It’s helpful to look at countries where the secular left is more powerful, so you can see what they have done with their power. Germany is a good one. France, too. And Canada. And the UK. So, in this post, I have 3 terrifying stories from across the pond that will show you why you should never let the secular left take political power in America. If you do, you will not like the result.

First, here’s an article from the UK Daily Mail:

Figures obtained by the Daily Mail show that some forces are making arrests for ‘offensive’ social media posts at ‘extremely concerning’ rates.

[…]The crime of sending ‘grossly offensive’ messages or sharing content of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’ on electronic communications networks is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

[…]Together, the 39 of 45 police forces that replied to the Mail’s freedom of information (FOI) requests arrested around 9,700 people last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

However, the total arrest figures are likely to be higher, as six forces failed to respond to FOI requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second-largest force in the UK.

Keep in mind that this is the same country that refused to investigate “grooming gangs” (child sex-trafficking rings), because of their fear of appearing “racist”.

And of course, since they are busy intimidating taxpayers for sharing memes, they don’t have time for more serious crimes:

The outcry that the police are wasting their time has increased because official figures show that 90% of all crime went unsolved in 2023, up from 75% in 2015.

Here is an example:

Another alarming example of free speech under threat involved Hertfordshire Police officers arresting parents Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine in January.

Officers held them in a cell for eleven hours, on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications, after their child’s primary school objected to the volume of emails they sent and ‘disparaging’ comments made in a WhatsApp group.

No fewer than six uniformed cops showed up to arrest them for messages which could be deemed sarcastic, but were clearly far from ‘abusive or malicious’.

Under Winston Churchill, the UK won a war against German totalitarianism. Then, under Margaret Thatcher, the UK won a war against Russian totalitarianism. And now the UK is North Korea. You can’t say anything bad about the bad effects of the government’s policies, because the government doesn’t like that.

Second article, also from the UK Daily Mail:

The number of Britons emigrating has hit a new high, it was revealed on Tuesday – as the exodus under Labour gathers pace.

Last year the number of UK citizens going to live abroad was 257,000 – far more than the 77,000 previously estimated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

[…]Net emigration has also peaked since last year’s general election.

In the 12 months to September 2024, a net 116,000 Britons left the country. This is far higher than previously thought. By December, the net figure for the previous 12 months was 114,000. Net British emigration was just 81,000 in 2022.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: ‘Keir Starmer’s punishing tax rises are causing Britons to flee in record numbers.

‘The brightest and the best are leaving the UK for places like Dubai and Milan, leaving the rest of us to pay Labour’s higher taxes.

‘This is evidence that increasing tax too far makes people leave.’

So, every American understands that. We fought a far against the UK over taxation, because when the government taxes you, it diminishes your freedom to live your life how you want. If the government taxes you a lot, then your wife has to work. Then your one child goes into daycare and public schools. But if the government lets you keep what you earn, then your wife stays home and she homeschools your  four children. Taxes are a big deal to people who have a plan about how they want to live. Money is the fuel to run a plan.

Here’s the third article, from ADF International:

75-year-old grandmother Rose Docherty has been arrested a second time and criminally charged for holding a sign within 200m of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, reading:

“Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”

In Scotland, “buffer zones” are enforced within 200m of every hospital, forbidding harassment, intimidation, and “influencing” of anyone seeking to access abortion services.

Despite only having stood silently offering consensual conversation and not having approached any individual, Docherty has been charged with breaching the “buffer zone.”

According to a recent article from Christian Today, it’s not just abortion clinics that have a no-disagreement-with-murder-by-government buffer zone. Soon it wil be expanded to areas around assisted suicide clinics, called “safe access zones”. The UK has found it more profitable to kill patients rather than treat them, so they don’t want any criticism of that policy, either.

I was doing some research on the multiverse theory to prepare myself for an episode of the Knight and Rose Show podcast. I thought it might be a good idea to put the list of objections to the multiverse theory into a blog post, explain them all as simply as I could, and then link to an expert for the details on one more that you can take with you on your apologetics adventures.

So, the first thing is to explain what caused the development of the multiverse theory: the fine-tuning argument. The fine-tuning argument has to do with the constants, quantities and ratios that are simply “given” as parameters to the universe, at the beginning of the universe. The parameters are fine-tuned to allow complex, embodied life to exist. Change the parameters slightly, and you have no life. It’s an argument for design. And the multiverse is supposed to counter it.

Let’s link to something by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, for a quick version of what that argument is all about:

Beginning in the 1960s, physicists unveiled a universe apparently fine-tuned for the possibility of human life. They discovered that the existence of life in the universe depends upon a highly improbable but precise balance of physical factors.⁴ The constants of physics, the initial conditions of the universe, and many other of its features appear delicately balanced to allow for the possibility of life. Even very slight alterations in the values of many factors, such as the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the value of Planck’s constant, would render life impossible. Physicists now refer to these factors as “anthropic coincidences” (because they make life possible for man) and to the fortunate convergence of all these coincidences as the “fine tuning of the universe”. Given the improbability of the precise ensemble of values represented by these constants, and their specificity relative to the requirements of a life-sustaining universe, many physicists have noted that the fine tuning strongly suggests design by a preexistent intelligence. As well-known British physicist Paul Davies has put it, “the impression of design is overwhelming.”⁵

To see why, consider the following illustration. Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate “universe-creating machine”, with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitational constant, one for Planck’s constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculation that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings?

And in a previous post, I wrote about the three examples of fine-tuning that I personally have ready to go in a discussion, the ones that are the simplest for me.

Anyway, atheists were not very happy about what the progress of science had revealed, so decided to invent a new theory to get them out of the evidence. And that theory is the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory simply states that we shouldn’t be surprised to find evidence for design in our universe, because there are billions and billions of other universes where there is no design, and so, we just got lucky.

So, here is my quick list of objections (and brief explanations) to this multiverse theory:

1. Boltzmann Brains: In an infinite multiverse, random chaos should create lone brains with fake memories way more often than real people with bodies like us. So why do we see a universe with embodied intelligences?
2. Inverse Gambler Fallacy: The multiverse says, “Our universe is rare, so there must be tons of others.” But seeing one rare thing doesn’t prove that billions of hidden common things exist.
3. Universe generating factory still needs fine-tuning: Even if a “multiverse factory” spits out universes with different random quantities and constants, it still needs super-precise settings to make any life-friendly ones. The problem just moves up a level.
4. No direct evidence for multiverse: We can’t see, touch, or detect other universes. So far, it’s a story, not science.
5. Infinite universes means anything can happen, making science impossible: If there is an infinite number of actual universes, then anything can happen, and we can’t do science any more.
6. Multiverse can’t explain independent local fine-tuning: The multiverse might explain one dial being right, but not why we find fine-tuning for habitability (and fine-tuning that is correlated with discoverability) at lower levels.
7. The measure problem: Even if universes exist, physicists can’t agree on how to measure probability. Without that, the multiverse can’t explain anything.

So, people really find #4 to be the easiest to remember. By definition, we can’t ever get out of our universe to be able to observe these other universes that supposedly exist. So definitely remember that one. And then #3, because Stephen C. Meyer makes a big deal out of the universe generator needing fine-tuning itself, in his book “The Return of the God Hypothesis”. You can read an essay that mentions it here, written by Robin Collins. And #6 is good too, here is an article by Guillermo Gonzalez about the local fine-tuning (habitability – discoverability link).

But here are some details on #1 in this article from Science and Culture by physicist Dr. Brian C. Miller. Basically, the multiverse theory makes a prediction about what we should see if it were true, but sadly for the design-deniers, our experience contradicts the prediction.

Boltzmann Brains

Standard multiverse models, such as those based on eternal inflation and string theory, predict that the odds are far smaller for a brain emerging from a gradual process in an ancient universe than for a brain emerging from atoms suddenly coalescing in a young universe. In other words, we are far less likely to possess a brain with memories of a real life history than possess what is termed a Boltzmann brain that emerged from quantum fluctuations in the recent past with fictitious memories.

Since no one desires to believe in such freaky observers as Boltzmann brains, physicists have grappled with our being such seemingly improbable normal observers. In addition, our universe is highly atypical in its old age and its high level of order. Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of a universe appearing as orderly as ours to be 1 chance in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 — a number that includes more zeros than the number of atoms in the visible universe.

So, I hope that’s enough to equip you to discuss this theory. Now you have everything you need. Three easy examples of fine-tuning, and four easy refutations of the the counter to the fine-tuning. This is a solid argument, so have fun with it.

There’s a new article the UK Telegraph, with the headline: “Government ‘withholding data that may link Covid jab to excess deaths’”. The subtitle is “UKHSA argued that releasing figures would lead to ‘distress or anger’ of bereaved relatives if connection were discovered”. The UK government, a leader in COVID hysteria, is refusing to release data that would show what they caused.

It says:

The public health watchdog has been accused of a “cover-up” after refusing to publish data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) argued that releasing the data would lead to the “distress or anger” of bereaved relatives if a link were to be discovered.

Public health officials also argued that publishing the data risked damaging the well-being and mental health of the families and friends of people who died.

Last year, a cross-party group expressed alarm about “growing public and professional concerns” over the UK’s rates of excess deaths since 2020.

In a letter to UKHSA and Department for Health, the MPs and peers said that potentially critical data – which map the date of people’s Covid vaccine doses to the date of their deaths – had been released to pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain.

[…]UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.

It’s important to be skeptical of any dogmas embraced by the secular left. They are alarmed by human freedom and personal responsibility, so they tend to seize on anything that that attacks them. Their goal being to equalize outcomes for all, regardless of persona life choices. They don’t like that some people choose to buy big SUVs. They don’t like that some people live in big houses. They don’t like that some people have a lot of children. They don’t like that some people send their kids to better private schools. They REALLY don’t like when families homeschool their kids. They want everyone to agree with them, and they often use government to achieve that goal. That’s why they get so excited when everyone isn’t moving in the same direction that they want. Like with Darwinian evolution, man-made global warming, and pandemics.

Keep in mind that people were losing their jobs left, right and center because of their refusal to take these vaccines. And anything you said online was being scrutinized to shut down your free speech.

Now might be a good time to review my reason for not taking any COVID vaccines: manufacturer liability waivers. I simply do not use products made by companies who bear no consequences for causing me harm. That’s also my reason for disliking government monopolies by the way. I don’t like big government, because so often, they have get-out-of-jail-free cards for their crimes – just look at Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecure e-mail server as a good example.

This far-left CNBC article is from December 2020, and it says:

If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law.

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer
and Moderna
immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.

“It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law.“

You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.

Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade.

And then there was a more recent article from the far-left Bloomberg News in December 2024, letting us know that these get-out-of-consequences-free cards had been extended:

The US Department of Health and Human Services is extending through 2029 liability protections for those producing and administering Covid-19 vaccines, in a move to guard against future potential health emergencies.

[…]The announcement comes as people working in the vaccine injury space have called for Covid-19 vaccines to be covered under the HHS’ Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Known as the VICP, the program pays people injured by standard childhood vaccines and shields drugmakers from litigation.

Covid-19 vaccine injuries aren’t currently covered by the VICP.

Extending the protection from liability was one of the last things that Biden (or his autopen) did, on his way out.

People need to be wise when deciding who to believe about things. Most of the people in the commanding heights of this society think that the universe is eternal, that there’s a viable naturalistic explanation for things like the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, cosmic fine-tuning, etc. People believe that abortion doesn’t take a human life and that human action has more effect on global temperatures than solar activity. So, that’s how some people arrive at their beliefs – whatever makes them feel good. Whatever makes them get approval from the elites. Whatever leads to more and bigger government making everyone “equal” – especially equal in their beliefs about things.

These people haven’t done any work to investigate anything themselves. It’s just convenient for them to believe it. In totalitarian regimes, lots of people committed atrocities because that’s what was easiest for them. The trick is spotting the trends and getting out before they can force you to go along with their schemes.