they say, to be a progressive Christian and support politicians who are pro-abortion — after all, for the left, Biden’s Christianity is “less focused on sexual politics and more on combating poverty, climate change and racial inequality.”

Forget forgiveness of sins, repentance, and the cross. The new religion of the left initiates its members through forced acceptance of global warming, racism, and pro-abortive child sacrifice.

Except, of course, this isn’t true. Politics under Biden and the Christian Left have never been more sexualized, with an outright obsession with genders, a women’s right to choose, transgenderism, and introducing America’s children to drag queens. Apropos of Jesus’ rebuke of the religious and political leaders of his day, the Christian Left is nothing more than “blind guides,” who “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” Much like the Pharisees of scripture, today’s progressive Christians are majoring in the minors. For instance, we have “religiously observant” politicians telling us what light bulbs we can and can’t use, all while neglecting to shed light on the worst injustice imaginable — the senseless slaughter of the unborn — and even worse, all in the name of women’s reproductive rights! Christ-centric Christians know that this logic runs afoul of Jesus and common sense.

One Issue Disqualifiers

Now, none of this means that Christians should be one-issue voters. Being pro-life on the abortion issue doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a good candidate. Christians and conservatives should also want their candidates to be strong on other issues as well (i.e. religious freedom, national defense, the economy, etc.). Understanding Jesus’s teaching means that we are not one-issue voters but we are one issue disqualifiers, that is when that issue shows complete disregard for human life. In other words, while being pro-life doesn’t necessarily qualify someone as a good candidate, being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies someone as a good candidate.

In light of an “ascendant liberal Christianity,” true followers of Christ must learn to discern the difference between men who declare themselves gods, and a God who made himself man.

For this reason, a candidate’s position on abortion may very well be the best metric to determine if someone remains true to Christianity, as defined by scripture and natural law, or if they’ve joined the new theocracy of the Christian Left.

Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians and the True Christian

For those who still think it’s appropriate to support pro-abortion politicians, I have a few questions: Would you take the same position if the issue was not abortion but slavery? Would you reason, “There are other freedom issues that are important too, so it’s perfectly fine to support pro-slavery candidates”? Would you deny the moral importance of voting for Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas? Would you gloss over the fact that Douglas not only wants to keep slavery legal, but he wants you, the taxpayer, to subsidize it? I doubt you would. Like Jesus, you would charge anyone making such a terrible case with “neglecting the more important matters of the law,” and as such, true Christians, whether Republican or Democrat, should do the same in Biden’s America. In light of an “ascendant liberal Christianity,” true followers of Christ must learn to discern the difference between men who declare themselves gods, and a God who made himself man.

How critical is this moment for Americans?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Richard Land

I cannot help but think that a large majority of American citizens are very, very concerned about the current state of our union.

The increasing hostility and political protests that have roiled our society for the past few years seem to be reaching a crescendo in the events that have unfolded in the aftermath of an extremely acrimonious election cycle in which there seemed to be little common ground. Many people have blamed President Trump for this increasing level of incivility, but he was more a symptom and a product of the dissatisfaction and unrest of many citizens rather than its progenitor.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, numerous people were quoting the late, great Martin Luther King Jr., who had sought in 1967 to explain the phenomenon of “riots” without condoning them, observing that “A riot is the language of the unheard.” The left was quick to seize upon this explanation as a reason for the violent protests that wracked many of our cities in the summer and early fall of 2020. Mr. Trump, the first president to be elected without any prior political service, or alternatively just having won a war (generals Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower), was obviously a political phenomenon produced by a significant segment of the American population between the two coasts who felt “unheard” in their frustrations in being victimized by globalization and the consequent disappearance of their livelihoods.

How else do you explain a Donald Trump? Like most political observers, I would have said what Trump did in going straight to the White House in his first political campaign could not have been done – until he did it.

Unprecedented reaction to his victory in 2016, with significant segments of our media and political culture, never accepting the legitimacy of his victory, stating “He will never be my president,” and calling for his impeachment within hours of his taking the oath of office. It helped raise the temperature and rancor of political discussions at an alarming rate.

Now we find ourselves in the position where many Americans feel disenfranchised by President-elect Biden’s victory and the censoring of political speech by the High Tech Cartel (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc.). Once again, I would not have believed such a denial of the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech until it occurred. Evidently, these vastly powerful entities have been so consumed by their hostility to President Trump they do not see what they are doing. How else do you explain Twitter condemning precisely the same behavior in a foreign country (Uganda), stating,

“We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of #openinternet.” They further observed that “access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter is never more important than during domestic processes, particularly elections.” I could not agree more. It’s true in Uganda, and it’s true in the USA, too.

And now, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of the U.S. House “impeaching” the president less than a week before he leaves office, with the earliest the Senate could take up the case being 1:00 pm on January 20, 2021, when Mr. Trump will have already been replaced by then-President Biden. This makes a mockery of the intended constitutional purpose of impeachment, which is to remove a sitting president, and reminds me of nothing quite so much as the British royalists who returned to power in 1660 disinterring Oliver Cromwell’s corpse from Westminster Abbey, where he had been buried in 1658, so they could hang his corpse in chains and then decapitate him. Cromwell’s head was displayed on a poll outside Westminster Hall until 1685.

It is well past time for all Americans of the goodwill of all political persuasions to listen to our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, who in his first inaugural address in 1861 closed with this eloquent plea for Americans to turn aside from secession and looming civil war:

“I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The multiple chords of memory stretching from battle-field and patriot grave, every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, and by the better angels of our nature.”

Tragically, too many of our ancestors chose not to heed Lincoln’s urgent plea, and the entire nation reaped the whirlwind of a bloody civil war that ripped the country asunder and cost approximately 750,000 war dead (J. David Hacker) North and South and multitudes of widows and orphans in their wake. Let us all hope and pray that we heed the warnings and listen to the “better angels of our nature” this time.

In closing, I want to reference a powerful novel, Word of Honor, written by Nelson DeMille and published in 1980. Word of Honor is the semiautobiographical novel of a man who served as an infantry platoon lieutenant in the Battle of Hue in 1968 in a similar time of national division and recrimination in our country. Anyone who lived through that year remembers it well. Although the preacher parts of me are offended by some of the passages, it is a riveting read. The lieutenant is on trial in 1980 for his platoon, having purportedly committed war crimes in Vietnam. When he recounts to his attorney what actually happened, his attorney replies, “What else? Steal chickens, too?” The lieutenant replied,

“As a matter of fact, they were not bad. Not in the beginning. But you can only log so many miles on a man and imprint so many obscenities on his brain before he begins to malfunction.”

I am fearful that too many of us are heedlessly imprinting the equivalent of obscenities on our fellow citizens and on our society – which is a living, breathing thing – and it is beginning to malfunction.

It is the duty of every American to do everything we can to stop it before it imperils our country.

CHRISTIANS SHAMING CHRISTIANS OVER VOTING FOR TRUMP: 3 STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS THAT NEED TO STOP

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

There’s been a sad fallout among Christians now that the election chaos has (mostly) come to an end and a new administration is taking over: Christians are shaming other Christians for having voted for Trump.

It’s one thing to say, “As a Christian, I didn’t support Trump because (fill in the blank with disagreements regarding his character or the party platform).” But it’s entirely another thing to mischaracterize why many Christians did vote for Trump and then attempt to make that into a shameful thing. Not only is that uncharitable between brothers and sisters in Christ, but it fuels the flames of the resentment non-believers have toward politically conservative Christians.

When a person mischaracterizes another’s position on something in order to attack it, that’s called a strawman fallacy. And there’s a lot of strawmanning going on right now.

Here are three big ones.

Strawman 1: If you voted for Trump, you did so because you want Christians to have political “power.”

Ed Stetzer, a dean and professor at Wheaton College, published an opinion piece in USA Today this week titled, “Evangelicals face a reckoning: Donald Trump and the future of our faith.” The subtitle is, “We must live up to our calling as evangelicals: to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world, rather than betray Him to sustain worldly power.”

The subtitle is simply puzzling—if a person voted for Trump, they weren’t living up to their calling as evangelicals because they were chasing after worldly power? This is a strawman, but to understand why, we need to understand what it means to be a secular country—and what it doesn’t.

The United States constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is what people commonly refer to as the principle of “separation of church and state” (though that term is nowhere in the Constitution). The Establishment Clause ensures that the government will not establish a state-supported church and will not force individuals to practice a particular religion. That’s a great thing! It’s freedom of religion. But that says nothing about how individuals should or shouldn’t use their religious beliefs to inform their participation in public life. Secular doesn’t mean we’re supposed to create some kind of neutral, value-free society and keep our worldviews to ourselves. That’s impossible. Every society necessarily makes judgments about what’s good and bad, and ultimately those are worldview questions.

Now, with that in mind, does that mean Christians want power when they vote a certain way? If by power, you mean that they want to advocate for the values that are consistent with their worldview, then the answer is yes, and that’s not a problem. That’s what one should expect to happen in a secular country, where the state isn’t enforcing the authority of a single religion. Everyone is free to vote according to their conscience. If Christians supposedly want “power” because they vote according to their worldview and values, then every single person voting could be accused of the same thing.

One has to wonder, then, what Stetzer has in mind when he cautions Christians not to “betray” Jesus to sustain worldly “power.” Whatever a person thinks of Trump personally, it should be obvious that many Christians (if not the vast majority) were not voting for him as some kind of godly individual, but rather for the platform he represents—particularly over and against the Democratic platform. To suggest that Christians who chose the Republican platform over the Democratic platform are somehow betraying Jesus by voting for someone in the interest of “power” is just outlandish. Conservative voters aren’t chasing power any more than liberal voters are. They’re just voting for the platform that best aligns with their values, even if the candidate representing that platform doesn’t always embody those values. (Does any candidate ever?)

Strawman 2: If you think your faith should inform your political views, you’re a “Christian Nationalist.”

This phrase (“Christian Nationalist”) is getting tossed around everywhere lately. According to an organization called “Christians Against Christian Nationalism,” the term refers to “a cultural framework that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civil life…it carries with it assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, patriarchy, and militarism.” You can see an image from the organization below.

Let me just say I have literally never come across a Christian who would be considered a Christian Nationalist according to this description—and I follow a lot of online groups/social media communities with Christians all over the spectrum of belief. That’s not to say such people don’t exist (there are always extremists), but that they certainly don’t represent a large number of Christians.

Here’s the problem: People are slapping a strawman label of “Christian Nationalist” on anyone who voted for Trump. If a Christian Nationalist is someone who meets these criteria, then it’s ridiculous to say that all those voting conservative are “Nationalists.” However, I don’t think most people have a specific list such as this in mind when they use the term. They’re simply accusing Christians of mixing church and state because they voted for a platform according to their (Christian) values. To them, that’s “Christian Nationalism.” But, as I explained in the prior point, that shouldn’t even be seen as a problem! Again, it’s what’s expected in a secular country. We have freedom of religion—no state church—and can use that freedom to vote based on our conscience.

This point is closely related to the first point, but comes with a fancy label for extra shaming.

Strawman 3: If you’re concerned about the future of the country given the election results, you’re putting your faith in a person (Trump) rather than in Jesus.

I have seen numerous reminders on social media that we need to put our faith in Jesus, not a political savior. Sometimes these are meant as a simple encouragement, but a lot of times they come with the implication that those who are concerned about the direction of the country under Biden are putting their hope in politics instead of Jesus.

This is the ultimate strawman!

No one I know “worships” Trump or thinks that the President is some kind of replacement savior (not that that means such people don’t exist, but those who do certainly don’t represent the average Christian). People who voted for him may believe that his policies will place the country in a better direction than those of Biden, but that isn’t a confusion about where our hope comes from. When Christians talk about hope in a biblical sense, we’re talking about the hope of eternal life. We may additionally have political hopes for our country’s direction, based on our worldview, but these are completely different kinds of hope. A person can have the hope of eternal life, the hope of a certain direction of the country, and deep concern about an election outcome all at the same time.

Christians are on the receiving end of all kinds of mischaracterizations by non-believers. When we strawman each other, we only add to those misunderstandings. Moving forward isn’t about how we fix our “reputation” for having voted for Trump (as some Christians seem to be concerned about); non-believers will never like our values, no matter who we vote for. It’s about having nuanced and charitable conversations about the best way to live out our faith in the public square…while accurately understanding and responding to one another’s views. Strawmen are easy to blow down, but the damage is hard to fix.

Four Ways We Can Revolt Against Big Tech

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Big Tech is hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview. As such, it is a threat to the free exchange of ideas, religious liberty, and our ability to practice and talk about our faith publicly. For those reasons, I’ve made the case that Christians should lead the revolt against Big Tech. But how can we do that? Politics is important but it is not the final answer. I’ll explain why. And then I’ll offer you four ways to help start a revolt against Big Tech.

A Word on Politics

Before I go further with this, I want to address the idea of Christians being involved in politics. Some believe that Christians shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. But I think that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Christians have an obligation to be involved in politics. Politics is where worldviews collide. And we are responsible to advocate for Christian ethics and actions in the public square. Politicians make laws. Laws protect and defend moral positions. If we don’t stand up for our moral positions, we will have to live with someone else’s.

We absolutely should be involved in politics. Always.

Politics Won’t Solve The Problem(s)

That said, the people who recognize the issues I’m addressing here are mostly seeking political solutions to the problem. There is talk of removing Rule 230 from the 1996 Communications Decency Act. That law — itself part of a broader telecom law — provides a legal “safe harbor” to protect internet companies from being sued for libel. The idea for Rule 230 was to promote the free exchange of ideas on the internet. It was meant to ensure that platforms like Facebook and Twitter (that just provide a forum) are not held accountable as editors (who determine what can or cannot be published). The idea was to promote free speech and diversity of opinions.

We see how that’s worked out. Facebook and Twitter do act like editors. They determine which views can be published. But they’re protected anyway.

Others are talking about breaking up the Big Tech monopolies. Monopolies have too much power, so that seems reasonable. But the problem with Big Tech is not that it has constructed monopolies. The problem is intellectual conformity and intolerance for diverse points of view. Big Tech is hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview and to its values. Making big companies that are hostile to our ideas … into little companies that are hostile to our ideas doesn’t solve anything in the end.

The Essence of the Revolt

Removing Big Tech’s protective shield and breaking up the behemoths are both good things to do. The problem is that political solutions treat the symptoms, not the disease. And we don’t have time to wait for politicians anyway. They’re not reliable. And they’re mostly ineffective. Big Tech is not. Besides that, about half the politicians in this country share Big Tech’s ideological point of view. And that’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

So, I’d like to offer four suggestions. First, two things that all of us can start doing tomorrow. Then, two things that few of us can do, but all of us can encourage and support.

1. Train People to Think Critically

This is the most important thing of all. It isn’t emphasized in our schools. And it rarely happens in our churches. It’s difficult and time-consuming. You have to read things that may be a little over your head. And you have to be willing to challenge yourself and others to get better at it. Iron sharpens iron, after all.

People who think critically can spot errors in logic and call it out. They are comfortable at speaking out in defense of truth, goodness, and beauty as being objective features of the world we live in. The ability to do just that one thing will begin to upend everything that makes this culture the amoral, relativistic morass it has become.

Christians (in general) are notoriously bad at critical thinking. We need to change that. You need to change that. And you can start by taking on this simple book: Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy, by Gregory Ganssle. Don’t be scared off because the title has the word “philosophy” in it. Philosophy is just two Greek words crammed together: philo (love) + sophia (wisdom). Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Every Christian should embrace it.

There are countless other books, websites, and parachurch organizations that can help you in this endeavor. I talk about them on this site all the time.

Stay tuned.

2. Use Alternatives

Remember that the fuel for Big Tech behemoths is the revenue they generate by exploiting the personal data you freely give them. They use that data along with your social media interactions, internet searches, and browsing history to sell your information to companies that want it. It’s very simple:

You are the product

Knowing that tells you all you need to know about how to undermine Big Tech.

Quit selling yourself. Stop fueling the Big Tech Engine that is trying to squash you.

GOOGLE

As you can see, Google (which also owns YouTube) accounts for more than 90% of the market share for internet searches. When you type in a search, Google collects, curates, and sells information about your search and browsing history to advertisers.

So, here’s the complicated plan: Stop using Google, its Chrome browser, YouTube, and Gmail. The level of surveillance and data collection you allow them about your personal habits and interests is staggering. Every account or website login. Every message you send or receive. You will never be able to imagine how deeply embedded Google is in your life until you try to disentangle yourself from it all.

But there are plenty of other options.

Browsers: The Brave web browser is three times faster than Chrome and more secure. It doesn’t collect your private data or sell it to third parties. And it uses 35% less battery on mobile.

Search Engine: Qwant and Duck-Duck-Go are powerful search engines that don’t save your IP address, don’t save your search results, and don’t sell your private data. They just search.

Email: Do your own research but I have found Proton Mail and Tutanota to get consistently good reviews. Each offers a free version. Getting more features may cost you $3-$5/month. But remember the big difference. This makes them the product, not you.

If enough of us changed just these three things it would have a significant financial impact on Big Tech’s most notorious culprit, Google.

SOCIAL MEDIA

I’m not going to enter the “you-should-disconnect-from-social-media” debate. There are plenty of fantastic practical, ethical, and psychological reasons to do that. Even those who were instrumental in creating social media giants agree to that. They won’t let their own children have accounts on the platforms they created!

But I’m not here to virtue signal. And I’m not here to convince you that that’s what you should do. My goal is to do my little part to defund Big Tech. So, if you don’t think deleting your social media accounts is realistic, at least move them away from the monopolistic thought police.

The fact is there are alternatives to Facebook (MeWe), Twitter (Parler), YouTube (Rumble), and Instagram (VSCO) that will allow you to continue to participate in online “communities,” share things with one another, and interact much the same as you do now. The key is that using these alternatives takes the product (you) away from the Big Tech overlords. And the revenue you generate goes with it. These alternate platforms don’t collect or sell your data. They just provide a place to interact.

Most of them are still in their infancy. They don’t have as many features as the Big Guys. And right now, they are mostly populated by ideologues from the opposite point of view of their predecessors. But, as more and more of us abandon Big Tech, those alternatives will become more robust, diverse, and enjoyable. My point about the revolt against Big Tech is simply that we begin to strip it of its power. And this is a way to start doing that.

3. Build Big Tech Alternatives

If you have the knowledge, skill, and means to create Big Tech alternatives, please get to work. As Peter Rex points out, we need tech companies that are far removed from the Big Tech centers of Silicon Valley and Seattle. But, more importantly, we need them further removed from the toxic, self-perpetuating, Big Tech ideology that is threatening to crush free thought.

Big Tech has become quite good at mastering people. We need alternatives that serve people.

The beauty in this is that there is a huge market for creating alternative tech companies. And it is ripe to be tapped. Offering people an ethically superior alternative to the Big Tech masters of the culture could prove to be extremely lucrative.

4. Invest in Free-Thinking

The great majority of us aren’t tech wizards. We can’t build Big Tech alternatives. But we certainly can support those who do. This includes investing in technology entrepreneurs and supporting companies that are creating new ways to compete with the behemoths. The simple act of changing your internet browsing and social media platforms are examples. But if you have the means to actually invest in competitors to these Big Tech companies, please do.

It also includes supporting private high schools and independent universities that refuse to play along with the politically correct mandates of the cultural thought police. I would say this is just as important as donating to your local church. The ramifications of not doing so are too menacing to ignore.

By this, I do not mean to say that we have to create and support Christian companies or schools. Honestly, I don’t even know what would make a company “Christian.” But we can certainly seek to support those that are not hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview like Big Tech is today.

A Win-Win Example

In 2014, Mozilla (the company that produced the Firefox web browser) forced Brendon Eich out of the company he founded. Why? Because six years earlier he had made a small donation to a campaign to oppose the Proposition 8 same-sex “marriage” initiative in California. Eich never talked about it or pushed his views at work. He never publicly addressed the issue. In fact, no one he worked with knew anything about his views until public records exposed his contribution to oppose Proposition 8 in 2014.

Brendan Eich is reportedly a politically middle-of-the-road Catholic. But he held the wrong view on same-sex “marriage.” So, he had to be destroyed. This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Rod Dreher calls it “soft totalitarianism.” And it is our collective future if Big Tech is allowed to continue down the path it has chosen. But here’s why I bring it up.

Brendan Eich didn’t just curl up in a ball and surrender. When he was forced out of Mozilla, he gathered investors to start a new company. There, he developed the Brave web browser I mentioned earlier. His story embodies everything I’ve been talking about. The platform is private and ideologically neutral. Using it supports a guy who created an alternative to the Big Tech default technology and ideology. Win-win.

Don’t Lose Sight Of The Purpose

I started this two-post blog series with a video of Peter Rex at Hillsdale College. Rex is a billionaire and tech entrepreneur. You and I are not. Hillsdale College is one of the very few institutes of higher learning in this country that still believes in and encourages free inquiry. You’ve probably never heard of it. But these are the kinds of people and organizations we need more of. If the hundreds of millions of faithful people in this country are willing to follow and support people like Peter Rex and places like Hillsdale College, we can start a revolt against Big Tech. And we can change the culture.

We certainly owe it to our kids and grandkids to try.

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

The “Noble Lie”

So What’s The Solution?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Messenger RNA Vaccines

Challenges Developing mRNA Vaccines

Advantages of mRNA Vaccines

Clearing the Technical Hurdles

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Arguments from Silence

Obvious Sophistry

Self-appointed Referees

Promoting Evil

The Christian Left is Unleashing Chaos

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A ‘Woke’ Socialistic Agenda as a Christian Alternative

Distraction and Deception

Freedom to Choose

Inclusion, Tolerance, and Diversity

Equality

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Christian Left’s Theocracy and Hypocrisy

Biblical Defiance Required

Straining a Gnat, Swallowing a Camel

One Issue Disqualifiers

Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians and the True Christian

Recommended resources related to the topic:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Strawman 1: If you voted for Trump, you did so because you want Christians to have political “power.”

Strawman 2: If you think your faith should inform your political views, you’re a “Christian Nationalist.”

Strawman 3: If you’re concerned about the future of the country given the election results, you’re putting your faith in a person (Trump) rather than in Jesus.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Word on Politics

Politics Won’t Solve The Problem(s)

The Essence of the Revolt

1. Train People to Think Critically

2. Use Alternatives

GOOGLE

3. Build Big Tech Alternatives

4. Invest in Free-Thinking

A Win-Win Example

Don’t Lose Sight Of The Purpose

Recommended resources related to the topic: