thestream--2020-10-24--Growing Up in China: My Life Under Marxist Socialism

Editor ’ s Note : Chenyuan was raised in China and experienced firsthand the tragic effects of communism .
Be advised that her story includes an unpleasantly disturbing yet true description of how she was able to survive great poverty .
It ’ s in the section labeled “ My Mother ’ s Extraordinary Act.
” It is a reminder that socialism can never achieve its promised utopia .
Living in America , I ’ m reminded of how blessed I am to live in this free country with the free market as its basic economic system .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen a steady increase of socialist ideas in our society .
As a Christian , I support , advocate and participate in helping the poor and the needy because Jesus commanded us to do so .
But I fervently oppose socialistic systems in which the government controls the distribution of resources .
I lived through the worst of it .
Here ’ s my story .
I spent the first decade of my life during the Cultural Revolution ( 1966-1976 ) in China .
Power was centralized as it is in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employer in the country .
The government held a super monopoly .
Everything was distributed through a system of rationing .
“ Scarcity ” defined every aspect of life at that time .
My family ate meat only once or twice a year .
If I got a piece of candy , I did not just put it in my mouth .
I held it in the wrapper and licked it so it could last all day long .
Pain So Intense I Lost the Ability to Cry Being malnourished , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections .
One day my mom told me that she was able to use her connections to secure a spot at the hospital for me to have my tonsils removed .
When we reached the hospital , I saw a long line of children waiting to get their tonsils removed .
A nurse stayed at the end of the line holding a spray bottle .
She sprayed some anesthetic in my mouth .
I felt a little numb .
Soon there were other kids standing behind me .
I could not see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By the time I was near the operating room , the numbness in my mouth was gone .
My mom knew that it was fortunate enough for me to have had even a little anesthetic .
She did not ask for a second dose .
I was thrown onto the operating table after the pain killer had worn off .
A clamp-like device was used to keep my mouth open .
A surgical scissor entered my mouth… The pain and shock were so intense that I lost the ability to cry .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ where a nurse checked us to see if the operation was successful .
I never saw even a glimpse of sympathy in any of the adults ’ eyes .
After examining me , the nurse told my mom that I needed to go back to the operating room because the doctor did not make a clean cut .
I heard this and I took off running as fast as I could .
My mom chased after me shouting : “ Think about Lei Feng !
Be as brave as he !
” Lei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zedong wanted us to emulate .
( This is one of the propaganda methods socialists/communists often use to control people ’ s minds . )
But at that moment , nothing could keep me from running away from that dreadful operating table .
Finally , both of us were exhausted .
My mom agreed that we should just go home .
The operation did not improve my health .
What I needed was nutrition .
Without better options , my mom took an extraordinary act .
She stole a placenta from the hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a semi-jerky substance so it could last a long time because there was no refrigerator in any household .
She then threw away all the utensils that the placenta had touched — chopping board , knife , pot… That was quite a loss since we did not have many household goods .
She told me it was beef and I could only take two pieces a day .
I still remember the secrecy surrounding the meat .
Years later , when I had real beef for the first time , I asked my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then I learned the truth — and then came the shock , shame and disbelief… and my attempt to remove the smell , the taste and the texture from my memory .
These are just two examples of many miserable events that happened to me and my family under socialism .
And by all means , I was not an extraordinary case at all .
Economists have come up with different explanations as to why socialism failed under the regimes of the Soviet Union , Eastern Europe , China , Cuba , North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on my experience and my subsequent study of theology .
One reason is that socialism puts too much hope on human beings .
It is a secular attempt to create heaven on earth without taking into consideration that we are infected with sin .
Capitalism , in contrast , acknowledges people for what they are : self-centered .
People are more willing to do good if it is for their own interest .
Capitalism recognizes that free market competition is the best option among sinful humans , albeit an imperfect one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will try to treat customers better than their competitors do — not because they are loving , but because they care about their own financial gain .
The result benefits both consumers and business owners and gives rise to an improved economy .
This is totally absent in a socialist society .
Socialism ignores market principles and eliminates rational incentives .
When performance is not tied to a benefit , why work hard ?
If you can get paid without working , why work ?
Socialism claims to be morally superior to selfish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though it is a powerful lure , it is a fruitless endeavor .
Using Their Greed for Good Greedy capitalism , on the other hand , has benefited the poor around the globe .
The word “ sweatshop ” may cause us to cringe , but if you had just two options : starving with no sweatshop or having meals by working at a sweatshop ?
That ’ s an extreme example , obviously .
But the principle behind it tells us how capitalism has lifted over 700 million human beings out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
China is a good example .
Even though its political system is still run by communists , it has embraced the tenets of capitalism , free market and less government regulations on business .
My mom , who once stole a placenta to feed her ailing daughter , is making good money under the benefits of capitalism — even though she ’ s been retired for more than 20 years .
Thirty years ago , she never imagined that she would one day send money to her daughter living in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Capitalism makes this world a better place .
But socialism wants to make this world a perfect place .
Advocates of socialism believe that under a good and smart government ’ s control and management , we can achieve perfection — a world without inequality and injustice .
History tells us , however , that when power is centralized in the hands of a few , they are more inclined to abuse it than to implement it properly .
J.R.R .
Tolkien , author of The Lord of the Rings , recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ring .
So did our Founding Fathers , who designed our Republic with checks and balances to ensure the decentralization of power .
I know there are some who still romanticize about socialism ’ s promise of perfection .
You have good intention .
You care about the poor and are indignant about injustice .
Scripture commands us to take care of the disadvantaged and do justice .
But Jesus never told us to help the poor by delegating that responsibility to Caesar !
It should be done by individuals on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
History has proven that the condition of the poor can never be improved through a socialist structure anyway .
It ’ s outcome is always the exact opposite of what it promises .
Socialism is only good on paper .
In reality , it is the biggest generator of universal poverty known to man .
Just look at Venezuela and North Korea .
Socialism did not create heaven on earth there , it created hell on earth !
And that is how it will always be .
Churchill sums it up well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blessings ; socialism is equal share of misery.
” Now is a good time to ponder the U.S. and what it stands for .
Our founding fathers understood human nature and the danger of centralized power and devised a system accordingly .
If we allow socialism to prevail , we will lose our republic .
The day will come when we will only be able to look back with nostalgia on the liberties and prosperity that we once enjoyed .
As the election is coming , if a candidate tells you that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this and free that , DON ’ T be fooled .
Socialism can only lure you down a road of misery !
Think about the operating table I was put on .
There is no healing there .
Run away , and run away as fast as you can !
Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college .
After immigrating to the U.S. and having studied at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School , she became a professor and taught at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this year , she sensed God was leading her to use her unique voice to provide a warning about various kinds of Marxist influences in our society .
She lives in northern California with her husband and has two grown children .

Editor’s Note: Chenyuan was raised in China and experienced firsthand the tragic effects of communism. Be advised that her story includes an unpleasantly disturbing yet true description of how she was able to survive great poverty. It’s in the section labeled “My Mother’s Extraordinary Act.” It is a reminder that socialism can never achieve its promised utopia.
Living in America, I’m reminded of how blessed I am to live in this free country with the free market as its basic economic system. I’m concerned, though. I’ve seen a steady increase of socialist ideas in our society. As a Christian, I support, advocate and participate in helping the poor and the needy because Jesus commanded us to do so. But I fervently oppose socialistic systems in which the government controls the distribution of resources. I lived through the worst of it. Here’s my story.
I spent the first decade of my life during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) in China. Power was centralized as it is in all socialist countries. We had only one employer in the country. The government held a super monopoly. Everything was distributed through a system of rationing. “Scarcity” defined every aspect of life at that time. My family ate meat only once or twice a year. If I got a piece of candy, I did not just put it in my mouth. I held it in the wrapper and licked it so it could last all day long.
Pain So Intense I Lost the Ability to Cry
Being malnourished, I was sick all the time and constantly had infections. One day my mom told me that she was able to use her connections to secure a spot at the hospital for me to have my tonsils removed. When we reached the hospital, I saw a long line of children waiting to get their tonsils removed. A nurse stayed at the end of the line holding a spray bottle. She sprayed some anesthetic in my mouth. I felt a little numb. Soon there were other kids standing behind me. I could not see the beginning or the end of the line.
By the time I was near the operating room, the numbness in my mouth was gone. My mom knew that it was fortunate enough for me to have had even a little anesthetic. She did not ask for a second dose. I was thrown onto the operating table after the pain killer had worn off. A clamp-like device was used to keep my mouth open. A surgical scissor entered my mouth… The pain and shock were so intense that I lost the ability to cry.
I fervently oppose socialistic systems in which the government controls the distribution of resources. I lived through the worst of it.
I was then shoveled to another line where a nurse checked us to see if the operation was successful. I never saw even a glimpse of sympathy in any of the adults’ eyes. After examining me, the nurse told my mom that I needed to go back to the operating room because the doctor did not make a clean cut. I heard this and I took off running as fast as I could. My mom chased after me shouting: “Think about Lei Feng! Be as brave as he!” Lei Feng was one of the heroes Mao Zedong wanted us to emulate. (This is one of the propaganda methods socialists/communists often use to control people’s minds.)
But at that moment, nothing could keep me from running away from that dreadful operating table. Finally, both of us were exhausted. My mom agreed that we should just go home.
My Mother’s Extraordinary Act
The operation did not improve my health. What I needed was nutrition. Without better options, my mom took an extraordinary act. She stole a placenta from the hospital delivery room. She cooked it into a semi-jerky substance so it could last a long time because there was no refrigerator in any household. She then threw away all the utensils that the placenta had touched — chopping board, knife, pot… That was quite a loss since we did not have many household goods.
She told me it was beef and I could only take two pieces a day. I still remember the secrecy surrounding the meat. Years later, when I had real beef for the first time, I asked my mom why the taste was different. Then I learned the truth — and then came the shock, shame and disbelief… and my attempt to remove the smell, the taste and the texture from my memory. These are just two examples of many miserable events that happened to me and my family under socialism. And by all means, I was not an extraordinary case at all.
People Are Selfish
Economists have come up with different explanations as to why socialism failed under the regimes of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. My take is based on my experience and my subsequent study of theology. One reason is that socialism puts too much hope on human beings. It is a secular attempt to create heaven on earth without taking into consideration that we are infected with sin. Capitalism, in contrast, acknowledges people for what they are: self-centered. People are more willing to do good if it is for their own interest. Capitalism recognizes that free market competition is the best option among sinful humans, albeit an imperfect one.
When there is competition, business owners will try to treat customers better than their competitors do — not because they are loving, but because they care about their own financial gain. The result benefits both consumers and business owners and gives rise to an improved economy.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
This is totally absent in a socialist society. Socialism ignores market principles and eliminates rational incentives. When performance is not tied to a benefit, why work hard? If you can get paid without working, why work? Socialism claims to be morally superior to selfish capitalism. But in the end, though it is a powerful lure, it is a fruitless endeavor.
Using Their Greed for Good
Greedy capitalism, on the other hand, has benefited the poor around the globe. The word “sweatshop” may cause us to cringe, but if you had just two options: starving with no sweatshop or having meals by working at a sweatshop? That’s an extreme example, obviously. But the principle behind it tells us how capitalism has lifted over 700 million human beings out of deep poverty in the last few decades.
China is a good example. Even though its political system is still run by communists, it has embraced the tenets of capitalism, free market and less government regulations on business. My mom, who once stole a placenta to feed her ailing daughter, is making good money under the benefits of capitalism — even though she’s been retired for more than 20 years. Thirty years ago, she never imagined that she would one day send money to her daughter living in the U.S., the richest country on the planet.
Capitalism makes this world a better place. But socialism wants to make this world a perfect place. Advocates of socialism believe that under a good and smart government’s control and management, we can achieve perfection — a world without inequality and injustice. History tells us, however, that when power is centralized in the hands of a few, they are more inclined to abuse it than to implement it properly.
J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings, recognized the seduction of power as illustrated by the ring. So did our Founding Fathers, who designed our Republic with checks and balances to ensure the decentralization of power.
Socialism’s Promise of Perfection
I know there are some who still romanticize about socialism’s promise of perfection. You have good intention. You care about the poor and are indignant about injustice. Scripture commands us to take care of the disadvantaged and do justice. But Jesus never told us to help the poor by delegating that responsibility to Caesar! It should be done by individuals on a voluntary basis, not through the government.
As the election is coming, if a candidate tells you that he or she wants to give you free this and free that, DON’T be fooled. Socialism can only lure you down a road of misery!
History has proven that the condition of the poor can never be improved through a socialist structure anyway. It’s outcome is always the exact opposite of what it promises. Socialism is only good on paper. In reality, it is the biggest generator of universal poverty known to man. Just look at Venezuela and North Korea. Socialism did not create heaven on earth there, it created hell on earth! And that is how it will always be. Churchill sums it up well: “Capitalism is unequal share of blessings; socialism is equal share of misery.”
Now is a good time to ponder the U.S. and what it stands for. Our founding fathers understood human nature and the danger of centralized power and devised a system accordingly. If we allow socialism to prevail, we will lose our republic. The day will come when we will only be able to look back with nostalgia on the liberties and prosperity that we once enjoyed.
As the election is coming, if a candidate tells you that he or she wants to give you free this and free that, DON’T be fooled. Socialism can only lure you down a road of misery! Think about the operating table I was put on. There is no healing there. Run away, and run away as fast as you can!
Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the U.S. and having studied at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor and taught at Christian colleges and seminary. After March of this year, she sensed God was leading her to use her unique voice to provide a warning about various kinds of Marxist influences in our society. She lives in northern California with her husband and has two grown children.


thestream--2020-10-24--The Open Immorality of Open Borders

The Open Immorality of Open Borders

The Supreme Court is looking at the border wall question again .
Democrats have said the wall is “ immoral , ineffective , and inexpensive.
” In Thursday night ’ s debate , the border focus was on cages .
( Joe Biden didn ’ t come out looking so good on that . )
What about the larger moral question , though ?
Not the wall , not the cages , but open borders ?
Let ’ s recall a few years ago , when long parades of hopeful migrants were streaming north .
Nancy Pelosi told us then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not who we are as a nation.
” She wasn ’ t just talking about a physical structure , she was talking policy .
The pope agreed emphatically , saying it was “ not Christian ” to keep out migrants .
A Christian should think about “ building bridges , ” he said .
Biden doesn ’ t go that far , but he does intend to reverse most of Trump ’ s border policies , specifically to “ restore our moral leadership.
” Apparently there ’ s some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into this election .
What kind of stain is it , though ?
Is there something immoral about solid border control ?
The answer to that isn ’ t that hard , actually .
Let ’ s look at three levels of sharing , and consider both their morality and their effectiveness .
At the first level , individuals sacrifice their time and their goods to help others in need .
I have seen this done magnificently through a Christian humanitarian organization called “ Unto ” ( formerly Global Aid Network ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from collecting and packing goods to delivering them personally to smiling faces all over the world .
( Life Outreach International , The Stream ’ s parent organization , has similar outreach initiatives in place , though I haven ’ t had the chance to enjoy such an up-close look at them . )
At Level One it ’ s all voluntary .
It is almost completely a moral decision for the one who gives , and ( mixed motives aside ) a good one .
That in itself doesn ’ t make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s possible to see one need and miss a greater one elsewhere , for example .
Morality and wisdom are two different things , so it ’ s possible to have one without the other .
Otherwise the moral status of Level One giving is quite clear .
And quite good .
Level Two sharing is the type favored by liberals and progressives everywhere .
It ’ s about taxing the well-off and distributing it to the needy .
So , what ’ s the moral status at Level Two ?
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that its proponents ’ main motive is to help the poor and the hungry .
That makes it a moral matter , too — but whose morality ?
The taxpayers ’ ?
Hardly !
They ’ re the ones doing the “ giving , ” but not by choice .
The Bible never says , “ God loves a cheerful taxpayer.
” In fact the real message at 2 Cor .
9:7 couldn ’ t be more different : “ Let each one give as he purposes in his heart , not grudgingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cheerful giver.
” There ’ s no moral worth involved in Level Two “ giving.
” It ’ s totally lacking .
What then about its effectiveness in meeting needs ?
I ’ ll surprise my conservative friends and admit that sometimes the government gets it right .
Sometimes .
Not every government dollar spent is an absolute disaster .
I ’ ve benefited myself at times , and been grateful for it .
A lot of it is misspent , though .
If it ’ s true that individuals , churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it ’ s not most needed , it ’ s also true that governments can do the same thing even better .
( Or worse , depending on how you look at it . )
I don ’ t need to dive into examples .
I think we all know that government spending has a sad and far-too-frequent record of doing more harm than good .
Level Three : Let Them Come and Take It From Us Level Three sharing tops that , though .
Level Three is what we get with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No enforcement .
Let people come in for asylum , but define it as loosely as possible , so everyone qualifies .
It looks like good , gracious giving on the surface .
These people are hurting .
They ’ re needy .
America has opportunities , we ’ ve got food , we ’ ve got money , we ’ ve got education .
How we can deny them access to it ?
It looks like morality , sure .
But it ’ s actually a travesty .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Level One .
There isn ’ t even any Level Two involuntary giving .
There ’ s no giving at all !
It ’ s taking , not giving .
And anyone can do it .
“ Come on in and take it .
Anything you want !
” Progressives will try to tell you this is “ America ” giving .
They ’ re wrong : America never gives , only Americans do .
Almost never , anyway .
I can think of one exception .
If enough Americans united to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and if we all pitched in on it together , we could call that “ America ” speaking , and “ America ” giving .
That might even be a decent description of some of our foreign policy .
That has nothing to do with immigration policy , though .
We ’ re not united in it , and we don ’ t all pitch in with the giving that happens .
This Is Not Christian Giving But hold on !
Did I say “ giving ” ?
This isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so people can come take from us .
More accurately , it ’ s politicians opening doors so immigrants can come take from the rest of us .
How does that stack up morally ?
Need I even ask ?
Acts 20:35 tells us a saying of Jesus ’ that wasn ’ t recorded in the Gospels : “ It is more blessed to give than to receive.
” Who knows ?
Maybe there was even more that got left out .
Maybe Jesus really said , “ Sure , I told you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than to receive , but honestly , folks that ’ s nothing .
You want a real blessing ?
It ’ s yours , as long as you live someplace where the government makes you keep your doors open , so that anyone who wants what you ’ ve got can waltz right in and take it from you.
” I ’ ll admit it : “ waltz ” is a bit anachronistic there .
That ’ s just the beginning of mistakes in that imagined saying , though .
To give can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let people take things from you is just intolerable .
Even where Jesus says ( per some interpretations of Matthew 5:38-42 ) we should give freely to people who want to take from us , the action word there is still “ give , ” not “ take.
” And it ’ s still voluntary .
Level One giving can be wise or unwise , effective or ineffective .
Level Two can , too .
Level Three ?
It ’ s a mess .
Totally worthless , with respect to wise humanitarian distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The people who think they can come in and grab them .
That ’ s not exactly morally targeted giving .
If anything it ’ s committing the immoral act of encouraging others to take .
Joe Biden isn ’ t arguing for open borders , but some of his Democrat colleagues come awfully close to it .
Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez says illegal immigration ( my term , not hers , obviously ) is “ innocent people … pursuing their basic human rights.
” She says it ’ s wrong of us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She frames it in moral terms .
The pope did , too , even more so .
But this “ morality ” is really no morality at all — not unless Jesus taught his disciples to waltz .
It ’ s inviting people to come in indiscriminately and take from us .
This is not giving .
It ’ s not wise , and it ’ s not effective in humanitarian terms .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

The Supreme Court is looking at the border wall question again. Democrats have said the wall is “immoral, ineffective, and inexpensive.” In Thursday night’s debate, the border focus was on cages. (Joe Biden didn’t come out looking so good on that.) What about the larger moral question, though? Not the wall, not the cages, but open borders?
Let’s recall a few years ago, when long parades of hopeful migrants were streaming north. Nancy Pelosi told us then that a wall is “an immorality, it’s not who we are as a nation.” She wasn’t just talking about a physical structure, she was talking policy. The pope agreed emphatically, saying it was “not Christian” to keep out migrants. A Christian should think about “building bridges,” he said.
Biden doesn’t go that far, but he does intend to reverse most of Trump’s border policies, specifically to “restore our moral leadership.” Apparently there’s some moral stain here that Trump supposedly carries into this election. What kind of stain is it, though? Is there something immoral about solid border control?
The answer to that isn’t that hard, actually. Let’s look at three levels of sharing, and consider both their morality and their effectiveness.
Level One: Voluntary Giving
At the first level, individuals sacrifice their time and their goods to help others in need. I have seen this done magnificently through a Christian humanitarian organization called “Unto” (formerly Global Aid Network). Volunteers take part at every stage, from collecting and packing goods to delivering them personally to smiling faces all over the world. (Life Outreach International, The Stream’s parent organization, has similar outreach initiatives in place, though I haven’t had the chance to enjoy such an up-close look at them.)
At Level One it’s all voluntary. It is almost completely a moral decision for the one who gives, and (mixed motives aside) a good one.
That in itself doesn’t make it wise or effective. It’s possible to see one need and miss a greater one elsewhere, for example. Morality and wisdom are two different things, so it’s possible to have one without the other. Otherwise the moral status of Level One giving is quite clear. And quite good.
Level Two: Involuntary Giving
Level Two sharing is the type favored by liberals and progressives everywhere. It’s about taxing the well-off and distributing it to the needy.
So, what’s the moral status at Level Two? Let’s grant for the sake of argument that its proponents’ main motive is to help the poor and the hungry. That makes it a moral matter, too — but whose morality? The taxpayers’? Hardly! They’re the ones doing the “giving,” but not by choice.
The Bible never says, “God loves a cheerful taxpayer.” In fact the real message at 2 Cor. 9:7 couldn’t be more different: “Let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” There’s no moral worth involved in Level Two “giving.” It’s totally lacking.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
What then about its effectiveness in meeting needs? I’ll surprise my conservative friends and admit that sometimes the government gets it right. Sometimes. Not every government dollar spent is an absolute disaster. I’ve benefited myself at times, and been grateful for it.
A lot of it is misspent, though. If it’s true that individuals, churches, and mission agencies can send money where it’s not most needed, it’s also true that governments can do the same thing even better. (Or worse, depending on how you look at it.) I don’t need to dive into examples. I think we all know that government spending has a sad and far-too-frequent record of doing more harm than good.
Level Three: Let Them Come and Take It From Us
Level Three sharing tops that, though. Level Three is what we get with seriously progressive border policy: No walls. No enforcement. Let people come in for asylum, but define it as loosely as possible, so everyone qualifies.
It looks like good, gracious giving on the surface. These people are hurting. They’re needy. America has opportunities, we’ve got food, we’ve got money, we’ve got education. How we can deny them access to it?
It looks like morality, sure. But it’s actually a travesty. There’s no voluntary giving here, as in Level One. There isn’t even any Level Two involuntary giving. There’s no giving at all! It’s taking, not giving. And anyone can do it. “Come on in and take it. Anything you want!”
Progressives will try to tell you this is “America” giving. They’re wrong: America never gives, only Americans do.
Almost never, anyway. I can think of one exception. If enough Americans united to say, “We want to give,” and if we all pitched in on it together, we could call that “America” speaking, and “America” giving. That might even be a decent description of some of our foreign policy. That has nothing to do with immigration policy, though. We’re not united in it, and we don’t all pitch in with the giving that happens.
This Is Not Christian Giving
But hold on! Did I say “giving”? This isn’t giving, this is opening ours doors so people can come take from us. More accurately, it’s politicians opening doors so immigrants can come take from the rest of us. How does that stack up morally? Need I even ask?
Acts 20:35 tells us a saying of Jesus’ that wasn’t recorded in the Gospels: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Who knows? Maybe there was even more that got left out. Maybe Jesus really said, “Sure, I told you it’s more blessed to give than to receive, but honestly, folks that’s nothing. You want a real blessing? It’s yours, as long as you live someplace where the government makes you keep your doors open, so that anyone who wants what you’ve got can waltz right in and take it from you.”
But this “morality” is really no morality at all — not unless Jesus taught his disciples to waltz.
I’ll admit it: “waltz” is a bit anachronistic there. That’s just the beginning of mistakes in that imagined saying, though. To give can be very moral. Being forced to let people take things from you is just intolerable. Even where Jesus says (per some interpretations of Matthew 5:38-42) we should give freely to people who want to take from us, the action word there is still “give,” not “take.” And it’s still voluntary.
Level One giving can be wise or unwise, effective or ineffective. Level Two can, too. Level Three? It’s a mess. Totally worthless, with respect to wise humanitarian distribution. Who decides who gets the goods? The people who think they can come in and grab them. That’s not exactly morally targeted giving. If anything it’s committing the immoral act of encouraging others to take.
Open Immorality
Joe Biden isn’t arguing for open borders, but some of his Democrat colleagues come awfully close to it. Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez says illegal immigration (my term, not hers, obviously) is “innocent people … pursuing their basic human rights.” She says it’s wrong of us to make them to remain in Mexico. She frames it in moral terms. The pope did, too, even more so.
But this “morality” is really no morality at all — not unless Jesus taught his disciples to waltz. It’s inviting people to come in indiscriminately and take from us. This is not giving. It’s not wise, and it’s not effective in humanitarian terms.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-10-24--Science, Scientism and COVID-19: Timely Wisdom From CS Lewis

The national daily championing freedom , smaller government and human dignity .
The Stream offers a rich and lively source @ @ @ @ @ inspiration and conservative commentary while challenging the worst in the mainstream media .

John G. West is Vice President of Discovery Institute and Associate Director of the Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He has written or edited twelve books, including Darwin Day in America, Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest, The Politics of Revelation and Reason, The C.S. Lewis Readers’ Encyclopedia and The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society. His current research examines the impact of science on public policy and culture during the past century.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-10-24--Are Miracles Logically Impossible?

Are Miracles Logically Impossible?

Polls done across the last two decades show that most people still believe in miracles .
The number seems to be declining among younger people , though , particularly Millennials .
The question of miracles isn ’ t new , though .
Thinkers since the 17th century have criticized the idea of God ’ s supernatural doings in our world .
The argument hasn ’ t changed much since then .
Miracles break natural laws , and natural laws can ’ t be broken .
Pretty simple , isn ’ t it ?
But it doesn ’ t work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ push God out of sight , but it contains the seed for its own defeat .
The Scottish philosopher David Hume ( 1711-1776 ) was history ’ s chief critic of miracles .
He described them as a “ violation of natural law.
” The famous French skeptic Voltaire ( 1694-1778 ) referred to them similarly .
“ A miracle is the violation of mathematical , divine , immutable , eternal laws.
” Notice he called these laws “ divine.
” He wasn ’ t really an atheist , but he did remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hume and Voltaire rule out the existence of miracles before discussion can even begin .
Some thinkers today agree with them .
Malcolm Diamond , former professor of philosophy at Princeton , says if we were to believe in miracles , then , “ scientific development would either be stopped or made completely capricious.
” In other words , science is reliable because it ’ s based on repeatable , natural laws .
Violating those laws is a contradiction in itself .
Pulling back the curtain on their logic however reveals some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws imply a “ lawgiver , ” a rational Mind behind their existence .
Sir Fred Hoyle , the famous atheist astronomer who coined the term “ Big Bang , ” said , “ A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics , as well as with chemistry and biology , and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
” There is precision and genius behind the constructs of our world .
It speaks more to an Intelligent Mind than to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miracles based on the fact that they contradict natural laws forget where those laws originated in the first place .
Denying miracles goes with believing in a “ closed system ” universe .
The idea is that everything in our world is like a closed box .
It ’ s self-contained running like a randomly created clock .
Not even God can touch or tamper with it .
We find it hard , though , to imagine a clock made by chance and being completely self-contained .
Why then , should the universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of far more intricate design ?
Natural law is actually a great sign that the universe was designed by a super-intelligence .
Atheistic physicists have offered alternative theories to this such as the multiverse — vast numbers of universes , of which we inhabit one lucky one that can sustain life .
Some follow Hawking ’ s idea that , because of quantum gravity the universe “ will create itself.
” But ideas like these lack “ parsimony , ” or scientific simplicity .
They ’ re long on lofty jargon , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanation for what looks like an intelligently designed universe is Intelligence .
God Shows Up And Displays His Power And this has much to do with the question of miracles .
If God did set our world into motion , why couldn ’ t He have freedom to intervene when He wants to ?
If I built a painting easel for my kids ( which I have ) , I might modify it for various reasons down the road .
So natural laws do not make miracles impossible .
In fact , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
John Lennox , mathematician at Oxford University , says , “ When a miracle takes place , it is the laws of nature that alert us to the fact that it is a miracle.
” We could never know something out of the ordinary has happened if there was no such thing as ordinary .
Natural laws provide the needed stage for God to show up in our world and display His power .
Humanity survives through the comfort of unchanging regularities .
“ Violating ” those laws through miracles thus seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our attention .
This is exactly what the Bible says God has done .
“ He has given proof of this ( His promises ) to everyone by raising ( Jesus ) from the dead ” ( Acts 17:31 ) .
We Should Not Think it Strange When modern day skeptics exclude the possibility of miracles , it ’ s like inviting a bear into their brain and letting it thrash their own logic .
Hume , Voltaire and modern atheists say natural law pushes the miraculous out of sight .
Actually it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We can see further and better .
Einstein once said , “ the most incomprehensible thing about our universe , is that it is comprehensible.
” Our world is built on a rational , mathematical order that screams intelligence .
So we should not think it strange if God invites Himself into our affairs every now and then .
“ This salvation was first announced by the Lord , was confirmed to us by those who heard Him , and was affirmed by God through signs , wonders , various miracles.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a freelance writer who lives in Maple Ridge , British Columbia , outside Vancouver .
He has previously served as an urban missionary and youth pastor in Canada ’ s poorest postal code , Vancouver ’ s downtown Eastside , for just under a decade .
His passion is to build up the Body of Christ with truthful perspectives about current events and make Christian faith real in the hearts of today ’ s generation .
He lives with his wife , Sarah , and their two small children who always make @ @ @ @ @

Polls done across the last two decades show that most people still believe in miracles. The number seems to be declining among younger people, though, particularly Millennials. The question of miracles isn’t new, though. Thinkers since the 17th century have criticized the idea of God’s supernatural doings in our world.
Natural Laws Can’t Be Broken?
The argument hasn’t changed much since then. Miracles break natural laws, and natural laws can’t be broken. Pretty simple, isn’t it? But it doesn’t work. It may satisfy a superficial need to push God out of sight, but it contains the seed for its own defeat.
The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) was history’s chief critic of miracles. He described them as a “violation of natural law.” The famous French skeptic Voltaire (1694-1778) referred to them similarly. “A miracle is the violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws.” Notice he called these laws “divine.” He wasn’t really an atheist, but he did remain hostile to the idea of the supernatural.
Hume and Voltaire rule out the existence of miracles before discussion can even begin. Some thinkers today agree with them. Malcolm Diamond, former professor of philosophy at Princeton, says if we were to believe in miracles, then, “scientific development would either be stopped or made completely capricious.” In other words, science is reliable because it’s based on repeatable, natural laws. Violating those laws is a contradiction in itself.
Laws Imply a “Lawgiver”
Pulling back the curtain on their logic however reveals some serious flaws. To begin with, laws imply a “lawgiver,” a rational Mind behind their existence. Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous atheist astronomer who coined the term “Big Bang,” said, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” There is precision and genius behind the constructs of our world. It speaks more to an Intelligent Mind than to random nothingness.
And because our world is built on a rational, mathematical order that screams intelligence, we should not think it strange if God invites Himself into our affairs every now and then.
Those who argue against miracles based on the fact that they contradict natural laws forget where those laws originated in the first place. Denying miracles goes with believing in a “closed system” universe. The idea is that everything in our world is like a closed box. It’s self-contained running like a randomly created clock. Not even God can touch or tamper with it. We find it hard, though, to imagine a clock made by chance and being completely self-contained. Why then, should the universe be any different, with its signs of far more intricate design? Natural law is actually a great sign that the universe was designed by a super-intelligence.
Alternative Theories
Atheistic physicists have offered alternative theories to this such as the multiverse — vast numbers of universes, of which we inhabit one lucky one that can sustain life. Some follow Hawking’s idea that, because of quantum gravity the universe “will create itself.” But ideas like these lack “parsimony,” or scientific simplicity. They’re long on lofty jargon, but short on evidence. The most obvious explanation for what looks like an intelligently designed universe is Intelligence.
God Shows Up And Displays His Power
And this has much to do with the question of miracles. If God did set our world into motion, why couldn’t He have freedom to intervene when He wants to? If I built a painting easel for my kids (which I have), I might modify it for various reasons down the road.
So natural laws do not make miracles impossible. In fact, they provide the basis for any miracle claims! John Lennox, mathematician at Oxford University, says, “When a miracle takes place, it is the laws of nature that alert us to the fact that it is a miracle.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
We could never know something out of the ordinary has happened if there was no such thing as ordinary. Natural laws provide the needed stage for God to show up in our world and display His power. Humanity survives through the comfort of unchanging regularities. “Violating” those laws through miracles thus seems to be a surefire way of getting our attention. This is exactly what the Bible says God has done. “He has given proof of this (His promises) to everyone by raising (Jesus) from the dead” (Acts 17:31).
We Should Not Think it Strange
When modern day skeptics exclude the possibility of miracles, it’s like inviting a bear into their brain and letting it thrash their own logic. Hume, Voltaire and modern atheists say natural law pushes the miraculous out of sight. Actually it puts binoculars in front of our eyes. We can see further and better.
Einstein once said, “the most incomprehensible thing about our universe, is that it is comprehensible.” Our world is built on a rational, mathematical order that screams intelligence. So we should not think it strange if God invites Himself into our affairs every now and then.
“This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles.” (Hebrews 2:4).
Angelos Kyriakides is a freelance writer who lives in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, outside Vancouver. He has previously served as an urban missionary and youth pastor in Canada’s poorest postal code, Vancouver’s downtown Eastside, for just under a decade. His passion is to build up the Body of Christ with truthful perspectives about current events and make Christian faith real in the hearts of today’s generation. He lives with his wife, Sarah, and their two small children who always make life a joyful adventure.


thestream--2020-10-24--The Real Debate is Between Fauci and Other Scientists, Not Fauci and Trump

President Trump has finally taken the gloves off when it comes to his inherited advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci .
In a call with his campaign team , the president reportedly described Fauci as a “ disaster.
” In the debate on Thursday night , he was conciliatory toward Fauci .
But Trump is right to be mad .
Fauci gave the president bad advice on lockdowns , and yet the public health official has paid no price for it .
On the contrary , the press has lionized Fauci .
That ’ s made it hard for the president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by taking on Fauci directly , Trump allows the media to frame the dispute as Trump versus “ the science , ” with Fauci as the stand-in for the science .
The real debate , though , is between Fauci and the growing body of scientific evidence that contradicts his advice .
What ’ s more , there are thousands of scientific experts who are ready to talk about that evidence .
The lopsided influence of a few scientists like Fauci is the result of what we call the tyranny of experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a gold medal for scientific acumen .
It confers no advantage when it comes either to smarts or to public policy .
Officialdom merely allows narrow specialists to exercise power in areas outside their ken and competence .
Imagine , for instance , if an immunologist who had worked for decades in the federal government told the president that if he doesn ’ t shut down the country , 2.2 million people would die .
And imagine if that advice were based not on evidence but on a computer model that other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.
” Finally , imagine if that advice were protected from critique by other reputable scientists .
You don ’ t have to imagine this .
It happened in March .
Dr. Anthony Fauci and someone else — not yet identified — gave just that dubious advice to President Trump .
At the time , the president had no access to experts who would have challenged Fauci ’ s claims .
He was also under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci and the lockdowns .
As a result , the president had little choice but to act on that advice .
This is the tyranny of experts .
After a few months , the president realized that scientists weren ’ t speaking with one voice .
Many scientists had disputed the lockdowns from the very beginning .
Finally , Trump appointed Dr. Scott Atlas as his COVID-19 advisor .
Atlas , unlike Fauci and others , is an expert on weighing the costs and benefits of a public health policy .
Atlas has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gusto .
It ’ s no wonder that so much of the media , and social media giants , are doing their best to marginalize and censor him .
But Atlas isn ’ t a lone voice crying in the wilderness .
He speaks for hundreds of experts who argue that lockdowns inflict great pain for little if any gain .
( We argue that in detail in our new book The Price of Panic . )
President Trump was wise to bring Atlas in , but it ’ s just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part , a referendum on the lockdowns .
Joe Biden claims that he , unlike the president , listens to “ the science.
” The president needs to do everything in his power to make clear that the debate is not between him and science , but between scientists themselves .
On one side are those who claim lockdowns work and who call for more of them .
On the other side is an army of scientists and other experts who argue that the lockdowns are a disaster .
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrees with this .
Trump should cite scientists such as Harvard ’ s Martin Kulldorff , Oxford ’ s Sunetra Gupta , and Stanford Medical School ’ s Jay Bhattacharya every chance he gets .
Indeed , he should deliver a prepared speech making the scientific case against more lockdowns .
Joining him on the platform should be the forty or so top co-signers of the Great Barrington Declaration , which calls for an end to the lockdowns and a sensible strategy of “ focused protection.
” One of those scientists : Stanford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who won the 2013 Nobel Prize for chemistry .
Trump should elevate the platform of Levitt and these other scientists , and let them argue with Fauci et al .
This would re-frame the debate to the president ’ s advantage and allow the public on November 3rd to weigh in on the wisdom of lockdowns themselves .
Jay W. Richards , Douglas Axe , and William Briggs are the authors of The Price of Panic : How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe

President Trump has finally taken the gloves off when it comes to his inherited advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci. In a call with his campaign team, the president reportedly described Fauci as a “disaster.” In the debate on Thursday night, he was conciliatory toward Fauci. But Trump is right to be mad. Fauci gave the president bad advice on lockdowns, and yet the public health official has paid no price for it. On the contrary, the press has lionized Fauci. That’s made it hard for the president to pivot away from the lockdowns.
Unfortunately, by taking on Fauci directly, Trump allows the media to frame the dispute as Trump versus “the science,” with Fauci as the stand-in for the science. The real debate, though, is between Fauci and the growing body of scientific evidence that contradicts his advice. What’s more, there are thousands of scientific experts who are ready to talk about that evidence.
Tyranny of Experts
The lopsided influence of a few scientists like Fauci is the result of what we call the tyranny of experts. Being a public health official is not a gold medal for scientific acumen. It confers no advantage when it comes either to smarts or to public policy. Officialdom merely allows narrow specialists to exercise power in areas outside their ken and competence.
Imagine, for instance, if an immunologist who had worked for decades in the federal government told the president that if he doesn’t shut down the country, 2.2 million people would die. And imagine if that advice were based not on evidence but on a computer model that other expert modelers later described as “a buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.” Finally, imagine if that advice were protected from critique by other reputable scientists.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
You don’t have to imagine this. It happened in March. Dr. Anthony Fauci and someone else — not yet identified — gave just that dubious advice to President Trump. At the time, the president had no access to experts who would have challenged Fauci’s claims. He was also under siege by a hostile press that championed Fauci and the lockdowns. As a result, the president had little choice but to act on that advice.
This is the tyranny of experts.
Scientists Don’t All Think Alike
After a few months, the president realized that scientists weren’t speaking with one voice. Many scientists had disputed the lockdowns from the very beginning. Finally, Trump appointed Dr. Scott Atlas as his COVID-19 advisor. Atlas, unlike Fauci and others, is an expert on weighing the costs and benefits of a public health policy.
Atlas has taken to his new role with bravery and gusto. It’s no wonder that so much of the media, and social media giants, are doing their best to marginalize and censor him.
The president needs to do everything in his power to make clear that the debate is not between him and science, but between scientists themselves.
But Atlas isn’t a lone voice crying in the wilderness. He speaks for hundreds of experts who argue that lockdowns inflict great pain for little if any gain. (We argue that in detail in our new book The Price of Panic.)
President Trump was wise to bring Atlas in, but it’s just a first step. The election will be, in part, a referendum on the lockdowns. Joe Biden claims that he, unlike the president, listens to “the science.” The president needs to do everything in his power to make clear that the debate is not between him and science, but between scientists themselves.
A Referendum on Lockdowns
On one side are those who claim lockdowns work and who call for more of them. On the other side is an army of scientists and other experts who argue that the lockdowns are a disaster. Even the World Health Organization now more or less agrees with this.
Trump should cite scientists such as Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford Medical School’s Jay Bhattacharya every chance he gets. Indeed, he should deliver a prepared speech making the scientific case against more lockdowns. Joining him on the platform should be the forty or so top co-signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for an end to the lockdowns and a sensible strategy of “focused protection.”
One of those scientists: Stanford biophysicist and structural biologist Michael Levitt, who won the 2013 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Trump should elevate the platform of Levitt and these other scientists, and let them argue with Fauci et al. This would re-frame the debate to the president’s advantage and allow the public on November 3rd to weigh in on the wisdom of lockdowns themselves.
Jay W. Richards, Douglas Axe, and William Briggs are the authors of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe


A House Divided

“ It ’ s the most important election in our lifetime !
” How many times have we heard that expression ?
It ’ s become a cliché .
Except this time it ’ s probably true .
2020 marks not only the most important election in our lifetimes , but arguably in America ’ s history .
If the Declaration of Independence establishes America ’ s founding ( and not 1619 as some would have it ) , then at 244 years-old , as a nation-state , America is getting long in the tooth .
According to the historian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve already outlasted most of the world ’ s great empires , including the Persian ( 208 years ) , Grecian ( 231 years ) and Roman ( 207 years ) .
Our Constitution is by far the world ’ s oldest and most durable .
Yet today , it ’ s becoming dangerously frayed and threadbare and we would be quite foolish to think it will necessarily endure .
As Thomas Jefferson warned : “ A people that wants to remain ignorant and free … wants what never has been and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time in our history leading to the Civil War ( which cost more American lives than all our other wars combined ) , for the most part Americans have held common goals undergirded by a set of shared values .
Values , as Dennis Prager likes to remind us , that are still inscribed on our national currency : Liberty , E Pluribus Unum , In God We Trust .
What political differences Americans harbored turned not so much on their values and goals , but how to best achieve them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today the very concept of liberty is under siege .
Our Constitutional rights — freedom of conscience , religion , speech , assembly , and of the press — are each in their own way under duress and from multiple sectors .
Under the guise of public-health , Governors and local health officials have imposed a continuing form of soft martial-law with no end in sight .
Racism may not be systemic in America , but intolerance increasingly is , where politically incorrect views are routinely censored ( “ cancelled ” ) in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in social media .
E Pluribus Unum , a Latin expression meaning , “ Out of Many — One , ” risks becoming an anachronism .
A recent study found that among 173 surveyed schools , 42 percent offered segregated residences and 72 percent hosted segregated graduation ceremonies .
Instead of working toward national unity , Americans are separating along political , tribal , sexual identity and racial lines .
As for “ In God We Trust , ” fewer Americans make that claim than at any time in our history .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago , University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom observed in his book , The Closing of the American Mind : “ There is one thing a Professor can be absolutely certain of : almost every student entering the university believes , or says he believes , that truth is relative.
” Since then at least two generations of young Americans have come through an even more compromised and politicized public-school system .
It is any surprise , then , that today ’ s citizens are the least historically literate of any generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promise of a Marxist utopia is finding fertile ground among increasing numbers of young Americans ?
This is greatly concerning .
Rod Dreher in his recent book , Live Not by Lies , cites Americans from formerly Communist countries in eastern Europe who are sounding the alarm about what they see as an encroaching spirit of totalitarianism .
We dare not ignore such warnings .
In 1858 ( citing the words of Jesus in the gospel of Mark ) , Abraham Lincoln warned that “ a house divided can not stand.
” Within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil War erupted , a spasm of violence we have yet to fully recover from .
However , Americans today are confronting a different , but no less corrosive , division than what confronted Antebellum America .
Get Informed and Get Engaged The disunion today is over things more fundamental : What kind of nation should America be ?
What are our collective values ?
Does objective truth even matter ?
On the one side are those contending that our history is a lie , that free-enterprise economics is fundamentally flawed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of identity politics .
On the other side are those wanting to preserve the values still inscribed on our coins .
Which side prevails , only God knows .
But many feel , and I am one of these , that this year ’ s Election marks a kind of existential referendum on our future .
Some are making this year ’ s election about personality .
That ’ s a mistake .
Because long after the particular Personalities are gone , their policies will exert themselves and with asymmetrical force .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are continually creating , what is our role in this fateful hour ?
It is to get informed and get engaged !
That means educating oneself on the positions and platforms of the various candidates and measures and to make informed decisions at the ballot box .
We must vote , and vote as if our children ’ s future depends on it , because it does .
Mark is the Founder and President of Protect our Kids , which serves to educate parents of children in the public-school system about Comprehensive Sexuality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public schools .
Prior to founding POK , Mark served as corporate counsel and in executive positions at several large technology companies before going into private practice as a patent litigator .
He holds a B.S .
in Electrical Engineering from California Polytechnic University and a J.D .
from Trinity Law School .
A native Californian , Mark is married with two grown , homeschooled children .

“It’s the most important election in our lifetime!”
How many times have we heard that expression? It’s become a cliché. Except this time it’s probably true. 2020 marks not only the most important election in our lifetimes, but arguably in America’s history.
If the Declaration of Independence establishes America’s founding (and not 1619 as some would have it), then at 244 years-old, as a nation-state, America is getting long in the tooth. According to the historian, Sir John Grubb, we’ve already outlasted most of the world’s great empires, including the Persian (208 years), Grecian (231 years) and Roman (207 years). Our Constitution is by far the world’s oldest and most durable. Yet today, it’s becoming dangerously frayed and threadbare and we would be quite foolish to think it will necessarily endure. As Thomas Jefferson warned: “A people that wants to remain ignorant and free … wants what never has been and never will be.”
American Values
With the exception of the time in our history leading to the Civil War (which cost more American lives than all our other wars combined), for the most part Americans have held common goals undergirded by a set of shared values. Values, as Dennis Prager likes to remind us, that are still inscribed on our national currency: Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust. What political differences Americans harbored turned not so much on their values and goals, but how to best achieve them. That’s no longer true.
Today the very concept of liberty is under siege. Our Constitutional rights — freedom of conscience, religion, speech, assembly, and of the press — are each in their own way under duress and from multiple sectors. Under the guise of public-health, Governors and local health officials have imposed a continuing form of soft martial-law with no end in sight. Racism may not be systemic in America, but intolerance increasingly is, where politically incorrect views are routinely censored (“cancelled”) in corporations, on college campuses, and in social media.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
E Pluribus Unum, a Latin expression meaning, “Out of Many — One,” risks becoming an anachronism. A recent study found that among 173 surveyed schools, 42 percent offered segregated residences and 72 percent hosted segregated graduation ceremonies. Instead of working toward national unity, Americans are separating along political, tribal, sexual identity and racial lines.
As for “In God We Trust,” fewer Americans make that claim than at any time in our history. As the Atlantic has recently reported:
In the early 1990s, the historical tether between American identity and faith snapped. Religious non-affiliation in the U.S. started to rise — and rise, and rise. By the early 2000s, the share of Americans who said they didn’t associate with any established religion (also known as “nones”) had doubled. By the 2010s, this grab bag of atheists, agnostics, and spiritual dabblers had tripled in size.
A House Divided Cannot Stand
Forty years ago, University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom observed in his book, The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a Professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Since then at least two generations of young Americans have come through an even more compromised and politicized public-school system. It is any surprise, then, that today’s citizens are the least historically literate of any generation preceding it, or that the unfounded promise of a Marxist utopia is finding fertile ground among increasing numbers of young Americans?
This is greatly concerning. Rod Dreher in his recent book, Live Not by Lies, cites Americans from formerly Communist countries in eastern Europe who are sounding the alarm about what they see as an encroaching spirit of totalitarianism. We dare not ignore such warnings.
The disunion today is over things more fundamental: What kind of nation should America be? What are our collective values? Does objective truth even matter?
In 1858 (citing the words of Jesus in the gospel of Mark), Abraham Lincoln warned that “a house divided cannot stand.” Within three years of uttering those words the Civil War erupted, a spasm of violence we have yet to fully recover from. However, Americans today are confronting a different, but no less corrosive, division than what confronted Antebellum America.
Get Informed and Get Engaged
The disunion today is over things more fundamental: What kind of nation should America be? What are our collective values? Does objective truth even matter?
On the one side are those contending that our history is a lie, that free-enterprise economics is fundamentally flawed, and that empirical truth must succumb to myriad forms of identity politics. On the other side are those wanting to preserve the values still inscribed on our coins. Which side prevails, only God knows. But many feel, and I am one of these, that this year’s Election marks a kind of existential referendum on our future. Some are making this year’s election about personality. That’s a mistake. Because long after the particular Personalities are gone, their policies will exert themselves and with asymmetrical force.
As those responsible for the society we are continually creating, what is our role in this fateful hour? It is to get informed and get engaged! That means educating oneself on the positions and platforms of the various candidates and measures and to make informed decisions at the ballot box. We must vote, and vote as if our children’s future depends on it, because it does.
Mark is the Founder and President of Protect our Kids, which serves to educate parents of children in the public-school system about Comprehensive Sexuality Education and identity politics-based curriculums in the public schools. Prior to founding POK, Mark served as corporate counsel and in executive positions at several large technology companies before going into private practice as a patent litigator. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from California Polytechnic University and a J.D. from Trinity Law School. A native Californian, Mark is married with two grown, homeschooled children.


thestream--2020-10-25--MAGA Mask Wearing Nuns Steal the Show at Trump Rally

Religious nuns wearing “ Make America Great Again ” masks at President Donald Trump ’ s rally excited the attention @ @ @ @ @ .
At least three different nuns can be seen standing behind the president as he @ @ @ @ @ , Ohio .
The nuns , dressed in white , black and purple habits and @ @ @ @ @ , also wore black masks with the letters “ MAGA ” on them , were @ @ @ @ @ the Trump rally .
One nun held a bible in her hands , pictures show @ @ @ @ @ .
The nuns can be seen applauding throughout the president ’ s speech , as @ @ @ @ @ Note : To no one ’ s surprise , some immediately set out to dox @ @ @ @ @ by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher @ @ @ @ @ audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org @

Religious nuns wearing “Make America Great Again” masks at President Donald Trump’s rally excited the attention of Twitter users Saturday evening.
At least three different nuns can be seen standing behind the president as he spoke Saturday night in Circleville, Ohio. The nuns, dressed in white, black and purple habits and wearing crosses around their necks, also wore black masks with the letters “MAGA” on them, were in the front row of the Trump rally.
One nun held a bible in her hands, pictures show, while others held rosaries.
.@realDonaldTrump in Ohio: "Joe [Biden], you want to do all this stuff, why didn't you do it? You were there 3.5 years ago. … I wouldn't have run Joe if you did a good job. … The fact is you didn't do a good job Joe, you let us down." pic.twitter.com/0sK8kDf62l — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 24, 2020
The nuns can be seen applauding throughout the president’s speech, as Twitter users noted.
https://twitter.com/jacobkschneider/status/1320114045849042945?s=20
Nuns with MAGA masks @realDonaldTrump in Ohio pic.twitter.com/cgZHiA2aPF — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) October 24, 2020
Alternatively, Joe Biden wants to force nuns to pay for abortions. https://t.co/zKUiTuECgS — Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) October 24, 2020
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Editors Note: To no one’s surprise, some immediately set out to dox the nuns.
https://twitter.com/whenGODwins/status/1320249481175158784
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-10-25--Hunter Biden Sought to Avoid Registering as a Foreign Agent for Chinese Venture Involving His Father

• Hunter Biden wanted to avoid registering as a foreign agent as part of a deal with a Chinese energy company , according to text messages obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation .
• In a message to Tony Bobulinski on May 1 , 2017 , Hunter Biden also proposed creating a U.S.-based shell company so that the joint venture could bid on contracts with the U.S. government .
• A day after sending the message , Hunter Biden set up a meeting with his father , Joe Biden , and Bobulinski in Los Angeles .
• He claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equity shareholder in early documents for the Chinese business deal .
Hunter Biden suggested setting up a shell company to do business with a Chinese firm in order to avoid registering as a foreign agent , and to be able to bid on contracts with the U.S. government , according to documents from May 2017 obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation .
A day after sending the message , Biden arranged a meeting between his father , Joe Biden , and Tony Bobulinski , one of the prospective partners in a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conglomerate whose chairman had links to the communist regime in Beijing .
“ We don ’ t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know , ” Hunter Biden wrote to Bobulinski on May 1 , 2017 , according to a message obtained by the DCNF .
“ No matter what it will need to be a US company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state funded projects.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ( FCPA ) as well as the Foreign Agents Registration Act ( FARA ) .
Biden did not explain in the messages why he thought the venture with CEFC would violate FARA or FCPA without the buffer of a U.S. shell company .
A report from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee released on Sept. 23 regarding Hunter Biden ’ s foreign business dealings said that CEFC ’ s chairman at the time , Ye Jianming , had ties to the People ’ s Liberation Army .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2000s for a group controlled by the Chinese Communist Party , according to the Senate report .
On May 2 , 2017 , a day after the text message , Hunter Biden arranged a meeting between Bobulinski , James Biden and Joe Biden in Los Angeles .
Bobulinski said at a press conference on Thursday that the meeting lasted an hour .
He also said that the meeting undercut Joe Biden ’ s past claims to have never discussed business with his son .
“ That is false , ” Bobulinski said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I have firsthand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family , including Joe Biden.
” Bobulinski said that during the May 2017 meeting , he and the Bidens discussed “ the Biden ’ s family business plans with the Chinese.
” He said that Joe Biden was “ plainly familiar ” with those plans “ at a high level.
” Text messages preserved by Bobulinski show him discussing the meeting with Hunter and James Biden .
Bobulinski has provided emails , text messages and business records related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homeland Security Committee .
He also met Friday with the FBI , according to Sen. Ron Johnson , who chairs the committee .
The DCNF has also obtained Bobulinski ’ s trove of records .
Bobulinski , Hunter Biden , James Biden and two other partners , James Gilliar and Rob Walker , went on to form companies called SinoHawk and Oneida Holdings to partner with CEFC .
Documents from the Bobulinski trove show that Oneida Holdings was formed on May 22 , 2017 , three weeks after Hunter Biden proposed using a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Bobulinski , CEFC was expected to fund the partnership with SinoHawk with $ 10 million in seed money to begin investing in infrastructure and technology companies .
He said Thursday that CEFC never followed through with the investment .
Emails and text messages from Bobulinski show him hounding CEFC executives about the delayed wire transfer .
Hunter and James Biden ended up working with CEFC , though Bobulinski said on Thursday that he was unaware of the side deal .
In the Aug. 3 , 2017 , email , Bobulinski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of questions from CEFC about the joint venture with SinoHawk .
One question from CEFC was about a $ 5 million interest-free loan the company was making to the Biden family .
The next day , without Bobulinski ’ s knowledge , CEFC made the first in a series of wire transfers to a law firm for Hunter Biden .
According to the Senate report , a subsidiary of CEFC China Energy called CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $ 100,000 to Hunter Biden ’ s law firm , Owasco .
The report also says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for potential criminal financial activity.
” On Aug. 8 , 2017 , according to the Senate report , the CEFC affiliate wired $ 5 million to a bank account for a shell company called Hudson West III .
That shell company , which Hunter Biden co-owned with an associate of Ye Jianming , would end up wiring $ 4,790,375 to Hunter Biden ’ s law firm through Sept. 25 , 2018 , according to the report .
Hunter and James Biden also tapped into a $ 100,000 line of credit linked to Hudson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report said .
Bobulinski confronted James Biden about revelations in the Senate report , according to his records .
“ You can imagine my shock when reading the report yesterday put out by the Senate committee , ” Bobulinski wrote to James Biden on Sept. 24 .
“ The fact that you and HB were lying to Rob , James and I while accepting $ 5 million from CeFc is infuriating , ” Bobulinksi wrote .
“ And so disappointing based on the years of work that James , Rob and team invested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued , referring to James Gilliar and Rob Walker , the two other SinoHawk partners .
Other documents from the Bobulinski documents raise questions about whether Joe Biden was a passive investor in the CEFC partnership .
A May 13 , 2017 email written by Gilliar , the SinoHawk partner , makes reference to a 10 % equity stake that Hunter Biden would hold for “ the big guy.
” Bobulinski said Thursday that “ the big guy ” is Joe Biden , and that Hunter Biden often referred to his father by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed on any business records for SinoHawk or Oneida Holdings , though messages from the Bobulinski trove show that the partners discussed keeping Joe Biden ’ s name hidden during business discussions .
“ Don ’ t mention Joe being involved , it ’ s only when u are face to face , I know u know that but they are paranoid , ” Gilliar told Bobulinski in a text message on May 20 , 2017 .
“ They should be paranoid about things , ” Bobulinski replied .
The Biden campaign denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ever invested in his son ’ s companies .
“ Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family , nor in any overseas business whatsoever .
He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever held stock for him , ” said Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates in a statement to The Wall Street Journal .
The campaign did not address questions about Biden ’ s meeting with Bobulinski , according to The Journal .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a request for comment .

Hunter Biden wanted to avoid registering as a foreign agent as part of a deal with a Chinese energy company, according to text messages obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
In a message to Tony Bobulinski on May 1, 2017, Hunter Biden also proposed creating a U.S.-based shell company so that the joint venture could bid on contracts with the U.S. government.
A day after sending the message, Hunter Biden set up a meeting with his father, Joe Biden, and Bobulinski in Los Angeles.
He claims that Joe Biden is referenced as an equity shareholder in early documents for the Chinese business deal.
Hunter Biden suggested setting up a shell company to do business with a Chinese firm in order to avoid registering as a foreign agent, and to be able to bid on contracts with the U.S. government, according to documents from May 2017 obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
A day after sending the message, Biden arranged a meeting between his father, Joe Biden, and Tony Bobulinski, one of the prospective partners in a deal with CEFC China Energy, a Chinese conglomerate whose chairman had links to the communist regime in Beijing.
“We don’t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know,” Hunter Biden wrote to Bobulinski on May 1, 2017, according to a message obtained by the DCNF.
“No matter what it will need to be a US company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state funded projects.”
Biden appeared to be referring to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as well as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Biden did not explain in the messages why he thought the venture with CEFC would violate FARA or FCPA without the buffer of a U.S. shell company.
A report from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee released on Sept. 23 regarding Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings said that CEFC’s chairman at the time, Ye Jianming, had ties to the People’s Liberation Army.
Ye had also been an officer in the 2000s for a group controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, according to the Senate report.
On May 2, 2017, a day after the text message, Hunter Biden arranged a meeting between Bobulinski, James Biden and Joe Biden in Los Angeles.
Bobulinski said at a press conference on Thursday that the meeting lasted an hour. He also said that the meeting undercut Joe Biden’s past claims to have never discussed business with his son.
“That is false,” Bobulinski said of Joe Biden’s previous statements.
“I have firsthand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden.”
Bobulinski said that during the May 2017 meeting, he and the Bidens discussed “the Biden’s family business plans with the Chinese.”
He said that Joe Biden was “plainly familiar” with those plans “at a high level.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Text messages preserved by Bobulinski show him discussing the meeting with Hunter and James Biden.
Bobulinski has provided emails, text messages and business records related to the CEFC deal to the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He also met Friday with the FBI, according to Sen. Ron Johnson, who chairs the committee.
The DCNF has also obtained Bobulinski’s trove of records.
Bobulinski, Hunter Biden, James Biden and two other partners, James Gilliar and Rob Walker, went on to form companies called SinoHawk and Oneida Holdings to partner with CEFC.
Documents from the Bobulinski trove show that Oneida Holdings was formed on May 22, 2017, three weeks after Hunter Biden proposed using a U.S. company to do business with CEFC.
According to Bobulinski, CEFC was expected to fund the partnership with SinoHawk with $10 million in seed money to begin investing in infrastructure and technology companies.
He said Thursday that CEFC never followed through with the investment. Emails and text messages from Bobulinski show him hounding CEFC executives about the delayed wire transfer.
Hunter and James Biden ended up working with CEFC, though Bobulinski said on Thursday that he was unaware of the side deal.
In the Aug. 3, 2017, email, Bobulinski provided a letter responding to a list of questions from CEFC about the joint venture with SinoHawk. One question from CEFC was about a $5 million interest-free loan the company was making to the Biden family.
The next day, without Bobulinski’s knowledge, CEFC made the first in a series of wire transfers to a law firm for Hunter Biden.
According to the Senate report, a subsidiary of CEFC China Energy called CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $100,000 to Hunter Biden’s law firm, Owasco.
The report also says that the wire payment “was identified for potential criminal financial activity.”
On Aug. 8, 2017, according to the Senate report, the CEFC affiliate wired $5 million to a bank account for a shell company called Hudson West III.
That shell company, which Hunter Biden co-owned with an associate of Ye Jianming, would end up wiring $4,790,375 to Hunter Biden’s law firm through Sept. 25, 2018, according to the report.
Hunter and James Biden also tapped into a $100,000 line of credit linked to Hudson West III and CEFC, the Senate report said.
Bobulinski confronted James Biden about revelations in the Senate report, according to his records.
“You can imagine my shock when reading the report yesterday put out by the Senate committee,” Bobulinski wrote to James Biden on Sept. 24.
“The fact that you and HB were lying to Rob, James and I while accepting $5 million from CeFc is infuriating,” Bobulinksi wrote.
“And so disappointing based on the years of work that James, Rob and team invested to get things done,” he continued, referring to James Gilliar and Rob Walker, the two other SinoHawk partners.
Other documents from the Bobulinski documents raise questions about whether Joe Biden was a passive investor in the CEFC partnership.
A May 13, 2017 email written by Gilliar, the SinoHawk partner, makes reference to a 10% equity stake that Hunter Biden would hold for “the big guy.”
Bobulinski said Thursday that “the big guy” is Joe Biden, and that Hunter Biden often referred to his father by that term.
Joe Biden was never listed on any business records for SinoHawk or Oneida Holdings, though messages from the Bobulinski trove show that the partners discussed keeping Joe Biden’s name hidden during business discussions.
“Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid,” Gilliar told Bobulinski in a text message on May 20, 2017.
“They should be paranoid about things,” Bobulinski replied.
The Biden campaign denied in a statement on Thursday that Joe Biden ever invested in his son’s companies.
“Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any overseas business whatsoever. He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member or any other person ever held stock for him,” said Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.
The campaign did not address questions about Biden’s meeting with Bobulinski, according to The Journal.
A lawyer for Hunter Biden did not respond to a request for comment.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-10-25--A New Challenge for Tough Times

A New Challenge for Tough Times

“ Dude , I want you to punch Donald Trump in the face.
” During Amy Coney Barrett ’ s hearing , New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker quoted a man who approached him at a town hall .
“ Dude , that ’ s a felony , ” is how Booker described his response .
Good for him , fighting against our crazed political culture of anger , contempt and violence .
I don ’ t agree with Cory Booker on a lot of things , but I agree , as he went on to say , that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He said : “ Somewhere along the line , there ’ s going to be a moment .
It ’ s coming .
I think it ’ s long past that there has to be acts of heroism when it comes to extending grace.
” Now , that was his pitch to Republicans to hold off on a vote on Amy Coney Barrett .
Largely because I think Barrett may be the best thing that has happened to American politics in a long time , I disagree .
Washington needs her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments were an unexpected turn in the hearings , which were dehumanizing , as they tend to be .
Last year , Arthur Brooks diagnosed what ’ s ailing American politics in his book Love Your Enemies : How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt .
“ America is addicted to political contempt , ” Brooks wrote .
“ While most of us hate what it is doing to our country and worry about how contempt coarsens our culture over the long term , many of us … actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle of contempt in the way they treat others , especially on social media .
We wish our national debates were nutritious and substantive , but we have an insatiable craving for insults to the other side .
As much as we know we should ignore the nasty columnist , turn off the TV loudmouth , and stop checking our Twitter feeds , we indulge our guilty urge to listen as our biases are confirmed that the other guys are not just wrong , but stupid and evil.
” “ Contempt , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad for a country dependent on people working together in politics , communities and the economy .
Unless we hope to become a one-party state , we can not afford contempt for our fellow Americans who simply disagree with us.
” The problem has only gotten worse .
The confirmation hearings abundantly showed this .
Did you notice the explosion about the phrase “ sexual preference ” ?
Barrett didn ’ t mean to make any political statement by her choice of words .
But the rules of what is tolerated by polite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that committee during the hearing , leading Merriam-Webster to label the phrase as offensive .
If you ’ re an American who fears Barrett on the court , consider there is another point of view , as I acknowledge yours .
I ’ d like us to have old-fashioned debates about ideas .
I want to see America survive with freedom of religion and speech and all the rest .
How about you ?
I suspect there are more of us than not .
We just aren ’ t often the bullhorn types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good Broaden what Sen. Booker was talking about beyond the Senate .
“ This is a point , ” he said , “ when millions of Americans are suffering and hurting and losing the very idea of what it means to be an American in terms of the dream and the promise of this country .
This is the moment that this nation needs … actions of grace.
” Take that as a challenge .
We can work with people we disagree with , even on fundamentals , for a greater good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It sanctifies .
It heals .
It ’ s a way forward .
And people of prayer , let ’ s pray that the impossible will be possible .
Because it sure feels impossible just about now !
But , as they say , with grace all things are possible .
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute , editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics : Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living .
She is also chair of Cardinal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York .
She can be contacted at klopez @ nationalreview.com .

“Dude, I want you to punch Donald Trump in the face.”
During Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker quoted a man who approached him at a town hall.
“Dude, that’s a felony,” is how Booker described his response.
Good for him, fighting against our crazed political culture of anger, contempt and violence. I don’t agree with Cory Booker on a lot of things, but I agree, as he went on to say, that we need “a revival of civic grace.” He said: “Somewhere along the line, there’s going to be a moment. It’s coming. I think it’s long past that there has to be acts of heroism when it comes to extending grace.”
Now, that was his pitch to Republicans to hold off on a vote on Amy Coney Barrett. Largely because I think Barrett may be the best thing that has happened to American politics in a long time, I disagree. Washington needs her. America needs her.
Booker’s comments were an unexpected turn in the hearings, which were dehumanizing, as they tend to be.
A Culture of Contempt
Last year, Arthur Brooks diagnosed what’s ailing American politics in his book Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt.
“America is addicted to political contempt,” Brooks wrote. “While most of us hate what it is doing to our country and worry about how contempt coarsens our culture over the long term, many of us … actively indulge their habit by participating in the cycle of contempt in the way they treat others, especially on social media. We wish our national debates were nutritious and substantive, but we have an insatiable craving for insults to the other side. As much as we know we should ignore the nasty columnist, turn off the TV loudmouth, and stop checking our Twitter feeds, we indulge our guilty urge to listen as our biases are confirmed that the other guys are not just wrong, but stupid and evil.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Sound familiar?
“Contempt,” Brooks writes, “is impractical and bad for a country dependent on people working together in politics, communities and the economy. Unless we hope to become a one-party state, we cannot afford contempt for our fellow Americans who simply disagree with us.”
Another Point of View
The problem has only gotten worse. The confirmation hearings abundantly showed this. Did you notice the explosion about the phrase “sexual preference”? Barrett didn’t mean to make any political statement by her choice of words. But the rules of what is tolerated by polite society were changed by the Democrats on that committee during the hearing, leading Merriam-Webster to label the phrase as offensive.
If you’re an American who fears Barrett on the court, consider there is another point of view, as I acknowledge yours. I’d like us to have old-fashioned debates about ideas. I want to see America survive with freedom of religion and speech and all the rest. How about you? I suspect there are more of us than not. We just aren’t often the bullhorn types.
Actions of Grace and the Greater Good
Broaden what Sen. Booker was talking about beyond the Senate. “This is a point,” he said, “when millions of Americans are suffering and hurting and losing the very idea of what it means to be an American in terms of the dream and the promise of this country. This is the moment that this nation needs … actions of grace.”
Take that as a challenge. We can work with people we disagree with, even on fundamentals, for a greater good. Listen. Be an agent of grace. It sanctifies. It heals. It’s a way forward. And people of prayer, let’s pray that the impossible will be possible. Because it sure feels impossible just about now! But, as they say, with grace all things are possible.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics: Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living. She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan’s pro-life commission in New York. She can be contacted at [email protected].