Category Archives: News

What would public school teachers do if your daughter was raped by a transgender student?

Most people think of public school teachers as good people. But what kind of person insulates themselves from the world of adults? What kind of person hides away from the competitive pressures of private sector employment? What kind of person fears being held accountable by the parents so much that they enlist the FBI to intimidate them for “domestic terrorism”?

Well, consider this story from Red State:

The situation in Loudoun County, VA, has become a point of national interest over the last year as it has come to represent ground zero for the fight against Critical Race Theory and transgender ideology in schools. Parents have stood up at school board meetings and pushed back on policies allowing boys in girls’ bathrooms, books that promote pedophilia, and other perverse directives.

Back in June, one such meeting exploded with multiple arrests after the cowardly school board declared an unlawful assembly. Police officers with no care for the rights of parents grabbed and threw one man to the ground who refused to leave. In what became a viral moment, the man was dragged out with his pants around his ankles.

Now, we have the story behind what happened via The Daily Wire, who put out a multi-thousand-word investigative piece sharing exactly what Scott Smith had gone through. Most of it is behind a paywall, but I will share as much as I can here.

Apparently, “his daughter had been raped by a transgender boy in the girls’ bathroom”:

Per the report, Smith was at the school board meeting because his daughter had been raped by a transgender boy in the girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School. What transpired after that was almost as sickening as the act itself.

Smith was given a no-trespassing order prior to the meeting that forbids him from telling his story. This was all part of an elaborative cover-up by the school district to not publicize the rape of his daughter. In fact, when Smith showed up at the school to complain about what had happened, they essentially accused him of lying and called the police, not on the transgender rapist, but on Smith himself for causing a scene. Luckily, he was able to get his daughter a rape kit that evening that confirmed the crime.

So, the rape actually happened. The rape kit confirmed that a rape happened.  In spite of those facts, the article notes that “the school board announced that they had no record of any rape regarding their transgender policies at their schools”. And also “an Antifa “anti-racist” activist at the meeting claim his daughter was lying”. So there’s what happens to “Believe All Women” when the secular left is the accused. The police assaulted him, threw him to the ground, and dragged him out of the room. And the secular leftists approved of this. They like when the police do this to parents. They think this is the right way to treat their customers.

Men need to be smarter

So, here is how public schools work. It’s not like or or any other retailer. They are a monopoly. Everyone in the country who pays taxes has to pay for their salaries. They get paid whether they do a good job or a bad job. Their customers have no choice to purchase from a different vendor, if their current vendor is underperforming. Parents have to pay first, and then take whatever the public school decides to give them. If the public schools are failing their children, parents just have to keep paying them to fail. There are no refunds. There are no opt-outs. There are no lawsuits. If you try to challenge the teachers, the unions will protect them. If you try to speak up at a school board meeting, you will be arrested by police. The Attorney General of the United States of America has instructed the FBI to prevent parents from challenging these teachers. This is fascism. We are paying them to do this to us.

I will say one thing. It’s the father’s job to engineer his life so that he marries a woman who supports a plan of homeschooling the kids. And you don’t live in Northern Virginia. That’s Democrat territory. Men have to be smart enough to anticipate threats, and plan to avoid them. Marriage and parenting begins with your performance in school, and your choice of career. You can’t complain what public schools do to your children, when you hand your children to them. I would never live in Loudon County, and I would never give my children to the secular left. They will destroy you, rather than be held accountable by you. Your job is to keep paying them, and celebrate the destruction of your children at their hands.

How do Christians justify not engaging secularism, feminism and socialism?

A friend of mine and her husband just quit her church because they were becoming completely woke, demanding that Christians give up their liberties and defer to the wisdom of the secular left government. Well, my friend Jared sent me an article from a bold pastor who doesn’t think that it’s more pious or spiritual to capitulate to the culture.

Here’s the intro:

Spiritualizing cowardice has become du jour.

I am almost surprised we do not hear sermons about how David was being unspiritual, a poor witness, or uppity to fight Goliath.

Had David taken the plank out of his own eye? Surely both David and Israel had enough sins of their own to worry about without warring against the Philistines or their champion. What a hypocrite!

And what in the Biblical text indicates David prayed about taking up their challenge before approaching King Saul and offering to fight?

He should have just gone home like his brothers told him to, and there devoted himself to prayer and fasting until God changed his haughty heart.

So, my 3 enemies in the culture are secularism, feminism and socialism. Each of these is bad for me in different ways. Secularism makes it harder for me to do my job living as a Christian, and being able to speak about the big issues in life. Feminism has brought in the Sexual Revolution, and a host of evils, like abortion, no-fault divorce, and now even the rejection of the complementary genders in natural marriage. Socialism takes away my money and gives it to secular left politicians so they can buy votes from people who are lazy, reckless and irresponsible, driving us further into debt and weakening our ability to respond militarily to aggressors.

Whenever I present these 3 concerns to Churchians, they typically respond with laziness (they don’t want to work to learn how to fight), which results in ignorance (they don’t know how to fight), which results in cowardice (they are afraid to fight). If you point out that they cannot  fight, they try to justify themselves by appealing to piety and spirituality. The truth is, anyone can fight secularism, feminism and socialism – as long as you take time to read some evidence, and practice debating. We actually have great resources for all the challenges we’re facing – it’s just that people would prefer to not have to read or engage. They even have spiritual-sounding ways of getting out of reading and debating. So, the duty to be ready with an answer in 1 Peter 3:15 is dismissed as “pride”. And the duty to defeat attacks against the knowledge of God in 2 Cor 10:3-5 is dismissed as “arguing”. And so on. The Bible is twisted to support whatever is easy, happy and sociable for me. These emotion-based “Christians” fill our churches and dominate our response to the culture.

I’m going to pick my favorite points, but the whole article is worth reading.

First one:

If God had wanted Goliath and the Philistines defeated, He would have sent down fire from heaven or opened the ground beneath their feet. God did that sort of thing at other times. He could surely have performed a similar feat here.

Therefore, real faith on the part of David would have caused him to wait for God to act so David did not have to.

The pious and spiritual way to respond to secularism, feminism and socialism is to wait for God to fix it.

Here’s another one I’ve heard:

Why did David not just ask the host assembled against Israel to go bowling or golfing? Why did he not hand them gospel tracts? The text offers no evidence David tried to befriend them. Perhaps if he had just offered to “do life together” they could have avoided the conflict entirely.

[…]If only the Philistines had been invited to join a small group, or attend a Wednesday night church service. Instead David chose to fight them. How very disappointing. And what a poor testimony!

David was being rather presumptuous and divisive, really, entangling himself in Israeli-Philistia politics. And he was being judgmental, implying that Goliath or the Philistines were evil, a force to be defeated. That is hardly the way to go about winning friends and influencing people.

One more – another I’ve been hit with personally:

Focus on making people want to know about Jesus because of how happy and cheerful you are.

Eventually the lost will hit a low point in their life where they grow tired of being bitter and depressed. That is when they will remember how you smiled all the time, and were always so positive about absolutely everything.

Stop getting bent out of shape about abortion, the LGBT agenda, Islamism, atheism, socialism, evolution, public education, etc. Even if it is not the actual truth, addressing those issues repeatedly is going to give the impression that those things are all Christians care about.

And if you give lost sinners that false impression, you are going to hurt not only your own testimony but the reputation of the entire Church, perhaps even of Jesus himself.

In short, in the interest of not upsetting the world Christians must fall silent and stop talking about sin and folly. Stop calling sinners and fools inside and outside the church to repentance. After all, that’s what Jesus would do. Right?

Isn’t it a wonderful coincidence that each of these strategies frees the pious Churchian from having to read books, get into debates, be shamed and excluded? Everyone wins! Well, except God. But maybe that’s what he really wants – for non-Christians to rule the world, and for Christians to do what feels good and be liked by them?

If you’ve ever had a pastor not knowing how to respond to the secular left (ignorance), not wanting to learn how to respond to the secular left (laziness), or not wanting to endure the attacks of church people who want Christianity to be about their feelings (cowardice), then you’ll find a paragraph about them in this article.

Luke Barnes on the fine-tuning of the strong force and fine structure constant

By now, anyone who has had discussions about scientific evidence for the existence of God knows about the fine-tuning argument. In a nutshell, if the fundamental constants and quantities given in the Big Bang were even slightly other than they are, then the universe itself would not be hospitable for complex, embodied intelligent life.

Here is an article from The New Atlantis written by Australian cosmologist Luke Barnes.


Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.

[…]A universe that has just small tweaks in the fundamental constants might not have any of the chemical bonds that give us molecules, so say farewell to DNA, and also to rocks, water, and planets. Other tweaks could make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible. And with some values for the physical constants, the universe would have flickered out of existence in a fraction of a second. That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.

Let’s look at an example – the strong force. Not only must the strong force be fine-tuned so we have both hydrogen and helium, but the ratio of the strong force must also be fine-tuned with the fine structure constant.

Barnes writes:

The strong nuclear force, for example, is the glue that holds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei of atoms. If, in a hypothetical universe, it is too weak, then nuclei are not stable and the periodic table disappears again. If it is too strong, then the intense heat of the early universe could convert all hydrogen into helium — meaning that there could be no water, and that 99.97 percent of the 24 million carbon compounds we have discovered would be impossible, too. And, as the chart to the right shows, the forces, like the masses, must be in the right balance. If the electromagnetic force, which is responsible for the attraction and repulsion of charged particles, is too strong or too weak compared to the strong nuclear force, anything from stars to chemical compounds would be impossible.

Here’s the chart he’s referencing:

Fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force and the fine structure constant
Fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force and the fine structure constant

As you can see from the chart, most of the values that the constants could take would make complex, embodied intelligent life impossible.

We need carbon (carbon-based life) because they form the basis of the components of life chemistry, e.g. proteins, sugars, etc. We need hydrogen for water. We need chemical reactions for obvious reasons. We need the light from the stars to support plant and animal life on the surface of a planet. And so on. In almost every case where you change the values of these constants and quantities and ratios from what they are, you will end up with a universe that does not support life. Not just life as we know it, but life of any conceivable kind under these laws of physics. And we don’t have any alternative laws of physics in this universe.

By the way, just to show you how mainstream these examples of fine-tuning are, I thought I would link to a source that you’re all going to be familiar with: The New Scientist.

The fine-tuning of the force of gravity

So here is an article from the New Scientist about a different constant that also has to be fine-tuned for life: the force of gravity.


The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

The moment of the universe‘s birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist. While gravity pulled the matter together, the expansion of space drew particles of matter apart – and the further apart they drifted, the weaker their mutual attraction became.

It turns out that the struggle between these two was balanced on a knife-edge. If the expansion of space had overwhelmed the pull of gravity in the newborn universe, stars, galaxies and humans would never have been able to form. If, on the other hand, gravity had been much stronger, stars and galaxies might have formed, but they would have quickly collapsed in on themselves and each other. What’s more, the gravitational distortion of space-time would have folded up the universe in a big crunch. Our cosmic history could have been over by now.

Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within 1 part in 1015 at 1 second after the big bang, allows life to form.

Notice how the article also mentioned “the universe’s birth”, which is part of mainstream science.

When I’m writing to you about things like the origin of the universe, or the cosmic fine-tuning, I’m not talking to you about things that pastors found in the Bible. These discoveries are known and accepted by mainstream scientists. It’s amazing that people are constructing their worldviews without having to account for the birth of the universe and this cosmic fine-tuning. We all, as rational individuals, have to bound our view of the universe with the findings of science. Right now, those findings support the existence of a Creator and a Designer. So why am I seeing so many atheists who are just plain ignorant about these facts? Maybe we should tell them about this evidence. Maybe we should ask them why they don’t account for scientific evidence when forming their beliefs.

Positive arguments for Christian theism