If there is no God, who's to say what's right and what's wrong?

What's the battle cry of the humanist? What is their response when we Christians stand on the truth, and seek for this country to follow that right path? "You can't legislate morality!" Ah, but friend, that is where you are mistaken. Because by saying that, you are saying that we cannot have laws barring discrimination. After all, did not the Brown v. Board ruling in fact "legislate morality?" Did not the Suprme Court say that discrimination in education--based on skin color--is wrong? And that it was not to be practiced henceforth? And did not this ruling force schools to integrate? So, to say that the government "Cannot legislate morality" would mean wiping Brown v. Board off the books, thus reinstating segregation. This, of course, is only one example. Their are myriad others as well.

To say "You can't legislate morality!" is, of course, absurd. Are not our laws based on some type of "morality?" You will say, "Of course they are." Then I would ask, "Who decides what is moral?" You will, more than likely, say, "Well, society decides!"

Ah, but friend, what of a "society" that would say, "On this day, we do hereby declare that the act of rape is no longer a crime! The statutes concerning rape shall be stricken from the books! All those currently incarcerated--as well as those currently being tried--for the crime of rape shall go free. No one else will ever be prosecuted for the act of rape!"

But, then, you will say, "Oh for Pete's sake! What civilized society would ever do such a thing?" Good enough question. However, I would end my remarks by asking you this:
"Surely, no civilized 20th Century society would stand idly by while millions of people are gassed, or cooked in ovens, simply for belonging to a certain ethnic group, would they?"

So, do you still want "society" to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong, moral and immoral? Or would you rather determine right and wrong according to the One whose word is, in the very eternal sense, final?

Here I stand. I can do no other.

This post over at Diacrino was the inspiration for the above.

"The Golden Compass"--not as innocent as it will look

There will be a new movie coming out in early December called The Golden Compass. Long story short--the goal of this movie is to get children to believe that God is their enemy. From The Christian Post:

The expected blockbuster, “The Golden Compass,” is named after the American title of best-selling author Philip Pullman’s novel “Northern Lights” and will star actress Nicole Kidman and James Bond star Daniel Craig.

The original children’s novel, part of Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” series, rejects organized religion – in particular, the Catholic Church – and critics of the movie version say the anti-religious elements of the book have been taken out of the storyline so as not to offend faithful moviegoers in the United Kingdom and United States.

“It was clear right from the start that the makers of this film intended to take out the anti-religious elements of Pullman's book. In doing that they are taking the heart out of it, losing the point of it, castrating it,” said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, a British organization that promotes secularism and which Pullman is an honorary associate of.

“It seems that religion has now completely conquered America's cultural life and it is much the poorer for it," she said in The Guardian newspaper Sunday. "What a shame that we have to endure such censorship here too.”

To be quite honest with you, I think they should have left the atheistic aspects in the movie. That way, parents could see the true goal of the author in his books: To kill God. Think I'm kidding? Splinters of Silver, with a quote from Snopes.com:

The series' author, Philip Pullman, is an avowed atheist who has averred that "I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality.'" Critics of Pullman's books point to the strong anti-religion and anti-God themes they incorporate, and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview that "My books are about killing God." (Conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens labeled Pullman "The Most Dangerous Author in Britain" and described him as the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.")

I know some parents who read this--and who hear about the true intentions of the movie--will make some excuse so they can take their kids to see it. "Oh, it's just a fantasy. It's not going to do children any harm. Besdies, the special effects look cool!" They'll hear Nicole Kidman say something like this:

I grew up Catholic, it's part of my essence. I wouldn't do this movie if it was anti-Catholic.

(Not that I'm condoning Catholicism. Just pointing out her hypocrisy.) But let me ask you parents something: Would you want to take your kids to a movie that made fun of your family? Then why would you take them to a movie based on a series of books written by an author whose goal was to kill your Heavenly Father? Who do you fear more? Your kids...or God?

Radical Darwinism: On display now at the Smithsonian Institute (BUMPED with video)

UPDATE: Included in this bumped post is a trailer for the soon-to-be-released (Feb. 2008) movie "Expelled" starring Ben Stein. The movie is an expose about the crushing of dissent in the scientific community, and especially on college campuses. A place where there is supposed to be, you know, that whole "freedom of speech" thingy. One of the people this movie focuses on is the subject of the post below.
---------------------------------------

(Originally posted on March 1, 2007)
This article, from The Discovery Institute, makes one wonder, just who is more "radical" in their beliefs: "Bible-thumpin' fundamentalists", or your child's science teacher? Yeah, you're right. That one was a gimme. Seems that Neo-Ultra-Darwnists don't like to have their arguments interrupted by debate, disagreement, or (ahem) facts. Otherwise, all these people would lose out on grant money, they wouldn't be invited to the right parties, and they may not get to ride along on the AlGore "Wacky, Wacky, Warmin' Globe!!" tour.

So, what's the deal? Why are Darwinists afraid of debate?