I appreciated this analysis from Ken Ham:
As one opinion piece [from Louise Melling] says,
Religious freedom is integral to this country. It must—and will—be protected. But what is being increasingly recognized is that religious freedom gives us all a right to our beliefs. This right, though, like all our rights, has limits . . . Religious liberty can’t be used by businesses to turn away lesbian and gay couples seeking to celebrate a relationship, or by religiously associated nonprofits who treat women employees like second-class citizens by denying contraceptive coverage.
This writer [Louise Melling], who is discriminating against Christians, also says that no one should be allowed to discriminate because of religious beliefs, “if they want to be true to equality and religious freedom.”
True equality? What about equality for those people who feel that their conscience is being violated when they are being forced to sanction activities with which they disagree? They’re not getting equality! And religious freedom?
Those who stand up for their beliefs are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs! It’s religious discrimination—not religious freedom!
Ham, K. (2015). Is Religious Freedom Only Limited to Belief? Available https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/03/13/is-religious-freedom-only-limited-to-belief/. Last accessed 30th Aug 2015.
According to George McKenna:
American history becomes a story of the valiant struggles of…women against oppression by wealthy white males. From the earliest Puritan times, women’s status “was something akin to a house slave”; Anne Hutchinson was banished merely for insisting “that she, and other ordinary people, could interpret the Bible for themselves.”
That sounds like leftist academic narrative to me. It ignores the fact that men (like Roger Williams) were also banished for making theological claims. If the academic narrative is correct, women were so oppressed that:
From this seventeenth-century comment upon the size of the women’s bonnets, it may be seen that objections to women’s overwhelming and obscuring headgear in public assemblies are not entirely complaining protests of modern growth.
Other records refer to the annoyance from the exaggerated size of bonnets. In 1769 the church in Andover openly “put to vote whether the parish Disapprove of the Female sex sitting with their Hats on in the Meeting-house in time of Divine Service as being Indecent.” The parish did Disapprove, with a capital D, for the vote passed in the affirmative.
There is no record, however, to tell whether the Indecent fashion was abandoned, but I warrant no tithingman was powerful enough to make Andover women take off their proudly worn Sunday bonnets if they did not want to. Another town voted that it was the “Town’s Mind” that the women should take off their bonnets and “hang them on the peggs,” as did the men their headgear.
But the Town’s Mind was not a Woman’s Mind; and the big-bonnet wearers, vain though they were Puritans, did as they pleased with their own bonnets. And indeed, in spite of votes and in spite of expostulations, the female descendants of the Puritans, through constantly recurring waves of fashion, have ever since been indecently wearing great obscuring hats and bonnets in public assemblies, even up to the present day.
- McKenna, G. (2007).The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism. Yale University Press, New Haven, p. 324
- Earle, A.M. (1891). The Sabbath in Puritan New England. Available http://www.reformed.org/books/gutenberg/sabbath/index.html?mainframe=/books/gutenberg/sabbath/The_Sabbath_in_Puritan_New_England.html. Last accessed 30th Aug 2015.
So far, it’s always been a good experience when I’ve been able to meet the people I’ve quoted from on this site. One such person is Joseph Stephen; I love how he took a trope from popular culture, analysed it, and defeated it with Scripture and everyday experience:
I know of a godly woman who was branded filthy by a church elder when he learned she was expecting her sixth child. The parents of any large family, especially a home-schooling one that perhaps also run a family business, will tell you they are extremely busy people. Marital intimacy is not at the top of the list of the ways they spend their time!
I don’t know how many comments I’ve had over the past few years implying “this is what happens when you don’t have a television.” I mention this to dispel that myth. Even if it were true, Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled,” and Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe to them that call evil good and good evil.” The filthiness was in that elder’s mind, not in this dear sister’s heart.
For if believers search the Scriptures they will see God never calls children a nuisance or something to be avoided or limited. God never called a woman filthy for having a lot of children. Rebekah’s family sent her off with the following blessing, written for our learning. “And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them” (Gen. 24:60).
On the contrary, children are a blessing, and those who had none were the cursed ones in Scripture, not those who had children.
Stephen, J. (2010). The Sufficiency of Scripture: The Key to Revival. Pleasant Word, Enumclaw, pp. 80-81
Scott Buchanan said this (in the context of igneous rocks):
The fossil record allows us to trace back some lineages for millions of years. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock layers, which record a succession of biological forms. Radioactive dating of igneous rocks above and below these sedimentary layers provide absolute dating of the sedimentary layers and thus of the fossils within them.
But Shaun Doyle said this (in the context of tuff deposits):
One of the most (in)famous examples is the rather convoluted story of the hominid fossil KNM-ER 1470.5
After the discovery of KNM-ER 1470, the tuff deposit associated with the fossil was first ‘dated’ by the K-Ar [Potassium-Argon] method at 212–230 million years (Ma), but since hominid fossils are ‘clearly’ not that old, the ‘date’ was rejected.
Analysis of selected samples gave an ‘age’ of 2.9 Ma, which was considered acceptable. This was ‘corroborated’ with numerous other methods, and was widely accepted. That is, until another palaeontologist, Basil Cooke, said those dates were 800,000 years too old based on pig fossils.
The pig fossils won the argument—over the five different dating techniques that were all consistent with each other in giving a ‘date’ around 2.7–3.0 Ma. Therefore, the presence of certain types of fossils and evolutionary assumptions provide the primary dating information, and are often used to override other dating methods, even when those other dating methods are all consistent with each other!
- Buchanan, S. (2012). STAN 4. Letters to Creationists. Available https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/. Last accessed 30th Aug 2015.
- Doyle, S. (2014). ‘Precambrian rabbits—death knell for evolution?‘ in Journal of Creation. Volume 28(1) 2014, p. 10.
This then is a time for building, for building on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Christian schools, churches, seminaries, political agencies, economic enterprises, vocational ventures, and much, much more must be started, wisely and carefully, but also eagerly as an opportunity for setting forth the crown rights of Christ the King…
The future thus is ours in Christ, because “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1).
We are fighting on home ground under the Sovereign Lord of all creation. We are battle born, fighting on home ground, under Christ the King. With St. Paul we must say, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31)
Rushdoony, R.J. (2002). Biblical Faith and American History. [ebook]. Chalcedon Foundation, Vallecito. Locations 222, 235
The following was said about Wilfred Elders:
Elders, a former chairman of the Education Committee of the Geothermal Resources Council of the U.S.A., said young-Earth creationists make a fundamental error: They start with their conclusion—that God created the Earth in six days—and then look for the proof. Scientists, on the other hand, “observe the natural world and follow those observations wherever they lead.”
But the following was said by Freeman Dyson, in his book about abiogenesis:
Dyson concluded that [atheistic biochemist Alexandr] Oparin’s theory [of abiogenesis] was ‘generally accepted by biologists for half a century’ but that it ‘was popular not because there was any evidence to support it but rather because it seemed to be the only alternative to biblical creationism.’
- Elders, W. cited in Johnson, M.A. (2005). The Stirring on the Mount: St. Helens Used in Drive to Prove Biblical Creation with Science. NBC News. Available http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7013405/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/stirring-mount/#.Vc7FZ2CyPiY. Last accessed 15th Aug 2015.
- Bergman, J. (2002). “Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis” in Journal of Creation. Vol. 18(2).
Are you willing to sell your birthright, liberty, for a mess of pottage? That’s the issue. Liberals are a strange breed of cat. They’ll puke their guts out in defense of their ‘right’ to abortion and their ‘right’ to violate every norm of decency in pursuit of the ‘artistic’ expression of their precious and vacuous selves, but when it comes to the right to be in control of the sorts of care their bodies receive they reverse course and surrender their liberties.
Vallicella, B. (2009). Health Care: A Liberty Issue. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/08/health-care-a-liberty-issue.html. Last accessed 15th Aug 2015.