What’s Left of ‘My Body, My Right’?

[Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted in 2014. While the general argument is still as relevant as ever, a lot has changed in the cultural landscape since then, most notably the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus, time-sensitive statistics are relative to 2014.]

The right to privacy just might be the most widely touted justification for abortion today. Implied within the right to life and to liberty, the concept of “privacy” demarcates the sacred domain of self-possession (my body), autonomy (my choice), and liberty (my freedom). Without at least some form of the right to privacy, one cannot defend against forced marriage, coercive medical procedures, physical abuse, slavery, forced labor or any other forms of coercion. And of course, abortion isn’t a “right” unless a mother can do what she wants with her body. One mantra, long circulated under the right to privacy is: “My Body, my right.” The (illicit) presumption is that bodily autonomy guarantees women of the right to abortion. But when these words are pressed, and the idea inside squeezes out, there might not be much pro-choice power left.

History of “My Body My Choice”     

The right to privacy has legal roots in the 1927 Olmstead v. United States decision where the letter of dissent, penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, articulated this previously unstated right. The case concerned Olmstead’s suspected smuggle and sale of alcohol. The “privacy” issue regarded how authorities gathered evidence against him. Brandeis argued that our founding fathers had “conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.” Olmstead was convicted, by a 5-4 decision, on covert wire-tapping evidence, gained without a warrant. Brandeis’ dissent letter, however, proved pivotal forty years later in the 1967 Katz v. U.S. case which overturned the Olmstead ruling.

In between these events was the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut ruling where the right to privacy was applied to sexual ethics, thus bringing that conversation closer to the abortion debate of today.

In Griswold v. Connecticut the issue was contraception, specifically within marriage. The ruling found in favor of the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, who advocated for the free use of contraception (at least) within marriage. The predominate justification for their case? Privacy. Married couples have the right of privacy whereby they can choose for themselves whether to direct their sexual relations toward pregnancy or not.

Following the Griswold case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) would extend the right of contraceptive access to unmarried couples as well. In that case, the right to privacy joined with the equal protection clause to give unmarried couples the same access to contraception as married couples. While the Eisenstadt case is important, the Griswold case is widely considered to be the more groundbreaking decision leading up to Roe v. Wade (1973).

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the right to privacy was one of the main justifications for the ruling, in favor of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), granting a qualified right of abortion access. Together with the concurrent Doe v. Bolton case (verdict rendered the same day, January 22, as Roe v Wade) abortion access was granted to U.S. women on an unprecedented scale. The privacy argument refers to a woman’s right to manage her body how she sees fit, with minimal intrusion from others. Her contraceptive practices are primarily her choice to make, in part, because she bears the greatest responsibility for what happens to her body be it pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, child-birth, or subsequent motherhood.

Roe v. Wade proved to be a controversial ruling, having been disputed ever since. Some sense of the “right to privacy”, however, has never been disputed, since it is understood that the federal and state government should generally respect individual citizen’s rights to conduct their private affairs privately, and to manage their own bodies with general freedom from interference. It is this special right (a.k.a., sacred right) that is implied when people say things like, “the government should stay out of my bedroom” or “you can’t tell me how to raise my child” or, more crassly, “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” Pro-choice and pro-life advocates can all agree that there is some sort of privacy right implied in the basic legal and human rights of U.S. citizens. The terminology is not explicitly stated in our founding documents yet some sense of it has always been understood therein.

[Editor’s Note: The watershed case of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). The decision confirmed that there was no explicit “right to privacy” mentioned in the Constitution, although, the concept still applies in regarding people’s general rights against spying, theft, illegal search and seizure, contraception, etc. Dobbs did not overturn Griswold or the Eisenstadt decisions, so those applications of “privacy rights” are maintained, even abortion is no longer included as a constitutional right]

But how far does that right to privacy extend? When pressed, it seems like there are some important qualifications that can be pitted against a blanketing sense of “privacy.”

1) Certain public health issues restrict the right to privacy

In some states, an HIV-carrier can be criminally tried for willfully spreading HIV if they don’t reveal their HIV status to their partner. Though his or her disease may, in some sense be “his body,” and “his own business,” it becomes a public issue when, under false pretense, he infects others. Similarly, a smoker may be allowed to smoke at home, but not necessarily at public restaurants or at work. It may be one’s personal right to smoke a cigarette, but since that private behavior has public consequences there is no universal right to smoke just anywhere one wants.

Furthermore, there are certain behaviors that are illegal even among consenting adults who, regarding their right to privacy, have no personal objections. Illegal drug use and prostitution are considered such pressing public health issues that we have governing prohibitions in place.

It might be exaggerating things a bit to call abortion a “public health crisis,” but that assessment has merit. In a brutally literal sense, medical abortion, among preventable causes, is by far the single leading killer for human beings of any age or race.

 

[1]* According to CDC reports for 2011, abortion claimed the lives of 1,058,490 children in utero, meanwhile malnutrition claimed 3,009 lives, various accidents (firearms or otherwise) claimed 126,438, suicides and homicide claimed 55,756.

[Editor’s Note: the current total, is now around 66,000,000 abortions from 1973-2025. And the yearly average is, again, around 1,000,000.]  

Doubtless, there are preventable cases of heart disease and Type II diabetes that could be added to those numbers, but it should be clear that the million plus deaths annually from abortion easily tips the scales when compared against other preventable deaths. Were there more than a million deaths from salmonella poisoning, or malnutrition, or suicide, or drug trafficking, or medical malpractice, then hardly a politician in Washington would fail to join the campaign against such preventable fatalities. Those numbers would easily count as a public health crisis in any other field. Even when a basic right to privacy is granted, public health crises present a plausible boundary line for personal autonomy. People might have a general right to do what they want with their bodies, but not necessarily if their actions constitute a public health crisis and especially not if their behavior extends that health crisis into killing other human beings.

2) There is no privacy right regarding child-abuse.

It is widely granted that parents have a right to raise their (minor) children how they see fit. Their home is a private bastion of liberty where they can talk, think, feel, hope, believe, and generally act as they see fit. This includes child-rearing, discipline, character formation, and even naming one’s children with most any name one sees fit. This domain of freedom has also been touted in justifying home schooling and personal choice of religious or non-religious education. Yet in spite of all that liberty at home, there is no “privacy right” allowing sexual, physical, or gross verbal abuse. The children are still individual human beings with their own rights even if their status as minors nuances their legal autonomy. In these circumstances, the general right to privacy for parents is bounded by a more basic right of the child’s right to life, liberty, and his/her pursuit of happiness. Phrased ethically, the parents have a moral responsibility to care for and support their children towards health and well-being and not treat them like slaves, robots, sex partners, or punching bags.

Regarding the subject of abortion it is common parlance to refer to a pregnant woman as a “mother” and to refer to her gestating human fetus as her “child,” i.e., “mother and child.” There is legal precedence for referring to the preborn human being as a “child-in-utero” and to the pregnant woman as “mother” (see, The Unborn Victim of Violence Act, 2004). To be fair, she may prefer not to be a mother, she may scorn motherhood, or otherwise dislike being called a mother, but biologically she has begun motherhood as soon as another human being has begun inside of her. She does indeed have great and rightful freedom to conduct herself how she sees fit, but now that another human being is involved – and biologically there’s no dispute over whether the child-in-utero is a genetically distinct homo sapien – she is a mother and any abusive acts on that human inside of her is literally child abuse. Admittedly, the legal system, via the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, does not deem assaults on children-in-utero as “abuse” unless the child is harmed by an aggressor besides the mother.[2]

The child’s physiological status, however, is the same regardless of whether the child is killed by an assailant or by an abortion doctor; whether the child is wanted or not. He or she is still an abused child in terms of the malicious and fatal harm inflicted on them. He or she is no less harmed regardless of who is doing the abusing, or what their intentions might be.

3) There are competing responsibilities of parenthood

Similar to the last point, it should be noted that parental behavior regarding their own bodies can still harm their children. While parents have a general right to privacy regarding their own bodies, their bodies, nonetheless, are part of their person so that gross negligence of their own bodies or abandonment are unethical and sometimes illegal.

If a single parent says, “It’s my body, and I want my body to be in California” but their 5 year-old child is in Maryland, then that parent’s autonomy is competing with his or her legal responsibility as a parent. To leave that child unaccompanied in Maryland is child abandonment. Moreover, if that parent participates in illegal drug activity, prostitution, or otherwise extremely risky behavior the state can rightly take that child away from that parent for his or her gross negligence. One could even be ethically and legally culpable for willfully self-destructive behavior like suicide attempts, morbid obesity, abusing over-the-counter drugs, or any number of behaviors that leave children with a dangerously unreliable parent. That parent’s right of privacy infringes on his or her responsibility as a parent, and in some cases that parent’s behavior is both criminal and unethical.

Regarding abortion, a woman might not want to think of her preborn child as a “parasite” or wish any harm on it, but she does want it out of her body to let “nature take its course.” In that sense, she may seek a more gentler characterization of the abortion process so that her behavior is construed passively, selflessly, or in otherwise nicer tones. In that way an abortive mother may try to baptize her intentions so that she’s not willing any harm, or she is aiming for the “greater good.” These efforts have some ethical value, but do not necessarily counterbalance the fact that a mother’s children have some rightful expectations that she will not deliberately destroy herself or harm them through her body.

For example, it is unethical for a smoking mother to give her prenatal child cancer or birth defects, or for her to use illicit drugs and deliver a crack baby, or to acquire HIV and knowingly confer it to her pre-born child. These acts are not just done to one’s self, but directly affect someone else. It is no longer a strictly “private” issue now that someone else is involved. Abortion, as such, is not just an act on the mother’s body but also harms the child. For example, some abortificients (abortion medications) are known to reduce the mucosal lining in the uterine wall where the embryo would otherwise implant. This leaves the embryo with nowhere to go, it is expelled from the womb. The pill was an action of the mother, affecting her own body, but its effects did not rest with the mother. The effect was a silentabortion, where another human life was taken. In this way, abortion can be ethically similar to other actions of mothers that harm their babies–even if the action was intended to be of a different sort, like smoking for pleasure, or drinking for fun, or taking recreational drugs to hide from the world. These acts might have different ethical weight themselves, but all of them also carry the ethical weight of child-abuse when they harm the child-in-utero.

4) There are competing responsibilities of citizenship

Some minimal responsibilities are expected in exchange for the many rights and privileges of citizenship. For example, one is not at liberty to plot treason against one’s president nor to attempt to assassinate the president, even if one is only “planning” such a thing without yet acting. It is illegal to even conspire to do such anti-government activities. It does not matter if one’s activities are all contained within personal journals with the materials kept in one’s home. One may have a right to bear arms, but not to bear the schematics for an assassination attempt. Frankly, a person might even be “joking” yet if the threat looks real enough, that behavior could be grounds for criminal charges. The right to privacy does not grant unqualified liberty to mobilize one’s private domain for public harm, as that is no longer a merely private matter.

Ever since Roe v. Wade pre-born children are not considered legal persons and therefore do not have the rights of citizenship. [Editor’s Note: And while the Dobbs decision overturned Roe, it did not establish federal “personhood” status for children-in-utero. Abortion policy reverted to the states, along with any related “personhood” amendments.] The mother, presumably, would still have that right of citizenship qualifying her for special privileges granted to U.S. citizens like miranda rights or voting rights in U.S. elections. She would also be subject to the laws of the land, and so she has laws which prevent her from child abandonment and child abuse, and of course child mutilation, and serial murder of children. Her privacy is already infringed upon regarding her motherhood, such that she has civil duties as a mother.

[Editor’s Note: All these duties apply to fathers as well, as bodily autonomy and the right of privacy do not, normally, entail any “license to kill” innocent human beings, especially one’s own child. Abortion-choice policy, of course, remains the lone legal exception to that humanitarian basic.]

The preborn child is at least analogous to the born child such that it’s no stretch of the imagination to think a real mother should act like a real mother, even if she’s only pregnant right now. Also, if any further legal precedents are established that raise the relative legal status of the child-in-utero, then they might come closer in status to “citizens” and be a more rightful boundary on the “right of privacy.”

5) It is illegal to use one’s body to injure or kill other people without other overriding justifications

It is illegal in many cases, and unethical in more cases, to use one’s body to harm others. A person has the right to go skydiving, but not to willfully land on another person killing them. In that case, both parties are killed. Two evils have been done – both being a kind of homicide. Of course, successful suicides can’t be prosecuted, but it’s still a criminal act, and there’s little dispute about whether it’s generally evil to kill oneself, especially if someone else is killed too.

On a lesser scale, a person might jokingly fall all over people at a party receiving bumps and bruises and giving them as well. The person might be amusing, but he’s still harming other people by use of his body. One’s right to privacy is restricted by the general principle of non-malfeasance: that is, do no harm to others. Even if one’s own very body becomes the instrument of harm, it is still unethical and in many cases illegal, to harm other human beings with one’s body. Abortion involves a mother’s instrumental use of her body, by a doctor’s assistance, to create a hostile environment for the child-in-utero. To use one’s body for harm is still unethical, and not a natural privilege within the “right of privacy.”

6) Rights to privacy can be abdicated

In the case of Bowe Bergdahl American audiences were scandalized, in part, by his reported treachery, as his “right to privacy” did not include the privilege to endanger his fellow soldiers. Bergdahl, a soldier for the U.S. Army, who legally swore allegiance to the U.S. Army, and allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers abandoning his post, going AWOL, with intent to ally with the enemy. If those reports are validated and Bergdahl is found guilty, he will not have a strong “right to privacy” defense in his favor.

[Editor’s Note: Bergdahl He was held captive by the Taliban from 2009-2014 despite his alleged efforts ally with the enemy. He was court martialed and found guilty in 2017, fined, and dishonorably discharged. In 2023 his case was appealed and his conviction overturned].

By swearing allegiance and signing his respective contracts he made a substantial commitment to the United States of America to loyally serve as long as he is able and allowed. He retains his freedom of conscience throughout (he could agree with the enemy if he wants). He retains some freedom of speech (he can say what he wants in his journals). He retains freedom of religion (he can worship or not worship however he sees fit). But his body is not fully his own, since he abdicated certain privileges of free citizenship for the sake of becoming a soldier.

Bergdahl is not unique here either. Most every working man or women abdicates some degree of personal freedom and privilege for the sake of conforming to a work environment. That’s the price people pay so they can bring home a paycheck. People can exercise their right to privacy by not working in those jobs. If they don’t want to agree to their terms they don’t have to work for that business. Fashion and film industry can have rigorous expectations of their employees, “You must dye your hair,” or “You have to be willing to do nude scenes,” or “you cannot let your body weight exceed 115 pounds.” People may also abdicate certain privacy rights as legal punishment. Some criminals are forced to wear trackers monitoring their location in the event of trespassing on a restraining order. One of the paradoxes of the right to privacy is that as a facet of bodily autonomy, people can exercise their bodily autonomy by sacrificing certain aspects of privacy.

Regarding abortion, a parent’s right to privacy might be restricted by parental duties but that very privilege to choose to get pregnant or raise a child is itself a rightful exercise of one’s privacy. Even if the pregnancy was forced on the woman, through violent rape, molestation, or incest, those horrific evils don’t implicate the child. It’s not like the child-in-utero did anything deserve a death-sentence. The mother’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy are grounds for prosecuting the rapist, not for punishing the child.

Parenthood has always been a normal constraint on one’s privacy. It’s a heavy blessing people assume when they are willing to invest some of their freedom as a sacrifice for the benefit of children. Reluctant parents may have a harder time coping with the lifestyle change, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are parents and parenthood naturally constrains our privacy. Those who do not want that constraint would do well to avoid parenthood. Killing one’s child, however is not “avoiding parenthood,” since parenthood has already begun at conception. That is more like willful failure as a parent.

So, What’s Left of ‘My Body My right’?       

Bringing all these different qualifications together, a stiff critique emerges against certain liberal uses of the “right to privacy.” We can, and should, grant a qualified sense of the right to privacy without assuming that that right includes the license to kill innocent human beings by way of abortion.

References:

[1] The CDC reports the total deaths for the U.S. population as ranging between 1.9 million and 2.5 million between 1970 and 2011 per year not including abortions. In that same time frame, abortion rates ranged from 0.74 to 1.3 million abortions. In 2011, those reports estimate that there were 2,515,458 deaths (not counting abortions) and 1,058,490 abortions, making abortions about 1/3 of all fatalities in the U.S. Yet even these numbers are skewed because natural abortion (miscarriages) are not counted whereas natural deaths that occur as complications from old age are counted. Abortions might be better compared to preventable circumstances like workplace accidents, traffic fatalities, or preventable diseases like Type-II diabetes.

[2] One could argue that our legislation is due for updating since 1973. Some things that have since been legalized in the name of abortion create inconsistences for established laws, precedents, and ideals within our legal system. For example, mutilating a human corpse for the sake shipping purposes is illegal, but if it’s in utero then that is standard practice of dilation and curettage abortions. Likewise, a pregnant mother who is woefully derelict of her maternal duties cannot be legally tried for all the negligence and abuse inflicted on her preborn-child, yet if it’s a “wanted” baby that would seem to make her the aggressor against the child as in the “Lacy and Connor Law” so that if she kills the baby through drug and alcohol abuse, she could be tried for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or at least child abuse. Likewise, if a pregnant woman is assaulted on the way to the abortion clinic, intending to get an abortion, and miraculously the thief forgets to take her wallet but does push her down, killing the child on impact–he actually saved her time, and money by killing the baby in a much shorter fashion. He can be criminally charged for killing the child, for assault,  and for theft, yet the thief was only incidentally involved in an abortion procedure intended by the mother. The mother’s “intentions” did not change the nature of that child any more than it changed the ethical status of that assault.

Recommended Resources:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mBhosw

/by

Sending Your Kids to College on F.I.R.E. for Their Faith!

If you are the mom of a soon-to-be-college freshman, hang on. You will survive! But the more important question might be: Will your child survive college. . . spiritually? Even if he or she has checked all the boxes associated with growing up in the church, there’s always the possibility that their faith will end up no more intact than the couch at the frat house. But rest assured, I have walked in your shoes. Twice. And I can happily say that my young men thrived in college and graduated, still walking with Christ. (Thank you, Jesus!) We know this isn’t true of all of our kids, though, and we’re not trying to make anyone feel bad; rather, we hope that these blogs will help prepare you for what’s to come as a parent of a college-aged child.

Here’s the thing: We moms are experts at ensuring dorm rooms are well-equipped, meal plans are sufficient, and laundry bags are ready. After all, we’ve been doing this for the last 18 years, right? Unfortunately, statistics and experience show that we are not doing as good a job as we thought we were in one key area: spiritual preparation for college.

It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. The summer months, in particular, are a great time to prepare while also having bonding time with your almost-adult child before you send him or her off.

It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. #collegeprep #discipleship Click To Tweet

This can be an emotional time, especially if you are sending your first fledgling out from the nest. The inner conflict of letting your baby go often competes against the inner celebration of more freedom for yourself and celebrating your job well done. You will, however, feel better after that last hug, knowing you wrapped your child in tactical armor to navigate the spiritual landmines ahead. So, what do you say? How about engaging in a summer spiritual boot camp for college prep?

In this blog, we’ll introduce you to the FIRE method of preparing your kids, and then follow up with more in-depth blogs describing how to accomplish each step. FIRE is an acronym that stands for faith, environmental, intellectual, and relational. These are the four most important areas of prep work to prioritize before sending your freshman off to orientation. Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment. He knows your child even better than you and is willing to show you what to accomplish before the first-year orientation week.

Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment.Click To Tweet

Foundation #1: FAITH Preparation

Basic Spiritual Disciplines: Develop or reinforce Bible study and prayer. While this sounds like a no-brainer, we must remind our kids that having the discipline of personal Bible study and personal prayer goes a long way toward helping them retain the faith. In fact, six spiritual disciplines have been identified as helping youth who graduate from youth ministry to not leave the faith. These all focus on making their faith personal and not program-based. But at a minimum: Bible Study and prayer!

The six areas we alluded to above are referred to as “H.A.B.I.T.S.”: Hanging out with God, Accountability (with peers and intergenerational relationships), Bible study, Involvement in the church body (through ministry and missions), Tithing/stewardship (not just financial), and Scripture memorization.[i] And by the way, modeling these disciplines is key. Your kids are watching to see if you practice what you preach. Consider this a spiritual meal plan. Your child will be ingesting enough “junk food” on their own from peers and professors. He or she is a big kid now. No more milk. Time for solid food (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-2). Help your child lay a foundation that will support their beliefs when (not if) the ground around them shakes them to their core.

Foundation #2: INTELLECTUAL Preparation             

Apologetics and worldview training: Build confidence for the truth and evidence of Christianity and a biblical worldview through the study of apologetics. If you have been following Mama Bear Apologetics [or Crossexamined.org] already, you are well on your way. High five! If you’re new to us and apologetics in general, we’re here for you. How about a different sort of ACT review before campus — Apologetics College Training!

Apologetics is a form of discipleship that gives confidence to the Christian that their faith is a reasonable, viable, and trustworthy worldview. It helps answer the “why” behind the “what” of what we believe. Be aware of other worldviews beliefs, what questions all worldviews have to answer, and how Christianity does that. Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.

Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.Click To Tweet

Conversation training: Be ready for challenging conversations by training in tactics for defending the faith and bridge-building. Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics, is a great tutorial in having faith conversations calmly and respectfully. Our own Mama Bear Lindsey Medenwaldt’s book, Bridge-Building Apologetics, can help in this area as well.

Sharpen critical thinking skills: Can we admit that we, as a society, have almost completely lost the ability to think critically? Our kids are bombarded with information, but they do not know how to differentiate between the true and almost-true (or sometimes flat-out false!). The entertainment industry and its “professors” are two of the most influential worldview shapers our students will encounter. Does your child know how to spot logical fallacies? Do you? Merely familiarizing yourselves with these and discussing them as you encounter them in what you watch, read, and listen to will develop the brainpower to decipher false claims. And don’t forget to revisit or teach the Mama Bear ROAR method!

Discuss a biblical view of sexual ethics and why gender matters: These are two of the key issues facing the church today and may be the greatest moral issues on the college campus. Moral issues are a key way your child’s faith can be derailed in college. Help them stay on track through prayer and honest discussions. We’ll discuss this further in our breakout blog on Intellectual Preparation. To get you started, we recommend the Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality. You might also be interested in our series about biblical sexuality on The John Ankerberg Show (a new episode drops each week this summer).

Foundation #3: RELATIONAL Preparation    

Open communication: Create a healthy atmosphere, attitude, and action plan for doubts[ii] about faith and for potential moral failures. Create a checklist[iii] of things to ask when they call home or visit. I pray no parent will ever have to deal with their child seriously doubting their faith or even walking away from it, but I have talked to too many parents and heard too many stories of it happening to know that it is a reality. Make sure your child knows he or she can come to you with their doubts and questions. And in the meantime, prepare yourself for responses if tough situations arise. Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent.

Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent. Click To Tweet

Pray: No, really. Start or join a Moms in Prayer group for moms of college kids. This benefits your child, the campus, and you! This is the only “approved” way to “go to college with” your baby. (Be honest, there’s a part of you who wants to.) Praying for your college child and the campus is one of the most intentional, strategic things you can do. If your child is open to it, it also can foster communication between you two as you ask how you can be praying for him in your weekly group prayer time. A great resource to begin with is our Honest Prayers book.

Foundation #4: ENVIRONMENTAL Preparation       

Campus ministry and college church connections: Did you know your student can have a game plan for church and campus ministry involvement before they ever set foot on campus? This can be done with your own research or the help of ministries like Every Student Sent or Ratio Christi. According to Mark Whitt at Lifeway, your child’s involvement with a local church and campus ministry during the first two weeks of college is crucial to her spiritual health.

Additionally, maintaining intergenerational relationships at a local church bolsters faith and makes it more “sticky” down the road. Keep in mind that a campus ministry and a nearby campus church are not substitutes for one another. They play different roles in your student’s life. If a child has the foundational prep we mentioned above, it will be a natural transition to look for and attend a local church as well as a campus ministry. Have your student talk to returning college students at their home church about the campus ministries they are involved in.

Home church engagement: Do what you can to foster engagement between your home church and your student, both when they are at school and when they return home on breaks. Once they graduate from the youth group, encourage them to move on to a small group at your church. Does your church have a college group they can attend when they are home? As a young adult, can they move into a singles/young adult small group? Also, consider encouraging senior adults to “adopt” students while they are at college and foster ongoing contact through notes and care packages (because college students love snacks!).

The campus buzz: Know the latest issues on public and private campuses. These issues may catch your student off guard if they are not familiar with them and ready to respond. What is the spiritual, social, and political climate like on their college campus? Even a Christian college needs to be carefully vetted. What are the major events on the campus — for example, do they have a Sex Week? What does their student government support? What is their DEI policy? Are campus ministries allowed to meet on campus?

The Bottom Line                    

Reality check: If it’s June when you’re reading this, you’ve got about two months to prepare if you have a soon-to-be freshman. [Editor’s Note: If it’s August already, well, better late than never!] You can do it! As our mama bear-in-chief, Hillary, always says, “We’re all in this together.” Grab your spouse, a friend, and God, and go do this. If your child is headed to college in the not-too-distant future, consider this your Spiritual College Prep Guide. If your kid is already in college, you can still put many of these pointers into practice. Take this just as seriously, if not more so, as AP classes, building the resume, campus visits, applying for scholarships, and College Board exam prep.

Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Stay tuned for our next blog in this series – a deeper look into faith-based preparation. For now, tell us in the comments how you and your kids are getting ready for college.

Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Click To Tweet

(NOTE: This blog series originally appeared in 2016. Since then, the warp speed at which culture has accelerated in reaching even the youngest of children demands we start early in our training, just as the Mama Bear books have taught. Use our suggestions now for prep right before college if it applies to your family, but start this as early as possible with your younger children.)

References: 

[i] These HABITS were originally found in Doug Fields, Purpose-Driven® Youth Ministry (Zondervan, 1998).

[ii] Over half of teens and adults (so, the U.S. general population ages 13+) report that they’ve experienced doubts about their religious beliefs at least sometimes (12% frequently, 16% occasionally, 24% sometimes) in the past few years. Similarly, exactly half of those who are Christian or who have some Christian background or experience (50%) say they have gone through a “prolonged” period of doubt. Barna, “What Do We Do with Doubt?” February 28, 2023. Read an excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.

[iii] For Gen Z, the top four causes for their doubt are: human suffering, hypocrisy of religious people, science, and conflict in the world. Barna. See excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

 

Julie Loos combined her passion for prayer and apologetics in her contributions to three Mama Bear Apologetics books. Her apologetics training came from campus ministry and certificates from Biola University and the Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Julie has been teaching, writing, and speaking on prayer for Moms in Prayer International for more than 23 years. She lives in Missouri with her husband, Todd, has two married sons, two grandchildren, and enjoys working out, Bible study, chocolate, coffee, and deep conversations.

 

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lkzbDe

/by
Abortion Pro-Life

59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion Part 2

If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower. In part 1 of this series, we looked at 25 reasons why men should still speak up, despite being told, “No Womb, no Say!” In part 2, we can dig even deeper and see even more reasons why women, families, and society at large desperately need men to speak up against the horrors of abortion.

More Reasons Why Men Need to Speak Out Against Abortion

26. Some women don’t want to make the abortion-decision for themselves – I’m a married man, and I grew up with a mother and sister. And from my experience, sometimes, women can feel too close to the situation to make a decision, or perhaps she doesn’t trust her own judgment, or she may even have a conflict of interest that makes her feel unsure. In that case, she may prefer to have a trusted man in her life help her make that decision, or even make the decision on her behalf. The “no womb, no say” position handicaps those women by demanding that all the men in their lives stay silent, even if they are strong, wise, loving, and great decision-makers for the family. I’m sure there are lots of women who balk at the very idea of letting man make an important decision her behalf. But, that woman isn’t every woman. Some women have healthy father figures, a good husband, and other decent and redeeming men in their lives. For those women, they are often more than happy to share the burden of a big decision with the men in their life. And when a strong and vocal husband, brother, or father is lending his strength in selfless support, she might just have the encouragement she needs to make the right decision.

27. Truth doesn’t have a sex/gender – If something is true about abortion, it’s still true even if a man says it. Moral facts are still the facts, no matter if a man or a woman is speaking.

28. Men have access to moral facts just as much as women do – just as moral facts don’t care what sex/gender you are, knowing moral facts is likewise open to men and women.

29. There are sex/gender-neutral reasons for doubting the “my body, my right” argument undergirding this “women only” mentality – It’s never been clearly shown, legally, that the right of privacy includes the privilege of intentionally killing one’s own, innocent, non-threatening, non-combatant, child-in-utero. Also, Roe v. Wade was argued on the belief that we aren’t sure when biological human life begins. But that question has long been settled: new human life begins at conception. Moreover, the “my body, my right” argument promotes extremism and contradicts normal guardian responsibilities. If bodily autonomy isn’t enough to even justify abortion, then it’s not enough to justify silencing all male voices on abortion either.

30. “No womb, No Say” is sexist against men – The “no womb, no say” position is blatant sexism, discriminating against millions of people because of their sex/gender. It’s not the tame kind of discrimination either, like when employers discriminate against job applicants for being lazy incompetent nitwits. We’re talking about the lame kind of discrimination, attempting to restrict freedom of speech and marginalizing men even if the man was permanently handicapped in a botched abortion, or when he’s been traumatized by watching, assisting, or conducting an abortion, or if they’ve walked their wives through the long-term side effects of a past abortion.

31. Abortion-Choice Policy Promotes Sexism against women – Not only is the “no womb, no say” position sexist, but abortion choice policy itself is sexist. Sex-selective abortion is currently legal, and that means girls in utero are sometimes aborted just because they are girls. Abortion also has a bad history of promoting negative health outcomes for women. Abortion itself is a violent act against women, especially when the mother’s “consent” is blurred with heavy pressure from parents or partners. And perhaps the most glaring problem of sexism in abortion is how it enables reckless man-boys males to exploit women. They can “love ’em and leave ’em”.

32. It’s hypocritical to encourage pro-choice men to speak up and prohibit pro-life men from doing the same – NARAL, URGE, and other supporters of the “Bro Choice” movement encourage men to speak up so long as they are supporting abortion-choice.

33. It’s hypocritical to accept the verdict of Roe v. Wade (1973) and then say that men shouldn’t have a voice on the issue – Seven out of nine old white guys, on the Supreme Court, decided that abortion should be legalized across the nation.

34. If pro-choice advocates tried to undo the hypocrisy, and still keep men silent about abortion, they would have to reject what men have already said on abortion – besides just the Roe v. Wade ruling, if male voices were muffled then that would mean rejecting the established insights from men in the past, regarding abortion, including expert testimony from doctors, judges, scientists, attorneys, pollsters, technicians, politicians, academics and scholars.

35. “No womb, No Say” is a veiled attempt to stifle opposition – Pro-choice powers don’t really want men, generally, to be silent, they want pro-life men to be silent. It’s not a matter of ethics and rights, it’s a matter of convenience. It’s easier to advance a pro-choice agenda if roughly half of the opposition is silent.

36. It takes two to tango – men are half of the pregnancy equation. Having a role in creating the child, it’s not clear why men would have no role when it comes to the (preventing the) fate of their offspring. Ideally, childbearing should be a team effort and not a lone burden for women.

37. The Good Samaritan Rule – Morally, we’re responsible to do the good that we can do. Tim Brahm of Equal Rights Institute explains this point with a story about watching a depressed woman attempt to drown her newborn child, then Brahm says, “Now, I’m a man. I’ve never been pregnant. I’ve never been a mother. I will never know what she is going through. . . But even though I can’t understand what she’s going through, shouldn’t I try to do something to save that kid?” Good question!

38. Some women cannot get pregnant – By the logic of “no womb no way” those women would be denied a voice on the abortion issue.

39. Men have freedom of speech, just like women do – If women can speak out about prostate cancer, and they have every right do so, then men can speak about abortion. The First Amendment works either way.

40. Abortion contradicts paternity rights – It is legally inconsistent for women to be able to “walk away” from a pregnancy (abortion), while men are denied that right. Instead, men can be forced to pay child support even when they didn’t want to be fathers. This inconsistency might be unjust, and so, men have reason to speak up.

41. Men should use their privilege in society to offer solidarity with good causes – Supposing that men have a lot of privilege in society, we, therefore, have a moral duty to exercise our privilege in support of good. Fighting against the deadliest act against fellow human beings in world history is a worthy candidate.

42. It’s good to defend those who can’t defend themselves, regardless of sex/gender – Their silent scream cannot be heard, so people with a voice need to speak up for them. Men and women alike can intercede for the voiceless.

43. Abortion is an intersectional issue so that silencing men is too simplistic to represent it fairly – There are several different inequalities tied into abortion-choice policy. There are potential inequalities between men and women. But we can also point to inequalities along racial lines, or health, age, and so forth. Some of the most influential and expert witnesses for age discrimination, ableism, and racism are males. Silencing males on the issue of abortion restricts the voices protesting ableism, ageism, and racism.

44. Men can help deter the jerks who pressure women towards abortion – Male influence can be positive or negative. It’s true that some males are horrible human beings: abusive, predatory, deviants, who exploit women and coerce them into abortion. These jerks need every societal corrective we can throw at them – police, prosecutors, jailers, therapists, etc. But often they descend into deviancy for lack of a healthy father figure or positive male friends. When decent men are involved as Big Brothers, for example, they can help counteract many of the factors driving women to abortion, such as coercion, poverty, abuse, abandonment, etc. That won’t work in all cases, but it will work for some. Decent upstanding men can help create a family-friendly pro-life culture just by modeling redemptive manhood.

45. Men can work with women in teaching a family-based model of pregnancy – It’s no surprise that most women seeking abortion are not married or even in a healthy stable family. Healthy stable families are a historically well-established way to raise up the kind of people who don’t have unplanned pregnancies. Men and women together can promote healthy marriage, and parenting as a means of curbing abortion.

46. Men are justified in wanting to defend women from harm – if chivalry is dead, it’s because feminism killed it. But good men can always resurrect it, especially if it means protecting women from the violence in and around abortion.

47. Men can speak up through their actions – Male culture is more than words. A healthy masculine voice is not just spoken, it’s modeled. Raising a child is hard work anyway, but it gets even harder when men don’t step up as fathers, friends, and husbands. Far too many men already lack the maturity, courage, and commitment to come alongside the women in their lives to help them choose life. Sometimes the most powerful words we can share about abortion are voiced in silent strength and quiet commitment.

48. Fathers should be able to talk with their daughters about abortion – Fathers have a natural right and responsibility to raise their daughters, and that includes talking about sex, love, marriage, parenting, and of course the immeasurable value of human life.

49. Husbands should be able to talk with their wives about abortion – healthy marriages should share decision making, and work as a team in their family planning. Silent men would be a disservice to wives who want support and input from their husbands.

50. Brothers should be able to talk with their sisters about abortion – Healthy sibling relationships are another family tie where guys can have the rapport with their sisters to talk about important things like sexual health, pregnancy, and abortion.

51. Women should be free to get counsel and advice from males – Male counselors, religious leaders, and caring friends can be a tremendous help for women in a crisis pregnancy. If men are supposed to shut up about abortion, then they are handicapped in their ability to help.

52. Silent men are a waste of resources –Disenfranchised males can be incredibly dangerous. Every society has an enormous burden in deciding what to do with the boys. When boys don’t have to mature, settle down, or become gentlemen to be accepted in society, then they will tend to settle for adolescence, never marrying, never committing to fatherhood, slinking towards addiction, apathy, violence, and crime. The problem isn’t as simple as “toxic masculinity.” Males are a resource in society; they can spoil if neglected and explode when broken. But when they are mobilized and directed towards human flourishing they are an irreplaceable source of innovation, defense, and development. With the issue of abortion, men can be incredibly useful. Besides lending strength, compassion, and service, they can have insights, research, and sage counsel to help struggling mothers in their time of need. It would be a pity to lock away all those resources just because of casual pro-choice rhetoric.

53. Excluding men reduces diversity – We can learn a lot if we listen to a diverse array of voices sharing insights into issues that matter. Silencing all (pro-life) men artificially restricts that diversity.

54. Men who care about the health and direction of the nation should speak up about abortion as it ties into our founding principles as a nation, i.e., an equal right to life from our creation onward – It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The benefits of a free and humanitarian society will not defend themselves. We the people have a duty, as citizens, to protect the better parts of our society, and that includes the notion of “equal rights.” The Declaration of Independence says, “all men [humans] are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our founding fathers didn’t know, at that time, that the biological moment of creation is at conception. And if we are going to avoid infusing some spiritually weighted notion about souls, then we have to legally treat that moment of creation as a biological question – the moment of conception, the onset of biological human life. See more about this point in my debate at UT-Arlington (TX).

55. It’s not humanitarian to restrict whole demographics from discussing a human rights issue – the history of human rights legislation has, for the most part, been a gradual unveiling of our equal rights as human beings. But that process has had many pitfalls and perils. We cannot trust that any one group will safely lead the way without vital corrections arising from other groups. In this way, all of us are part of an ongoing conversation about the nature, extent, and grounding of our human rights. There is no settled and final conclusion, whether in the court of law, in the classroom, or in the science lab, dictating that men need to stay out of the abortion issue. It would contradict our humanitarian values as a nation to silence whole sectors of humanity because of their race, age, sex/gender.

56. Silencing men is close-minded – No one on earth is 100% right all the time. We should be open-minded enough to where we can keep learning and correct our mistakes. Silencing an entire demographic does not signal open-mindedness. It’s dogmatic and close-minded

57. Silencing men forces weird results with the LGBTQ movement – Do biological females lose their right to speak if they identify as a male? What if they have been pregnant before, but still identify as a male? What if a biological male identifies as a female, does that person get their voice back?

58. “No womb, no say” discriminates against intersex people – Some people are born with male and female sex organs, or with some other gender-ambiguating condition. Yet, the “no womb, no say” argument operates on a simple binary notion that women can speak up but not men. How traditionally “male” must a man be before he’s “man” enough to qualify in the eyes of pro-choice tone-police? Intersex people, just like everyone else, have the same general right to speak out about abortion, no matter who is trying to silence them.

59. Silent men have done enough damage already – Far too many men are passive, wimpy, indifferent loafers, too selfish and scared to protect, support, and honor the women in their lives. So, it’s no surprise when those women end up having an abortion because they never had the support network they needed. No gentleman stepped in as a husband, a brother, a friend, or a father, to lend the support she needed to choose life. Brothers, this should not be.

These are just the first 59 reasons I could come up with. But that’s more than enough to prove that “no womb, no say” is a myth. Silencing men is a popular pro-choice tactic designed to smother opposition and shame men into silence. It’s worked well over the years. Perhaps if more men had stepped into the mix with a gentle voice of concern or a careful word of wisdom, then we might not be in this predicament, staring at an abortion total that dwarfs the holocaust eleven-fold, literally. Men, your voice matters. Don’t just stand quietly on the sidelines hoping that your wives, sisters, daughters, and female friends will all do the right thing. Speak up! A word of compassion and truth just might make the difference between life and death.

Recommended Resources: 

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi

/by

59 Reasons Men Should Speak Out Against Abortion

If you are a pro-life man, like me, then you’ve heard a hundred times that men need to shut up about abortion. Apparently, we men have no right to talk about abortion unless, perhaps, we’re voicing pro-choice solidarity. #girlpower.

 

Why should men be silent? – The “No Womb, No Say” Position   

Just being honest here, some men probably do need to shut their pie hole, but that’s because they’re lying, manipulative, idiot, blowhards. I’m sure you’ve met a few of those. Fortunately, that’s not every man. Some men have a word worth hearing. They can even have a timely word of protest against abortion. Sadly, a lot of people still believe that men have no right to protest abortion. This is the “no womb, no say” position.

Now “no womb, no say” is all sorts of wrong, but it’s not entirely wrong. We have to admit a kernel of truth to this popular maneuver. According to Captain Obvious, “Men can’t get pregnant.” Men don’t know what it feels like to be pregnant, carry a child to term, or have an abortion. We’ll never squirt out a seven-pound chunk of living flesh unless we have an organ removed. Abortion directly impacts women in the most intimate way. But, for men, it’s always indirect and it’s never as intimate.

There’s also a history of sexism getting in the way of things. Even today, it’s not hard, to find dark alleys, studios, and industries where women are treated terribly. Liberals and conservatives can debate about the extent of that problem, but we can all agree that there have been many cases of genuine sexism against women. We can also agree that one of the key reasons for the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling was an attempt at equalizing rights for women. Today, most all of us can agree, across political aisles and in every sector of society, that women have (or should have) an equal or greater voice on the subject of abortion.

But no one, in good conscience, should grant that women have the only voice on abortion. Given the scale of abortion (66 million in the U.S., 1.7 billion globally), and it’s profound and lasting effects on families, communities, nations, and the whole world, it is unconscionable to exclude fully half society from that pregnant conversation. Here are…

59 Reasons Why Men Need To Speak Out About Abortion

  1. If men can make abortion-choice policy they can unmake it – seven old white guys legalized it nationally in Roe v. Wade (1973), and four white guys and one black guy helped overturn it.[1] If the men on the Supreme Court were to refuse to comment on abortion in pertinent cases, that would amount to a miscarriage of justice and dereliction of duty.
  2. Men played a huge role in creating abortion-culture, we owe it to society to clean up our mess – Men have been known to support abortion policy, coerce women into abortion, abuse women, abandon families, and do various things that pressure women into having an abortion. Not all men are doing this, but all men should be working to undo the mess we’ve made.
  3. Men can protest abortion just as non-slaves can protest slavery, and white people can protest racism– if we don’t have to be black or a slave to oppose racism and slavery, then we don’t have to be women to oppose abortion. Bear in mind, abortion-choice policy currently permits race-based and gender-based abortion. So, abortion is not just analogous to racism and sexism, abortion policy is racist and sexist. And everyone should oppose those things.
  4. Men can support the pro-life cause just like they supported women’s suffrage (voting) – Early feminists (A.K.A., First Wave), were committed to women’s suffrage and openly rejected abortion. They argued that it would lead to exploitation and violence against women. Men can unite with the better parts of feminism by agreeing with voting rights, and opposing abortion, just like they did.
  5. For men to comply with abortion-choice policy is suspiciously self-serving – Man-boy syndrome is real folks, and abortion is a factor. The latest numbers on marriage show our marriage rate is declining. Traditional marriages haven’t been faring too well since the sexual revolution, and definitely not since Roe v. Wade (1973). Yet across world history, the most effective means for civilizing males on large scale is with marriage and fatherhood. Abortion-choice culture makes it easier to avoid both. In the old days, unplanned pregnancy led to a shotgun wedding. That’s not the best way to do things, but at least no one died from it. Now, abortion-choice interrupts the ceremony, “Stop the Wedding! She’s not pregnant!” Plus, abortion-choice is also portrayed as liberation for women, like it’s some great equalizer, empowering women to be on level ground with men in society. In reality, abortion standardized a roving “masculine” sexuality that never served well for women’s flourishing. Women have been lamenting ever since 1973 how much harder it is to find a good man who’s willing to settle down and start a family. Why on earth would a man settle down and start a family when his aggressive, roving, independent nature yearns to spread his seed wherever he can and virtually nothing in society discourages him from doing so? It’s not like he needs to procreate a boy child to inherit his kingdom, or have a gaggle of kiddos to help him run the farm. Abortion did not dignify the feminine distinctives of child-birth and motherhood. Instead, it weaponized maternity, aiming the kill shot at their own child-in-utero. Meanwhile, non-committal man-boys can slink into the night without even a paternity suit to reel them back in. Abortion-choice works like a “get out of jail free” card for all the immature, predatory, and boyish males who think marriage and fatherhood are prison.
  6. Abortion is not just a women’s issue – the fallout from abortion isn’t limited to women, so it’s not just a “women’s issue.” It’s an “everyone issue.”
  7. Abortion kills males too (in utero) – Its effects aren’t limited to women
  8. Abortion impacts family court and paternity rights – Its effects really aren’t limited to women.
  9. Abortion hurts boyfriends, lovers, and male friends – It still isn’t limited to women.
  10. Abortion can traumatize fathers and grandfathers too – Did I mention it’s not limited to women.
  11. Abortion can traumatize brothers, sons, and extended male family – Yup, it’s not limited to women.
  12. Abortion can traumatize male medical professionals – Yet again, if you haven’t gotten the picture yet, its effects aren’t limited to women.
  13. Abortion can hurt marriages and families – Oh yeah, the effects aren’t limited to women.
  14. Abortion can harm churches, neighborhoods, and communities – Ditto.
  15. Abortion can damage the moral health of culture, society, and whole nations – Ditto times two.
  16. Some abortion survivors are men – Ditto times three. It would be patently absurd to claim that a man who has been maimed by a botched abortion, like Nik Hoot, has no right to speak against abortion. People who’ve been harmed by abortion have a vested personal interest in trying to protect others from abortion.
  17. As long as abortion is about human rights then all humans have a rightful voice on the matter – Abortion is about women’s rights, but it’s also about human rights broadly since it presses the question about when exactly do developing humans in utero acquire human rights.
  18. Female-led Organizations like Live Action , Eagle Forum, and Silent No More, encourage men to speak up on the issue – There is no unified voice, from women, telling men to shut up about abortion. Quite the opposite, females who are mobilized vocal and influential can be found encouraging pro-life men to speak up.
  19. Many other women don’t want men to be silent on abortion – Feminists are divided on several issues, including this one. Some women are happy to let a gentleman open their door, carry their groceries, and speak out against abortion. Often these women are quite liberated, empowered, and flourishing without any concern whatsoever about patriarchal oppression or toxic masculinity. They are too busy enjoying their family and exercising their freedom to be bothered with p*ssy hats and progressive politics. Maternal feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers, typically appreciate the role of active, vocal, and even protective men in their lives, especially when it comes to issues as big as abortion.
  20. Medical experts, on abortion, are often men – Silencing them amounts to willful ignorance. They are worth hearing.
  21. Legal experts, on abortion, are often men – Ignorance is bad. Male experts are worth hearing.
  22. Scientific experts, on abortion, are often men – Ignorance is still bad. And male experts are still worth hearing.
  23. It’s an overreach – Neither women nor men have the right or the authority to demand each other to collectively shut up about anything.
  24. Men can offer relational and emotional support – When a pregnant woman wants to choose life so long as she can find some encouragement from a trusted male friend or family member, in that case, the “no womb, no say” position muffles those men, leaving that woman less support in their time of need. Women often see trusted male friends as allies, not enemies. So, they welcome a male perspective as words from a trusted friend.
  25. If men can help a woman have an abortion, then they should at least be able to help her not have one – Demanding that men show support or stay out of it, even at the expense of their conscience, is to demand that they be cowards, immoral, or both. Civilized society should not wish for men to be immoral cowards.

***Stay Tuned for part 2  with reasons number 26-59 on “Why Men Need to Speak up!” ***

References:

[1] Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned abortion-choice policy at the federal level, finding that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Doe v. Bolton (1973) and subsequent cases built on those rulings like Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992). The Dobbs decision did not however overturn abortion-choice policy at the state level. States still have the legal right install, regulate, or ban abortion-choice at the state level.

Recommended Resources:

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lO8jwi

/by

100 Gorillas vs. 1 Man

The internet has been buzzing with a hypothetical: “Could 100 men defeat a fully grown gorilla in a fight?”

 

As a former MMA fighter and coach, I’ve seen the limits of human strength—and the power of teamwork. I’ve trained with Olympic medalist wrestlers and UFC champions. Based on that experience, I’m convinced that 20 heavyweight, Olympic-caliber wrestlers or UFC champions could bring down a gorilla. Not because they’re stronger pound-for-pound, but because they’re strong enough together, and—more importantly—smart enough to devise a plan and execute it.

So, yes, 100 average men using their reasoning powers, coordination, and willpower could defeat one gorilla. But let’s flip the script: Could 100 gorillas outwit a single reasonable human? Absolutely not.

Even with sheer numbers, gorillas lack the intellectual hardware and cognitive faculties to engage in metaphysics, abstract reasoning, mathematics, moral judgment, strategic deception, or language. You could have a hundred gorillas staring at a chessboard or a copy of Mere Christianity, and they’d still be no match for even a modestly intelligent human being.

Why? Because Intelligence Isn’t Additive—It’s Categorical

Physical strength adds up: 100 pounds + 100 pounds = 200 pounds. But intelligence doesn’t scale like that. You don’t get collective rationality just by adding more non-rational minds together. Ten gorillas aren’t “ten times as clever” as one. A hundred gorillas don’t become a committee of philosophers. You just get a louder troop.

The Deeper Point      

Human beings are categorically different, not just stronger or more social, but made in the image of God. The imago Dei means we are capable of recognizing metaphysical reality, reflecting morally, reasoning logically, practicing self-awareness, and giving and receiving genuine love. These are not just evolutionary adaptations. They are spiritual fingerprints—ontological markers of our uniqueness.

Strength and Intelligence: Different Kinds of Power           

This gorilla debate accidentally reveals something profound: Raw strength and intelligence are distinct forms of power.

  • Strength is brute force.
  • Intelligence is strategic dominion.

And it’s intelligence that allows strength to be managed, directed, or overcome. That’s why God told Adam to subdue the earth and govern the creatures—not because Adam was stronger than a lion, but because he was rational, relational, reflective , and morally responsible.

Conclusion: Why This Even Matters 

It’s possible—at least hypothetically—for one hundred men to defeat a gorilla with brawn, brains, and teamwork. But not even a thousand gorillas could beat a man at chess, solve a logic puzzle, write a sonnet, or engage in metaphysics. Because intelligence isn’t just power in numbers. It’s power of a different kind altogether—a power that reflects the very mind of God.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Tim Stratton

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40cLE4j

/by

The Day the Veil Was Torn: An Evangelical’s Awakening in London

I spent years studying Shia Islam from within, earning an MA in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. My goal was to understand Islam on its terms, not merely as an outsider, but as a serious student of its theology, history, and lived reality. This academic path wasn’t just about gaining knowledge; it was rooted in a deep desire to build bridges between Christians and Muslims through respectful dialogue. I believed that rigorous study, combined with empathy and grace, could overcome centuries of misunderstanding and mistrust. That belief shaped my posture in interfaith spaces for years. However, on October 7, 2023, I was confronted with a reality that no classroom or textbook had prepared me for. What I encountered in the streets of London that day shook the very foundation of what I thought I knew, not just about Islam, but about the spiritual dynamics at play in our world today.

The View from England

October 7th started like any other day in London. Still, it ended with a profound shift in my thinking, particularly in the assumptions I had carried for years about the nature of Islam, the effectiveness of interfaith dialogue, and the influence of Western democratic values on extremist ideologies, a spiritual awakening that has since reshaped how I view Islam, Western culture, and my calling. I didn’t know it at the time, but that day tore the veil of illusion I had long carried with me into interfaith spaces. I had come to London to meet with Muslim scholars and leaders, particularly Shia leaders, many of whom I had interacted with for years through respectful, even warm, dialogue. My posture had always been one of a bridge-building. I believed, perhaps too confidently, that the West had a civilizing influence on radical Islam. I thought civility and grace would overcome the deeply entrenched theological and political barriers that divide Christians and Muslims. But that illusion shattered before my eyes. The events of October 7, 2023, exposed a deeper current of rage than I wasn’t prepared for.

Just one day before Israel responded to Hamas’ brutal incursion, I found myself surrounded by rallies in London that openly celebrated terror. These were not fringe events tucked away in back alleys, but widespread public gatherings in prominent areas. I stood among people I had once hoped to partner with for dialogue, only to hear unfiltered hatred. The chants were not only political, but deeply theological and dehumanizing. The language was raw and venomous, filled with images of resistance that glorified bloodshed. It was not just rage against Israel, but rage against the Judeo-Christian worldview. In that moment, I realized I had misunderstood the nature of the battle. What I saw was not just a protest, but a spiritual and ideological war.

Over the following days, I had 18 Uber rides, most of which were with Muslim drivers. While these conversations were significant, I recognize they reflect the views of individuals and not all Muslims, and each one became an unexpected dialogue. I didn’t try to provoke conflict, but I did ask questions to gain a deeper understanding of what people believed. The responses I heard were jarring and consistent: Israel had no right to exist, Hamas was merely defending the oppressed, and Christianity was a colonial relic. Some told me that Islam would eventually triumph and bring justice to the world, replacing the confusion caused by the Bible and Western civilization. These weren’t isolated opinions, but widespread sentiments expressed confidently and without hesitation. I began to see that a militant ideology was not only alive but thriving. It wasn’t hidden in caves or confined to faraway regions. It was riding beside me through the streets of London, one ride at a time.

The View from the United States     

When I returned to the United States, I expected to find some distance from the hostility I had witnessed overseas. But I returned to see the same rage manifesting in American streets and on our university campuses. At institutions such as Columbia University and Harvard, students and even some faculty were chanting slogans like “From the river to the sea,” openly siding with Hamas and calling for a third intifada. These were not isolated incidents, but coordinated events that reflected a larger ideological alignment. The same dehumanizing rhetoric I had heard in London was now being echoed on American soil. It was cloaked in the language of justice and liberation, but rooted in ancient hatreds. I realized the West is no longer just observing this battle from afar. It is becoming a participant, and the church can no longer afford to remain unaware.

In response, I knew I needed to go deeper intellectually, not just emotionally or spiritually. I began attending educational programs and seminars focused on antisemitism, both to understand what I had encountered and to equip myself more thoroughly. Two organizations in particular became central in this journey. First, I connected with Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, a respected academic center that conducts rigorous research on modern forms of antisemitism. Second, I engaged with ISGAP, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, which addresses antisemitism as a global phenomenon and provides tools for confronting it at both scholarly and policy levels. These were not just academic spaces—they were communities where I found solidarity, wisdom, and clarity. I also developed friendships with others who had been grappling with these realities for years.

One year later, I had the opportunity to present my research on Islamic antisemitism at the annual conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. ASMEA is a scholarly organization dedicated to promoting high-quality, nonpartisan research on the Middle East and Africa. My paper drew on years of study but was sharpened by my experiences in London and beyond. I explored how classical Islamic texts, historical narratives, and political ideologies contribute to persistent antisemitic attitudes within the Muslim world. I argued that while colonialism and nationalism play roles, the theological foundations must be confronted if lasting change is to occur. The response to my presentation was deeply encouraging as several scholars approached me afterward to commend the clarity and boldness of the analysis, and a few even expressed interest in collaborative projects. It was clear that my contribution resonated with many who had been quietly wrestling with similar concerns. That moment reminded me that this research is no longer abstract. It is now central to my calling and mission.

A Call to the Church  

I left London with a heavy heart but a sharper mind. I had been naive in thinking that love alone could overcome centuries of deeply rooted theology and political grievance. What I witnessed was not merely a political protest; it was a spiritual and ideological war. This does not mean dialogue is useless, but it does mean we must understand the spiritual powers at work behind the slogans and marches. If Christians fail to recognize evil for what it is and reduce it to mere social grievance, we will continue to be blindsided. October 7 was my wake-up call. It showed me that our mission is not to tame Islam or conform to culture, but to proclaim Christ; and not to win arguments, but to stand firmly in the truth of the gospel.

Since that day, I have adopted a more presuppositional approach, meaning I begin with the assumption that the Bible is true and use that framework to interpret and challenge opposing worldviews to ministry, one that rests not just on reason and civility, but on the unshakable foundation of God’s Word. I still believe in respectful conversation, in common grace, and in the power of relationship. But I no longer underestimate the power of deeply held beliefs that stand in direct opposition to the gospel. The church must become more theologically grounded and aware of how antisemitism disguises itself in new forms—whether Islamic, progressive, or even within compromised Christian circles. We must speak clearly, love deeply, and engage boldly. The days of assuming we are insulated from this hatred are over. My prayer is that others will not need their own October 7 experience to wake up.

Recommended Resources:

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Tim Orr serves full-time with the Crescent Project as the Assistant Director of the Internship Program and Area Coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. In September, he will begin a PhD in Religious Studies at Hartford International University.

Tim has served as a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis, and for two years, he was also a research assistant on the COVID-19 study led by Hartford International University. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, Shia Islam, and gospel-centered ministry to Muslims.

He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. His work has been published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals, and he is the author of four books. His fifth book, The Apostle Paul: A Model for Engaging Islam, is forthcoming.

/by

Why Drag Isn’t All Fun and Laughs

My “Pride ‘Heroes’” series draws attention to the philosophy and individuals behind the LGBTQ+ Pride movement.[1] At Arizona State University, the campus library commands all who enter to “Celebrate Pride.” This is the only sexual philosophy granted a dedicated month in which the public is commanded to obey. Meanwhile, ASU’s Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts hosts an annual Drag Queen show as part of its ongoing promotion of gender ideology.

 

Why? Because the Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts also holds events for other ideologies and religions as well, such as Christianity. Oh wait—no, that’s not true. It doesn’t do that. It exclusively pushes a radical leftist agenda.

Question: How will that affect federal funding under Trump’s new executive order?

A hero is someone who protects children. Protecting children includes protecting them from blatant falsehoods and from those false teachers who want to confuse them and hinder them from understanding reality. Now let’s look at Drag Queens: are these heroes who simply want to read books to children?  What we find is that the philosophy of Drag cannot escape God’s world.  All humans are made in the image of God, desire a meaningful life, and cannot find that meaning without understanding the created order that God made.  Let’s see how the Drag philosophy defends itself.

What exactly is the “Drag Queen” philosophy?

Isn’t Drag Queen philosophy just people having fun and being their authentic self? No. There are many ways to have fun and be yourself. The Drag Queen philosophy is very explicit about its purpose: to subvert norms and to teach that gender is fluid. In other words, to teach that Christianity and the other theistic religions are false.[2] It denies that there is an objective reality that shapes how we live our lives.

The Drag Queen philosophy rejects God’s creation of male and female; it is purposely contrary to the nature of things. It’s not just harmless entertainment. They often joke, “We’re coming for your children,” but the joke loses its humor when they actually do try to enter libraries and schools to impose their views about gender on young minds.

What Defenders Say

Let’s begin by taking the defenders of Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) at their word—or at least, at their marketing brochure.

  1. Literacy and Engagement

We’re told drag queens are simply performers who make reading fun. The makeup, the wigs, the glitter? All part of the show to get kids excited about books. But here’s the problem: there are many other engaging ways to promote reading that are not tied to a false ideology. We don’t read for the sake of reading; we read to understand what is true. If we train children to associate reading with clearly false ideas about gender, we haven’t helped them overall—we’ve hindered them. We’ve taught them that fiction doesn’t just belong on the page, but in how we view reality.

  1. Inclusion and Diversity

DQSH events are promoted as celebrations of inclusion, where LGBTQ+ families can feel represented and children can learn to “tolerate” diverse expressions of identity. But here’s the irony: just as those families wouldn’t want a conservative Christian showing up to impose his beliefs on them, others have a right to be free from having Drag ideology imposed on their children. The First Amendment protects free expression, but it does not give anyone the right to indoctrinate other people’s children under the guise of public programming. That path doesn’t build a diverse society—it builds resentment and antagonism. The push for “inclusion” must still respect boundaries.

  1. Teaching Gender as a Social Construct

This is the most revealing justification of all. Drag queens, as avatars of gender fluidity, are used to teach kids that gender roles are flexible, performative, and non-binary. The message? There’s no “he” or “she”—only what you feel and how you present. There is no truth, only “my truth” which is to say “my feelings.”

This is the heart of it: the desire to inculcate children with a philosophy that denies nature, creation order, objective reality, and even basic reason itself. Drag isn’t just dress-up. It’s a worldview, and its aim is to deconstruct the categories that are essential for human flourishing. The Drag Queen philosophy is clear about opposing God and his created order. Here’s a truth about every human who has ever lived: they all had exactly one biological mother and one biological father.

The problem is, homosexual men cannot have children of their own. They can try to adopt someone else’s child. Or, they can pay a woman—often a disadvantaged woman who needs the money—to rent her womb so that one of them can use his sperm to fertilize an egg (meaning the child is unrelated to the other man). But together they cannot produce a child. And so, instead, they feel the need to teach other people’s children.

This is the self-contradiction in their philosophy. On the one hand, they deny that there are any essences. They insist on radical nominalism: there are only particulars, no universals. There is only the self-declared individual who proclaims, “I am a they/them,” and no such thing as human nature, male and female, mother and father.

And yet, they still have the natural desire to pass their worldview on to children.

Their childless philosophy still conforms—unwittingly—to the natural order they claim to reject.

They cannot escape the creational pattern established by God. No amount of thinking, feeling, “authenticity” or “identity expression” can make two men conceive a child. No amount of “I wish, I wish” can erase the basic fact that civilization depends on a man and a woman teaching the children that come from their union. We live in God’s world. And we cannot escape His reality.

We live in God’s world. And we cannot escape His reality.

But this philosophy openly tells us that they are working to subvert God’s creation and replace God with their own sexual desires.  They say “fight evil with love” but reverse the meaning of those words as they actively work to teach children to disobey God.

What’s the Harm?

Far from helping children, the drag philosophy introduces serious philosophical harms. Let’s consider just a few:

  1. Normalization of Gender Confusion

Drag, by definition, is an exaggerated parody of womanhood, often rooted in sexualized adult performance. It insults women by treating them as unreal, as if a man in flamboyant costume is just as much a woman as an actual woman. In fact, they deny that there are any “actual women;” a woman can be any man who thinks he is a woman.

Presenting this to children is not “tolerance.” It is the deliberate confusion of the categories God created—male and female. It teaches children that gender is not a given but a costume, not reality but performance. This is not education. It’s miseducation. It is incoherent thinking that believes “if I think it then it is true and the rest of society must conform to my inability to understand reality.”

  1. Undermining Parental and Religious Authority

Many of these events are marketed directly to children. Parents are sometimes invited—but often just bypassed. The unspoken message is clear: your parents and your pastor are outdated. Tune them out. Tune in instead to the man in heels reading Heather Has Two Mommies. But on what basis should Drag Queens get access to other people’s children? If they tell children not to listen to their parents, why would anyone ever listen to a Drag Queen who lives a life of confusion and denial of reality?

This philosophy has no great achievements to point to—no contributions to human flourishing on which it can stand. It is, at bottom, simply men in exaggerated costumes claiming that their greatest accomplishment is refusing to follow any moral norms and instead doing whatever they feel. That’s not authenticity—it’s the height of immaturity and a lack of personal discipline.

Drag ideology depends on gaining access to the children of others because it is fundamentally sterile—it cannot produce its own future. And yet, it wants to disciple a generation. To do that, it must undermine the family and the faith communities that stand in its way.

Drag ideology depends on gaining access to the children of others because it is fundamentally sterile—it cannot produce its own future.

  1. Boundary Testing

Drag has always been about pushing boundaries. Its adherents are quite open about this. It is rooted in burlesque, rebellion, and sexual subversion. Bringing it into children’s spaces may not always be criminal, but it is certainly corrosive to innocence. It introduces adult themes into tender minds. And that alone should be reason enough to keep it out of your public library’s children’s room. The Drag Queen has failed to understand the basics about reality, including what is and is not appropriate for children.[3]

  1. Neo-Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism

Now we’re getting to the philosophical roots. Drag fits seamlessly into a broader project to deconstruct creation order. At its core is a rejection of nature itself—a denial that reality has a given structure. In place of divinely revealed identity—male and female, made in God’s image—we’re offered expressive individualism: You are whatever you say you are. Reality must conform to your feelings. Biology is oppression. Nature is optional.

The drag queens can rage against God’s created order of male and female all they want, but each of them came from the union of a man and woman.

This is nothing new. It’s simply a remix of ancient Gnosticism and modern Marxism. Like Gnosticism, it treats the body as a problem—believing we are souls trapped in the wrong body, and that the solution is to cut, reshape, and mutilate the body to fit our desires. Like Marxism, it sees the family and the church as oppressive structures that must be overthrown. And like both, it cannot build anything—it can only tear down.

A Better Story Hour

Now imagine a different kind of story hour. Imagine a public university that doesn’t impose this sex philosophy on its students. One where children are told that they are not mistakes or blank slates, but created by a loving and wise God. That their bodies are good as they are. That the world is meaningful. That truth is not invented but discovered. Imagine a child learning not that gender is a costume, but that they are fearfully and wonderfully made. That sin is real—but so is grace. That the answer to confusion is not doubling down on meaningless and self-contradictory self-expression, but humbling oneself to seek wisdom. That would be a story worth telling. And it wouldn’t need glitter or wigs to hold a child’s attention—just truth, spoken clearly, in love.

Let the Drag Queen Story Hour promoters keep their costume parties. We’ll keep the real stories. The true ones. The ones that don’t melt under the heat of reality like a rhinestone wig on an August afternoon in Phoenix.

We live in God’s world, he has put eternity in our hearts, and we will never find lasting meaning until we look to him and his created order (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

References:

[1] Editor’s note: Dr. Anderson’s “Heroes of Pride Month” series includes, Intro to Pride Month,  features Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Drag Queens, and the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus.

[2] Editor’s Note: Historic Christianity traditionally teaches that homosexual practice and crossdressing are  wrong, and that natural marriage and biblical sexual ethics are prescribed for society (Deuteronomy 22:5; Romans 1:26-28; Matthew 19:1-12). There are, however, schismatic churches and perhaps even whole denominations that identify as “Christian” in roughly the same way that trans people identify as a different gender from their natural sex. People can try to socially construct their identity just as they may try fabricate their own brand of Christianity, but if it contradicts what God has made – be it the Church or biological gender – then “trans” roughly translates as “fake.”

[3] Editor’s Note: Even some drag queens have been speaking out against Drag Queen Story Hour as it has “pedo-vibes” for putting crossdressing gender-bending burlesque dancers in close contact with elementary children, and that See here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jF7W3N1T7U

Recommended Resources:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Ix1bpq

/by

The Role of Intelligent Design in UNFORGETTING GOD: An Interview with Barry Arrington about his new book

Barry Arrington is a friend, colleague, and top-flight attorney who is deeply interested in how worldviews impact our society. He and I collaborated for close to two decades on the intelligent design blog UncommonDescent.com, which I started in 2005, which Barry managed for more than a decade as a 501(c)(3), and which we finally archived in 2023. In its first decade, Uncommon Descent was the premier blog for advancing the intelligent design movement, though in more recent years other blogs surpassed it in that role, notably EvolutionNews.org.

On May 6, 2025, Barry published with Inkwell Press a fascinating new book titled Unforgetting God: Defeating Culture-Destroying Materialism Through Christian Renewal (available at Amazon here). Barry’s perspective as a Christian, intelligent design proponent, and seasoned litigator (he has brought cases before the US Supreme Court) has given him a useful perspective from which to understand how materialism affects and infects our culture. Intelligent design provides an important tool in his arsenal for defeating materialism. I therefore proposed to him that we do an interview relating his book to intelligent design. Barry graciously agreed and gave the following interview.

Tell us about Barry Arrington.

I grew up in Texas and graduated from the University of Texas Law School (Austin) in 1986. I was admitted to the bar in 1987 and since then I have practiced mainly in complex civil litigation, including constitutional law, and nonprofit law.

I have been an allied attorney with the Alliance for Defending Freedom since 1994. I served in the Colorado legislature in the 1990s.

Some of my cases have been in the news. In 1999, I began representing several of the families whose children were killed at Columbine. In 2020, I represented a Colorado church in a case that went to the United States Supreme Court. We won that case and succeeded in opening the churches, which Colorado had shut down during COVID. I discuss my experiences with those cases in the book.

I have been involved in the intelligent design movement for many years. I ran the intelligent design website Uncommon Descent (UncommonDescent.com) for well over a decade, which in its heyday was the largest intelligent design discussion site on the internet. In 2023, we decided to shut UD down and archive it at the Discovery Institute’s website.

Currently, I have a case pending in which I sued the State of Colorado over its law making it illegal for licensed professionals to counsel teens struggling with gender dysphoria in any way other than “trans affirming.” The Supreme Court has agreed to hear that case and oral argument will be in the fall.

What was your purpose in writing Unforgetting God?

In 2020, I wrote a post for Uncommon Descent with the intentionally provocative title “Critical Theory is Certainly Correct.” The first sentence of the article is: “Indeed, it is more than merely true; it is an inexorable logical certainty if the premises of the theorists are true.” In that article, I went on to write:

“Critical theory is applied metaphysical materialism. Materialism posits that the physical is all there is. Its central premise is this: In the beginning there were particles, and the particles were in motion, and in the entire universe there is and never has been and never will be anything other than particles in motion. This means that human beings are not special. You and your family and your friends are also merely particles in motion, reducible to the chemicals that make up your bodies. Humans are clever hairless apes with no more ultimate significance than rocks. Yes, they have come up with this thing called ‘morality.’ But morality is an illusion foisted on us by material evolutionary forces because it gives us a reproductive advantage. Morality in any objective transcendent sense of the word not only does not exist, it cannot exist. There are no moral or immoral rocks. And humans — in their essence — are in the same category as rocks. Both rocks and humans are mere amalgamations of burnt out star dust. If this is true, it has profound implications for just about everything. One of those implications is that there are no universal truths guiding our relations in society. There is only power and those who have it and those who do not.”

That article in UD contained the seeds that would ultimately grow into the book Unforgetting God. The book is about premises. If materialist premises are true, then certain conclusions logically follow. This radically secular philosophy has come to dominate the minds of Western cultural elites and is at the root of tribalism in our politics, lawlessness in our courts, chaos in our universities, and the crisis of meaning rampaging among young people.

In my thirty-eight years of practicing law, I have had a front row seat watching materialism literally destroy lives and hollow out our once vibrant cultural institutions. In Unforgetting God, I try to shine a light on the path out of the soul-numbing materialist wilderness in which we find ourselves. The book is about demonstrating that materialism is false, even absurd, and pointing the way to a loving God who is our best hope for personal salvation and cultural renewal.

The cover of your book is striking. Tell us about that.

The cover features Friedrich Nietzsche and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn holding opposite ends of a rope as they play tug of war for the soul of the West. Nietzsche famously said “God is dead.” In contrast, Solzhenitsyn was a committed theist who called for spiritual renewal.

The title of the book is an allusion to Solzhenitsyn’s speech when he accepted the Templeton Prize in 1983. He said that he had spent 50 years working on the history of the Russian Revolution. He had read hundreds of books and interviewed hundreds of witnesses to try to gain an understanding of that unspeakable human tragedy. Then he concluded:

“But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’”

Even a casual perusal of the headlines on any given day reveals that in the West, we too are rapidly forgetting God. The purpose of the book is to call for a reversal of that trend before it is too late.

You mentioned Columbine. How does that tragic event figure into your book?

This too has its roots in a UD article I wrote many years ago called “Darwin at Columbine.” Eric Harris was the leader in the Columbine shooting. Dylan Klebold was merely a follower. In the course of representing my clients whose children were killed that day, I spent hundreds of hours investigating Harris’s writings as well as his video and audio recordings. Contrary to popular myth, Harris was not insane. Nor was he a victim of bullying out for revenge. Harris was an intelligent young man who had even studied philosophy. And as I write in the book:

“[Harris] took the philosophical ideas he learned very seriously indeed. He often alluded to those ideas in his journals and recordings. That’s how we know that Harris affirmatively believed those philosophical ideas justified his actions. Unfortunately for those he murdered and maimed, those ideas were a toxic miasma of Charles Darwin funneled through Friedrich Nietzsche. . . . If there is one quotation that sums up Harris’s views, it is probably this one: ‘F**k money, f**k justice, f**k morals, f**k civilized, f**k rules, f**k laws . . . DIE manmade words . . . people think they apply to everything when they don’t/can’t. There’s no such thing as True Good or True evil, it’s all relative to the observer. It’s just all nature, chemistry, and math.’ Harris was a deeply committed materialist who believed that ‘morality’ is just a word; there is no such thing as good or evil, and everything ultimately reduces to chemistry and math.”

Harris took materialist evolution very seriously. It was not a coincidence that the shirt he wore the day of the shooting had “natural selection” emblazoned across the front. He believed he had evolved into a Nietzschean Übermensch, and as such he had no duty to respect his fellow students’ right to life.

Obviously, the overwhelming majority of materialists are not mass killers. My point is that Harris was taught to reject the existence of objective good and evil. The only difference between Harris and other materialists is that he acted on his metaphysical beliefs and they usually do not.

How does Darwin make an appearance in your book?

In the opening chapter, I discuss how the late philosopher Daniel Dennett compared the materialism that came to dominate the minds of Western intellectuals following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species to a “universal acid” that ate “through just about every traditional concept” in Western culture and left in its wake “a revolutionized world-view.” Materialist evolution was not a new concept in 1859. The Greeks and the Romans had discussed forms of the theory (such as Epicurus and Lucretius).

Darwin’s genius lay in overcoming the fatal flaw in the classical theory — its prior invocation of sheer randomness to account for the exquisite design of living things. Darwin proposed a seemingly plausible materialistic explanation — natural selection acting on random variations in deep time — to account for the apparent design of living things. And the rest is history. As Richard Dawkins remarked in The Blind Watchmaker, he could not imagine being an atheist prior to 1859, the year Darwin’s Origin of Species appeared in print. But for Dawkins, everything changed in 1859 — Darwin now made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

It is no coincidence that belief in metaphysical materialism came to dominate the minds of Western elites in the decades after Origin of Species was published.

Describe the place of intelligent design in your book.

In the first third of the book, I draw on my experience as a lawyer and former legislator to discuss materialism’s corrosive impact on culture, politics, and law, especially constitutional law. I then make a plea for a reevaluation of the premises underlying the materialist worldview. I write:

“As late as the 1980s, when materialism’s iron grip on the minds of intellectuals was at its zenith, it would have probably been pointless for me to write a book like this. To be sure, many people continued to believe in God, but that belief was under assault from a militant and ascendant materialist elite that accused believers of clinging to superstitious myths. Times have changed, and we live in an exciting intellectual age for theists in general and Christians in particular. The materialist edifice has been crumbling for some time now. Nevertheless, while materialism is no longer intellectually ascendant, it remains culturally dominant, and the cultural course materialists have set us on is fraught with danger. Destruction and chaos lie at the end of our current path.”

I urge my readers to reevaluate the case for theism generally and for Christianity in particular. As Stephen Meyer discussed in his masterful Return of the God Hypothesis, which I cite extensively, ID can play a role in pointing to theism generally. Chapter six is in many ways the heart of the book. I sketch [out] many ID arguments and point to the work of ID theorists for more in-depth analysis. These ID arguments include how Big Bang cosmology, cosmic fine tuning, and the staggering specified complexity of living things point to a creator. Along the way, in addition to Meyer, I discuss Bill Dembski’s The Design Inference, Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, Jim Tour’s work in the origin-of-life area, Douglas Axe’s work in protein folds, Granville Sewell’s insights into complexity theory and the work of other ID luminaries.

What convinced you that intelligent design is true?

In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins wrote that “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.” Dawkins went on to argue in that book that this appearance of design is an illusion, but the point is that even an arch-atheist like Dawkins concedes that living things at least appear to be designed.

Is that appearance of design really an illusion as Dawkins argues? I have always been skeptical of that claim. So, to answer your question, I probably always had a deeply held intuition that intelligent design is true. The more important question in my mind is, “When did you come to realize there are solid empirical grounds confirming that intuition?”

For years I endured a constant onslaught of Darwinian/materialist indoctrination as I made my way through the education system. I had resisted that indoctrination but I constantly wondered whether I was just being stubborn. All the “smart” people believed in materialist evolution. Phil Johnson’s seminal book Darwin on Trial was, for me, epochal. Like many people, Darwin on Trial was my first introduction to the ID movement, and thirty-five years later, I still remember the excitement I felt reading that book.

Johnson demonstrated that the empirical support for the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism) is really quite unimpressive. Then, in a stunning passage that literally changed my life, he provided an insight that finally made it all make sense. Why do “smart” people believe such a weak theory? Religion. I incorporated Johnson’s insight in the following passage in Unforgetting God:

“One of the consequences of a fervent religious commitment to materialism . . . is the belief that any evidence is a stunning confirmation of the materialist origins myth. Phillip Johnson pointed out that if materialism is true, ‘then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes.’”

Belief in Darwinian evolution is not a conclusion based on the evidence. It is a logical deduction from metaphysical materialism.

That was in the early 1990s. In the decade or so that followed, I continued my investigation into ID. At that time, Richard John Neuhaus was still in charge of First Things, and he provided an early forum for ID proponents. I remember Stephen Meyer’s “DNA and Other Designs,” in which he set forth an early version of the ideas that would appear in his book Signature in the Cell, having a particularly powerful impact. During this time, Dembski’s and Behe’s work also came to my attention. So, to answer the question, while I always believed design at an intuitive level, the ID pioneers confirmed my belief at an empirical level.

Opposition to intelligent design is a proving ground for atheism. How did your leadership for close to 20 years at Uncommon Descent in defending intelligent design against atheist critics help shape Unforgetting God?

Indeed. The late Cornell atheist professor William Provine (who often debated Phil Johnson) rightly stated that evolution is the greatest engine for atheism ever invented. This is true because Darwinian evolution has tremendous first-blush plausibility, and if one is inclined to go with the cultural flow, it provides a great jumping-off point.

Francis Bacon famously said that a superficial knowledge of science (which he called “natural philosophy”) would “incline the mind of man to atheism,” but a deeper understanding would bring him back to God. That is still true today. A superficial study of origins undermines theism, but the deeper study provided by ID theorists points the other way.

As I mentioned earlier, I have always believed in ID at an intuitive level, and ID theorists helped confirm that belief empirically. There is an obvious pitfall here. A natural human tendency is to believe what one wants to believe despite the evidence. There is a name for that tendency: confirmation bias.

After I had been running UD (Uncommon Descent) for several years, I addressed an earlier fear I had had that my belief in ID would one day be exposed as nothing but the result of intense confirmation bias. The name of that article was “No Bomb After 10 Years,” and it opens with this:

“I have to admit that when I first started debating the origins issue I did so with some trepidation. After all, there are a lot of highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals who say they believe the Darwinian narrative. To tell the truth, when I first started debating origins, I assumed not only that there was a very good chance that I was on the wrong side of the debate, but also that one or more of those highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals would come along and drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.”

I go on to report that after 10 years of debating hundreds of materialists, no one had dropped a science bomb on me. My confidence in ID was as strong as ever, and I was beginning to suspect there is no bomb.

Leading UD all those years was valuable for several reasons. The first I have already mentioned. Exposing one’s ideas to criticism can be scary, but if those ideas come out intact through the crucible, one can hold them with much more confidence. Yes, confirmation bias will always remain a risk, but one way to mitigate that risk is to receive and deal with intense objections in good faith. That “good faith” part is important. You have to address the opposition’s real argument, not some straw man caricature. One thing I have found over the years is that when your opponent sets up and knocks over a straw man, it is a sure sign they are not so confident that they can beat your actual argument.

Second, debating origins all those years at UD not only strengthened my own position, but it also exposed me to materialist arguments that I might not otherwise have thought of. At UD, I learned that materialists tend to recycle the same arguments over and over. This prepared me to write one of the most important chapters in Unforgetting God entitled “Objection!” in which I address numerous materialist objections to theism.

How does your background as a lawyer impact your approach to atheism?

How many times have you heard someone say, “there is no evidence for God’s existence” or “you can’t prove that God exists.” After 38 years of litigation, I know a thing or two about evidence and proof, and in the book, I show how both of these claims are demonstrably false. You may not be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence for God’s existence. That does not mean that evidence does not exist. And while the existence of God cannot be proved to an apodictic certainty, the totality of the evidence proves his existence to a high degree of certainty. God permits doubt. He does not permit reasonable doubt.

In addition to my experience in evaluating evidence and proving facts, I hope I am following in the tradition of Phil Johnson in Darwin on Trial. Johnson said that he was a lawyer “with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make.” That is just as true today as it was in 1991 when Johnson published Darwin on Trial.

In a world without intelligent design, what happens to natural law? How does natural law undergird Unforgetting God?

There is a passage in chapter four of Unforgetting God entitled “Lawless Law,” in which I address the question of natural law:

“Prior to the Revolution, the colonists did not think of themselves primarily as ‘Americans.’ They thought of themselves as Englishmen living in America, and English common law was the law of the colonies. After the Revolution, English common law carried over as the law of the states of the new nation, and William Blackstone’s Commentaries were the preeminent authority on that law. It is difficult to exaggerate Blackstone’s influence on early American law. John Marshall, considered by many to be the greatest Chief Justice in our nation’s history, read the Commentaries four times by the time he turned twenty-seven. As one historian wrote, ‘In the first century of American independence, the Commentaries were not merely an approach to the study of law; for most lawyers they constituted all there was of the law.’ To this day, the Supreme Court cites Blackstone when it is seeking to understand the state of the law in the early republic.”

For Blackstone, all legal matters implicating a moral question must be resolved by reference to natural law principles that God infused into the fabric of the universe at creation. He wrote: “[When God] created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.” The Declaration of Independence speaks of the “Laws of . . . Nature’s God.” These are the immutable moral principles laid down by God of which Blackstone spoke.

A key idea in natural law theory is that men do not create natural law. Rather, like mathematical concepts that are discovered and not invented, the precepts of natural law have a freestanding existence and are discovered through human reason. This idea informed the founders’ view of law when they signed the Declaration of Independence. It is the view that dominated American law through the end of the nineteenth century.

In Unforgetting God, I describe how all of that changed largely through the work and ideas of one man, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes was a committed Darwinist, a brutal materialist, and a moral nihilist. For good reason, he has been called “the American Nietzsche.” Holmes’s great project was to sever the link between law and morality, which he believed had no objective existence. For Holmes, all human relations, including the law, boiled down to a Darwinian struggle. One consequence of Holmes’s ideas was that American legal thinkers developed the jurisprudential theory of “legal positivism,” which remains the hegemonic theory of law to this day. Under legal positivism, law is not “discovered.” It is made by the people with the power, and the laws they make will have no necessary connection to morality.

The prevalence of legal positivism is only possible in a legal culture that is thoroughly saturated with materialist presuppositions. In Unforgetting God, I point out the brutal consequences of judges imposing their will on the American people under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. The “living constitution” project is essentially materialism played out in constitutional law. I call for a reexamination of the materialist underpinnings of the modern legal project, and crucial to that reexamination is answering the following key question: Does God exist?

As I discussed earlier in this interview, intelligent design plays a critical role in answering that question. Again, it all comes down to premises. If God does not exist, the legal positivist view of law is almost certainly correct. Natural law — law based in a fundamental morality — is possible only if objective morality exists, and objective morality exists only if God exists.

What do you say to people who think that God created by Darwinian evolution? Can such “theistic evolutionists” still profit from your book, and if so, how?

As I discussed above, belief in the materialist worldview exploded after Darwin. Daniel Dennett was surely correct that Darwin’s “universal acid” dissolved ancient theistic beliefs, and for many Western intellectual elites (such as Holmes) those theistic beliefs gave way to a thoroughgoing materialism. For over 160 years, many Christians have been trying to reconcile belief in God with belief in Darwinian evolution. Many of them have settled on what’s come to be called “theistic evolution.” Today, the BioLogos Foundation, established by Francis Collins, promotes this theory relentlessly.

The essence of theistic evolution is that God uses Darwinian evolution to create all living things, including humans. The only difference between atheist Richard Dawkins and the typical theistic evolutionist is that the theist evolutionist adds the following footnote: “We accept on faith that all of this was caused by God in an empirically undetectable way.” Well, if science is the study of empirical phenomena, what is the purpose of that footnote? Good question. Theistic evolutionists are committed to the view that “theistic evolution” is, at the level of empirically observable phenomena, identical to “materialist evolution.”

I believe that theistic evolution is misguided in at least two respects. First, as ID theorists have convincingly demonstrated, a creator’s work is empirically detectable. Second, they are kidding themselves if they believe that theistic evolution will halt the culture’s slide into atheistic materialism in any meaningful way. It is a very short journey from “God is not empirically detectible in the process” to “God is not necessary to explain the process,” and it is an even shorter journey from there to “God is not necessary, full stop.”

In Unforgetting God, I rely on ID theory to demonstrate that the design inference is by far the most reasonable explanation for the staggering specified complexity of living things. Thus, there is no reason to retreat into the theistic evolution cul-de-sac.

What impact would you like your book Unforgetting God to have immediately and in the coming years?

In a word, I am calling for the revival of skepticism. This might sound odd coming from a theist because we have been conditioned by our culture to believe that only atheists can be true skeptics. While that might have been true at one time, as I explain in the following passage from Unforgetting God, that is no longer the case.

“’Fideism’ is a grit-your-teeth-and-believe-despite-the-evidence sort of belief. I am not asking anyone to retreat into an unreflective fideism. Indeed, I am calling for just the opposite – a revival of skepticism. For centuries, ‘skepticism’ was associated with unbelievers such as the Enlightenment thinkers David Hume and Voltaire. This is because they were skeptical of the dominant cultural narrative, which in their time was Christianity. In our time, materialism is the dominant narrative, especially in the media and academia, which are the joint heralds of our culture’s received wisdom. My purpose in writing this book is to urge everyone to re-examine the evidence for the existence of God with a skeptical perspective toward the secular received wisdom that has long dominated the discourse in our nation. . . .

I am calling for a renewal of an attitude of genuine skepticism toward the cultural hegemon of materialism. Again, I am not asking anyone to retreat into fideism. That is both irrational and unsustainable in the long run. I am not asking anyone to endure and believe despite all the evidence to the contrary. I am asking for the opposite. The point of this book is to encourage people to examine the evidence again, especially in light of the scholarship summarized in chapter six that demonstrates that accepting the existence of God and the truth of Jesus Christ’s message of love, peace, and redemption are the overwhelmingly more rational positions to hold.”

As the highlighted part of the passage states, my purpose in writing Unforgetting God is to call on people to examine the claims of materialism with a genuinely skeptical attitude. I understand this will be difficult for many. It takes true courage to stand up against the overwhelmingly dominant materialist narrative of our culture. While I do not agree with Hume’s and Voltaire’s conclusions, I cannot help but admire their courage in standing up to the dominant narrative of their culture. We must find the courage to do the same thing, because the stakes are very high. Indeed, they are nothing short of existential for Western Civilization.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 and DVD by Dr. Frank Turek 

Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).

 

Bill Dembski holds doctorates in math and philosophy as well as an advance theological degree. He’s published in the peer-reviewed math, engineering, biology, philosophy, and theology literature. His focus is on freedom, technology, and education. Formerly almost exclusively an ID (intelligent design) guy, with most of his writing focused on that topic, he found that even though ID had the better argument, it faced roadblocks designed to stop its success. So his focus shifted to the wider social and political forces that block free human inquiry. Bill still writes a lot on intelligent design but his focus these days is broader.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3FyCxE9

/by

How to Spot a Kant in Sheep’s Clothing

,

One of the ways you will find philosophy professors denying Christ is through an appeal to Kantian ethics. Kant’s ethical theory uses many positive-sounding words that appeal to our moral intuitions. Yet, when we examine the content, we find that Kant was opposed to Christ as revealed in Scripture. Instead, he sought to elevate the individual’s moral intuitions as the highest authority, and even above the Bible.

 

I know of professors who lure students in by claiming to be Christians, but then play a shell game: they subtly replace Christianity with Kantianism, and then argue that the Bible and Christianity are false because they contradict their moral intuitions.

Kant’s Ethics

Permit me to give you a brief overview of Kantianism. Immanuel Kant sought to ground ethics not in religion or divine revelation, but in human reason alone. His project was part of the broader Enlightenment goal of establishing a rational foundation for morality that could be universally valid, independent of theological commitments. By itself, that all sounds great. But once we begin to ask what Kant meant by terms like “reason” and “summum bonun,” we run into deep problems. Here’s how he approached it:

1. Moral Law from Within, Not from Above

Kant believed that morality must be autonomous, not heteronomous, that is, it must come from within the rational will of the individual, not from an external authority like God or the Church. By “reason,” Kant distinguished between pure reason (used in studying metaphysics) and practical reason (used to solve problems in means/ends reasoning). He was a skeptic about pure reason, arguing that it ends in contradictions. So, when he tells us to be rational or to use a rational will, he means to use reason to live according to the categorical imperative.
He famously wrote:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration… the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (1788)

This “moral law within” was, for Kant, the source of true ethical obligation. He did not deny God’s existence, but he insisted that moral duties must be discoverable by reason, not dependent on divine command. He speaks like the Serpent from the Garden: he believes to be moral we must determine good and evil for ourselves.

2. The Categorical Imperative

Kant replaced divine law with a purely rational principle: the categorical imperative. This is a test for determining whether an action is morally permissible. His most famous formulation is:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

This is an attempt to derive moral law from pure reason, without appeal to consequences, emotions, or divine will. For Kant, if a rule cannot be universalized, it is morally impermissible.

Yet, he bases this on “if you can universalize it.” Can you live with this rule being universal. This means it is a statement of subjective opinion and not objective reality. Nietzsche took this to its logical conclusion in his will to power. Because the Kantian rejects God’s law as heteronomy he has no appeal to anything objective by which to critique the will to power. And this is why professors in the Kantian tradition fell in so easily with philosophies of power like DEI and critical theory.

3. Human Dignity and Autonomy

Kant believed that each person possesses intrinsic worth because of their rational nature. Therefore, one should always treat humanity, whether in oneself or in others, never merely as a means, but always as an end. This principle grounds ethics in respect for persons, not in obedience to God.

The university Kantian combines this with the categorical imperative to make an appeal to abusive empathy. This is when you take advantage of the listener’s disposition to compassion and excuse the wrongdoing of the person who is pitied. How another person feels becomes their moral standard. If someone is poor, we do not consider the possibility of sloth; instead, we ask how they must feel and how good they would feel if they were simply given money and a house. This abusive empathy is used to bully the Christian into accepting the radical leftist morality that Kantianism has become.

Kantianism presupposes Rousseau’s claim that human beings are naturally good and only corrupted by the invention of private property. It rejects God’s providential rule of the world and instead insists that all injustice stems from the unequal distribution of material goods and resources. Kant rejects the biblical doctrines of the Fall and sin, and instead teaches that humans are perfectible through adherence to Kantian moral theory.

4. Religion as Morality’s Handmaid, Not Its Source

In his book Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1792), Kant argued that religion should support morality, not define it. He viewed Christianity as a helpful moral teaching only insofar as it agrees with his subjective reason. It is “subjective reason” because it relies on his moral intuitions about “how the world should be.” Christ was seen more as a moral example than a divine Savior.

And remember, for Kant, “reason” means: What can I universalize?, and then solving practical problems that arise as you live according to that principle. In other words, Kantian “reason” becomes subjective and denies the clear general revelation of God and His moral law.
Kant even called the concept of a divine command the “heteronomy of the will,” which is a failure of reason to guide itself. He wanted a moral law that any rational being, whether religious or not, could recognize and obey.

5. Postulates of Practical Reason

Although Kant did not ground morality in religion, he concluded that moral reasoning requires presupposing three things:

● God (as the guarantor of justice, otherwise unknowable)
● Immortality (so that perfect virtue is achievable)
● Freedom (to be morally responsible)

These are not proofs, but practical postulates, which are ideas we must assume if we are to take morality seriously. Still, they are subordinate to Kantian reason, not based on revelation or faith in Christ.

Kant attempts to get around God’s providence in this world, and the inherent connection of sin and death, by saying that what appears to be unfair in this life (the righteous suffer and the wicked live well) is made right in the next life. He defines the summum bonus, or highest good, this way: “The highest good is the complete unity of virtue and happiness” Critique of Practical Reason, 5:110).

In other words, the summum bonum is the state in which a person who is fully morally good (possessing a good will) also experiences the full happiness that such goodness deserves.
Kant teaches his followers to reject God’s law as heteronomy, to live according to their own subjective intuitions about what should be universal, and to be content with the idea that their self-defined virtue in this life will be rewarded with happiness in the next.

6. The Serpent and Kant

Think about how closely all of this resembles the teaching of the Serpent in Genesis 3. The Kantian is told to determine their own good and evil. God’s law is rejected as imposed, as a limitation on freedom, it is heteronomous and therefore illegitimate.

It is seen as an invasion of the human will by an outside source. But in Genesis 3, God imposed death as a call to repent of sin. Instead of repenting, the Kantian says, “Live by my philosophy, and you will be given happiness in the next life.” “God” becomes a mere postulate, which is a necessary idea to guarantee that promised happiness.

Yet Kant offers no explanation of how a sinner can be reconciled to a perfectly holy and good God. He teaches works righteousness. In his system, the human is not a sinner in need of grace, but someone who does wrong due to social circumstances, and who can be perfected and made virtuous by following Kantian philosophy.

7. Identify the Wolf

As a student, you should understand the philosophy your professors will be imposing on you. You can use Kantianism against them. Instead, insist on your own autonomy and reject their heteronomy. Then challenge their categorical imperative and ask how it escapes absolute subjectivity. And ask why God, who is holy, would ever grant happiness to an unrepentant sinner; someone who has spent a life rejecting God’s law and reducing Christ to a mere moral example rather than the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Kant:
1. Couldn’t explain what has existed from eternity.
2. Denied that what is good for a being is based on their nature and therefore determined by their Creator.
3. Rested his entire philosophy on ultimate skepticism about God and providence.
4. Denied that the Bible is divinely inspired.
5. Denied we need to be reconciled to God by Christ.

The Kantian is no Christian.

Learn to expose your professor’s presuppositions and demolish their arguments. Or better yet, don’t even sign up for, or pay for, such classes. Exercise your autonomy to find a university and professors who recognize what is clearly revealed about God and the moral law through general revelation.

Recommended Resources:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

Secular Professor Tactics 101

As a parent or student it will help you to know that in many cases your secular professors have a strategy. They have a goal. A strategy is the big-picture plan to win or achieve that goal. Tactics are the step-by-step methods used to carry it out. I’ve told you before that you can see their goal by how they live their own lives. But now let’s look at their classroom tactics.

 

If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you need to understand the tactics of the secular professor. For many of them, “winning” means leading students to adopt a radical leftist ideology—either by outright agreement or by slow, subtle influence. Agreement isn’t always demanded immediately. Sometimes, all they want is your gradual surrender of confidence in anything else.  The big win, however, is final deconversion from Christianity and acceptance of something like the LGBTQ+ “safe zone” philosophy pushed at ASU.

Undermining Christianity: The Real Strategy

The strategy of many secular professors is simple: undermine Christianity. Why? Because Christianity remains the major roadblock to their radical leftist ideology.  Without that, their goal is in sight.

If you had to guess a student’s religion, statistically, you’d guess Christian and be right more often than not. Christianity remains the default framework for morality, identity, and truth for many students, even if only in fragments.  Christian teaching is the main roadblock to the Marxism at the core of the radical left.

And that’s a problem—for them.

The teachings of Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with the radical left’s view of sex, gender, truth, power, and the good life. So, it’s not just about “dialogue” or “working together.” Before they can win a student to their worldview, they must first destabilize the student’s confidence in Christianity. Undermine the foundation, and the rest of the structure will fall. That’s the strategy. Their tactics follow.

How the Strategy Is Carried Out: Tactics You Should Know

This strategy to undermine Christianity is carried out through many identifiable tactics. For parents and students, it’s worth learning these—not only to recognize what’s happening, but also to see how poorly equipped many of these professors are for the intellectual life they claim to lead. Scripture puts it plainly: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). What we’re witnessing in many classrooms today is a real-time application of that verse. Let’s examine a few of their most common tactics. We’ll begin with three—but the list, sadly, is always growing.

Tactic #1: Undermine the Word of God

The first and most foundational tactic is to undermine the authority of Scripture. This can take the form of a direct assault—mocking the Bible as outdated, oppressive, or absurd—or a more subtle approach: cherry-picking verses to support radical leftist ideology.

For example, I have a colleague—openly anti-Christian—who claims that Matthew 25:40 (“Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me”) is the best verse in the Bible. Why? Because she believes it proves her progressive social philosophy. On her reading, all you have to do is advocate for so-called sexual minorities, and you’re doing exactly what Jesus said. No need for sound doctrine. No need to understand the whole Bible. Just grab a single verse and weaponize it.  Incidentally, it is worth noting that in this specific verse, Jesus is speaking about believers.

But that’s only half the tactic. The next step is to accuse actual Christians of not living up to the verse. She’ll claim that conservative Christians don’t care for the poor or marginalized—never mind the fact (which students rarely hear) that conservative Christians out-give atheist professors by a staggering margin when it comes to charity, adoption, missions, disaster relief, and practical acts of compassion.

Still, students don’t know that. So the professor paints a picture: the Bible is on her side, and Christians are hypocrites who don’t live up to it.

You’ll notice she never mentions John 6, where Jesus rebukes the crowd for following Him only to get bread, rather than the Bread of Life. She’s not interested in the full counsel of God—only the verses that can be twisted to serve her ideological agenda.

There are other versions of this tactic. One common move is to deny that the Bible even teaches that homosexuality is a sin. “That’s just in Leviticus,” they’ll say, “and no Christian keeps that anymore.”

I call this the “Did God really say?” tactic. Just like the serpent in the garden, the secular professor begins by sowing doubt: Did God really say that?

Did He really say that homosexuality is a sin?
Did He really define male and female?
Did He really establish the moral order we find in Scripture?

If they can get the student to doubt the clarity, authority, or consistency of God’s Word, they’ve won the first battle.

Tactic #2: Vilify Christianity

The second tactic is to vilify Christianity—to paint it not as the source of civilization’s greatest moral and social advances, but as the root of all historical evil. This is straight out of the classical Marxist playbook, so anyone familiar with the last 150 years of ideology should see it coming a mile away.

Unfortunately, most parents assume we’ve moved past this kind of propaganda. And most students, born long after the fall of the USSR, have never heard a rebuttal. So here’s what they’ll be told:

Christianity invented slavery.
Christianity promoted poverty.
Christians fought to keep people oppressed.

Of course, if you dig long enough, you can always find someone—somewhere—who called themselves a Christian and said something foolish or sinful. That’s not hard. But that’s not the [larger] truth. The truth is this: Christianity gave birth to orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It introduced the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and the foundation for economic growth and human rights. Christianity gave entire nations the hope of a better future in this life—and the next.

You won’t hear that in most classrooms. Instead, students will be told that Christianity supported slavery. But the historical reality is that slavery was universal in the ancient world. Christianity challenged and ultimately abolished it in Christianized nations—while it still exists today in non-Christian societies.

Why do professors hide this? Because the tactic is designed to make students (specifically white male Christian students) ashamed of their own heritage, their faith, and their families. That shame softens them. Once a student is ashamed of Christianity, they can be more easily reprogrammed and brainwashed. The Marxists knew this. And today’s professors are still using the same tactic with unnerving skill.

Tactic #3: Teach That It Doesn’t Matter Either Way

This tactic is all about misdirection. Unlike the first two, which confront Christianity directly, this one tries to bypass it entirely. The professor simply avoids mentioning the Bible at all. Why? Because attacking it outright might prompt a student to open it—and then the risk is that the student might actually be convinced by its truth. So, instead, the tactic is silence.

The professor communicates—both directly and indirectly—that the student can live a good, meaningful, moral life without ever knowing what the Bible says. If Scripture does come up, it’s brushed aside with a casual, dismissive remark: “Oh, the Bible? Sure, there are a few good things in there—for people who like that sort of thing.”

The message is clear: the Bible is irrelevant.
Not dangerous. Not sacred. Just… beside the point.
Outdated. Unnecessary. Background noise.

This is misdirection at its finest—because it leaves the student disarmed. There’s no battle to fight if the battlefield itself is ignored. The professor shifts the student’s focus to career, activism, self-expression—anything but divine truth. And over time, the student begins to believe the lie that neutrality is possible, and that the big questions of life—truth, meaning, morality, destiny—can be answered without reference to God. But that is not neutrality. That’s secularism in disguise.

Spot the Tactic: A Challenge for Students

Recognizing these tactics is the first step to seeing how certain professors use their class time—not to educate—but to advance a strategy of deconverting Christian students. In fact, you might even turn it into a bit of a game. Challenge your friends:

  • Who can spot the most tactics in a single class session?
  • Whose course schedule has the most ideologically driven professors?
  • Who can most clearly connect the tactics to the broader strategy?

Keep score. Compare notes. And when you’re ready, send me your tallies—I’ll make sure they’re seen by those with oversight at the university. Because let’s be clear: taxpayers aren’t funding this nonsense.[1] And it certainly doesn’t qualify as “education.”

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: At least, taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund any anti-religious bigotry or anti-Christian indoctrination or deconversion tactics.]

Recommended Resources:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by