Things are going very well for us in the United States in the new Trump administration. Pro-lifers are getting pardoned, government spending is being cut, the border is being secured. But what about in other countries that are ruled by the secular left? Are they like us, or are they different? I have a couple of stories in this post that will make you never want to set foot in the UK.

First story is new, and it’s from Daily Signal (my favorite news web site):

Police in Scotland arrested a 74-year-old grandmother for silently offering to speak to women outside an abortion facility, if they wished.

Rose Docherty stood outside the abortion wing of Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow holding a sign that read, “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” Two police officers insisted she desist, handcuffed the elderly woman, and charged her with violating the abortion facility’s “buffer zone” barring free speech within a wide radius of any abortion facility.

The pensioner’s arrest last week is the first made under Scotland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act. Those convicted face a fine of 10,000 pounds (approximately $12,600 U.S.) or an unlimited financial penalty if their expression is deemed serious.

The member of Scottish Parliament who wrote her own nation’s law, Gillian Mackay of the far-left Scottish Greens, denounced any and all peaceful pro-life advocacy outside abortion facilities as “utterly shameful and I am grateful to Police Scotland for acting so quickly.”

Here’s a photo of Gillian Mackay, so you know what secular left fascists look like:

And by the way, this bill was not passed by a narrow margin. It was passed 118 votes to 1. So that should tell you something about free speech in the UK.

More:

Docherty’s arrest mirrors an English city’s charges last year’s against Livia Tossici-Bolt, 63, who held a sign outside an abortion facility in Bournemouth, England. Her sign read, “Here to talk, if you want.”

[…]“For several years now, I have been offering a helping hand to women who would like to consider other options to abortion, and pointing them to options where they can receive financial and practical support, if that’s what they would like,” said Tossici-Bolt. “There’s nothing wrong with offering help. There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.”

She would be fine in America, but not in the UK.

Here’s another article from Fox News that I saw that is from August 9, 2024, but I never blogged on it, because I somehow missed it.

It says:

London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the U.K., but on American citizens as well.

“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.

So, the UK is not a very wealthy country. They have a health system that is bankrupt, and performing so poorly that the government actually pays hospitals to kill patients. So, it’s very funny to listen to this man threatening American citizens with deportation.

It’s not like the UK is doing a good job of enforcing the law against their many, many, many, many child sex-trafficking gangs. And that might be because certain people high up in the police are partakers in the child prostitution activities, and they want it covered up. Maybe they think that child sex-trafficking is OK for some cultures, and that it’s wrong to criticize it. They don’t arrest the child sex-traffickers very quickly in the UK. Complaints from the parents just get ignored and covered up by high-ranking policemen. So what do the high-ranking policemen focus on instead of child sex-trafficking? They’re more likely to arrest people who complain about children being sex-trafficked. That’s the big concern of police in the UK.

And remember, the UK does not want any inquiries about their child sex-trafficking:

British lawmakers voted against launching a national inquiry into the U.K. grooming gang scandal on Wednesday, after objections to the way the vote was being put forward – and amid international scrutiny of the crisis spearheaded by Elon Musk.

The House of Commons voted on an amendment to hold a statutory inquiry into the scandal – where it was revealed that men of predominantly Pakistani heritage had sexually abused girls for years in towns in northern England.

Again, not a country that Americans need to be visiting. Not a safe country. Not a country that respects basic human rights. Get out of there if you can, and never travel there. They are in decline.

In the post below, please find the video and summary of a fairly recent dialog between my number one favorite Christian scholar, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Saleem Ali. The summary is not snarky, because this was a great respectful dialog!

Here is the video:

Here is the short summary:

Saleem Ali and Stephen Meyer debate the origins of order in nature on “Unbelievable.” Ali, an environmental planner with a PhD from MIT, argues in Earthly Order that natural laws and human constructs shape sustainability, remaining agnostic about a designer. Meyer, a Cambridge PhD and Discovery Institute scholar, asserts in The Return of the God Hypothesis that life’s specified complexity, cosmic fine-tuning, and the universe’s beginning suggest an intelligent design. They explore self-organization versus top-down causation, the nature of physical laws, and agency’s role, agreeing on order’s reality and determinism’s limits, but differing on its source—Ali favoring empirical humility, Meyer theistic inference.

And here is the long summary:

The conversation begins with Saleem Ali introducing his book, Earthly Order: How Natural Laws Define Human Life, published by Oxford University Press. Ali, chair of the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware, frames his work as a quest to understand how order underpins a sustainable future. His intellectual journey traces back to his PhD at MIT, where he engaged with Stephen Jay Gould, whose concept of science and religion as “non-overlapping magisteria” sparked Ali’s interest in order’s functionality. Trained as an environmental planner, Ali seeks solutions-oriented insights, aiming to bridge natural laws with human constructs like economics and society. He spent nearly two decades refining this interdisciplinary approach, resulting in a book that spans physics, chemistry, biology, and social systems. Ali distinguishes between two Greek concepts of order: cosmos (natural order inherent in the universe) and taxis (constructed order imposed by humans). He illustrates this duality with examples—biomimicry in city planning reflects natural order beneficially, while stereotypes show constructed order gone awry. For Ali, order is both intrinsic to nature (e.g., physical laws) and a human projection, but he remains agnostic about whether it demands an explanation beyond material reality, emphasizing humility given empirical limits.

Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, counters with a perspective rooted in his book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. With a background in physics, earth science, and philosophy of science (PhD from Cambridge), Meyer argues that certain orders, particularly in biology, suggest a designing intelligence. He highlights three key evidences: the universe’s beginning, its fine-tuning, and the informational complexity of life, which he believes point to theism over materialism or pantheism. Meyer differentiates between repetitive order—like the crystalline structure of salt (NaCl), reducible to simple physical laws—and specified complexity, such as the genetic code in DNA. The latter, he asserts, involves a precise arrangement of parts for function, akin to software or language, and is not derivable from physics or chemistry alone. Drawing on historical science, he cites Kepler’s view that nature’s intelligibility reflects a rational creator, a belief that fueled the scientific revolution’s blend of confidence in discovery and rigorous testing against human fallibility. Meyer’s first book, Signature in the Cell, took nearly two decades to complete, mirroring Ali’s timeline, and argues that life’s digital code implies agency—an intelligence behind its origin.

Their discussion pivots to the origin of life, revealing a central tension. Meyer critiques bottom-up, self-organizational models proposed by scientists like Stuart Kaufman and Manfred Eigen. He acknowledges these models explain simple patterns—like vortices or crystals—but argues they fall short of accounting for specified complexity. For instance, Kaufman’s metabolic scenarios presuppose highly specific molecular arrangements, begging the question of their origin, while Eigen’s hypercycles assume pre-existing RNA and enzymes. Meyer bolsters this with experimental evidence: protein folds, essential for biological function, are rare and isolated in sequence space, as shown by Douglas Axe and Dan Toffik’s research. Modifying a stable fold risks losing function, suggesting new folds require external information—evidence, he claims, of top-down design. Ali responds by noting the contested nature of origin-of-life research. He references evolving theories—e.g., the shift from primordial soup to RNA world, and emerging ideas about metals like aluminum, abundant yet rejected by life for bioenergetic reasons. Citing Frances Arnold’s Nobel Prize-winning work on enzyme design, Ali argues that natural processes are “messier” than a neat top-down model implies, with redundancy and trial-and-error playing roles. He urges caution against over-interpreting patterns as deterministic causality, whether from intelligent design or speculative physics like string theory.

The nature of physical laws emerges as another focal point. Meyer views laws as descriptive rather than explanatory, critiquing the materialistic tendency to reify them as causes. He uses Newton’s gravity—consistent with both an apple falling and a rocket flying—to illustrate that laws permit many configurations without specifying them. At the fundamental level (e.g., gravitation, electromagnetism), laws describe recurring phenomena with precision, but their cause remains mysterious absent a deeper principle. Meyer proposes a theistic view: laws reflect God’s sustaining action, a medieval concept of potentia ordinata (ordinary power), offering a philosophical alternative to Hume’s skepticism (laws as mental habits) or positivist causation. Ali agrees that cosmos-type order exists—evident in constants like the fine-structure constant or Martin Rees’ “six numbers” defining a Goldilocks universe. However, his focus is practical: how do these laws, as constraints, inform environmental planning? In Earthly Order, he explores planetary boundaries and tipping points, noting humans can temporarily override natural limits (e.g., through technology), but long-term consequences enforce equilibrium. Ali donates his royalties to science literacy, underscoring his goal of fostering environmental awareness.

Consciousness and agency bridge their perspectives. Meyer sees life’s informational order as hinting at mind’s cosmic role, citing origin-of-life simulations where chemists impose constraints to achieve life-relevant outcomes—imparting information that mirrors top-down causation. He suggests these experiments reflect a need for intelligence in life’s origin. Ali, while open to consciousness as an emergent property, prioritizes its utility for sustainability over metaphysical resolution. Both reject determinism—scientific or theological—for negating agency. Meyer ties this to intelligent design’s push against methodological naturalism, which excludes agency as a scientific cause, advocating for intellectual pluralism rooted in early scientists like Newton. Ali concurs, noting determinism’s pitfalls in theology (e.g., fatalistic asceticism) and science, valuing human agency to navigate complexity.

Religiously, Ali identifies as a cultural Muslim, favoring allegorical over literal interpretations of faith. He’s agnostic about a divine mind, wary of exclusionary theism but open to benign frameworks that inspire hope, echoing Churchill’s view against stripping people of meaning. Meyer, a theist, embraces pluralism as a civic virtue, citing James Madison’s Christian-influenced advocacy for tolerance. He sees agency—human or divine—as a real ontological category, enriching reality beyond reductionism. Their shared disdain for rigid determinism and appreciation for order’s mystery forge common ground, despite Meyer’s evidence-driven theism and Ali’s pragmatic agnosticism.

In sum, Ali’s Earthly Order explores order’s spectrum from cosmos to human constructs, aiming for sustainability, while Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis infers a designing mind from life’s complexity and cosmic fine-tuning. They converge on order’s reality and agency’s importance, diverging on its source—Ali with empirical humility, Meyer with theistic inference.

Let’s look at a tweet from a conservative Christian pro-marriage activist named Katy Faust. Katy is a very conservative Christian who advocates for marriage and parenting. She recently tweeted her view that Elon Musk is a polygamist, because he is accused of having consensual recreational sex with a 26-year-old woman. Is Katy right to accuse Elon Musk of “polygamy”?

Here is her tweet.

And it says:

Elon is a modern day #polygamist- a family structure characterized by jealousy & inequality.

“Musk has never asked to see the baby, nor asked for photos of him”

St. Clair [asked] to meet “Hmm ok,” EM responds, “Well, I do have a legion of kids to make.”

And she links to this article in the New York Post, which clearly explains why this is not “polygamy”, it’s just premarital sex between an adult female and a wealthy non-Christian man.

In general, pro-marriage conservatives tell women like Ashley St. Clair two things:

1. When a man and a woman have recreational premarital sex, only the man is to blame. The woman didn’t do anything wrong.
2. A women should expect that premarital sex with a non-Christian man who has many babies with many other women will cause that man to convert to Christianity and marry her.

So, what happens when tall, hot, wealthy high-status bad boys like Elon Musk don’t comply with the message that pro-marriage conservatives tell young women? Well, then they ignore the woman’s own choices, and only shame and blame the man. “Why isn’t this bad man behaving like a good man?!” they cry.

This attitude that women should be free to follow their hearts, and men must be forced to pay for her choices is EVERYWHERE in our society. It’s in student loan bailouts, it’s in single mother welfare, it’s in the family courts. As I blogged previously, men receive much longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes. Men are just walking ATMs, and whenever women do something that doesn’t work, it’s ALWAYS a man’s fault, and men must ALWAYS pay the costs.

And this view is very popular. When I say popular, I think this is the majority view among Christian women and Christian pastors. They think that the main teaching of Christianity is just that men ought to transfer all their money to women after having premarital sex. That’s it. And they call this “servant leadership”. Women lead the relationship, and men just give them money,. Just like an ATM. And the entire family court system reflects this view – if a man disappoints a woman in any way, then she should just take half his stuff, and he should have to pay her alimony and child support forever. In fact, you don’t even have to get married. And you don’t even have to cohabitate. The courts will transfer the money.

How will men respond to this? Well, here is how they respond. The top 20% of the most attractive, wealthy and high status men will continue to be pursued by hordes of women like this 26-year-old woman, and these men will continue to get free sex with no commitment from these women. These men have options. They don’t need to commit to get sex. The line for them is around the block. The line is over the river and through the woods. 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men. Far from finding non-Christian man-sluts repulsive, most women are attracted to their “dark triad” traits. And the pro-marriage conservatives just let these women follow their hearts. Then they turn to the bad men and try to shame them for being exactly what they are: BAD. “You bad man! How could you be bad?” they cry. They make the shocked pikachu face. And women watching get the message: keep chasing the tall, hot bad boys, nobody is ever going to hold us accountable for our bad choices. This is where abortion, fatherlessness and frivolous divorce come from, by the way.

Meanwhile, the bottom 80% of ordinary men, will continue to be invisible to these women… until these women hit 35-40. Then the aging women will ask “where are all the good men?” And then the pro-marriage conservatives will be right there, to point at the formerly-invisible men and say “you boring, stable men! You have to marry this single mother, who thinks she is settling for someone far beneath her because she once has sex with Elon Musk!”. And those men are going to say – and they are saying it now – “I DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE”. And then the pro-marriage conservatives will write articles to shame those men, but those men aren’t going to be shamed into becoming slaves. Not when they are just coming into their highest-earning years, and without any help from women.

So, who is responsible for the decline of marriage? Contrary to popular belief, it is not men. It is the pro-marriage conservatives. They are the ones who are clearly communicating to young women that is fine to chase premarital sex with tall, hot, wealthy, high-status bad boys. And they tell them to keep expecting these non-Christian man-sluts to suddenly change into Christians and commit, after they get premarital sex. It’s the pro-marriage conservatives who are setting false expectations of what happens after sex.

And this view that women must be left free to “follow their hearts” is everywhere in society. Women live in New York City, travel to Europe, and run up student loans for worthless non-STEM degrees. Women must have recreational sex in their 20s and 30s, delay marriage for career, and throw their fatherless kids into daycare. Or abort them. Oh yes, the pro-life conservatives only blame the tall, hot, non-Christian bad boys for abortion. Abortion is never the woman’s fault, because it was totally reasonable for her to expect the non-Christian man would convert to Christianity, marry her, give her all his money, and then transform into Prince Charming – right after she gives him recreational sex.

This is why the invisible good men are declining to date and marry. It’s the lies that pro-marriage conservatives tell young women. Lies that are reflected in our schools, workplaces, police, and courts. Good men know never to be the man that a leftover woman “settles” for, after her fun with the bad boys who she is actually attracted to. They know that they will bear the costs, when she inevitably divorces him. And that’s why the marriage rate is dropping.