In case you didn’t know it, if you are a conservative Christian, you are just like Boko Haram and ISIS. At least, that’s what the secularists are saying. More absurd still, they actually believe this.

Of course, secularism has been waging war against religion for centuries, but more recently, in America and Europe, the rhetoric of secularism has become more extreme and shrill.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, critics complained that the Court’s eminently reasonable decision was “anti-scientific.”

As noted by Jonathan Adler in The Washington Post, “The Daily Beast’s Sally Kohn decried the Court’s reliance on ‘bunk science’ and The Nation’s Reed Richardson claimed the Hobby Lobby majority’s opinion rested on ‘specious scientific claims.’ ‘Alito and the four other conservative justices on the court were essentially overruling not just an Obamacare regulation, but science,’ reported Mother Jones, while another MoJo story ranked Hobby Lobby to be among the Supreme Court’s four ‘biggest science blunders.’ And over at The Incidental Economist, Austin Frakt simply declared ‘The majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t get science.'”

Adler, hardly a flaming fundamentalist, refuted the claim.

But is anyone surprised that a faith-based challenge to Obamacare would be branded “anti-scientific”?

Shades of the Church’s historic suppression of intellectual progress!

Still, attacks like these are minor compared to secularism’s idea that all committed believers must be the same, be they Islamic extremists or evangelical Christians.

Earlier this year, “City councilors from Nanaimo, B.C. [Canada] voted . . . to ban a Christian leadership conference scheduled to be podcast at the city’s convention center because one of the sponsors of the conference was U.S. restaurant chain Chick-fil-A. According to one councilor, the chain spreads ‘divisiveness, homophobia…[and] expressions of hate’ because of its CEO’s pro-marriage views.”

But it gets worse: “City councilors condemned the event as ‘hateful’, compared it to the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, and said the decision to ban the event from public property was no different than if they had voted to ban an organized crime ring, too.” (Ironically, the conference featured speakers like Laura Bush and Desmond Tutu, both of whom support same-sex “marriage.”)

There you have it. Chick-fil-A is no different than Islamic radicals who burn little boys alive and kidnap and rape young girls, not to mention being similar to an organized crime ring.

In the same spirit, radio host David Pakman stated that he saw no real difference between ISIS and what he called conservative, right wing extremists (a definition that he would use to describe many evangelical Christians), a charge affirmed by his producer during the show as self-evident and irrefutable.

But of course! Bible believing Christians who affirm the sanctity of life and marriage are the same as monstrous brutes who behead the innocent in cold blood. Who can’t see this?

In case this isn’t clear enough for you, on October 14th, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, led by the UK gay activist of the same name, released its “Manifesto for Secularism – Against the Religious Right.”

Tatchell issued a “call on people everywhere to stand with us to establish an international front against the religious-Right and for secularism.”

And what exactly does Tatchell mean by “the religious-Right”? Specifically, “The Islamic State (formerly ISIS), the Saudi regime, Hindutva (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) in India, the Christian-Right in the U.S. and Europe, Bodu Bala Sena in Sri Lanka, Haredim in Israel, AQMI and MUJAO in Mali, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria.”

Read that list again slowly.

Tatchell explicitly places conservative Christians in the US and Europe in the exact same category as the Taliban, ISIS, and Boko Haram, among others. (I’ll not comment here on his reference to ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, called Haredim.)

As the manifesto declares in its opening line, “The launch of the Manifesto for Secularism is a challenge to the global rise of the Religious Right and its menacing values, which threaten women, LGBTs, atheists, minority faiths, apostates and many others.”

Yes, dear believer, you are a menace, and war has been declared against you.

“We call on people everywhere,” the manifesto declares, “to stand with us to establish an international front against the religious-Right and for secularism.”

Among the manifesto’s demands, not all of which are outrageous, are the calls for the, “Separation of religion from public policy, including the educational system, health care and scientific research” and, “Abolition of religious laws in the family, civil and criminal codes.”

Make no mistake about it.

You have been marked, and you have been classified as a dangerous extremist capable of all kinds of nefarious acts.

And you have been forewarned.

This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com website.

Written by S.M. Hutchens & Anthony Esolen

In the July/August 2013 issue of Touchstone, the editors rejected the idea that one could be both “gay” and Christian. The basis of that belief, we said, is exemplified in St. Paul’s assurance to the Corinthian church that what some of its believers used to be—and here he recited a catalog of sins that included arsenokoitai (“sexual perverts”)—they no longer were, because they had been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God. (There is no creditable reason to believe that St. Paul’s reference here was so narrow that it only applied to those who frequented cult prostitutes in pagan temples, as if homosexual relations occurring in any other venue (cf.Rom. 1) were in his mind categorically different.)

We noted that Paul was speaking in aoristic, teleological terms: he did not say that believers, in this world,

are no longer susceptible to their old sins, nor that these old sins mustn’t be dealt with. . . . Given this apostolic definition, however, we cannot—we dare not—say there is any such thing as a “gay (or lesbian, etc.) Christian,” for the Christian by definition has been cleansed of his homosexuality. He cannot regard himself as [essentially] a homosexual—or idolater, or thief, or drunkard—nor can the Church affirm him . . . as such.

Or we might put it this way: “This is the fashion in which the image of God has been deformed in me, so that I am not myself, and my face, my very identity, is sludged up with sin.” The wayfaring Christian, on the pilgrimage to holiness—on the pilgrimage to gaining his own name and face and soul—may say, “Alas, I am a thief,” but he may never say, “I am a thief,” attributing his kleptophilia to the Creator’s intent. There are Christians who are thieves, because there are Christians who are sinners. But there can be no such thing as a Christian thief. We are ourselves at last when we can say, in glory, “It is not I, but Christ who lives in me.” And Christ is no sinner.

Returning to St. Paul: the apostle was not putting forward the kind of analysis by which moral theologians define sin, asking, for example, whether homosexual orientation is itself concupiscence and therefore sin, or when natural but objectively disordered desire in those with the tendency to sin becomes actual sin. Rather, he was speaking of theidentificationby God, by the Church, and by the person himself, as a member of a class that will not enter the kingdom of God. The Christian with regard to all his sins is a penitent, the actions and intentions of penitence foreclosing identification with a sinful condition now past because he is among the redeemed in Christ.

This needs to be reaffirmed in response to those who are saying that one can be gay and Christian as long as these identifications are combined with celibacy. No, one cannot. Celibacy is in itself no virtue, or aid in denying or overcoming sin. Denial of the desires of the flesh may serve good or evil, tending to confirm the practitioner in one or the other, according to what kind of person he is. Celibacy may be of great value in the life of a penitent—someone who is sorry for his sins and seeks to disengage from them in every way—but whoever persists in identifying himself with a sin is ipso facto not a penitent, for penitence is the active will to depart from sin. Such a person has accepted in himself what God has rejected, and to him celibacy can be nothing more than a deception and a snare. He may be something like a Stoic, or a Gnostic, or a Buddhist, or possessed of a certain class of demon, but he is not a Christian.

When he is put forward as a preceptor—a seminary professor or magazine editor, for example—and with this authority encourages others to believe that one can combine homosexuality—orarsenokoitai, or sodomy, or Aestheticism, or gayness, or whatever one wishes to call it—with Christianity in the catalytic presence of celibacy, what can save him from the “greater condemnation” to which St. James’s Epistle refers?

This article was originally posted at the Touchstonemag.com website.

If you begin singing the tune “Amazing Grace,” in church, on the street, or while sitting in a Starbucks, practically everyone around you would recognize the song. But if you asked those same people who John Newton was, they’d probably have no idea. And yet, the life of the slave ship captain turned Christian abolitionist and hymn writer is one of the most amazing lives ever lived.

That’s why I was so thrilled to attend the opening night performance of “Amazing Grace”—a musical about John Newton’s life—at Chicago’s Bank of America Theater. As someone who has seen many a Broadway production, I would have to say that Amazing Grace is one of the most incredible plays I have ever seen. It is a first-rate example of why Christians MUST become more active in the arts.

The musical tells the story of how young John Newton, a brutal slave ship captain, underwent a spiritual transformation when his ship nearly sank during a storm off the coast of Ireland in 1748. As the ship filled with water, Newton cried out to God to save him. After he’d returned to England, Newton eventually joined William Wilberforce in the long effort to abolish the British slave trade.

As a writer myself, I’m especially impressed with how the creators of Amazing Grace have created a story that’s historically accurate, but which also flows the way a theatrical musical production must flow. The young actor who plays John Newton, Josh Young, is a staggering voice and talent—in fact, he’s probably got the strongest voice I have heard on a stage.

Let me also say that the ending of the first act is one of the most incredible things I have ever seen in the theater. I won’t spoil it for you, but it involves Newton’s rescue from the storm that causes him to turn to God. The moment is visually magnificent, one of those things you’ll never forget and will tell everyone about once you’ve seen it. It’s stagecraft at its finest.

The musical also does a great job describing the love story between John Newton and his childhood sweetheart, Mary Catlett, who longs for Newton’s conversion. But Amazing Grace doesn’t sugarcoat the horrors of the slave trade, nor the role that Africans themselves had in selling their own people to white slave traders.

The play brings in God, but in such a way that playgoers will feel attracted to Him—so it’s absolutely not a play only believers will be interested in seeing. Christians will love it, yes, but it’s also the perfect play to bring a nonbeliever to. And that is incredibly rare.

At the end of the show, the entire cast and audience sing “Amazing Grace” together. And that is an experience I will never forget.

Chuck Colson often said that Christians must be engaged in the arts, because our gifts witness to the truth of God’s love and salvation to people who would never think of setting foot in a church. In effect, their defenses are down, and their hearts more likely to be open to the truth.

Plays like Amazing Grace come along only about once a decade, if we’re lucky. If you live anywhere near Chicago, you’ve got to see it. But you’ve got to act fast because the show is scheduled through this Sunday only. I don’t know where the play is headed next, but when I find out, I’ll be sure to let you know.

So get a ticket. Take your church youth group if you can. Take your non-believing friends and then talk about the play’s meaning over a late dinner. Be ready to answer their questions about the hour YOU first believed, and the meaning behind those immortal words: I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see.”

Amazing Grace Amazingly Staged: Why Christians Must Be Involved in the Arts
This is a great opportunity for believers to support artistic efforts that are well-crafted, well-produced, and provide a positive influence within the arts community. If you live in the Chicago area or you’re going to be nearby, go see the musical Amazing Grace. Details below.

Amazing Grace: The Song the World Knows, the Story it Doesn’t
Bank of America Theater, Chicago

John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace
Jonathan Aitken, Philip Yancey | Crossway | May 2013

Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery
Eric Metaxas | HarperOne | February 2007

By Andrew Walker

Hillsong Shifts on Homosexuality

Religion, and maybe Ebola, owned the news this week. From the confusion and public relations nightmare at the Vatican over the Synod’s Relatio, to the Caesarism of Annise Parker and the City of Houston subpoenaing sermons from pastors, it has been a busy week for the religion beat.

Then yesterday, coverage about a Hillsong press conference came out, indicating that the global evangelical enterprise is triangulating on homosexuality, particularly about whether it should publicly hold what the Bible teaches in light of culture’s rapid change on the subject. According to Jonathan Merritt,

At a press conference for the Hillsong Conference in New York City today, Michael Paulson of The New York Times asked Houston to clarify their church’s position on same sex marriage. But Houston would not offer a definitive answer, instead saying that it was “an ongoing conversation” among church leaders and they were “on the journey with it.”

Houston says that he considers three things when evaluating the topic: “There’s the world we live in, there’s the weight we live with, and there’s the word we live by.”

He notes that the Western world is shifting its thinking on this issue, and churches are struggling to stay relevant. The weight we live in (sic), he added, refers to a context where LGBT young people may feel rejected or shunned by churches, often leading to depression and suicide. But when Houston began speaking about the word we live by or “what the Bible says,” he refused to offer a concrete position.

Merritt’s reporting also quotes this gem: “Lentz’s wife, Laura, chimed in: “It’s not our place to tell anyone how they should live. That’s their journey.”

What do we say about this?

First, if I were writing the Art of Cultural War, this is the strategy I’d use to bring the opposing side to heel. The steps look something like this: Relativize the issue with other issues. Be uncertain about the issue. Refuse to speak publicly on the issue. Be indifferent toward the issue. Accept the issue. Affirm the issue. Require the issue. Hillsong is currently on step three. I don’t think they’ll stay there.

Second, a non-answer is an answer. Let’s be very clear on that. It’s also a very vapid answer. What we’re seeing in many corners of evangelicalism is a pliability that makes Christianity an obsequious servant to whatever the reigning zeitgeist is. With non-answers like this, it isn’t Jesus who is sitting at the right hand of the Father. Culture is. Perhaps Hillsong would rather abide by a “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy on matters of orthodoxy. That’s their prerogative. But let’s be clear that this is not the route of faithfulness.

Third, this isn’t an issue over whether gays and lesbians should or should not be welcomed in church. This also isn’t an issue over whether young individuals within the LGBT community have faced bullying. Bullying of all sorts is deplorable and should be condemned, and not because the Human Rights Campaign says so, but because Jesus says so (Matthew 7:12). What this issue is about is whether the church models faithful obedience to Christ in a way that both honors Scripture and loves its neighbor. Hillsong thinks it’s doing both; but is actually doing neither.

Fourth, Hillsong thinks itself a contemporary and culturally relevant church. Perhaps it is. But as Christians, we don’t get to define what “relevant” means in terms that are unquestioning of what our culture means by “relevant.” I submit that Hillsong is a church in retreat. A church in retreat doesn’t give answers. It doesn’t storm the gates of Hell. It settles and makes peace where there is no peace (Ezekiel 13:10). A church in exile (and that’s how I’d describe the current placement of confessional evangelicalism) is one that is faithful amidst the culture, regardless of whether that culture looks more like America or more like Babylon. It knows that it may lose the culture, but that it cannot lose the Gospel. So be it.

This is, as I’ve written elsewhere, a gentrified fundamentalist withdrawal rooted in the belief that the foreignness of Christianity can’t overcome the tired intellectual patterns of cultural decay. At the end of the day, I think Hillsong’s non-answer answer is rooted in an embarrassment about what the Bible teaches and the church has held since the time of Jesus. The good news is that the truth of Christianity outlasts the untruths of man’s applause.

When I read stuff like this, my reaction isn’t anger. It’s an eye-roll. Churches should know better than to believe the myth that accommodation will swell their ranks. The opposite happens.

Following the Apostle Peter, this all means that judgment begins within the household of God, so I’m not writing for outsiders. I’m writing for the church, to the church. I’m writing about Hillsong, a church or enterprise with enormous global influence. What I see, tragically, isn’t a church grappling with a complex issue. What I see is a church exchanging compassion for cowardliness before culture’s consistory.

This article was originally posted at FirstThings.com.

It is downright difficult to shock or awe anyone anymore. The convergence of instant-media platforms and invisible data networks, which connect these platforms to millions of eyeballs, means that anything which happens in the world is eligible for prime time. Like most situations involving groups of anonymous strangers interacting with each other, the trash floats to the top. Our palates have grown jaded and calloused, taught to seek the thrill which lies just beyond the boundary of social approbation. The slope becomes more slippery the further we slide down the hill, increasing the pace and inertia of our demise. Once-forbidden debauchery now sells clothing lines, attracts prime-time viewers, garners political support, spawns lucrative charities, and dominates headline, byline, and through-line of our news cycle.

Shocking is mundane and the outrageous is normal.

There is however one way guaranteed to get the panties of the masses in a collective bundle: mention Christ, the Bible, God, or His people; elaborate on His plan of salvation for a sinful and fallen mankind; affirm the exclusivity of the Christian message in the words of Christ Himself, (“Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to destruction,” Matt 7:13). Should you communicate this simple message to the right audience you will soon find yourself, like Abraham Van Helsing, holding aloft a torch in a dank and dusty crypt, surrounded a horde of snarling individuals, intent on your demise.

Because righteousness is the new depravity. Purity has become debauched. Proof of this exists all around us. Public schools in Chicago announced last year that they are mandating the teaching of Sex Ed—for Kindergarteners. This material is to include homosexual relationships. Apparently, 5-year olds need to know about sodomy. Parents in Freemont, California recently forced the removal of a Sex Ed curriculum that sought to teach 9th graders about bondage and sex toys. The maddening thing is that instead of being treated like the perverse ideas they are, these initiatives (and others like them) clearly have the support of their school district administrators or they would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. Thesexualization of children is now an educational goal. The flipside of this coin are the stories of children being suspended from school for saying “God bless you” to a classmate. Little ones being told they are forbidden from reading their Bibles during elective reading periods. A young girl being sent to change out of her “Virginity Rocks!” t-shirt because it’s too sexual. These stories have happened and will continue to happen as the moral poles of our society continue their 180-degree shift.

Outside of the school room, those who stand for righteousness are attacked even more viciously. Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, was suspended from his television show for stating his religious belief regarding human sexuality in a magazine interview. Tim Tebow, after openly speaking about the faith which drives him and his commitment to remain sexually-pure before marriage, finds himself blacklisted in the NFL. This was clearly not a “football decision” since the Jets kept Mark Sanchez on the roster. Chick-fil-A was roundly derided when its founder declared his honest support for traditional marriage. Hobby Lobby has been the target of ridicule and derision ever since it sued the Obama Administration in order to avoid being forced to subsidize abortifacient birth control for its employees. The list grows longer daily, of individuals and companies who are ostracized for their attempts to manifest a God-honoring position in their lives and businesses.

The light borne by groups and individuals who seek the righteousness of God is a powerful stimulant. The light illuminates the darkness and makes those who lurk there painfully aware of their iniquity. Consequentially, the source is attacked, in an attempt to shutter the light and plunge back into the unmolested darkness. Some of those who have carried light into the darkness go astray because they mistakenly believe that the light they bear is the light of their own righteousness. It is not. It is the light of Christ. The best we can hope to become is a faithful mirror. Just as the moon has no effulgence of its own but reflects the light of the sun, believers have no intrinsic righteousness of our own but reflect the righteousness of the Son.

Make no mistake, carrying His light into the darkness isn’t a quest undertaken only by the brave or the adventurous. It is a command for every believer to fulfill in his lifetime. The bare minimum of our commission is to be prepared, as the Apostle Peter commands, to give a reason for the hope within us to whomever asks. Sadly, we no longer have to venture far to fulfill this mission, as the darkness envelops us where we stand. Simply standing for His truth in today’s world is enough to attract the enemies of righteousness and beckon to those who have gone astray in the moral twilight in which we are mired.

How does this duty to bear God’s light into the world square with the modern world’s assessment of objective truth as offensive? It doesn’t. After all, truth is offensive to who have a stake in a lie. The question to consider is, do we believe the Gospel to be the truth? If we do not, then why claim to believe it? If we do, then what shame can be had in bringing it to others? These thoughts and questions are asked honestly and with abundant introspection. Standing for God’s righteousness is not something which comes easily to anyone, even though there are those who seem naturally suited to it. If it was easily done, we wouldn’t have to fight tooth-and-nail to try to protect righteousness from being replaced by sacrilegious debauchery. Yet fight we must.

“If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for.”

– C.H. Spurgeon

For many years now, America has experienced a marked moral decline and in the last two or three decades, the decline has been especially steep.  Within the last six years we have witnessed this decline advancing at an accelerated rate as evidenced by the reclassification and elevation of sexual immorality to the status of a so-called “right.”  Further proof of the normalization and the legislated protection of immorality can be found in the finely-orchestrated, well-funded, and unrelenting attacks against religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

In light of our very foundations crumbling around us, what are conservative people of faith to do?  Should we remain silent, hide away in a Christian bunker (literally or figuratively), or keep our head down and hope that no one notices us?  No!  None of these options are effective and, in fact, they only serve to embolden our adversaries.  Yet in large part, these are the feeble tactics we have employed, tactics that have allowed immorality to steamroll our nation.

As I see it, there are two significant reasons why America, a nation founded on Biblical principles, is experiencing such great moral decline: fear of man vs. fear of God, and a lack of understanding within the Body of Christ.

Proverbs 29:25 tells us that the “fear of man brings a snare ….”  Far too many Christians, including church leaders, remain silent about the cultural rot that surrounds us.  Most remain silent because they are apprehensive or anxious about what others will say or think if they voice a biblically sound, but unpopular or politically incorrect, opinion on a hot-button issue.  The last thing these believers want is to be drawn into a heated debate, lose a friend, or step on any toes.  They could easily co-opt Saul’s weak excuse for violating the Lord’s command and Samuel’s instruction, “I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them.” (1 Samuel 15:24)   Sadly, many Christians today are more afraid of offending men than they are of disobeying or angering God.

The following true story aptly illustrates the tension between fear of man vs. fear of God.  A former lesbian and close acquaintance of mine used to be part of a ministry at a well-known Chicago area megachurch.  By the power of Jesus, she became a new creation in Christ – praise God!  Her heart, mind, and sexual behavior were completely transformed, and she began to minster to others who were suffering from unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction by serving in a ministry at this mega-church, reaching out to those with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Unfortunately, a few years ago the church pulled the plug on this effective ministry.  Their explanation?  Church leaders didn’t want to “offend” any of the LGBT people who attended their services.  Clearly the leaders of this church made a conscious decision that the fear of man trumps the fear of God.  If the apostle Paul were in the midst of this leadership, I would imagine he would confront them in much the same manner as he confronted the Galatians when he questioned which Gospel they were preaching and following, asking them whether they were now seeking to please and win the approval of man or of God. Moreover, Paul stressed that any believer who still aimed to please man would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-10)

Yes, the Gospel is offensive.  Truth is offensive.  Articulating Gospel truth may mean alienating people and perhaps causing them to leave and never return. Such is the price of honesty and obedience to truth.  Matthew’s Gospel recounts Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler.  This man sincerely wanted Jesus to answer his question: what must he do to inherit eternal life?  But Jesus’ answer was neither what the man wanted nor expected to hear.  In spite of his earnestness and sincerity, he was not ready to hear the truth and, sadly, walked away.

Yet, because someone might be offended by the truth or not ready to receive it, we are not absolved of our responsibility to speak it.  Scripture encourages us to speak the truth in love, and also to speak up because of love – the love God has lavished on us and the love we have for Him.  We need to set aside our fear of man (fear of offense, rejection and ridicule) and defend biblical principles, articulating the truth with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers because sin and death and hell are real.

If we avoid or refuse to talk about the issues of the day: abortion, sexual immorality, addictions, the erosion of religious liberty, same-sex marriage, and the demise of natural families, we are acting in an unloving manner and neglecting an opportunity to share the Gospel – the Good News of the love, peace, joy, and hope that we have found in following Jesus.

Apart from the words of Scripture, perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed our responsibility to our fellow man the best when he said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act.”

Our nation needs to hear the truth that a continuing moral decline is neither desirable nor inevitable. There is a better Way and an absolute Truth that leads to eternal Life.

Now is our time to speak and now is our time to act.

Financial gifts to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

If you would rather write a check, please make it payable to Illinois Family Institute, and mail it to us at: P.O. Box 88848 Carol Stream, Illinois  60188.

We also accept credit card donations by phone at (708) 781-9328.

Attorney, author and columnist David Limbaugh is a man after my own heart. He’s also a man after my own mind. That is to say, as both a fellow member of the bar and follower of Christ, I tremendously appreciate how David approaches the hot button issues of the day. He carefully probes them within the framework of an objective, lawyerly and evidential analysis. He is a master communicator and never fails, in any case, to deliver deeply persuasive closing arguments in the court of public opinion.

With his latest book, “Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel,” Limbaugh remains true to form. In fact, having read nearly every manuscript he’s penned, I believe this to be, hands down, David’s best and most important work to date. While managing to make each sentence of each chapter in this page-turner fascinating, Limbaugh also provides proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ, in both His historical and spiritual respects, was, and is, exactly who He said He is: God incarnate, the living, physically resurrected Savior of the world and the only, yes, that means the exclusive, path to God the Father.

I’m one of those guys who regularly dines on a word diet cooked up by the master chefs – Christian apologists and theologians like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul and Josh McDowell, to name just a few. With “Jesus on Trial,” not only does Limbaugh chef-it-up with the masters, he prepares a multi-course meal that, if read with an open mind, will satisfy, both spiritually and intellectually, every consumer, from the most ardent skeptic to the most devout believer.

This is not merely a book of Christian apologetics. I have never read a more convincing, comprehensive and well-arranged biblical, cultural and, indeed, scientific exegesis for the one-stop shopper – for the spiritual sojourner exploring, like most of us, the greatest of all questions. Namely, “Who am I, how did I get here, why am I here and where, if anywhere, am I going?”

Most importantly, David offers, with a spirit of humility and compassion that, for anyone who knows him, has come to define his character, a GPS to heaven. He lays out the biblical road map to eternal salvation.

In a recent column entitled, “Why I wrote ‘Jesus on Trial,’” Limbaugh captures, in part, why this book is the most wide-ranging Christian non-fiction I’ve come across. He explains what makes it quite different from any other. “It is on Christian apologetics, which means it defends the Christian faith and its truth claims,” he writes, “but it also includes my personal journey from skeptic to believer and a discussion of basic Christian doctrine.”

The book incorporates “a thorough discussion of the full humanity yet full deity of Jesus Christ, an examination of the Bible’s miraculous unity, many examples of undeniably fulfilled prophecies that are too specific to be dismissed, a comprehensive review of the evidence pointing to the reliability of Scripture, a look at the subject of truth itself, proof of God’s existence, and much more.”

As for the “much more,” Limbaugh adds, “I also thought it would be vitally important to include chapters on subjects that plague seekers and even some believers with doubt – science and the problem of evil and suffering.”

In many ways this was the aspect of the book I most enjoyed. Limbaugh’s superlative talent for clearly articulating and differentiating between scientific facts and the pseudoscience fiction embraced and propagated by the church of secular humanism, is so well done that even the most rigid atheist may well second guess his own blind faith. In a universe so incomprehensibly designed and fine-tuned that it gives smoking gun testimony to the glory and supremacy of its Designer, to deny, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that this Designer even exists, requires a faith most blind. Limbaugh drives home this reality in a winsome yet compelling fashion. Any intellectually honest atheist who is not hopelessly and haplessly invested in the pleasures of moral relativism, the chief fuel source for the materialist gravy train, will be left no choice, if he’s honest with himself, but to re-evaluate his entire worldview.

I read a lot of books and very rarely, almost never in fact, do I review them. Halfway through chapter 1 of “Jesus on Trial,” I knew a review was coming.

If you’re a faithful believer, Limbaugh’s masterpiece will strengthen your faith. If you’re a faithful non-believer, it will weaken it.

Either way, your soul will be the better for having read “Jesus on Trial.”

According to some surveys, half of all Americans believe that science and religion are in conflict. Closer to home, one-fourth of all young adults from a Christian background believe that Christianity is anti-science.

Given the way that the relationship between religion and science is presented in the media and popular culture, and sad to say, even in our schools sometimes, this is hardly surprising.

But just because people think that the relationship between Christianity and science is a “zero sum” game doesn’t make it so. The truth is very different.

That’s why I’m very excited to tell you about an upcoming one-night event entitled “Science & Faith: Are They Really in Conflict?” sponsored by my friends at the Discovery Institute this coming Sunday, September 21. It will be simulcast in churches across the country. More about that in a minute.

The event features Stephen Meyer, author of groundbreaking books such as “The Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt,” and also John Lennox of Oxford University. And I have the huge privilege of rounding out this august panel. We’re going to address a number of questions, including: has science disproved God?; are science and faith really in conflict and just how “scientific” are the claims of leading atheists?

All of these are vital points in the narrative that increasingly dominates public discourse. In this narrative, as sociologist Rodney Stark wrote in “For the Glory of God,” “heroic” scientists attempt to roll back the curtain of ignorance all the while fighting off attacks by religious fanatics.

This narrative, as Stark and others have documented, is not true now and has actually never been true. If anything, the opposite is the case. According to Stark, the theory of evolution, to name but one example, “has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin’s work.”

In case you’re wondering, Stark insists he has no dog in the evolution versus intelligent design debate.

The use of the language of science as a cudgel against Christian faith is a relatively recent phenomenon. As Stark tells us, “the so-called ‘Scientific Revolution’ of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century.”

Most of the leading lights of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries could reasonably be described as devout Christians. This makes sense, since “the rise of science was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine.” It was based on the belief that “Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it’s necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork.”

That our contemporaries sometimes think otherwise represents the triumph of propaganda that had its origins in the Enlightenment and has reached its apogee in the dogma of scientism, which holds that empirical science “constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”

That’s why I’m excited about the upcoming “Science & Faith” event this Sunday. It’s bad enough that non-Christians have got the story about Christianity and science all wrong. But it’s even more tragic that so many Christians have it wrong, too.

The event is being simulcast in more than 100 churches across the country. I hope you can attend! Please, come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and we’ll link you to the list of churches hosting the event.

Churches and Other Groups Co-Hosting “Science and Faith” Simulcast on Sunday, Sept. 21, 2014

For the Glory of God
Rodney Stark | Princeton University Press | August 2004

A Passion for Truth
Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | February 6, 2007

Wilfredo De Jesus is pastor of New Life Covenant Church in Chicago and is the author of “In the Gap: What Happens When God’s People Stand Strong.”

A gap, as in Ezekiel 22:30, is a place of vulnerability, exposure, risk or weakness.

Is the church filling the gap?

“I’ve seen so many Christians – leaders – not wanting to get involved,” says De Jesus. “And it’s really the opposite because He says in Ezekiel,  I’m looking for a man who will stand in the gap. And if you read that verse, He says, I didn’t find out one person.”

De Jesus, known as “Pastor Choco,” made Time’s “100 List” in 2013. He

A small remnant is involved in helping resolve the nation’s issues but De Jesus says most want to see it from a distance, to let the government handle it when God is looking for Christians to stand in the gap.

“Those pastors would say, Hey, if I had the money I would do the ministry. They’ve got it backwards,” says De Jesus. “Do the ministry and God will send you the money. So we cannot depend on the government.”

Pointing to various biblical figures ranging from David to Deborah to Nehemiah and John the Baptizer, De Jesus says they saw a situation, stood in the gap, and God gave them victory.

He says Christians can do the same today.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.  

I’ve got to admit, I was surprised—and touched—by the number of positive emails and comments I received from BreakPoint listeners in response to my commentary on the death of Robin Williams and the scourge of depression.

In that commentary, I focused on the fact that clinical depression is a serious medical condition—and if you or a loved one suffers from it, you need to get help.

Today, I want to talk about another aspect of depression: the role that our beliefs can play in our moods. As someone who’s suffered from depression, I can tell you, it’s complicated. In addition to infelicitous brain chemistry, it can also be a product of our personal circumstances and the beliefs through which we interpret those circumstances.

Let me be clear from the start: People can believe all the right things and it still might not be enough, as the tragic story of Matthew Warren illustrates. Why this is the case is something that we will not understand this side of eternity.

But this is not the same thing as saying that our beliefs are immaterial when it comes to depression and suicide. Therapists treating people for anxiety and depression often use what’s known as “cognitive behavioral therapy,” which starts from the assumption that the illnesses are due, in part, to “maladaptive thinking.”

Anyone who has struggled with depression knows what “maladaptive thinking” feels like: a “tape” of sorts running in your head filled with largely untrue messages of helplessness and hopelessness. Since people believe that what they think is true, the thoughts influence our actions and our moods. Overcoming depression requires turning the tape off, which is easier said than done.

If untrue thoughts play a role in depression, doesn’t it stand to reason that we should be concerned about the cultural messages and trends that can shape the content of those thoughts?

Obviously, brain chemistry and our personal history are more influential, but it would be unwise to ignore the impact of culture.

Case in point: at the recent Emmy Awards, comedian Sarah Silverman half jokingly told the audience “we’re all just made of molecules and we’re all hurling through space right now.”

It’s hard to imagine a more succinct summary of the nihilism and materialism that dominates cultural discourse. Hardly a week goes by without a story telling us that “science” has found that qualities that make us human—love, altruism, the appreciation of beauty—are just molecules doing their thing in our heads.

This kind of thinking reduces human existence to, as Shakespeare famously put it, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” It makes “not to be,” to reference Shakespeare again, a reasonable response to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and the sea of troubles.

What it doesn’t do is give us a reason to choose life even in the midst of pain.

For that you need hope. A good friend of mine who also suffers from depression has taken to praying certain Psalms when he feels what Churchill called “the black dog on my shoulder.” For instance, such as Psalms 42 and 43 with their refrain “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? ” and the Psalm which our Lord prayed on the cross, Psalm 22, which opens with the great cry of abandonment, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

He prays them because, while they do not deny the pain, they don’t let pain have the last word. We are told to “Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,” and also “I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.”

This is what hope looks like. It’s the tape we all need running in our heads.

There is no one-size-fits-all cure for depression. But there is help for those who need it. The links below are to a few of the many resources and organizations available.

The Asphyxiation of Hope: Robin Williams, Suicide, and Depression
Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | August 20, 2014

A series of articles on depression by Dr. Bruce Hennigan and others is introduced at this link
Focus on the Family

What is Depression?
National Institutes of Health

Depression Support Center
WebMD

Depression Resource Center

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org webstie.

Why do we assume that compromise is a good thing? The word itself provokes a Pavlovian response across Western culture, but is compromise categorically a good thing? By definition, compromise requires all parties involved to meet somewhere in the middle of their respective positions, yet half of Evil is still Evil, is it not? Should we applaud those who compromised with Josef Stalin for their statecraft? How does history view Neville Chamberlain and the lives which were lost as a result of his lack of intestinal fortitude and willingness to compromise? Compromise can be a good thing, but not when two positions are diametrically-opposed. In that type of situation, there is no way to meet in the middle without denying the validity of your own position.

Francis Schaeffer was masterful when he spoke against this fallacy of synthesis or “dialectical thinking”. He realized that our culture has shifted from thinking in terms of thesis/antithesis, preferring to ignore logic and reason in order to embrace synthesis.

So when the nation of Israel states their position to be unequivocal in regards to the safety of their citizens and Hamas states their position to be unequivocal about the annihilation of the nation of Israel, it is idiotic to pretend that the two positions are reconcilable. There is no “compromise” possible since the two positions deny the validity of the other side’s position. Would Secretary Mashed Potato-Face favor an agreement where Israel is half-annihilated? This is synthesis, the attempt to blend together two incompatible concepts.

In this way, and many others, we have abandoned logic and reason for emotion. We take a stand for what feels right instead of what is logically possible. In addition to this emotional governance, we’ve been indoctrinated to believe that conflict is a bad word. Progressive ideals have been so fully-assimilated into our culture that we prize progress (e.g. moral and cultural erosion) over principled opposition. Thus we see progressive Republicans asking for compromise and standing with the Left, helping to vilify conservatives for their stubbornness to get into the boxcar. Too often we crave compromise and run from conflict, when we should crave conflict and run from compromise, when the stakes are ideological.

The political climate in America today is not a result of disagreement on policy. This is not a political spat which will blow over in an election cycle or two. This is an ideological war over the future of America and (by proxy) the rest of Western civilization. It’s clear that there is no other “shining city on a hill”. It is us and then….nada.

So when we see the footage and watch the interviews from places like Ferguson and Murrieta, it’s readily apparent that the two sides aren’t even sharing the same ballpark. Those who held the line against immigration anarchy in Murrieta stood for the rule of law, a secure border, and a clear legal immigration policy. How does one compromise on any of those positions without losing the foundation of your position as a whole? Should they settle for adherence to the rule of law every other week? Should they accept a mostly-secure border? Or a moderately-clear immigration policy?

The reality is that one of the worldviews on display in America will win. We will either complete the fundamental transformation into a socialist, progressive state or we will return to our roots of liberty, bucking the whip and chain. So for us to pretend that if we play enough patty cake they’ll give us our Legos back is beyond naïve, it is dangerous. There is only one way conservatism will prevail and that is by fighting this ideological war wherever we encounter resistance. It will undoubtedly provoke hatred.

We’ve seen glimpses of the riotous wrath which bubbles to the surface whenever conservatives dare to draw a line in the sand. When Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin sent salvos across the bow of USS Obama in her nomination acceptance speech, the conservative base was rejuvenated almost overnight. As was the hateful opposition, who dragged her name, family, and career through the mud in order to compromise her candidacy. But Sarracuda is still standing, stronger than ever; as are the principles of Constitutional conservatism. We can either confront Totalitarianism in America, paying the requisite price, or we can kiss the ring of Compromise, purchasing the esteem of total strangers at the cost of our nation’s soul.

This article was originally posted at the ClashDaily.com website.

It’s something most Christian parents worry about: You send your kids off to college and when they come back, you find they’ve lost their faith. The prospect of this happening is why many parents nudge their kids towards Christian colleges, or at least schools with a strong Christian presence on campus.

But in many ways, the damage has been done long before our children set foot on campus. That’s the message from an article in the Atlantic Monthly.

My friend Larry Taunton of the Fixed Point Foundation set out to find out why so many young Christians lose their faith in college. He did this by employing a method I don’t recall being used before: He asked them.

The Fixed Point Foundation asked members of the Secular Students Associations on campuses around the nation to tell them about their “journey to unbelief.” Taunton was not only surprised by the level of response but, more importantly, about the stories he and his colleagues heard.

Instead of would-be Richard Dawkins‘, the typical respondent was more like Phil, a student Taunton interviewed. Phil had grown up in church; he had even been the president of his youth group. What drove Phil away wasn’t the lure of secular materialism or even Christian moral teaching. And he was specifically upset when his church changed youth pastors.

Whereas his old youth pastor “knew the Bible” and made Phil “feel smart” about his faith even when he didn’t have all the answers, the new youth pastor taught less and played more.

Phil’s loss of faith coincided with his church’s attempt to ingratiate itself to him instead of challenging him. According to Taunton, Phil’s story “was on the whole typical of the stories we would hear from students across the country.”

These kids had attended church but “the mission and message of their churches was vague,” and manifested itself in offering “superficial answers to life’s difficult questions.” The ministers they respected were those “who took the Bible seriously,” not those who sought to entertain them or be their “buddy.”

Taunton also learned that, for many kids, their journey to unbelief was an emotional, not just an intellectual one.

Taunton’s findings are counter-intuitive. Much of what passes for youth ministry these days is driven by a morbid fear of boring our young charges. As a result, a lot of time is spent trying to devise ways to entertain them.

The rest of the time is spent worrying about whether the Christian message will turn kids off. But as Taunton found, young people, like the not-so-young, respect people with conviction—provided they know what they’re talking about.

Taunton talks about his experiences with the late Christopher Hitchens, who, in their debates, refrained from attacking him. When asked why, Hitchens replied, “Because you believe it.”

I don’t know what that says about Hitchens’ other Christian debate partners, but it is a potent reminder that playing down the truth claims of the Christian faith doesn’t work. People don’t believe those they don’t respect.

Here’s something that one of the students told Larry Taunton; he said, “Christianity is something that if youreally believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.”

Folks, that’s pretty sobering. This puts the ball in our court. Are we living lives that show our children that we actually believe what we say we believe? And here’s another question—do we actually believe it? I have to say, as a parent I’m taking this very seriously.

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.”  ~Matthew 24:6

I’m not quite ready, just yet, to put on my “The End is Nigh!” sandwich board and go about street preaching in Times Square. Still, for anyone gifted with the Spirit of discernment, it’s hard to ignore the heavy stench of unparalleled spiritual warfare that hangs thick in the air. It pongs as sulfur from Old Faithful in every corner of the earth.

The world is in chaos as never before. Read the news. You see it. You feel it. You know it.

Here’s the shortlist: The specter of an Ebola pandemic, jihadist genocide, the exploding conflict in Israel, Gaza and the larger Middle East, Russia, China, a nuclear Iran, the American border crisis, the collapsing global economy, sexual anarchy, child corruption, the deconstruction of marriage, the abortion holocaust, worldwide rebellion against God’s natural order and a whole lot more.

It looks as though, at any moment, it might all come crashing down with universally catastrophic consequences.

And it might.

The enemy of man knows that his time is short. A spirit of antichrist has come upon the world. It has come to deceive and it has come to destroy.

He is the father of lies. He hates all mankind, but, mostly, he hates God’s faithful – “People of the Book,” Christians and Jews, those who have been washed, redeemed and made whole by the blood of the lamb, as well as our old-covenant brothers and sisters.

None of this is unexpected. For the Christian, “Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of. …” (2 Timothy 3:12-14)

Have we reached the end of the age? I don’t presume to know. But I do wonder.

The world has aligned against Israel. Even the United States, under the pagan governance of Barack Hussein Obama, has betrayed its once greatest ally. “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21: 20).

To this end, the enemy has enlisted an unholy trinity, an Islamo-”progressive” axis of evil, consisting of Islamists, Western “progressives” and the false church (e.g., Christians-in-name-only such as the anti-Semitic, pro-abortion, pro-sexual-immorality Presbyterian Church USA).

The only explanation, as far as I can tell, as to what drives this bizarre and superficially incongruous alliance is best illustrated by the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

But, who is this common enemy?

Well, it, too, is signified by an alliance. It consists of Christians and Jews worldwide. It, too, is built around a shared cause.

But unlike that of the Islamo-”progressive” axis, this cause intends freedom, not tyranny – representative democracy, not control. Most importantly, this Judeo-Christian cause is built upon the rock of truth given us by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of the living, not the dead. The great “I Am.”

At this very moment around the globe – Gaza, Israel, Sudan, the Philippines, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere – we lay witness to a monumental jihadist uprising that seeks to impose an Islamic caliphate and Shariah law on the entire civilized world. Yet, despite this exploding campaign of mass Muslim genocide and a burgeoning anti-Christian holocaust, we likewise witness an inexplicable groundswell of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian hostility in the West.

Incredibly, we see a mass spiritual deception that has led to widespread support for Islamic terrorists, not unlike those in Iraq and Syria, who are gleefully slaughtering, by the thousands, Christians, Jews and even other Muslims perceived to pose a political threat (consider the Western left’s obtuse support for the terrorist group Hamas).

No amount of evidence, logic or reason seems sufficient to pry open the eyes of Western liberals, “moderate” Muslims and other apologists for that violent socio-political tradition called Islam.

That’s because it’s spiritually, rather than cerebrally, discerned.

Still, for the believer, for the true Christ follower, there is joy amid chaos. My friend John Kirkwood, a pastor and columnist from the Chicago area, addressed this phenomenon in a recent exchange he had with one of his readers.

Reader: How do you stay sane with all that’s happening in the world?

Me: I’m a Christian. The central questions are all answered for me so the peripheral distractions can’t steal my joy.

Paul wrote the Epistle of Joy while under Roman house arrest and awaiting the verdict of Nero for a capital crime.

Obama is a piker compared to Nero.

For the believer, life is beautiful regardless of circumstance, of others, of things or the lack of things, or even of worry. Anxiety isn’t an option for the faithful.

I fail often in only recognizing the ugly, but I’m making a point not to allow the world to obstruct my view. May both my witness and my testimony become more and more redemptive.

On his death bed, Patrick Henry said, “Doctor, I wish you to observe how real and beneficial the religion of Christ is to a man about to die. … I am, however, much consoled by reflecting that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones, aided by every power of man, and its triumphs have been complete.”

This is how the Christ follower, the true believer, faces death.

Triumphantly.

Indeed, even as a toxic cloud of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian hate swells black and envelops our blue-green orb, those who attack – that unholy pagan trinity of Islam, “progressivism” and the false church – attack in vain.

The world may, or may not, be on its deathbed.

But it is terminally ill.

Yet even as I write these words, deep joy wells within. For as it is written, “You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word” (Psalm 119:114).

Fellow believers, we are but visitors in a foreign land. Our home is elsewhere.

And so we tarry in joy, even amid the chaos, so that others may join us.

Written by Jim Finnegan, IFI Board Member 

God bless Father Terry Keehan a living example of a true shepherd to his flock at Holy Family Catholic Church in Inverness. Father did that with his proper response to the music director of Holy Family, Colin Collette a practicing homosexual publicly expressed his engagement to another male on Facebook.

The director decided to violate one of the most sacred teachings of our Catholic faith, the sacrament of Marriage. The first miracle of Christ performed at the marriage feast in Cana; a man and a woman, not two of the same sex as Collette is doing.

Collette’s statement “The face of Holy Family has changed forever” is not true. What he is attempting to do is change the face of the Catholic Church by defying one of its most solemn holdings.

It was no surprise when the Archdiocese pointed out that this decision was done with full approval of the archdiocese. “Those [such as Collette] who serve as Ministers of the Church are expected to conform their lives publicly with the teaching of the Catholic Church.” What a “radical” idea this is!

Make this clear, Collette could have continued his work as Choir director. Father Keehan commented, “I know you have been longing to do this for a long time”. By choosing to take a further step and announce it on Facebook, is simply another “in your face” attempt to force the Catholic Church to change Christ’s teaching on Marriage. Something that will never happen. Sadly more and more “feel good” churches have “sold their soul to the devil” and denied 2000 years of the church’s solid teachings on marriage.

I could not be more proud of Father Keehan doing exactly what the Lord expects of him. As all of us, Father will one day stand in front of the Lord for judgment. Especially the Lord’s warning, “Beware of any in authority who would lead any of my little ones astray.” God bless you Father.

The politically correct or “progressive” crowd found a new target this week: outspoken Christian and Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy.

When asked about “out and proud” football player Michael Sam, the former NFL coach said he would not have drafted Sam had he still been coaching. “I wouldn’t have [drafted] him,” said Dungy. “Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it.  It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”

For this comment, ESPN commentator Keith Olbermann named Dungy the “Worst Person in the World” on Monday night. Condemnations of Dungy came from all over.

This is where the “progressive” movement is. If you hold a view that is not in agreement with theirs, you are to be demonized by them, the progressives, who, ironically, don’t believe in demons.

Why do they do this? Because they, the progressives, consider themselves morally superior to those of us who hold traditional values even though, again, ironically, progressives don’t believe in moral values unless they define them. They moralize against those who promote morality.

The progressive movement is out to destroy our country as it has existed. It is against patriotism. It is against religion in general and is in particular hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is against borders. It is against capitalism. Dare I go on? Sure, why not?

It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It wants people depending on government so they can be controlled. It believes government debt is good. It is against our constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments. It is for abortion on demand even through nine months of pregnancy. It wants to downgrade the American military. It rejects the idea that Western civilization is superior to other civilizations. And it most certainly is for promoting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement and punishing people who dare speak against it.

Basically, what I have just described is the platform of the modern-day Democratic Party and the philosophy/agenda of much of the New York/Washington, DC, liberal media, Hollywood and most university campuses. When Barack Obama said he wanted to “fundamentally transform” America, what he was saying to his fellow hardcore progressives was: “I’ve got the wrecking ball ready.”

Sexually, God made man for woman and woman for man. It’s obvious. It’s natural. Progressives can’t stand this. So they are always trying to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality or elevate homosexuality over heterosexuality. When someone like Dungy makes a comment that can in any way be seen as challenging this narrative, then progressives believe that person must be immediately discredited or publicly shamed – no matter the truth of what he is saying.

By the way, having been a sports reporter for a few years I’ve been in many football locker rooms where the players walk around naked or half-naked, changing clothes and going in and out of the showers. Putting a man like Sam, who says he is sexually attracted to men, in with all that beefcake seems unfair to the straight players and a distraction to Sam. Would you put a heterosexual man in the locker room/showers with all the female cheerleaders? Would you tell the girl cheerleaders who objected to this man being in the locker room that they needed to end their bigoted and sexist attitude and treat the man with respect?

Tony Dungy will probably survive being the “worst person in the world.” But the fact that he is in the crosshairs of the PC Gestapo over this comment is chilling to free speech and free thinking.

It’s ironic that the people who now scream the loudest about tolerance have become the least tolerant among us.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.