Home

It seems that the People’s Republic of California is at it again, as a group of Christian schools is suing the University of California system, claiming that their alumni’s chances for admission are impeded by the system’s rejection of some of their courses.

For Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Centre for Law and Justice, a Christian legal group, the bias is on the part of UC and of a kind "that I thought we had gotten past a long time ago," he said.

Well, Jay, you ought to know by now that liberals don’t give up, even when favourite weapons of theirs–anti-discrimination laws and regulations–have to be circumvented because they don’t work to suit their purposes.  It’s entirely possible that the some on the left are having second thoughts on the whole concept of anti-discrimination now that they are in a position to discriminate for their own ends.

And these liberals may be on to something.  What would our country be like if we scrapped the whole anti-discrimination edifice?  Would we revert to the 1950’s?  I doubt it.  Those groups with money, position and power–and the left is well represented there–would end up on top, at least in the short run.  Would this be good for the country? No.  But it would bring some transparency that’s sorely lacking.  Our legal and bureaucratic system covers up many of the biases of our elites as well as those on the other end.  Taking off the legal mask would force many people to make some substantive decisions about where this country is really at.

Such substantive decisions were part and parcel of the old Soviet Union, where young people not in the Komsomol (Communist youth league) were not able to obtain a higher education.  That frequently meant many Christians, who (when not being sent to Siberia) prospered in the underground economy with the education they were permitted to obtain.  Ironically this is the same regime that brought us Lysenko, whose name is trotted out by evolutionists (to their peril, as I discuss elsewhere) as an object lesson of a regime driven by ideology rather than science.

I do not believe that this country can survive as a purely secularistic society.  Litigation like this only serves to put off the real question: what is more important, our careers in this system that doesn’t want us, or our God?  If we choose the latter, the system is in serious trouble.

Barack Obama is at it again.  He tells us that the GOP doesn’t own faith and values.  But does he?

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."

These times buffalo me.

On the one hand, we have secularlists (many of whom in the U.S. are part of the Democrat base) running about telling us that they have won (or at least in the process of winning) and that religion is headed for the ash heap of history.

On the other hand, we have the entire Democratic Presidential field (or at least most of it) pandering to "religious" voters.  This is strange.  Those of us who have been active in this field and are honest with ourselves will admit that we have little to show for thirty years of "values voting" other than to stave off real Christianity becoming practically illegal in the U.S., which is something but not what was advertised.

Personally I think that the whole Democrat effort with religious voters is stupid.  FDR got by with wholesale bribery through government programmes and income redistribution.  That bought them forty years of dominance.  I suspect that the Lizard Queen has figured this out, and she is probably the most religious one running.  Evidently Obama has not.

It’s heartening to see that likely voters have rejected Hillary Clinton’s proposal for US$5,000 for every newborn in the U.S.

It’s been a worry that American voters, buffeted by the wild ride this decade has been and seeing the growing gap between top and bottom of the income scale, would jump at any government entitlement.  Obviously Hillary Clinton has (at best) picked the wrong one to put forth, which may come back to haunt her.

The blunt truth of the matter is that Hillary’s proposal is racist.  It is inspired by European programmes of the same kind which attempt to equalise the low birthrate of white Europeans with the Muslim immigrants, a desperate attempt to hold off the triumph of  "Eurabia" and (for the UK) "Londonistan."  The birthrate in the U.S. is higher, even amongst "white" people (we’ve still not found a way to deal with mixed race people properly) but it’s still pulled upwards by immigrant groups (especially Hispanics.) If birthrates were left as they are and immigration were stemmed, we would still see a relative increase in the non-white population.

But it’s more than racist.  It’s secuarlist as well.  Religious people (Christians, Mormons, Muslims, etc.) still hold up the birthrate.  It’s liberal, white, secularist people who are lagging behind.  This subsidy was aimed at these people.  The left realises that abortion and the "culture of death" rings a bell that tolls primarily for them.

I hope that the New York Times’ blog is doing a late April Fools’ joke with Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort.  But I’m afraid not.

Christian conservatives need to come to a few realisations about their current situation.

1. Evangelical Christianity has been functionally absent from the halls of power for a long time, Billy Graham’s time with presidents notwithstanding.  Influential, certainly, but largely from the outside.
2. Evangelical Christianity does not have a viable game plan to "finish the job" and really make this country a truly Christian country.  The "catch-up" effort of the Moral Majority and its successors started a decade late, and Christians have not grasped that the country’s secular (no state church) nature is too easy to use against them in the current climate.
3. Christians needs to move away from Gothardian authoritarianism and theonomism if they want to survive and prosper in the U.S. today, otherwise the power of a secular state will come down very hard on them.  Besides, it’s more consistent with a true Christian view of government (as opposed to, say an Islamic one.)
4. Christians really don’t want the Lizard Queen in power.  (Many liberals will find out they don’t either, but that’s another story.)

We need to quit wondering which candidate will bring us closer to a "righteous nation" and starting thinking about which candidate is the least likely to put us in jail.