Some females are without shame and have no sense of Christian propriety, common decency, and biblical principles.

Sharon Hodde Miller, a doctoral student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, said, “A woman’s breasts and buttocks and thighs all proclaim the glory of the Lord.” Yes, we are fearfully and wonderfully made but God did not expect this “glory of the Lord” to be observed by everyone everywhere, especially in church.

She said, “Modesty is an orientation of the heart, first and foremost. It begins with putting God first.”  In that, she is correct; however, if God is first in one’s life, he or she will seek to do all to the glory of God.  A woman is very unchristian if she uses her bouncing breasts, swaying buttocks, or exposed flesh to influence any man other than her husband. It is also a blasphemous use of the female body.

Nutty, shameless feminists in Fort Collins, Colorado, have contended that male and female breasts are identical!  Women brandished their bare bouncing breasts along with signs proclaiming, “My breasts are no more sexual than my mouth or my hands,” “Honk for gender equality,” and “Free the NIP.”

This is not your father’s world!

My deceased philosopher father, with a sixth-grade education, would say, “This world is nuttier than a fruitcake.”  And he would have found it incredible that professing Christians would defend immodest dress.

Some Evangelical and Fundamentalist youth wear shirts declaring “Modest is Hottest” or the reverse, although I can’t imagine Christians wearing something like that.  Whatever one’s definition of “hottest,” it obviously has a sexual connotation.  Why send the wrong message to others?  I wonder what parents are doing in the parenting department.

Are Christians to be “hot”?  That kind of sexual suggestion is not conducive to the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit.  However, non-thinkers tell us never to correct our children since it might stunt their development, and they might even throw a hissy.  Can’t have that.  They also may think they are unloved.

Christians are not to draw attention to self but to Christ.  In Matthew 23:5, Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees saying, “But all their works they do for to be seen of men…and enlarge their borders.”  Enlarge borders refers to Jews who wore fringes on their robes as commanded in Numbers 15:38-39 to remind them to keep the Commandments.  However, some Jews went beyond God’s command and enlarged the borders to draw attention to themselves.  Likewise, people dress outrageously and do strange things to their bodies to attract attention to themselves.

I have often wondered why a beautiful young woman would put metal in her face. For sure, while it will attract people’s attention, it is not attractive. Principled people should know why they believe and practice certain things and not make decisions without reasonable thought.

Paul’s command in Philippians 2:5 to have the mind of Christ will eliminate seductive clothing, inappropriate clothing, piercings, tattoos, expensive jewelry, green hair, Mohawk haircuts, and pants drooping below the 38th parallel.  Christians are not to draw attention to self but to Christ. Believers were called Christians in Antioch because they reminded people of Christ.  Many modern Christians remind me of circus performers.  Shocking, shameful, and salacious dress (or activity) should be unacceptable to decent people.

A Texas public school district announced that any tattoos must be covered, and only ear piercings would be accepted!  Are any churches teaching such honorable standards to their members?  Of course, visitors should be welcomed whatever they wear as long as it meets a minimum standard of decency.

Church of God in Christ is a formal Pentecostal denomination where ushers wear white gloves, and their denominational handbook says, “dressing in a sensually provocative manner produces inclinations to evil desires.”

I agree with this Church of God in Christ statement, although I am not a Pentecostal.

Even Catholic churches are battling this problem of undress. I saw this scores of times on my tours to the Middle East, especially in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. Tourists are asked to be modest when visiting famous historical and biblical church sites.

Often, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are very careless, even indecent, in what they wear to church.  However, I contend that the concern should not only be on Sunday, but everyday indecent dress in public is always unacceptable, ungodly, and unnecessary.

Modesty should be a byproduct of genuine Christianity, although critics confuse modesty with prudery.  Prudery is as abnormal as exhibitionism is at the other extreme.  Modesty is Christian, common, and commendable.  Modest people have respect for their bodies (made in the image of God), respect for social norms, and respect for other people.

Both genders should consider proper dress as a sign of elegance, education, and erudition.  A silent statement is made by immodestly dressed people, male and female: “I don’t think much of myself, and I don’t expect you to value or respect me either.”

In many churches on Sunday morning, it is almost a Sunday Morning Slutwalk with bouncing boobs, cavernous cleavage, gyrating hips, skintight pants (male and female), and skirts slit front, back, and both sides.  It seems tempting, tantalizing, and taunting are parts of some modern women’s arsenal.

Feminists and others seek to remove all responsibility from women for the reactions they get from men because of seductive clothing, while most lusting men put the responsibility for their temptation totally upon the women!  However, smearing honey all over yourself and then strolling through bear country does invite attack by bears!

If the way women dress is not an invitation to men, then why do prostitutes dress the way they do? A good woman will dress to be modest and attractive, instead of modern and alluring. Street walking prostitutes feel a need to dress in salacious clothing to compete with other women.

Exposing the female body and doing the “come on” bit will also attract predator men. Immodest girls are like pigs rolling around in the mud and shouldn’t be surprised when men treat them like pigs.

Many women refuse to admit that their clothing sends a message to others. If they dress like a harlot, they will be perceived as a harlot even when it is not true. Proverbs 7:10 makes clear that dress is associated with prostitution: “And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.”

All women who dress provocatively are not trying to attract men; some are simply careless, thoughtless, or trying to be relevant. However, it is wrong, and their husbands should remind them of the danger of advertising without trying to do so. Proverbs 11:22 says, “As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.” Principled women will seek to be appropriate, wise, and thoughtful of how they are perceived.

It is normal for men to react to exposed breasts and other parts of the female body.  That is the way God made them.  It would be abnormal if they did not react to the exposed female body.  However, men are responsible for their own impure, illegal, and iniquitous thoughts and actions.  Moreover, mere attraction is not lust, but it often leads to lust.

Normal men like to see female skin, but how much skin is permitted?  Some Muslim women are forced to cover their entire bodies except the eyes and hands; others even hide their eyes!  That would be considered going far past modesty to prudery.

The absence of modesty among females is an egregious problem, but I must emphatically state that however wickedly women dress, it does not justify lecherous men’s abusive actions.  While lust is natural, it is naturally sinful.  It dehumanizes the female when a man takes her for himself (even mentally), often to prove superiority over her as well as to satisfy unpermitted personal cravings.

Decent people should ask themselves not only what is acceptable but also what is appropriate for each occasion.  It is a joy to meet a person with a happy smile, pure heart, and noble intentions who is modest, kind, humble, and genuine.  Not many out there!

I’ll be considered naïve and self-righteous for even suggesting they should be out there!

Young boys used to look at National Geographic for naked bodies, strange piercings, and tattoos. In this day, it is easy to see about anything everywhere, even observing leading members of some Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

June is the month when homosexuals and their media lackeys promote the homosexual lifestyle, which they have a legal right to do, but I also have a concurrent right to claim that homosexuality is a deathstyle. The bigots and non-thinkers will quickly charge me with hatred and bigotry as if a caring and sincere person cannot hold an opinion unacceptable to the radical left.

Honest readers will understand that my motives, qualifications, and lack of empathy have nothing to do with the truth. They will ask, “Is it true, and if so, what are the implications?”

A New York Times pro-homosexual article published in 2008 prompted me to respond; however, I did not publish a response. With the astounding ascendency of the Homosexual Lobby and the craven capitulation of politicians, pundits, professors, preachers, and a pope, it is very germane at this time to finish the column.

The writer was Nicholas Kristof, a card-carrying, certified liberal who wrote, “Evangelicals a liberal can love,” that threw kisses to Dr. Rick Warren and his ilk and threw bricks at Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals. He quoted Warren saying, “My only interest is to get people to care about Darfurs and Rwandas.” Well, being a cynic, I suspect Rick also wanted to sell a few books, increase his church membership, and enhance his persona.

Kristof opined that it is intrinsically repugnant to scorn people for their faith then he proceeded to do that very thing! He called profamily Christians “self-righteous zealots,” “Moralizing blowhards,” and “religious right windbags.” But we should  never scorn people for their faith! What hypocrisy, but of course, hypocrisy is a tenet of the religion of liberalism of which Kristof is a high priest!

Kristof must have a Ph.D. in Hypocrisy, Duplicity, and Obfuscation.

But permit me to get to the heart of the matter. Kristof characterized religious leaders, critical of homosexuality, as “self-righteous zealots,” and their position on AIDS “constituted a far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a [homosexual] bathhouse.”  Now, I don’t know what Nick was smoking when he wrote that or if he is simply uninformed about what goes on in homosexual bathhouses. Let me assume he is merely dumb as a box of rocks, and with my research I will seek to educate him about what homosexuals do in city-licensed bathhouses.

A bath is the last thing homosexuals want in a “bathhouse;” the main thing is anonymous sex and homosexuals confess that fact. It goes with their freedom.

The Health Hazards of Homosexuality and other research journals and studies reveal the kind of sex commonly experienced in bathhouses that interests the average homosexual: 

 *Anal intercourse between two men has been the most common activity of homosexual men since antiquity, and all informed people know it is a dirty, diseased, dangerous, and deadly practice.  Only a few years ago, all religions were critical of such a practice, as were all countries and all medical associations. With today’s twisted values, perversion is simply “another way of loving.” For the record, my position on perversion is historic, biblical, and traditional, so I believe what past generations believed. I refuse to believe past ancestors did not know the difference between right and wrong.

*Oral sex is another common practice of homosexuals. See the previous four descriptive D’s above. The National Library of Medicine reveals that “mutual masturbation, and oral and anal sex” is the commonest mode of gay sexual expression reporting that “two thirds (sic) of gay men have anal sex.” However, a study at Indiana University found that changes are taking place and most homosexuals find oral sex more popular than anal sex.

*Up to 22% of homosexuals admit to participating in fisting, which is too vile to describe and the videos too vivid to watch. I have never heard a homosexual or one of their ardent advocates defend the practice; however, they will question my honesty,  qualifications, motives, sexuality, etc. But then, that is much easier than dealing with the despicable practice.

*According to The Gay Report, authored by two homosexuals, about 23% of homosexuals admit they participate in “golden showers” or “water sports” when they urinate on a partner or drink his urine. Moreover, the report admits that 82% participate in “rimming.” Do your own research but have a barf bag handy.

*About 10% of homosexuals “have eaten or played with the feces [e.g., enemas, wallowing in]” of their partners! (Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do.)

*25% admit to sadomasochism or torture. Often one man chains or ties his partner and then whips him into a sexual frenzy. The Sacramento Bee reported that a workshop was offered to San Francisco homosexuals teaching how to be involved in sex torture without killing each other. Many universities have similar workshops. Not your father’s university education.

*90% admit to illegal drug use. They sniff amyl nitrite, which allegedly prolongs sexual ability and excitement. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2007 that the frequency of methamphetamine use is 20 times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.

*According to Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence reveals that homosexuals are violent people and violence is “the third biggest problem in the ‘gay’ community (after AIDS and drug abuse).” As many as 50% of male homosexuals have no respect for and therefore abuse their “lovers,” more than double the rate among heterosexual couples.

*About 46% of homosexuals had sex with minors although it is illegal in all 50 states, even if the youngster is a willing participant. Classic studies have revealed that homosexuals always prefer young boys to older men. About half the practicing homosexuals were seduced into perversion before they were 14 according to J.C. Coleman’s Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life.

*In a twenty-year period, homosexuals, including a Texas engineer, the California Trash Bag killer, and the Chicago contractor, killed about 70% of victims of mass killings All informed, honest professionals know the prevalence of homosexual violence.

*According to the Journal of Sex Research, homosexuals consist of about 2% of the population yet sexually abuse children “16 times the rate of the normal population.” Think the Boy Scouts, Catholic priests, teachers, youth workers, etc.

Considering the above facts, it is not surprising that 75% of homosexuals have had one STD according to Straight and Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate.

Big city hospitals report it is common to nightly remove bottles, flashlights, carrots, light bulbs, and even small animals from men’s rectums after their playtime goes awry!

Hey, don’t look at me like that. I only report the perversion, not explain it. Such practices are dumb, dirty, dangerous, and even deadly and go on nightly, often between complete strangers. Note that  the root of strangers is the word strange.

Many homosexual encounters occur in bathhouses, back rooms of adult bookstores, and public restrooms, even though all such encounters are illegal in all 50 states. When I called for city officials to close bathhouses at the beginning of the AIDS plague (back when it was called GRID or Gay-Related Immune Disorder) because bathhouses were breeding grounds for AIDS, I was ridiculed and called a Nazi, bigot, hater, and homophobe. Moreover, those were the least offensive names I was called! Honest homosexuals grudgingly admit closing bathhouses would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

In my USA Today columns, I demanded that President Reagan’s Surgeon General Koop (an active Christian), stop dancing around the issue, stop talking about condoms, and yell, “Stop your sodomy and illegal drug use.” But he refused and must bear some of the responsibility for the steady spread of the world plague. So, I was not a hater but a lover because I told people the truth while health officials and politicians groveled at the altar of political correctness.

I believe homosexuality is not a sickness or a quirk of the genes, but an evil abomination as taught in the Bible. In society all opinions should be considered, except when the truth is revealed about homosexuality. While many things contribute to homosexuality, it always results from an individual choice. Frankly, homosexuals don’t really exist; only heterosexuals who chose a perverted lifestyle (deathstyle)!

However, because homosexuality has always been so abhorrent, most homosexuals learned early to say, “I was born this way. It isn’t my fault.” They sing that famous old ballad, “My Genes Made me Queer!”

But that’s a fairy story.

In 2015, the American Psychiatric Association admitted that “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology [cause] for homosexuality.” Furthermore, the American Psychological Association declared there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals are “born that way.”

California psychologist Laura A. Haynes declared that the “battle to disprove ‘born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and [Lisa Diamond, a top researcher at the American Psychological Association and lesbian activist] is “telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.” (Cited from The Health Hazards of Homosexuality.)

Even infamous sex expert Dr. Alfred Kinsey (an expert of bugs, not sex and a homosexual child sex abuser) confessed, “homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.” He also admitted there was less homosexuality in devout families whether Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish. Well, that’s one time Kinsey was right.

It must be noted that the fact of less homosexuality in religious families belies the myth of being “born that way.”

Churches, still faithful to Bible teaching, teach that homosexuals are sinners like all mankind and require a Savior. We believe homosexuals must, like everyone else, recognize their sin, repent of sin, and receive the Savior. When they experience the New Birth, there will be a transformation in their lives that breaks the bonds of their sins.

God warns us not to be deceived in I Corinthians 6:9, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who have sex with men], nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.” Note, his readers used to be drunks, thieves, homosexuals, etc. So, there is hope for everyone.

Any homosexual can change to normal sexuality if he is motivated to do so. Dr. Irving Bieber, a psychoanalyst best known for his study Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals believed homosexuality was an acquired characteristic. His research reveals that non-religious psychotherapy claims a 30% success rate while Masters and Johnson claim 72% success; and Gay Community News reported on a survey claiming 40% successful conversion.

Clearly, homosexuality is not inherited but chosen.

Even some homosexuals are wondering if maybe they are in a fast lane on a dead-end road. The homosexual authors of After the Ball asked, “Is this a lifestyle to encourage?” Obviously not, and there is nothing gay in the homosexual way.

The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof were way off base, and their closing statement is an example of hypocrisy, poor thinking, or doing the very thing they railed against in their attack: “We can disagree sharply with their [Christian] politics, but to mock them underscores our own ignorance and prejudice.” Yeah, ignorance and prejudice. Hope they don’t forget how to spell hope!

There is hope for all people including homosexuals, and hope is spelled J E S U S!

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.” – John Bunyan

After Smith’s calm, courageous, and correct assessment of “cooperative evangelism,” Dr. Faulkner criticized him, saying that Graham “was a man greatly used of God” and Smith should not say anything against him. That shows that a good man, even a great man, and even a godly man can say stupid things! The issue is not great crowds or people getting saved but obedience to the Word. The Scripture is very clear that Christians should not encourage unbelieving preachers even if they wear sheep’s clothing over their obvious wolf skins. That is true even if they wear a bejeweled cross around the neck and carry a Bible that they no longer believe and preach.

Graham and Faulkner had known each other since young manhood and had been classmates at Bob Jones College (now University). They remained close even though Graham broke with fundamental Baptists to become the major founder of New Evangelicalism while Faulkner remained in Independent Baptist circles and became one of their most respected leaders. Graham and Faulkner were good friends and talked two or three times a month on the phone and it is good that they remained friends even though they took different paths; however, Faulkner should never have tried to justify Graham’s compromise. Faulkner was my good friend, as was Roberson for whom I had enormous respect; however, there can be no justification for climbing into bed with unbelievers. Yes, talk with them, eat with them in an exercise to influence them but never give any indication that their unbelief is acceptable.

In I Kings 13 there was an old prophet in Bethel who probably had been trained at Samuel’s School of the Prophets (Hebrew Fundamentalists) but had moved to Bethel, a seat of apostasy and location of one of the two “worship centers” boasting a golden calf. The prophet had left his calling, lost his fervor, and lined up with the paganism of King Jeroboam. He was not about to criticize, complain, or confront the king. That would not be a good career move.

So God sent a young prophet from Judah to confront the king for promoting idol worship. After an incredible public experience of his rebuke of the king, a splitting altar, and the king being smitten then healed by the prophet from Judah–the unbelievable happened: the prophet rejected the king’s offer to spend the night at his “White House” and sleep in “Lincoln’s bedroom.” Wow, a man of convictions!

The old prophet of Bethel was a coward, collaborator, compromiser, and cast-away and was overwhelmed with guilt and shame at the courage of the young prophet. The old prophet remembered his youth, idealism, energy, courage, and realized he had sold out and the prophet from Judah was him in his youth. Wanting compliance, complicity, and company for himself, he deceived and led astray the young prophet who then lost his ministry and his life.

While not a perfect example, for there is no such thing, Graham is like the old prophet who wanted the king’s favor as well as all that went with that favor. So, he trimmed his sails to the prevailing winds of political and religious opinion. After all, “one must be practical.” No, one must do right and leave the results up to God.

Billy Graham proved to be so human. He must have thought his legitimate desire for conversions trumped God’s clear commands about running with radicals. His life, like the old prophet from Bethel, proves that the flesh prefers the gold, glory, glamour, glitz, and glitter of the palace to the loneliness of the desert. No one on earth wants to stand alone.

As a young evangelist, Graham was convinced, confident, courageous, and committed but he compromised and no longer confronted evil leaders–political or religious. In fact, he admitted that he had known Bill and Hillary Clinton for many years and had talked to them often but had never discussed abortion or homosexuality with them! He confessed that if he had done so, he would not be invited back to the White House! I rest my case.

While there was some good from Graham’s life and ministry, there was also disillusionment, disappointment, disarray, and defection in the ministry of younger, less talented men.

So tragic!

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

After fouling his nest with President Truman, he learned how to deal with politicians. He used them and they used him. No question about that. He had access to the halls of power but did not use that access to challenge, correct, or condemn powerful officials. He refused to condemn his friend Bill Clinton even saying he was a true man of God and would be a “good Christian evangelist” and that Hillary should “run the country.” What country? And run it where?

Graham is considered the “pastor to the Presidents” but he was a pastor whose voice was quiet when it came to denouncing sin as Old Testament prophets did. Billy was a considered a “prophet without portfolio.” However, he did not qualify as Nathan to David, Jonah to Nineveh, or Jeremiah to Judah. Graham was more like the dumb dogs in Isaiah 56:10 that refused to bark. When I was young, I had a watchdog but he wouldn’t bark, but why have a watchdog that refuses to warn? Graham’s voice was silent; after all, he must not hinder his access to the halls of power. Careful what you say. It was tragic. It is also tragic that informed Christians still defend such compromise.

He was always careful to say the right thing at the right moment to keep his standing with sitting Presidents–always uncritical, unchallenging, and unquestioning. He called President Lyndon Johnson, “the best qualified man we’ve ever had in the White House” and “a very religious person.” Johnson was a moral leper like Kennedy and Clinton.

When Johnson was in deep doo doo because of the Vietnam War and his back was against the wall, Graham called him “the greatest religious leader in the world!” Incredible, since everyone knew Johnson was a filthy mouthed, loud-mouth fornicator.

Johnson knew if he got Graham into his orbit, he also pulled in his constituency. Esquire said it well of Johnson: “Westmoreland was his general, his soldier. Fortas was his Jew. Thurgood Marshall was his Negro. And Billy was his preacher.” Tragic!

Johnson was fearful that Graham would support Republican Goldwater in 1964, (Billy having received 60,000 telegrams in one day urging him to support Goldwater!) so Johnson told Graham, “Now, Billy, you stay out of politics.” Graham admitted, “He even kept me right in the White House on the weekend before the election.” Of course, Billy was not a prisoner. He chose his gilded cage. The Lincoln Bedroom is a very prestigious suite but I wonder if he slept well.

After Johnson abdicated his White House throne in 1968, Graham was called to the bedside of former President Eisenhower whom Graham had suggested a run for the Presidency in 1952. It is declared by Billy’s official biographer that Graham personally baptized Ike shortly after his Inauguration, but that is not true. The pastor of National Presbyterian Church catechized (taught the rudiments of his church) to Ike at the White House and baptized him (not immersion) shortly after his inauguration. It doesn’t matter since no form of baptism has any effect on a person’s salvation.

With tears in his eyes, Ike asked Billy “How can I know I’m going to heaven? How can I be sure, Billy, absolutely sure, that my sins are forgiven?” Graham said he took his cold hand and told him “his whole past was forgiven. I prayed for him.” Ike replied, “Thank you, Billy. I’m ready.” If that’s it, then that was “religious malfeasance” and no Bible preacher would have been so vague but would have spoken of repentance, Christ’s death and resurrection, the New Birth, and sin. Maybe Graham had dealt with that in 1953 before Ike’s election. Ike was the only sitting President who was “baptized” while in office.

Graham’s association with President Nixon is well known and as more details have emerged recently, Graham’s name was besmirched. Billy had said of Nixon, “He is a splendid churchman;” however, Nixon was not even religious or a regular church goer. Graham’s statement came back to bite him when newly released tapes revealed that Nixon used extremely vile language that peeled the paint off the walls of the Oval Office.

Many have said to me, “Well, Billy may have courted the powerful but he still preaches the Bible.” However, that is not true, except at selected times. Moreover, he stopped preaching about abortion, telling columnist Cal Thomas as reported in Flashpoint in August of 1995, “I think the top social issue of our time may be ecology. I think that’s more dangerous…and I’m going to start speaking out on that.” Oh yes, we must be more concerned about bogus global warming than protecting innocent babies!

Graham even told Larry King that sodomites are born sodomites, since, as he said, it is in their genes. Graham was quoting dishonest homosexual activists not unbiased experts or the Bible.

He stopped emphasizing the blood atonement many years ago; after all, that is not very urbane, sophisticated, and chic. A 1968 letter from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association declared, “Mr. Graham believes that we are saved through the blood of Christ, however, this aspect of Christian doctrine he does not emphasize in his messages. This is the duty and prerogative of the pastors.” Well, that would surprise every evangelist for the last 2,000 years.

When he went to Russia, China, North Korea, and Hungry, he had good things to say about those slave nations; all totally untrue statements. Those trips were an amazing display of political correctness toward infamous dictators. Did Graham ever read II Chron. 19:2, “And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord?”

Graham has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy (whether Communists or radical unbelieving preachers) while trying not to disturb the very lucrative cash flow. Only eternity will reveal what he could have accomplished had he stayed true to his original calling, commitment, and convictions.

God will be the final judge in his life and mine. I want to learn from his life. That might be one of the redeeming features of his life if a large host learns from his successes and his failures.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

Over the years, I have spent much time reading the papers, sermons, and books by King. I assume all informed people know that it has been confirmed by King’s people in Atlanta that he was a prolific plagiarizer who did not even try to hide his literary thievery.

However, my concern here is not with his plagiarism or his philandering but with his preaching. It is clear that King preached heresy as his seminary papers and his books reveal. Today, my main target is the papers he wrote at Crozer Seminary.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote, “It seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King continued: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker….To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth.”

Well, we could go back to Isaiah 7:14 where Isaiah promised, “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and [you] shall call his name Immanuel.” Yes, the translation could be “maid, damsel, or virgin” but Matthew 1:23 settled the matter when Matthew wrote, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child…and they shall call his name Immanuel…” The clear truth in Matthew confirms the use of virgin in Isaiah! So that settles that!

However, not for King. He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth declaring, “To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth.” However, a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deals with them from the same perspective. In fact, a different perspective is one reason God gave us four Gospels. Furthermore, no Gospel is more “authentic” than another.

King also takes a scalpel and seeks to excise the core doctrine of His resurrection from the Bible and from history: “From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighted in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do some of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.”

In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.” We Fundamentalists may experience ridicule but at least we can spell it.

He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” He is saying, “You are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.”

As to the atonement of Christ, King wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He explained that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral….In the next place, if Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty is exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive.”

Therefore, according to King, Christ did not triumph over death, Hell, and the grave and the fact that Christ took our sin and guilt upon Himself on the cross is “bizarre” and immoral.

As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment, and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”

Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life. It speaks volumes that he built arguments against the truths of scriptures rather than supporting them. He did not believe the Bible.

So, on Jan. 15, I will not celebrate King’s birthday. I will celebrate the usual way: my wife and some friends will eat frog legs, Peking duck, and steak at our favorite Chinese Restaurant. As always, it will be a great evening.

After all, I get to eat free since it is my birthday.

Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! is available at amazon.com for $3.99.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Jeramiah wrote about people who could not blush in Jer. 6:15. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.” That’s where we are today in our churches. Church leaders and laymen can’t blush because they don’t see any wrong in their aspirations, actions, and accomplishments. Nothing seems to be wrong anymore.

The leaders of the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ left the Scripture long ago and have lost their ability to blush. They departed sound biblical doctrine many years ago, and they’re now celebrating “marriage equality.” Wicked living always follows bad doctrine. These churches advocate transgenderism, but normal sexuality is considered quaint. Other church groups are quickly coming to the same conclusion.

Gordon Clanton writing in the Presbyterian Journal opined, “Not all sex outside of marriage is bad….In the age of the Pill we assert that sex is (morally) neutral. The young man who is determined to wait until marriage has put sex on too high a pedestal.” Clanton may not blush but I’m sure great Presbyterians such as Billy Sunday, Clarence E. Macartney, J. Gresham Machen, and Carl McIntire are blushing if that is possible in Heaven.

A church south of Richmond, VA doesn’t care about “material things” so they worship in the nude even in cold weather. It seems many preachers have lost the ability to blush and also lost their minds. Nothing is sacred to them.

At HerChurch/Ebenezer Lutheran in San Francisco that is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the liturgy of the “divine feminine” is celebrated every Sunday. The pagan service is led by Pastor Stacy Boorn and her priestesses and staff. Desiring a little religious hocus pocus to justify their evil living, anything goes as they reach out to pagans. The female pastor declared, “Our prayers and liturgy reach back into the storehouse of tradition to bring forth names [such] as Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Christ-Sophia, Midwife, Shekinah, Kundalini, She Who Is.” And no one is blushing!

Many of the interdenominational megachurches and even Baptist churches such as Rick Warren’s Saddleback Baptist Church in California have lost their ability to blush at all their concessions, compromises, and corruptions.

Rick addressed the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that is in bed with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He even apologized for all of us! Rick has a deficiency of wisdom since he seems to support anyone. I have a photo of him hugging Cat Stevens (known as Yusuf Islam) who supported the call for death of Rushdie because he had “insulted” Muslims. Cat also wrote, “I’m praying to Allah to give us victory over the kuffar”! Kuffar is a Muslim term for non-Muslims usually preceded by “dirty.” Rick boasted that Cat came by to visit him at his home. I think Rick may have a sense of insecurity and needs to be loved by everyone.

In May of 2015, Rick held hands with homosexual activist Elton John at a congressional hearing even joking that if they kissed it would be “the kiss heard ’round the world.” Rick doesn’t understand that perversion is no joke. Rick is a brilliant, talented man without wisdom or discernment, two characteristics, in my opinion, that are essential for preachers.

The lesbian bishop of Stockholm “proposed a church in her diocese remove all signs of the cross and put down markings showing the direction to Mecca for the benefit of Muslim worshippers.” She was the first open lesbian bishop in the world. Wonder what Martin Luther would think of that? It seems another Reformation is needed but “Luthers” are in short supply.

I blushed when the historic black Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Miami had Louis Farrakhan preach to an overflow crowd on July 30, 2015. Louis said, “I’m looking for 10,000 in the midst of a million. Ten thousand fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny….So if the federal government won’t intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!” Had I made a similar statement I would be in a Federal prison at this time. The jerk even received a standing ovation from that Baptist crowd! Has everyone lost his ability to discern between right and wrong?

I was appalled at Farrakhan’s vicious, vile, and violent diatribe but would have been almost as appalled even if he had spoken effectively about family, drugs, etc., since Louis is a rabble-rousing Muslim! I was sure the historic church was a member of the Progressive National Baptist Church convention, a group of left wing black preachers who broke from the National Baptist Church convention in 1961. However, Mt. Zion Baptist in Miami is an Independent Baptist Church! I interviewed the pastor and told him I was appalled that any Baptist would have an unbelieving Muslim in his pulpit. The pastor was very kind and we spoke for almost an hour and he professed to believe the Bible and preach the Gospel. I reminded him of the Apostle John’s admonition not to bid god speed to any who do not hold to the doctrine of Christ. This incident only proves that not all Independent Baptist Churches take a separatist stand.

“Beer and hymns” events have occurred at churches in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Cincinnati. “Beer, Bible, and Brotherhood” meets in Oxford, CT as they study Rick Warren’s bestselling book. Such events are taking place across America. Even Moody Bible Institute that trains thousands of youth for the ministry has lifted its ban on long hair for men and nose stud earrings for women and dropped its prohibition of alcohol and tobacco use for faculty and staff. (When I was a student we could not get closer than twelve inches to any female!) Biola University made a similar ruling in September of last year.

Tom Smillie, Christian beer maker, says his love of good beer has allowed him to build relationships with nonbelievers. I suppose smoking marijuana and watching porn would enhance his relationships even further!

Graduates of Taylor University, Calvin College, and other “Christian” institutions are big into beer brewing and drinking.

I blush when Fundamentalists yell about their love and adherence to the Bible (even the KJV) yet refuse to discipline wayward members, give the best seats to the high and mighty, seek the favor of political officials, preach sermons that almost say something, and imply that crowds, cash, and clout are indications of success.

The early Christians were accustomed to poverty, persecutions, and prisons. Today, we are grasping for prosperity, pleasure, and popularity. I blush knowing into whose hands modern churches have fallen.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Many “recovering Fundamentalists,” like many Evangelicals, are not militant but are moderate, even mushy and are only mad at true Fundamentalists from whom they separated. Evangelicals are mad because they can’t answer the Fundamentalist accusation of cowardice, compromise, and corruption.

Original Christians separated from heresy. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp (died in 156 and who had studied under the Apostle John) once met the heretic Marcion in the street: “Do you recognize me?” asked Marcion. “Indeed,” replied Polycarp, “I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!” Polycarp was a Fundamentalist and was martyred for his faith in 150 A.D. Marcion did not believe God created the earth and rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament. Polycarp separated himself from the heretic. Polycarp was not into bridge building. Most modern religious leaders confer legitimacy on heretics by recognizing them as their peers.

Irenaeus (d. 202), in his Against Heresies, reports a story told by Polycarp. Once, when the Apostle John walked into a public bath, he heard that a famed leader of the Gnostics was already inside. Reportedly, John immediately grabbed his belongings and fled from the place, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within!” Cerinthus did not believe God created the universe nor did he believe in Christ’s virgin birth. He taught that Christ would be raised from the dead when others will be raised. John was not willing to give Cerinthus any credibility by sitting with him in the bath. John also wrote in his second epistle that unbelievers should be rejected including anyone who denied the doctrine of Christ–not bidding God speed to any heretic.

Most preachers almost say something during their preaching and when they do so, they never offend anyone. While we should never try to offend others, we must not offend God by encouraging, engaging, and excusing false doctrine. We are required to rebuke it. However, we must rebuke with a loving attitude and never in a self-righteous manner, a mistake made by many leading Fundamentalists in the past.

Responsible militancy is another proof that Fundamentalists are the original Christians. This is evident from Christ Himself as he castigated the unholy merchandizers in the Temple and even chased them from the Temple with a whip that He made for that purpose.

Another example of militancy is that of Paul and Barnabas and their disagreement over John Mark (Acts 15:36–41). This was a conflict and confrontation, not simply a conversation. Also in a militant vein, Paul opposed Peter “to his face” for his duplicity before the Gentiles, and Paul did it “before them all” (Gal. 2:11–14). This was no suggestion that “we can have a difference of opinion” but a direct, definite, denunciation of error. Many modern Fundamentalists are very reluctant to confront compromise lest they be accused of being “holier than thou,” “bigots,” etc.

I must admit that Fundamentalists have produced some weirdos but then all groups have done so. Some Baptist pastors have been or are very close to being cult leaders–with a King James Bible. They should be rebuked, rejected, and removed although Fundamentalists have always believed that each church is totally independent with no hierarchy in control. That leaves each church responsible for any error in the pulpit and most church members fail to challenge and remove a wavering, waffling, and willful pastor. One reason for their refusal is they are very uninformed and often intimidated.

The Recovering Fundamentalist website is dishonest. In attempting to ridicule the Bible, it reports what Jews would do in the future (cannibalism) as if it were a command for them to eat their own children! That is disingenuous, dishonest, and despicable.

Famous recovering Fundamentalist Frank Schaeffer is the renegade son of theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer. Frank seems to be obsessed about Fundamentalists fearing homosexuals. However, we don’t fear them. We object to their wicked lifestyle that is killing them!

A recovering Fundamentalist wrote of Christ, “He hung out with whores” yet Christ was never alone with a woman (except His mother) unless you believe being alone means speaking with a woman at a public well at high noon. Recovering Fundamentalists use that argument to justify their willingness to associate with any lowlife with whom they curse, drink, and generally act like heathen. Need I say that Christ always reproved the sinners with whom he “hung around”?

It is a fact that Fundamentalists are the original Christians in their teaching, their godly lifestyle, their separation (personal and ecclesiastical), and their responsible militancy.

I’m a lifetime Fundamentalist with a grand, great, and glorious heritage and I’m not recovering from anything. Moreover, I have nothing to recover from–other than the blather of “recovering Fundamentalists” who use the unjust treatment received from false Fundamentalists as an excuse to whine, whimper, and weep about their actual or alleged mistreatment.

I suggest they grow up; chill out; visit a dying Christian; win a lost person to Christ; and remember, respect, and return to their Fundamentalist roots.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Muslim Invasion, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

The following statement used to be seen on almost every business door: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.” Of course, those days of freedom are gone forever and most Americans think that is good. I don’t. If a person starts a business, works day and night for a few years until he or she is successful, it is not the business of the local, state, or federal government to tell him or her whom they must serve.

Nevertheless, if a Black, Jew, Christian, or Eskimo is refused service why is that such a dastardly crime? After all, there are many other similar businesses where a refused person can go. But no, they were discriminated against and will take a “pound of flesh” out of the discriminator. I maintain that discrimination may be a sin but it sure shouldn’t be a crime. Plus, the anti-discriminators are almost always guilty of massive overkill. Of course, it is bad to not get a job because you are young, Black, Christian, female, or other but then do you really want to work with bigots? And don’t even bigots have a right to run their business the way they choose? They can even run it into the ground!

To tell the truth, everyone discriminates every day and there is biblical support for it. The Jews were special people and were required by God to maintain their special status. God discriminated against every other living man when He chose Abraham to become the progenitor of the Jewish race. Jews were forbidden to marry Gentiles; Gentiles were permitted in the Temple court but not inside the Temple under penalty of death; the High Priest was the only man on earth who could enter the Holy of Holies–once a year. Christ originally came only to the Jews and then offered His message to the world.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul told the Galatians to discriminate in favor of other Christians in 6:10 “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” That is one reason I try to patronize Christian businesses. For fast food, Chick-fil-a is my choice even though I am not excited about some of their decisions. I choose to eat there not only because they have good food but because of their professed Christian faith. Same with Hobby Lobby and others. That is discrimination and no authority of earth will change that.

Members of the Masonic Lodge give priority to their fellow masons in business activities and while I do not believe any Christian should be a member of any secret order, the Masons have a right to freely assemble and go through their silly routines and worship any god they choose. They also have the right to patronize the business of a fellow Mason and that is discrimination but what sane person would want to make that a crime? Masons are criticized because they discriminate against women but then don’t they have a right to have an all-male club if they desire? Any male can be a Mason, I suppose, unless he is on the State Sex Offender Registry or the FBI’s Top Ten Wanted list. There is still some freedom left in America.

The most discrimination in America is against Christians but that seems to be “good” or “accepted” discrimination by the leftists. We are often called “fundamentalists” or “fundies” usually considered pejorative terms. Anyone who has spent some time in university classes, especially science classes, has seen the extreme brow-beating, harassing, and bullying of Christians by bigoted professors (soothsayers of science) who are unsure of their immature, unscientific, embarrassing lectures. Such professors should be considered uneducated, unscholarly, and unnecessary. And maybe they should become unemployed! They fall into the same category as flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers!

Dr. Stephen J. Gould called creationists, “kooky,” “yahoos,” and “latter-day antediluvians” and he characterized scientific creationism as “the nonsense term of the century.” However, Steve refused to make those charges in public debate where informed creationists could make him look like a “yahoo.” He declared, “Creationist-bashing is a noble and necessary pursuit these days.” Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (proof of hatred and bigotry on the left!) when he wrote that creationists “…are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.” Richard Dawkins called us feeble-minded, pathetic, and intellectual cavemen in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In a Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins called us a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” Obviously, many evolutionists are as mean as a junkyard dog when discussing Christians.

There are numerous examples of discrimination in academia against Christians especially in graduate and post graduate programs. One professor of physics at the University of California waited until he had his Ph.D. before “coming out of the closet” about origins. He declared, “Well, now that I’ve got tenure, that means I can’t be fired for simply believing in recent six-day creation and the world-wide Noahic Flood. If I had been outspoken on the issue before, I doubt I would have obtained tenure….I am convinced there is far more evidence for a recent, six-day creation and a global Flood than there is for an old earth and evolution.”

Then there was the well-publicized case of Forrest Mims, a highly-qualified scientific writer whose employment by Scientific American was “openly denied on the grounds of his creationist views.” But that kind of discrimination is acceptable by the hypocrites on the left.

Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters interviewed over 300 scientists and educators with advanced degrees and all admitted to receiving some kind of discrimination because of their biblical beliefs! Bergman estimates that on average about 400 cases of flagrant discrimination occur annually in America, and that the vast majority are not contested in court by the victims because they recognize the impossibility of getting justice.

Another example of flagrant discrimination is that of Dr. Raymond Damadian who invented the MRI diagnostic machine that has saved thousands of lives. Yet, Dr. Damadian was bypassed by the Nobel Prize that was given to two other men who made improvements on his device! Many academics, even some who disagree with Damadian’s Christian views (he was born again in the 1957 Billy Graham Crusade in NYC), maintain that he should have received the prize. If not alone, then at least as one of the three since Nobel rules permit as many as three to be named for a prize. Honest people are asking why he was refused since there would not be an MRI without Damadian!

Famous atheist philosopher Michael Ruse suggested that Damadian might have been denied a Nobel Prize because of his creationist views, saying: “I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas [six-day creationism] in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.”

Obviously many people experience discrimination so chill out, lighten up, don’t be so sensitive, stop whining; a little discrimination won’t hurt you and if it does, you’ll get over it.

After all, you didn’t invent the most important diagnostic medical device with the glory going to subordinates because you believe in true science and the Bible.

Bigots are as easy to find in science, academia, and the media as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Evolution is a confused, convoluted, and contradictory theory that is unreasonable, unscientific, and unbiblical. And in trouble! Creationism has been denigrated and denied, but not disproved. Evolutionists know that if God created everything, it means they will one day give an account to that God whose laws they have dismissed and disobeyed. So the battle continues.

The hypocrites on the left are very dedicated to the principles of diversity and tolerance except in a few matters such as abortion, homosexuality, and scientific creationism. There, diversity is unnecessary and tolerance unthinkable. The loonies on the left tell anyone who will listen that ideas can’t hurt children, even in the lowest grades, so expose them to vulgarity, immorality, perversion, anti-Americanism, etc., since it is good for children to hear different views. However, that does not hold true when it comes to the above hot-button issues. Wonder why? That is one reason why I believe that liberals are the biggest hypocrites in America.

Almost all evolutionists want to start the debate with Darwin’s warm little pond where the process is alleged to have started: slime to slug to sloth to scholar. Or to put it another way, from molecules to mollusks to monkeys to man. However, it all didn’t start at a warm little pond (for which there is not a scintilla of evidence), but with the universe. When, where, and how did energy, matter, and time start? After I hear a few evolutionists tell me, “Well, we don’t know,” then we will go to the mythical pond and discuss man’s origin.

Major journals have cranked out hysterical propaganda to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates. Galloping to the rescue of overwhelmed evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do it is not really hard.)

Evolutionists trot out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggest that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

ScienceWeek (Jan. 23) displayed obvious bigotry (note their title) with their editorial “Creationism vs. sanity” when they accused creationists of being primitive thinkers who “believe the Earth is as flat as a pancake,…resting on the backs of four giant elephants.” To think they killed a tree to print such tripe. How could a responsible scientific journal permit something like that to be published? Of course, it was in defense of their religion—evolution.

Last week, another USA Today writer suggested people of faith could justify “anything in the name of dogma. Let’s not teach our children to burn witches, please.” That is outrageous plus inaccurate. Not one witch was ever burned in the U.S. Witch burning took place in Scotland, England, etc.

Also New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd mocked a classy 25-million dollar Creation Museum being established near the Cincinnati airport by Answers in Genesis. Mocking Christian creationists is acceptable but mocking a religion of hate is anathema. Wonder why?

Andrew Kantor, columnist for USA Today.com expressed sorrow for the Cincinnati area, calling the creation museum a “national embarrassment,” using buzz words such as “lies,” “distortions,” “gullible,” “scary,” and “silly.” Responsible journalism, huh?

Oxford biologist, Richard Dawkins, a famous proponent of diversity, balance, fairness and civility opined that creationists were “ignorant, stupid or insane—or wicked.” He called us feeble-minded, pathetic, and intellectual cavemen in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In a November 1983 article, published in the Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins called us a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” There, isn’t that kind, fair, and civil? See what I mean when I say that many evolutionists are as mean as a junkyard dog.

Stephen J. Gould (evolutionist, Marxist, and Harvard professor—three strikes and you’re out!) now deceased and no longer an evolutionist, Marxist or professor, called creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” and “latter-day antediluvians.” But Steve would never consent to debate one of the “yahoos”!

Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (hatred and bigotry on the left!) when he wrote that creationists “…are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.”

With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the “other side.” Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people!

Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.

A second group of Christians refused to burn incense, but they bribed officials to procure the necessary certificates! What a warped sense of values: “No, I won’t bow to Caesar, but I’ll bribe his officials to say I bowed to him.” I suppose they were among the modern Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who believe that “preaching the Bible is the most important thing in the world.” No, “preaching the Bible” is not the most important thing; obeying it is! You can preach the Bible without obeying it, but you can’t obey it without preaching it. If obeying the Bible is not top priority, then any compromise can be justified. However, that second group did manage to keep breathing between seizures of guilt.

A third group of Christian simply refused to obey Caesar and surrender the lordship of Christ. They didn’t bow, they didn’t bribe, and they didn’t breathe–for very long. They quietly went to their deaths and the churches grew stronger.

That was another day, another issue, but the tyrants living then were similar to those living and “reigning” today in the U.S. White House. Tyrants don’t like principled people refusing to bow to their commands. The major issue with tyrants is control–total control. A similar issue is gathering steam as I write: ObamaCare includes forcing Christian churches, schools, hospitals, and businesses to provide abortion coverage in health insurance.

Recently, Hobby Lobby lost their case for an exception to the federal edict because it was a business, not a religious organization. But then, the First Amendment does not refer to “church” or “school” but to “religion.” That can mean organizations or individuals. The family that owns Hobby Lobby is highly dedicated and will face fines of over one million dollars per day if they refuse to burn incense to “little Caesar” and disobey their Bible convictions.

ObamaCare demands that any business or philanthropic organization (including churches and Christian schools) with fifty or more employees must cover contraception and abortions in their health plans or be fined into submission by the White House Caesar. It’s interesting and noteworthy that he would not have been elected had it not been for “Christians”!

Some Catholic bishops have gone on record stating their non-compliance, “We will not obey that law.” Non-thinkers, even some church members, retort that those religious leaders must think they are above the law and expect special privileges. The fact is they are above that law since it is obviously contrary to the First Amendment. Those Catholic bishops are to be commended for their courage, commitment, and convictions.

Some non-Catholic universities have made the same commitment, but only a few. Where do many other famous schools and denominations stand? Many of them are good at talking, some at balking, and only a few at walking. Even Fundamentalist schools that have walked the walked are strangely silent. They have been willing, more than willing, to lecture others on “taking a stand” and “paying any price,” and always “doing right, whatever the cost.” Where are they on this issue? Will they “come out from among them” and close their ministries rather than comply?

Major American Evangelical and Fundamentalist universities and seminaries are silent. Are they willing to defy, disregard, and disobey the feds in order to stay true to their convictions? Of course, if they have real convictions, they have no choice but to obey God rather than man–even the man in the White House. But are those institutions willing to lose everything by standing for biblical commands? We will probably see some incredible mental gymnastics from Christian leaders and some will even twist Bible teaching like a pretzel to justify obeying Obama.

In addition to Catholic churches and schools, Louisiana College (Southern Baptist) in Pineville, Louisiana, Geneva College, Wheaton, and a few others are challenging the law. Question: will they refuse to obey “Caesar” to the very end or will they “make an accommodation”? Another question: what will Evangelical and Fundamentalist schools do? My opinion? Most will cave like a house of cards.

Christians were told by Caesar: “You can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ if you also say that ‘Caesar gives you permission to say Jesus is Lord.” They replied that Caesar owed every breath to Christ and bravely went to their deaths. Christians today have to decide in every area of life if Jesus Christ is truly Lord. The cost of accepting Christ as Lord is higher and higher each year.

We will see if the Roman Catholics show more courage, character, commitment, and convictions than some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals!