thestream--2020-06-12--What These 6 Black Leaders Told Trump He Needs to Do

A half-dozen black leaders and influencers met with President Donald Trump and other administration officials Wednesday to discuss issues of concern to the black community .
Trump held the meeting as issues critical to African Americans came to the forefront in unrest after George Floyd ’ s May 25 death in police custody in Minneapolis .
“ You go down the list of criminal justice reform and all of the things we ’ ve done — opportunity zones , the best unemployment rate in history just before the plague came in , ” Trump said in opening the meeting while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s going to be back again soon , ” he added of record employment .
“ I think it ’ s going to be back again , a lot sooner than people think.
” Here is what six of the black leaders and influencers had to say at the beginning of the roundtable with Trump and aides in the Cabinet Room of the White House .
After supporting Trump in 2016 , the Rev .
Darrell Scott said in introducing himself , he has been a liaison between the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s been one challenge after another , and we ’ ve pressed pause , but we ’ re ready to press play now and continue in the positive initiatives regarding the black community , ” said Scott , co-chairman of the Urban Revitalization Coalition .
Significant accomplishments resulted after he helped connect the Trump administration with key activists and leaders , Scott said , adding : The left-leaning media has been harmful to black Americans , said Raynard Jackson , CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates , a Washington-based public affairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d like to say to all the media assembled here that I wish they would quit lying about what you ’ ve done , specifically for the black community , ” Jackson said , adding : So you got radical liberal journalists , like Joy Reid from MSNBC , Don Lemon from CNN , [ and ] Roland Martin , who are putting more poison into the black community than any drug dealer , who are killing more black folks than any white person with a sheet over their face .
How are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the economy you had , Mr. President , before the virus , was the continuation of Obama .
That ’ s just factually not true .
I have a degree in accounting .
I keep up with the economy .
They ’ re lying .
So to all these folks on MSNBC , CNN , [ and ] Roland Martin : What ?
Are you afraid to have real black Republicans who know what the hell they ’ re talking about ?
If you want to know the truth , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let ’ s do it .
And I think , Mr. President , your record would win the debate .
Talk radio host Wayne Dupree noted that he had interviewed Trump on several occasions as a candidate and as president , and originally met him when he was a businessman .
“ I ’ m glad that he has changed things here in D.C. , ” Dupree said .
“ But my daughters and my son and my family , they want to see a lot more positive things coming from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see your leadership , and they also want to see things change for the better in this country .
I know you can do it , ” he said .
Talk radio host Sonnie Johnson called herself the “ most Trumpish ” of the group assembled , and argued that the administration should do even more in what turned out to be the lengthiest early remarks .
“ The black community is not doing OK .
I understand the perspective and the desire to put out this talking point , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And I can do it in a simplistic way of just saying : What are the first things you did when you first came into the presidency ?
The very first thing you did was remove regulation and taxation at high levels.
” The change , she said , gave oxygen to black entrepreneurs .
“ Think about the black community that has been under Democratic rule , progressive rule for 60 years , ” Johnson said .
Johnson stressed the need for reforming and improving public education as well as policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over major cities need to make improvements to help black residents : “ The fake news media spread lies because we aren ’ t there giving another choice as to how these things can be done , ” Johnson said .
“ And it ’ s going to continue to go left if we aren ’ t there , giving an option to make it go right.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
The president could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she said , recalling how Trump used to be popular among many black celebrities such as rapper Snoop Dogg before he ran for president as a Republican .
“ You were taking pictures with Snoop , and you were taking pictures with all of the icons of hip hop , ” Johnson said .
“ You did that , I think — and you can tell me if I ’ m wrong — but you did that because you saw capitalists , you saw branders , you saw entrepreneurs.
” “ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance and make things grow .
That is — that is us .
That is the black community , ” she said , adding : Trump ’ s presidency has “ been nothing short of historic for black America , ” said Kareem Lanier , co-chairman with Scott of the Urban Revitalization Coalition .
“ I don ’ t say that because I have to , because I can say whatever I want to say as a free citizen here in the U.S. , ” Lanier said , prompting some laughter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful championship of criminal justice reform , saying black Americans “ were getting locked up at unprecedented rates ” as the result of crime legislation championed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s .
Lanier also praised opportunity zones , designed to draw more investment in poor urban and rural areas , and noted Trump ’ s long-term budgetary commitment to historically black colleges and universities .
The next goal must be police reform , he said , one day before Trump and Attorney General William Barr convened a meeting on that topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gateway to what we see as an unjust criminal justice system sometimes , meaning if a crooked cop doesn ’ t do a terrible , corrupt thing with an individual , we never get into that bad system , ” Lanier said .
Trump , he added , likely could identify with this problem : “ I tell people this all the time .
This whole situation with this policing , it ’ s not new to black people .
We ’ ve been used to it , ” he added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassed by the police all the time and I was a good — I was , I think I was , a good kid , ” Lanier said , prompting laughter .
“ But it was a part of — it ’ s a part of our community.
” Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson , who spoke first after the president , touted the historic economic progress for black Americans before the COVID-19 pandemic struck .
“ This administration has already established a record of actually solving problems — problems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about for many years , ” Carson said .
Political opponents continued to criticize , he said .
“ You know , there are some who just wait for anything to criticize it , but there are actually some people who actually want to see a solution , ” Carson said .
“ And I ’ ve had a chance to talk to many of them .
We ’ ll continue to do that — [ to ] put forward the kinds of programs that actually get people out of poverty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in poverty and happy in poverty .
We want to change that whole dynamic.
” The HUD secretary added that economic growth helps everyone .
“ Your philosophy , of course , has been that a rising tide floats all boats , ” Carson said to Trump .
“ And that ’ s why you don ’ t spend a lot of time with identity politics .
We want everybody to be successful .
”

A half-dozen black leaders and influencers met with President Donald Trump and other administration officials Wednesday to discuss issues of concern to the black community.
Trump held the meeting as issues critical to African Americans came to the forefront in unrest after George Floyd’s May 25 death in police custody in Minneapolis.
“You go down the list of criminal justice reform and all of the things we’ve done — opportunity zones, the best unemployment rate in history just before the plague came in,” Trump said in opening the meeting while news cameras were still there.
“And it’s going to be back again soon,” he added of record employment. “I think it’s going to be back again, a lot sooner than people think.”
Here is what six of the black leaders and influencers had to say at the beginning of the roundtable with Trump and aides in the Cabinet Room of the White House.
1. Darrell Scott: ‘Ready to Press Play’
After supporting Trump in 2016, the Rev. Darrell Scott said in introducing himself, he has been a liaison between the Trump administration and the black community.
“It’s been one challenge after another, and we’ve pressed pause, but we’re ready to press play now and continue in the positive initiatives regarding the black community,” said Scott, co-chairman of the Urban Revitalization Coalition.
Significant accomplishments resulted after he helped connect the Trump administration with key activists and leaders, Scott said, adding:
Since then we’ve worked on criminal justice reform, we’ve worked on urban revitalization, prison reform … HBCUs [historically black colleges and universities] — a number of initiatives that are proactive toward the black community. And here we are now, and we’re facing another challenge, and we’re going to come up with some great solutions to these problems that are confronting this country. And I’m just glad to have a seat at the table and to have my input received.
2. Raynard Jackson: A ‘Lying’ Media
The left-leaning media has been harmful to black Americans, said Raynard Jackson, CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, a Washington-based public affairs and consulting firm.
“I’d like to say to all the media assembled here that I wish they would quit lying about what you’ve done, specifically for the black community,” Jackson said, adding:
So you got radical liberal journalists, like Joy Reid from MSNBC, Don Lemon from CNN, [and] Roland Martin, who are putting more poison into the black community than any drug dealer, who are killing more black folks than any white person with a sheet over their face. How are they doing it? Spreading these lies about the economy you had, Mr. President, before the virus, was the continuation of Obama. That’s just factually not true. I have a degree in accounting. I keep up with the economy. They’re lying. So to all these folks on MSNBC, CNN, [and] Roland Martin: What? Are you afraid to have real black Republicans who know what the hell they’re talking about? If you want to know the truth, if you want us to dissect the Obama economy, let’s do it. And I think, Mr. President, your record would win the debate.
3. Wayne Dupree: ‘Changed Things in DC’
Talk radio host Wayne Dupree noted that he had interviewed Trump on several occasions as a candidate and as president, and originally met him when he was a businessman.
“I’m glad that he has changed things here in D.C.,” Dupree said. “But my daughters and my son and my family, they want to see a lot more positive things coming from the White House.”
“They want to see your leadership, and they also want to see things change for the better in this country. I know you can do it,” he said.
4. Sonnie Johnson: ‘Go Into These Communities’
Talk radio host Sonnie Johnson called herself the “most Trumpish” of the group assembled, and argued that the administration should do even more in what turned out to be the lengthiest early remarks.
“The black community is not doing OK. I understand the perspective and the desire to put out this talking point, but it’s not,” Johnson said. “And I can do it in a simplistic way of just saying: What are the first things you did when you first came into the presidency? The very first thing you did was remove regulation and taxation at high levels.”
The change, she said, gave oxygen to black entrepreneurs.
“Think about the black community that has been under Democratic rule, progressive rule for 60 years,” Johnson said.
Johnson stressed the need for reforming and improving public education as well as policing, and said local governments that preside over major cities need to make improvements to help black residents:
All of these things have been under Democratic control for 60 years, and they are not going to change until you — we — have a Republican Party that is willing to go into these communities and actually offer a choice to these people about how we can do things differently. Because the way it is structured now, the only choice that we get is ‘left’ or either ‘further left,’ and we’re not getting the opportunity to actually vote on what we look at as ‘conservatism,’ equally applied.
“The fake news media spread lies because we aren’t there giving another choice as to how these things can be done,” Johnson said. “And it’s going to continue to go left if we aren’t there, giving an option to make it go right.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The president could help push more entrepreneurship among African Americans, she said, recalling how Trump used to be popular among many black celebrities such as rapper Snoop Dogg before he ran for president as a Republican.
“You were taking pictures with Snoop, and you were taking pictures with all of the icons of hip hop,” Johnson said. “You did that, I think — and you can tell me if I’m wrong — but you did that because you saw capitalists, you saw branders, you saw entrepreneurs.”
Trump nodded as she spoke.
“You saw people that were willing to take a chance and make things grow. That is — that is us. That is the black community,” she said, adding:
I would like to see a challenge from you to see how many in the black community can put their names on the side of a building coming out of this. If we’re really going to reshape and reform the way that we do this, issue that challenge, because that’s what we need more now than ever. And we need it to be focused and [centered] on the black community, not into letting people come in and gentrify areas that are traditionally ours.
5. Kareem Lanier: ‘Police Reform the Gateway’
Trump’s presidency has “been nothing short of historic for black America,” said Kareem Lanier, co-chairman with Scott of the Urban Revitalization Coalition.
“I don’t say that because I have to, because I can say whatever I want to say as a free citizen here in the U.S.,” Lanier said, prompting some laughter.
He also referred to Trump’s successful championship of criminal justice reform, saying black Americans “were getting locked up at unprecedented rates” as the result of crime legislation championed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Lanier also praised opportunity zones, designed to draw more investment in poor urban and rural areas, and noted Trump’s long-term budgetary commitment to historically black colleges and universities.
The next goal must be police reform, he said, one day before Trump and Attorney General William Barr convened a meeting on that topic in Dallas.
“Police reform is the gateway to what we see as an unjust criminal justice system sometimes, meaning if a crooked cop doesn’t do a terrible, corrupt thing with an individual, we never get into that bad system,” Lanier said.
Trump, he added, likely could identify with this problem:
This administration has been marred by a crooked cop like [former FBI Director] James Comey and others going after you and … creating things that just were not there. The impeachment was … just not real, but they can do that. And our community has been affected by that in a way that it’s hard to explain.
“I tell people this all the time. This whole situation with this policing, it’s not new to black people. We’ve been used to it,” he added.
“As a kid, I got harassed by the police all the time and I was a good — I was, I think I was, a good kid,” Lanier said, prompting laughter. “But it was a part of — it’s a part of our community.”
6. Ben Carson: ‘Solving Problems’
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, who spoke first after the president, touted the historic economic progress for black Americans before the COVID-19 pandemic struck.
“This administration has already established a record of actually solving problems — problems that other people just talk about and then talk about for many years,” Carson said.
Political opponents continued to criticize, he said.
“You know, there are some who just wait for anything to criticize it, but there are actually some people who actually want to see a solution,” Carson said. “And I’ve had a chance to talk to many of them. We’ll continue to do that — [to] put forward the kinds of programs that actually get people out of poverty, not things that just keep people stable in poverty and happy in poverty. We want to change that whole dynamic.”
The HUD secretary added that economic growth helps everyone.
“Your philosophy, of course, has been that a rising tide floats all boats,” Carson said to Trump. “And that’s why you don’t spend a lot of time with identity politics. We want everybody to be successful.”
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal


thestream--2020-06-12--Trump Praises Letter From Archbishop Warning of ‘Orchestrated Media Narrative’ Legitimizing Violence

President Donald Trump praised a letter written to him by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano , the Holy See ’ s former ambassador to Washington , warning of an “ orchestrated media narrative ” which seeks to “ legitimize violence and crime ” rather than fight racism and bring about justice .
As riots and protests raged throughout the United States , Vigano wrote a June 7 letter published in LifeSiteNews to the president warning of an eternal struggle between good and evil .
“ In society , Mr. President , these two opposing realities co-exist as eternal enemies , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it appears that the children of darkness — whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days — have decided to show their cards , so to speak , by now revealing their plans , ” Vigano wrote .
The rioting comes after the death of George Floyd , a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes , video of the incident showed .
Derek Chauvin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges .
Vigano said the attacks and criticism the president received after visiting the National Shrine of St. John Paul II are “ part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order , but to aggravate dispositions ; not to bring justice , but to legitimize violence and crime ; not to serve the truth , but to favor one political faction.
” “ For the first time , the United States has in you a President who courageously defends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world , who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship , ” Vigano told Trump .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Trump ’ s participation in the March for Life and his proclamation of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month confirm that “ both of us are on the same side in this battle , ” Vigano said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of street protests is instrumental to the purposes of those who would like to see someone elected in the upcoming presidential elections who embodies the goals of the deep state and who expresses those goals faithfully and with conviction , ” Vigano said .
“ It will not be surprising if , in a few months , we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Masonic adage teaches , ” Vigano adds .
Vigano also emphasized to Trump that he constantly prays for the “ beloved American nation ” and for Trump and his allies .
Trump thanked the Holy See ’ s former ambassador to Washington for the letter in a Wednesday evening tweet .
“ So honored by Archbishop Viganò ’ s incredible letter to me , ” the president said .
“ I hope everyone , religious or not , reads it !
” Trump ’ s praise of Vigano ’ s letter comes after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had knelt in prayer during a Black Lives Matter protest .
“ We can not close our eyes to any form of racism or exclusion , while pretending to defend the sacredness of every human life , ” Francis said .
The Associated Press reported that the pope ’ s statement indicates “ a clear effort to call out some conservative Catholics for whom the abortion issue is paramount , while other ‘ life ’ issues dear to Francis — racism , immigration , the death penalty and poverty — play second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has received criticism from other Catholic leaders , including Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory , who accused Trump of using tear gas to scatter protesters “ for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.
” Vigano has previously said that he personally informed Francis in 2013 of disgraced and defrocked Cardinal Theodore McCarrick ’ s alleged sexual misconduct , and accused Francis of lying about knowing the information and covering up the allegations .
“ I will not say a single word about this , ” Francis told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusation in August 2018 .
“ I believe the statement speaks for itself .
And you have the sufficient journalistic ability to make your conclusions .
It ’ s an act of trust.
” He also said in May 2019 : “ I didn ’ t know anything … nothing , nothing , ” regarding McCarrick ’ s misconduct .
“ What the pope said about not knowing anything is a lie .
[ … ] He pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick , and he pretends that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about McCarrick in the first place , ” Vigano said in a May 2019 interview with LifeSite News following the pope ’ s comments .
The Vatican did not immediately respond to a request for comment from 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 licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

President Donald Trump praised a letter written to him by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the Holy See’s former ambassador to Washington, warning of an “orchestrated media narrative” which seeks to “legitimize violence and crime” rather than fight racism and bring about justice.
As riots and protests raged throughout the United States, Vigano wrote a June 7 letter published in LifeSiteNews to the president warning of an eternal struggle between good and evil.
“In society, Mr. President, these two opposing realities co-exist as eternal enemies, just as God and Satan are eternal enemies. And it appears that the children of darkness — whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days — have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans,” Vigano wrote.
The rioting comes after the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes, video of the incident showed. Derek Chauvin, the officer, has been fired and arrested on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges.
Vigano said the attacks and criticism the president received after visiting the National Shrine of St. John Paul II are “part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction.”
“For the first time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship,” Vigano told Trump.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Trump’s participation in the March for Life and his proclamation of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month confirm that “both of us are on the same side in this battle,” Vigano said.
“It is quite clear that the use of street protests is instrumental to the purposes of those who would like to see someone elected in the upcoming presidential elections who embodies the goals of the deep state and who expresses those goals faithfully and with conviction,” Vigano said.
“It will not be surprising if, in a few months, we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches,” Vigano adds.
Vigano also emphasized to Trump that he constantly prays for the “beloved American nation” and for Trump and his allies. Trump thanked the Holy See’s former ambassador to Washington for the letter in a Wednesday evening tweet.
“So honored by Archbishop Viganò’s incredible letter to me,” the president said. “I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it!”
So honored by Archbishop Viganò’s incredible letter to me. I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it! https://t.co/fVhkCz89g5 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020
Trump’s praise of Vigano’s letter comes after Pope Francis expressed support for a bishop who had knelt in prayer during a Black Lives Matter protest. “We cannot close our eyes to any form of racism or exclusion, while pretending to defend the sacredness of every human life,” Francis said.
The Associated Press reported that the pope’s statement indicates “a clear effort to call out some conservative Catholics for whom the abortion issue is paramount, while other ‘life’ issues dear to Francis — racism, immigration, the death penalty and poverty — play second fiddle at the ballot box.”
To read the letter from Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano with Stream founder Rev. James Robison’s introduction, see Read This Open Letter to the President.
Trump has received criticism from other Catholic leaders, including Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory, who accused Trump of using tear gas to scatter protesters “for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.”
Vigano has previously said that he personally informed Francis in 2013 of disgraced and defrocked Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s alleged sexual misconduct, and accused Francis of lying about knowing the information and covering up the allegations.
“I will not say a single word about this,” Francis told reporters who asked about the Vigano’s accusation in August 2018. “I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the sufficient journalistic ability to make your conclusions. It’s an act of trust.”
He also said in May 2019: “I didn’t know anything … nothing, nothing,” regarding McCarrick’s misconduct.
“What the pope said about not knowing anything is a lie. […] He pretends not to remember what I told him about McCarrick, and he pretends that it wasn’t him who asked me about McCarrick in the first place,” Vigano said in a May 2019 interview with LifeSite News following the pope’s comments.
The Vatican did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
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--2020-06-12--A More Perfect Union May Not be Good Enough

Since my sons were in middle school , I ’ ve been telling them there may not be a United States when they hit 30 .
( One has now graduated from high school .
His brother will next year . )
Watching the news , I may have been too optimistic .
Righteous protests over the killing of George Floyd by a brutal cop deteriorated into looting sprees .
Then would-be revolutionaries in Antifa and Black Lives Matter began burning businesses and beheading statues .
They even chased the police out of a Minneapolis police station .
Self-styled insurrectionists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
” Meanwhile , the mayors of those cities , and their states ’ governors , cower in fear .
President Trump receives more criticism from local Democrats and the media for decrying the situation than the perpetrators .
Where are the national Democrat leaders ?
Putting on African scarves and publicly kneeling .
A more serious politician , Senator Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) , wrote a NY Times editorial adducing the Insurrection Act .
Using the military to enforce the law has been done 20 times .
Twelve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left erupted .
The paper even forced the approving editor to resign .
Even mentioning the Insurrection Act “ proved ” — for the umpteenth time , it seems — that Trump is a “ dictator ” and “ fascist.
” Democrat candidate Joe Biden agreed .
He accused the President of trying to “ steal the election.
” And that he would “ refuse to leave the White House ” if he lost .
The US : Best , But Not Perfect How far away are we from the show trials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Not very , it seems .
At least in the likes of Seattle , Minneapolis and some other places run by craven Democrats .
But probably not here in Georgia .
Or Texas .
Or just about any red state .
And if that means those of us in flyover country wind up parting ways with the Marxist margins — well , so be it .
I know that in many ways the American system of government is the best in history .
For 231 years it ’ s gotten increasingly better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution ’ s Preamble .
Establishing justice .
Insuring domestic tranquility .
Providing for the common defense .
Promoting the general welfare .
Yes , we had to kill 600,000 Americans in the 1860s to keep the progress going .
( Someone remind BLM of that ) .
Our ancestors did form a more perfect Union than has ever existed .
But the most perfect Union ?
No .
Such will never exist on this planet , short of Christ ’ s Second Coming .
A little known but brilliant mid-20th century scholar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Evolution of Political Thought in 1958 .
( The Preface is available here . )
His thesis is that history is cyclical , not linear , when it comes to political systems .
Riffing on Plato and Aristotle , Parkinson believes types of government move from monarchy to aristocracy then democracy .
Democracy always dies , maybe not in darkness .
Sometimes it expires in the light of day .
But it will devolve into anarchy , only to be replaced by some form of dictatorship .
Which in turn institutionalizes into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We like to think that history ended with the collapse of the USSR .
That the West is the best , with our democratic republics .
But “ there is no historical reason for supposing our present systems of governance are other than quite temporary expedients.
” ( Parkinson again . )
Athenians thought their ( male-only ) democracy the epitome of government .
Spartans prided themselves that their checked-and-balanced dual monarchy was best .
Citizens of Rome ’ s Republic knew better .
But then , so did the ones in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their gods .
( Until the Roman Republicans , seeing them as their North African nemesis , destroyed them . )
Emperors , if not their subjects , always thought the same — whether Roman , Persian , Chinese or Byzantine .
Ditto for kings and queens , of whatever nationality .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
We have been taught to think that rule by the many is the only moral choice .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilizations — a majority , in human history — in which one or only a few persons held the levers of power .
Remember , Christians , that our faith long pre-existed the American Republic .
And who ’ s to say it didn ’ t prosper better in Justinian ’ s Eastern Roman Empire ?
Or Charles V ’ s Holy Roman one ?
Maybe even in Russia under the Czars , or for that matter Putin ?
I don ’ t think the US will collapse .
But the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows how much things have changed since 1991 , or even 2001 .
It might .
One paradigm says democratic systems last an average of 200 years .
So says Alexis de Tocqueville ( or perhaps Alexander Tytler ) : “ A democracy is always temporary in nature ; it simply can not exist as a permanent form of government.
” Parkinson is harder to pin down .
He thinks civilizations last for a millennium , on average .
But that they change political systems throughout that time frame .
So if , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types of governments , that gives each roughly 250 years .
Which means the clock is ticking on America ’ s democratic phase .
What Comes Next ?
What comes next , if that ’ s true ?
Does the country balkanize into regional states , as an ex-KGB analyst predicted a decade ago ?
Maybe there are more logical alignments for the US ( and Canada ) than what we have now .
Or does the US stay one polity , but slide into one-person rule ?
Such could be of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Roman Empire came about .
The late Republic suffered through horrible dislocations , including insurrection and eventually civil wars .
Dictatorship , which was originally a temporary expedient , turned into an imperial system .
The French did much the same in the late 18th century , although they compressed the process into years , not decades .
Don ’ t think we are immune .
Do It For the Children ?
But all one-person rule is not fascism , despite what the ill-educated leftists may screech .
Britain has been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Monarchy does not equate to tyranny .
And , as noted above , the Christian faith has often fared well under kings and emperors .
Most of us would miss the Republic , and rightfully so .
But if it can no longer secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — what good is it ?
Timothy Furnish holds a Ph.D. in Islamic , World and African history .
He is a former U.S. Army Arabic linguist and , later , civilian consultant to U.S. Special Operations Command .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Middle East and Middle-earth ; a history professor ; and sometime media opiner ( as , for example , on Fox News Channel ’ s War Stories : Fighting ISIS ) .

Since my sons were in middle school, I’ve been telling them there may not be a United States when they hit 30. (One has now graduated from high school. His brother will next year.) Watching the news, I may have been too optimistic. Righteous protests over the killing of George Floyd by a brutal cop deteriorated into looting sprees. Then would-be revolutionaries in Antifa and Black Lives Matter began burning businesses and beheading statues. They even chased the police out of a Minneapolis police station. Self-styled insurrectionists in Seattle have now declared a “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” Meanwhile, the mayors of those cities, and their states’ governors, cower in fear. President Trump receives more criticism from local Democrats and the media for decrying the situation than the perpetrators.
Where are the national Democrat leaders? Putting on African scarves and publicly kneeling. A more serious politician, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), wrote a NY Times editorial adducing the Insurrection Act. Using the military to enforce the law has been done 20 times. Twelve times by Democrat Presidents. But the Left erupted. The paper even forced the approving editor to resign. Even mentioning the Insurrection Act “proved” — for the umpteenth time, it seems — that Trump is a “dictator” and “fascist.” Democrat candidate Joe Biden agreed. He accused the President of trying to “steal the election.” And that he would “refuse to leave the White House” if he lost.
The US: Best, But Not Perfect
How far away are we from the show trials and mob rule of The Dark Knight Rises? Not very, it seems. At least in the likes of Seattle, Minneapolis and some other places run by craven Democrats. But probably not here in Georgia. Or Texas. Or just about any red state. And if that means those of us in flyover country wind up parting ways with the Marxist margins — well, so be it.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. — Alexis de Tocqueville (or perhaps Alexander Tytler)
I know that in many ways the American system of government is the best in history. For 231 years it’s gotten increasingly better at those things spelled out in the Constitution’s Preamble. Establishing justice. Insuring domestic tranquility. Providing for the common defense. Promoting the general welfare. Yes, we had to kill 600,000 Americans in the 1860s to keep the progress going. (Someone remind BLM of that). Our ancestors did form a more perfect Union than has ever existed.
But the most perfect Union? No. Such will never exist on this planet, short of Christ’s Second Coming.
Four Political Phases
A little known but brilliant mid-20th century scholar is instructive. C. Northcote Parkinson wrote The Evolution of Political Thought in 1958. (The Preface is available here.) His thesis is that history is cyclical, not linear, when it comes to political systems. Riffing on Plato and Aristotle, Parkinson believes types of government move from monarchy to aristocracy then democracy. Democracy always dies, maybe not in darkness. Sometimes it expires in the light of day. But it will devolve into anarchy, only to be replaced by some form of dictatorship. Which in turn institutionalizes into monarchy. And the cycle begins anew.
History Has Not Ended
We like to think that history ended with the collapse of the USSR. That the West is the best, with our democratic republics. But “there is no historical reason for supposing our present systems of governance are other than quite temporary expedients.” (Parkinson again.) Athenians thought their (male-only) democracy the epitome of government. Spartans prided themselves that their checked-and-balanced dual monarchy was best. Citizens of Rome’s Republic knew better. But then, so did the ones in Carthage, where they sacrificed babies to their gods. (Until the Roman Republicans, seeing them as their North African nemesis, destroyed them.) Emperors, if not their subjects, always thought the same — whether Roman, Persian, Chinese or Byzantine. Ditto for kings and queens, of whatever nationality.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
We have been taught to think that rule by the many is the only moral choice. That would have been disputed by the legions of civilizations — a majority, in human history — in which one or only a few persons held the levers of power. Remember, Christians, that our faith long pre-existed the American Republic. And who’s to say it didn’t prosper better in Justinian’s Eastern Roman Empire? Or Charles V’s Holy Roman one? Maybe even in Russia under the Czars, or for that matter Putin?
Is the Clock Ticking?
I don’t think the US will collapse. But the fact that I even have to write that sentence shows how much things have changed since 1991, or even 2001. It might. One paradigm says democratic systems last an average of 200 years. So says Alexis de Tocqueville (or perhaps Alexander Tytler): “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.” Parkinson is harder to pin down. He thinks civilizations last for a millennium, on average. But that they change political systems throughout that time frame. So if, broadly speaking, there are four major types of governments, that gives each roughly 250 years. Which means the clock is ticking on America’s democratic phase.
What Comes Next?
What comes next, if that’s true? Does the country balkanize into regional states, as an ex-KGB analyst predicted a decade ago? Maybe there are more logical alignments for the US (and Canada) than what we have now. Or does the US stay one polity, but slide into one-person rule? Such could be of the Left or the Right. Remember how the Roman Empire came about. The late Republic suffered through horrible dislocations, including insurrection and eventually civil wars. Dictatorship, which was originally a temporary expedient, turned into an imperial system. The French did much the same in the late 18th century, although they compressed the process into years, not decades. Don’t think we are immune.
Do It For the Children?
But all one-person rule is not fascism, despite what the ill-educated leftists may screech. Britain has been a democratic system with a monarchy for centuries. Monarchy does not equate to tyranny. And, as noted above, the Christian faith has often fared well under kings and emperors. Most of us would miss the Republic, and rightfully so. But if it can no longer secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — what good is it?
Timothy Furnish holds a Ph.D. in Islamic, World and African history. He is a former U.S. Army Arabic linguist and, later, civilian consultant to U.S. Special Operations Command. He’s the author of books on the Middle East and Middle-earth; a history professor; and sometime media opiner (as, for example, on Fox News Channel’s War Stories: Fighting ISIS).


thestream--2020-06-12--This ‘Friend of the Court’ is no Friend of Justice for Flynn

We ’ ve all been waiting for Judge John Gleeson ’ s amicus brief on the Michael Flynn case , and it finally dropped on Wednesday .
Sure enough , this “ friend of the court ” is no friend of Flynn , or apparently of justice being served in this case .
Recall that Judge Emmet Sullivan personally asked Gleeson to write it ; this was just a couple of days after the op-ed Gleeson had co-authored on the subject that happened to appear in the WASHINGTON POST .
Entitled “ The Flynn case is over when the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this commentary told us all we needed to know about where Gleeson was going to stand and why the judge chose him to write the brief .
“ The record reeks of improper political influence , ” Gleeson stated on May 11 , without even bothering to make that case .
In fact , as I said weeks ago after reading the piece , he might as well have just made a copy of that and filed it as his amicus brief .
That ’ s pretty much what he did , except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same .
If you have the time and inclination to read this 80-page pile of nonsense , here ’ s a pdf of the brief filed by Judge Gleeson .
Gleeson asserts in his brief that the DOJ ’ s decision to drop the Flynn case is “ a gross abuse of prosecutorial power ’ and , unbelievably , accuses them of “ attempting to provide special treatment to a favored friend and political ally of the President of the United States.
” This is such a politicized and wrongheaded piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even know where to start .
Byron York , speaking with Martha MacCallum Wednesday evening , pointed out that it ’ s the “ sole responsibility ” of the Department of Justice to withdraw charges if it so chooses .
It is NOT within the judge ’ s authority to deny that .
I ’ ll add this : We ’ ve seen before that judges who don ’ t like the President can ’ t seem to help attributing the worst motives to everything he or his administration does , and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just make it up and go with that .
Where does Judge Gleeson get off with this “ special treatment ” garbage ?
President Trump has stood back and let the wheels of so-called justice turn ever-so-slowly while his “ favored friend and political ally ” was financially and professionally ruined .
If that ’ s “ special treatment , ” I sure wouldn ’ t want it .
The attorney general has solid motives for wanting to drop this case , ample reason to be troubled by what he has seen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Flynn .
Gleeson ’ s brief does not speculate about these , even though he has no trouble speculating about the President ’ s motives .
Gleeson makes three arguments : 1 ) that Sullivan ’ s court has the authority to deny the AG ’ s motion to dismiss , 2 ) that it SHOULD deny the AG ’ s motion to dismiss , and 3 ) that in sentencing Flynn , the court should “ consider the defendant ’ s perjury , ” a reference to his earlier guilty plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gleeson must maintain that the predicate for investigating Flynn was sound .
As explained well in a piece at TheConservativeTreehouse.com , he has to defend not only the origins of “ Spygate ” but also everything else that stemmed from that .
How does he do that when so much that has presumably been learned about it by U.S. Attorney John Durham is still under wraps ?
“ When you read the brief , ” this article says , “ if does make you wonder if Gleeson might be attempting to frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of justifying the total Spygate operation .
This approach would be of benefit to the corrupt DOJ and FBI small group who are viewed to have purposefully weaponized their agencies for political intents.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
To counter this , the DOJ might have to open up about why the predicate for the investigation of Flynn is invalid .
After all , that ’ s what the DOJ is claiming in its decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation was corrupt , then the questioning of Flynn on January 24 , 2017 , was “ materially and fundamentally flawed.
” I would add that this is especially true considering FBI investigators recommended closing the case on January 4 .
In suggesting that Flynn perjured himself by reversing his guilty plea , Judge Gleeson conveniently avoids the claim that Flynn ’ s plea was coerced .
He ’ s saying Flynn should be punished for lying about a crime he was coerced to plead guilty to .
“ Flynn has indeed committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gleeson says , “ for which he deserves punishment , and the Court has the authority to initiate a prosecution for that crime.
” Yet Another Chance to Damage Trump Oh , but Judge Gleeson doesn ’ t say that Judge Sullivan should go THAT far , even though he could .
Gleeson magnanimously recommends that Sullivan merely “ take Flynn ’ s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilt.
” Perhaps the thinking is that this is a good way to justify prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into pardoning him .
Flynn , once again , is collateral damage in the effort to hurt Trump politically .
An article at RedState makes some strong additional points .
For one thing , it points out that Gleeson ’ s brief cites media reports — which “ are sourced to anonymous government officials , which we now know were former Obama administration officials who fed the entire false fantasy “ Trump-Russian ” collusion argument to gullible and willing anti-Trump media for the past nearly four years.
” Also , it notes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief was necessarily limited , as “ there is NO DOUBT that DOJ has more information available to it than the information reported in the IG report that Gleeson relies on.
” In other words , Barr knows a lot more about this case than Gleeson does .
Gleeson also relies on that Intelligence Community Assessment from January 2017 , which , as the RedState article says , “ reached certain ‘ conclusions ’ that have been determined to not have been factually accurate.
” As an example I would add that John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fictitious Steele “ dossier ” in that report and was able to get a summary in .
The RedState article goes into legal precedent as well , noting language from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that Judge Gleeson conveniently left out when he cited the case the U.S. v. Hamm : “ As the district judge acknowledged , the prosecutor is the first and presumptively the best judge of where the public interest lies .
The trial judge can not simply substitute his judgment for that of the prosecutor.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ … [ T ] his is a case in which the Government…decided that it would best serve the public interest to dismiss the indictments against the appellants .
Neither this court on appeal nor the trial court may properly reassess the prosecutor ’ s evaluation of the public interest.
” In other words , it ’ s Barr ’ s call .
Perhaps Gleeson ’ s insane , politically-charged argument won ’ t matter except to show the world even more of what is going on in Judge Sullivan ’ s kangaroo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the D.C. Court of Appeals , and oral arguments are set for this Friday .
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events .
A New York Times best-selling author , he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN .

We’ve all been waiting for Judge John Gleeson’s amicus brief on the Michael Flynn case, and it finally dropped on Wednesday. Sure enough, this “friend of the court” is no friend of Flynn, or apparently of justice being served in this case.
Recall that Judge Emmet Sullivan personally asked Gleeson to write it; this was just a couple of days after the op-ed Gleeson had co-authored on the subject that happened to appear in the WASHINGTON POST. Entitled “The Flynn case is over when the judge says it’s over,” this commentary told us all we needed to know about where Gleeson was going to stand and why the judge chose him to write the brief.
“The record reeks of improper political influence,” Gleeson stated on May 11, without even bothering to make that case. In fact, as I said weeks ago after reading the piece, he might as well have just made a copy of that and filed it as his amicus brief. That’s pretty much what he did, except the brief is a LOT more of the same.
If you have the time and inclination to read this 80-page pile of nonsense, here’s a pdf of the brief filed by Judge Gleeson.
Special Treatment?
Gleeson asserts in his brief that the DOJ’s decision to drop the Flynn case is “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power’ and, unbelievably, accuses them of “attempting to provide special treatment to a favored friend and political ally of the President of the United States.” This is such a politicized and wrongheaded piece of bilge, it’s hard to even know where to start.
Byron York, speaking with Martha MacCallum Wednesday evening, pointed out that it’s the “sole responsibility” of the Department of Justice to withdraw charges if it so chooses. It is NOT within the judge’s authority to deny that.
I’ll add this: We’ve seen before that judges who don’t like the President can’t seem to help attributing the worst motives to everything he or his administration does, and this case is one more example. They just make it up and go with that. Where does Judge Gleeson get off with this “special treatment” garbage? President Trump has stood back and let the wheels of so-called justice turn ever-so-slowly while his “favored friend and political ally” was financially and professionally ruined. If that’s “special treatment,” I sure wouldn’t want it. The attorney general has solid motives for wanting to drop this case, ample reason to be troubled by what he has seen in the prosecution –- and persecution –- of General Flynn. Gleeson’s brief does not speculate about these, even though he has no trouble speculating about the President’s motives.
Three Ridiculous Arguments
Gleeson makes three arguments: 1) that Sullivan’s court has the authority to deny the AG’s motion to dismiss, 2) that it SHOULD deny the AG’s motion to dismiss, and 3) that in sentencing Flynn, the court should “consider the defendant’s perjury,” a reference to his earlier guilty plea. Unbelievable.
To make this argument, Gleeson must maintain that the predicate for investigating Flynn was sound. As explained well in a piece at TheConservativeTreehouse.com, he has to defend not only the origins of “Spygate” but also everything else that stemmed from that. How does he do that when so much that has presumably been learned about it by U.S. Attorney John Durham is still under wraps?
“When you read the brief,” this article says, “if does make you wonder if Gleeson might be attempting to frame the current Flynn argument from the perspective of justifying the total Spygate operation. This approach would be of benefit to the corrupt DOJ and FBI small group who are viewed to have purposefully weaponized their agencies for political intents.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
To counter this, the DOJ might have to open up about why the predicate for the investigation of Flynn is invalid. After all, that’s what the DOJ is claiming in its decision to drop the case. If the investigation was corrupt, then the questioning of Flynn on January 24, 2017, was “materially and fundamentally flawed.” I would add that this is especially true considering FBI investigators recommended closing the case on January 4.
In suggesting that Flynn perjured himself by reversing his guilty plea, Judge Gleeson conveniently avoids the claim that Flynn’s plea was coerced. He’s saying Flynn should be punished for lying about a crime he was coerced to plead guilty to. “Flynn has indeed committed perjury in these proceedings,” Judge Gleeson says, “for which he deserves punishment, and the Court has the authority to initiate a prosecution for that crime.”
Yet Another Chance to Damage Trump
Oh, but Judge Gleeson doesn’t say that Judge Sullivan should go THAT far, even though he could. Gleeson magnanimously recommends that Sullivan merely “take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilt.” Perhaps the thinking is that this is a good way to justify prison for Flynn, which goads President Trump into pardoning him. Flynn, once again, is collateral damage in the effort to hurt Trump politically.
An article at RedState makes some strong additional points.
For one thing, it points out that Gleeson’s brief cites media reports — which “are sourced to anonymous government officials, which we now know were former Obama administration officials who fed the entire false fantasy “Trump-Russian” collusion argument to gullible and willing anti-Trump media for the past nearly four years.”
Also, it notes that the IG report Gleeson used in his brief was necessarily limited, as “there is NO DOUBT that DOJ has more information available to it than the information reported in the IG report that Gleeson relies on.” In other words, Barr knows a lot more about this case than Gleeson does.
Gleeson also relies on that Intelligence Community Assessment from January 2017, which, as the RedState article says, “reached certain ‘conclusions’ that have been determined to not have been factually accurate.” As an example I would add that John Brennan argued strongly in favor of including the fictitious Steele “dossier” in that report and was able to get a summary in.
Legal Precedent and What’s Next
The RedState article goes into legal precedent as well, noting language from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that Judge Gleeson conveniently left out when he cited the case the U.S. v. Hamm: “As the district judge acknowledged, the prosecutor is the first and presumptively the best judge of where the public interest lies. The trial judge cannot simply substitute his judgment for that of the prosecutor.”
And this, from the same ruling: “…[T]his is a case in which the Government…decided that it would best serve the public interest to dismiss the indictments against the appellants. Neither this court on appeal nor the trial court may properly reassess the prosecutor’s evaluation of the public interest.” In other words, it’s Barr’s call.
Perhaps Gleeson’s insane, politically-charged argument won’t matter except to show the world even more of what is going on in Judge Sullivan’s kangaroo court. The case now goes to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and oral arguments are set for this Friday.
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events. A New York Times best-selling author, he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN.
Originally published at MikeHuckabee.com. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-06-13--C.S. Lewis, Narnia, and Darwin’s Silver Chair

In The Chronicles of Narnia , C. S. Lewis tells the story of two children and an adult “ Marsh-wiggle ” who descend deep into a maze of dreary underground caverns to rescue Prince Rilian , son of King Caspian .
Eventually they happen upon a friendly knight who explains that the underworld is really a fine place to call home , and its ruler is a wonderful queen worthy of devotion .
He has just one problem .
Every night he falls under an evil spell , during which he raves like an irredeemable lunatic .
Fortunately , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else during these rabid spells , he explains , because every evening the good queen binds him to a silver chair for the duration of the fit .
Soon enough the explorers get to witness one of these spells .
But it doesn ’ t play out as expected .
The knight does grow distraught , but he doesn ’ t rave like an unhinged maniac .
Instead , he maintains that in fact it ’ s during the day that he is under the queen ’ s spell , and the spell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insists that the silver chair , far from protecting him , is the very thing that gradually reasserts the evil spell over him .
Until it does , he remembers everything .
He remembers that the queen is his enemy .
He remembers that he hates a life lived away from the sun .
And he remembers that he is the son of a king — indeed , he is the very prince they have come to rescue , Prince Rilian .
To break the spell for good , they must loose him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
C. S. Lewis was an agnostic before he became a Christian , so he understood the spell of unbelief .
In this Narnia novel , The Silver Chair , and in the character of Prince Rilian , Lewis gives us a young man who , under the evil queen ’ s spell , is like the modern man who has ceased to believe there is anything beyond our material world .
Both Rilian and the modern materialist live away from the light , and imagine that such a place is the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , forget that they are the offspring of royalty and are called back to the father ’ s kingdom — the one to the king of Narnia , the other to the King of the universe .
And for each , there are moments when the spell lifts , if only briefly .
For the materialist , something whispers to him — perhaps as only a passing sense , triggered by a stunning mountain vista , the love of a mother for her child , an act of heroism from a stranger — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that here is something that can not honestly be reduced to mere atoms or glands or fanciful stories of evolution and survival advantage .
In Lewis ’ s story , Prince Rilian needs to destroy the silver chair to break the spell .
For many today caught in the spell of materialism , Darwinism is the silver chair .
It ’ s a belief system that prevents them from seeing the powerful evidence of design in life , evidence that points to something more than matter , to a great immaterial intelligence who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How the Darwinist Got His Blinders In their more candid moments , some leading lights in the evolutionary community admit that the Darwinian worldview comes complete with a set of blinders .
They even urge the wearing of the blinders .
The great biophysicist Francis Crick , for example , said , “ Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed , but rather evolved.
” 1 Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin was even more explicit .
In an essay he wrote for The New York Review of Books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by definition , the possibility of God intelligently designing life — never mind that belief in a rational , orderly cosmic Creator was the soil from which modern science sprang .
Here is Lewontin in his own words : What claims could Lewontin have had in mind that , as he put it , “ are against common sense , ” patently absurd , and held up by little more than “ unsubstantiated just-so stories ” akin to Victorian author Rudyard Kipling ’ s fanciful children ’ s tales about how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hump ?
We can only guess what Lewontin had in mind , but it ’ s not hard to think of a few worthy candidates .
Maybe Lewontin had in mind any of the many evolutionary stories that sound almost comically similar to Rudyard Kipling ’ s just-so stories for children — evolutionary stories explaining how , for instance , the bird got its wings , or the bat its sonar .
The evolutionist notes how a given feature would have been useful for survival and reproduction , sketches out a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then calls it good .
Actually , the vaguely sketched intermediates often aren ’ t even mentioned .
Just the bare mention of a survival advantage is considered good enough .
Thus , humans evolved cooperativeness because it helped us survive and thrive better in a hostile world .
What about the uncooperative , violent streak in many men ?
Oh well , our ancestors evolved that because it helped us eliminate competitors , seize women , and pass on our genes to future generations .
Yes , just so .
Please Support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
In no case do they detail a series of plausible genetic mutations over many generations that together could have built up the enormous amount of new biological information essential to producing the bat ’ s sonar or the bird ’ s wing or some other bio-engineering marvel , with each evolutionary step along the way being a fit and functional form able to survive and reproduce .
That part is left to faith and hazy imagination .
Another just-so story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this view , our universe ’ s laws and constants are exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for life not because a designing intelligence fine-tuned them for that purpose , as even some Nobel Prize-winning scientists have suggested ( Arno Penzias , Charles Townes ) .
No , according to this materialist just-so story , there must exist an unseen multiverse generator and trillions of other universes , all undetectable , and we ’ re just one of the lucky ones with the right physical laws and constants for life .
Otherwise , we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cosmic door , and we can ’ t have that .
Or maybe Lewontin had in mind the materialist explanation of the fossil record .
Even committed evolutionists such as Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admit that the pattern of the fossil record is marked by the sudden appearance of fundamentally new biological forms , followed by long periods of stasis .
That ’ s the opposite of the pattern that mainstream evolutionary theory predicts .
Darwinian evolution sees the history of life as a gradually branching tree , with one form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and those in turn very gradually diverging into yet other forms , until eventually there is a major architectural difference between two forms widely separated on the tree of life — between , say , a horse and a squid .
Instead , we get the sudden appearance of radically distinct forms , and then those major body plans persist in the fossil record for millions of years , relatively unchanged .
Oh , well , the fossil record is incomplete , evolutionists note , and it almost always just happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would otherwise show this history of a gradual , branching evolutionary tree of life .
Yes , just so — but not so very satisfying , even to many evolutionists .
“ The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design , ” wrote Gould , “ indeed our inability , even in our imagination , to construct functional intermediates in many cases , has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
” 3 The Divine Foot & the Birth of Science Maybe these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had in mind .
In any case , he ’ s saying that scientists should , on principle , refuse to consider intelligent design , even if it means clinging to a “ patent absurdity , ” as he put it .
Lewontin isn ’ t alone .
For many , the stricture against considering intelligent design seems reasonable and defensible .
They cite the danger that if intelligent design is an explanatory option , if we let “ a divine foot in the door , ” it will kill scientific investigation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mystery they can not explain , and if they aren ’ t restricted to material explanations , won ’ t they tend to just throw up their hands and say , “ God did it ” ?
Well , not if the history of science is any indication .
Modern science was first developed by Christians , thinkers who believed in a God who created the first living organisms , the first plants , the first animals , the first humans .
At the same time , they believed this God could accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wouldn ’ t expect , meaning that observation and experimentation were key to discovering the truth about how God actually did it .
That proved to be the right attitude to fuel discovery .
The historical sciences , including origins science , are an affair of competing explanations .
We have a set of clues about a mysterious past event .
We try to dig up additional clues and explain the mystery .
Which hypothesis best explains the set of clues before us ?
Scientists open to both material and intelligent causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , for instance , scientists want to try to explain the origin of life on earth .
Maybe God simply fine-tuned the laws of nature so that nature could evolve the first living things without further direct input from him .
Let ’ s look at the evidence and see , says the scientist open to design .
Or maybe life on earth originated from a combination of both natural evolutionary processes that God set in motion and some direct additional bio-engineering on his part .
So , maybe our solar system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point where they contained the right mix of chemicals on the surface of the Earth along with an oxygen-rich atmosphere , and then from within this now life-friendly environment , God assembled the RNA , DNA , specific genetic information , and cellular architecture needed for the first self-reproducing cell .
The theistic scientist can be open to any of the above options , and follow the evidence where it leads .
But to do that , he must first loose himself from the cords binding him to the chair of dogmatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magazine .
Republished here by permission of the author .

In The Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis tells the story of two children and an adult “Marsh-wiggle” who descend deep into a maze of dreary underground caverns to rescue Prince Rilian, son of King Caspian. Eventually they happen upon a friendly knight who explains that the underworld is really a fine place to call home, and its ruler is a wonderful queen worthy of devotion. He has just one problem. Every night he falls under an evil spell, during which he raves like an irredeemable lunatic. Fortunately, he hasn’t hurt himself or anyone else during these rabid spells, he explains, because every evening the good queen binds him to a silver chair for the duration of the fit.
Soon enough the explorers get to witness one of these spells. But it doesn’t play out as expected. The knight does grow distraught, but he doesn’t rave like an unhinged maniac. Instead, he maintains that in fact it’s during the day that he is under the queen’s spell, and the spell only lifts at night. He further insists that the silver chair, far from protecting him, is the very thing that gradually reasserts the evil spell over him. Until it does, he remembers everything. He remembers that the queen is his enemy. He remembers that he hates a life lived away from the sun. And he remembers that he is the son of a king — indeed, he is the very prince they have come to rescue, Prince Rilian.
To break the spell for good, they must loose him from the silver chair and destroy it.
The Spell
C. S. Lewis was an agnostic before he became a Christian, so he understood the spell of unbelief. In this Narnia novel, The Silver Chair, and in the character of Prince Rilian, Lewis gives us a young man who, under the evil queen’s spell, is like the modern man who has ceased to believe there is anything beyond our material world. Both Rilian and the modern materialist live away from the light, and imagine that such a place is the very place to be. Both, too, forget that they are the offspring of royalty and are called back to the father’s kingdom — the one to the king of Narnia, the other to the King of the universe.
And for each, there are moments when the spell lifts, if only briefly. For the materialist, something whispers to him — perhaps as only a passing sense, triggered by a stunning mountain vista, the love of a mother for her child, an act of heroism from a stranger — and for a fleeting moment he recognizes that here is something that cannot honestly be reduced to mere atoms or glands or fanciful stories of evolution and survival advantage.
In Lewis’s story, Prince Rilian needs to destroy the silver chair to break the spell. For many today caught in the spell of materialism, Darwinism is the silver chair. It’s a belief system that prevents them from seeing the powerful evidence of design in life, evidence that points to something more than matter, to a great immaterial intelligence who created both life and the universe.
How the Darwinist Got His Blinders
In their more candid moments, some leading lights in the evolutionary community admit that the Darwinian worldview comes complete with a set of blinders. They even urge the wearing of the blinders. The great biophysicist Francis Crick, for example, said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”1
Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin was even more explicit. In an essay he wrote for The New York Review of Books, he defined science as ruling out, by definition, the possibility of God intelligently designing life — never mind that belief in a rational, orderly cosmic Creator was the soil from which modern science sprang.
“Patent Absurdity”
Here is Lewontin in his own words:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.2
What claims could Lewontin have had in mind that, as he put it, “are against common sense,” patently absurd, and held up by little more than “unsubstantiated just-so stories” akin to Victorian author Rudyard Kipling’s fanciful children’s tales about how the leopard got his spots or the camel his hump? We can only guess what Lewontin had in mind, but it’s not hard to think of a few worthy candidates.
Just-So Stories
Maybe Lewontin had in mind any of the many evolutionary stories that sound almost comically similar to Rudyard Kipling’s just-so stories for children — evolutionary stories explaining how, for instance, the bird got its wings, or the bat its sonar. The evolutionist notes how a given feature would have been useful for survival and reproduction, sketches out a small handful of vaguely described intermediates, and then calls it good.
Actually, the vaguely sketched intermediates often aren’t even mentioned. Just the bare mention of a survival advantage is considered good enough. Thus, humans evolved cooperativeness because it helped us survive and thrive better in a hostile world. What about the uncooperative, violent streak in many men? Oh well, our ancestors evolved that because it helped us eliminate competitors, seize women, and pass on our genes to future generations. Yes, just so.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
In no case do they detail a series of plausible genetic mutations over many generations that together could have built up the enormous amount of new biological information essential to producing the bat’s sonar or the bird’s wing or some other bio-engineering marvel, with each evolutionary step along the way being a fit and functional form able to survive and reproduce. That part is left to faith and hazy imagination.
The Multiverse Hypothesis
Another just-so story would be the multiverse hypothesis. On this view, our universe’s laws and constants are exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for life not because a designing intelligence fine-tuned them for that purpose, as even some Nobel Prize-winning scientists have suggested (Arno Penzias, Charles Townes). No, according to this materialist just-so story, there must exist an unseen multiverse generator and trillions of other universes, all undetectable, and we’re just one of the lucky ones with the right physical laws and constants for life. Otherwise, we would have to let a divine foot in the cosmic door, and we can’t have that.
The Fossil Record
Or maybe Lewontin had in mind the materialist explanation of the fossil record. Even committed evolutionists such as Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admit that the pattern of the fossil record is marked by the sudden appearance of fundamentally new biological forms, followed by long periods of stasis. That’s the opposite of the pattern that mainstream evolutionary theory predicts. Darwinian evolution sees the history of life as a gradually branching tree, with one form very slowly diverging into various daughter forms, and those in turn very gradually diverging into yet other forms, until eventually there is a major architectural difference between two forms widely separated on the tree of life — between, say, a horse and a squid. Instead, we get the sudden appearance of radically distinct forms, and then those major body plans persist in the fossil record for millions of years, relatively unchanged.
Oh, well, the fossil record is incomplete, evolutionists note, and it almost always just happens to be incomplete in exactly the places that would otherwise show this history of a gradual, branching evolutionary tree of life.
Yes, just so — but not so very satisfying, even to many evolutionists. “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design,” wrote Gould, “indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”3
The Divine Foot & the Birth of Science
Maybe these are some of the just-so stories Lewontin had in mind. In any case, he’s saying that scientists should, on principle, refuse to consider intelligent design, even if it means clinging to a “patent absurdity,” as he put it.
Lewontin isn’t alone. For many, the stricture against considering intelligent design seems reasonable and defensible. They cite the danger that if intelligent design is an explanatory option, if we let “a divine foot in the door,” it will kill scientific investigation. That is, if researchers encounter a mystery they cannot explain, and if they aren’t restricted to material explanations, won’t they tend to just throw up their hands and say, “God did it”? Well, not if the history of science is any indication.
Modern science was first developed by Christians, thinkers who believed in a God who created the first living organisms, the first plants, the first animals, the first humans. At the same time, they believed this God could accomplish a particular creative work in a way they wouldn’t expect, meaning that observation and experimentation were key to discovering the truth about how God actually did it.
Free to Pursue the Truth
That proved to be the right attitude to fuel discovery. The historical sciences, including origins science, are an affair of competing explanations. We have a set of clues about a mysterious past event. We try to dig up additional clues and explain the mystery. Which hypothesis best explains the set of clues before us? Scientists open to both material and intelligent causes are free to consider multiple options. So, for instance, scientists want to try to explain the origin of life on earth. Maybe God simply fine-tuned the laws of nature so that nature could evolve the first living things without further direct input from him. Let’s look at the evidence and see, says the scientist open to design.
Or maybe life on earth originated from a combination of both natural evolutionary processes that God set in motion and some direct additional bio-engineering on his part. So, maybe our solar system, planet, and atmosphere evolved to the point where they contained the right mix of chemicals on the surface of the Earth along with an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and then from within this now life-friendly environment, God assembled the RNA, DNA, specific genetic information, and cellular architecture needed for the first self-reproducing cell. The theistic scientist can be open to any of the above options, and follow the evidence where it leads. But to do that, he must first loose himself from the cords binding him to the chair of dogmatic Darwinian materialism.
Originally published at Salvo Magazine. Republished here by permission of the author.


thestream--2020-06-13--50 Questions: Why Didn’t God Create as Great a Universe as Guy Harrison Would Have?

After a hiatus to work on another extended Stream project , I ’ m resuming my extended series of answers to Guy P. Harrison ’ s book 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian .
Read the series intro here .
The Creator screwed up : Just ask Guy Harrison .
He ’ ll tell you .
Not that he thinks God really exists .
If He did , though , this flawed and fatal world of ours would prove He didn ’ t know what He was doing .
Harrison would have done a far better job of it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chapter 31 of his book of questions .
They say the basic human sin is pride .
This certainly qualifies .
But Harrison isn ’ t alone in it .
Ideas like these have been reverberating through the atheist internet for years .
Do they even make sense , though ?
Let ’ s look at some of them .
Harrison ’ s first correction would be to make the universe human-friendly .
Everywhere .
“ No deadly radiation , no asteroids or even micrometeorites .
… Imagine being able to set sail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ galaxy in open-air space rafts , feeling the warm , gentle breeze of solar winds in your hair.
” To his credit , the Harrison recognizes that as a dream too far .
But that doesn ’ t wake him from other dreams .
He ’ d still create a world without all the nasty natural stuff that he says isn ’ t “ much fun for the life-forms I intend to create.
” There ’ d be no predators , no prey , no meat-eating at all .
The only food would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure they ’ d feel no pain .
There ’ d be no infectious diseases .
Maybe not even any death , though he ’ s not quite sure of that .
Overpopulation ?
He ’ d avoid that by “ tweaking reproductive rates ” and by making it easy for humans to spread across the galaxy .
He ’ s not sure he ’ d “ bother with a worship-style religion for [ his ] more intelligent creatures.
” He adds , “ I certainly don ’ t imagine that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sic ] in their gratitude and reverence for my awesomeness every day.
” He definitely wouldn ’ t “ generate doubt.
” “ My first step would be to make every one of them certain that I exist.
” He ’ d do that , maybe , by writing the schematics to “ an energy-producing machine that is trillions of light-years beyond their current technology.
” And as creator , he would give recommendations , not commandments .
The first is simply “ Forgive.
” The fifth is , “ Think independently.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really , really nice.
” That ’ s the kind of world he ’ d have created if he ’ d been offered the chance .
It ’ s a proud vision in the worst sense of the word .
He ’ s set himself as smarter than God , which makes it a very foolish vision .
Let ’ s examine a couple reasons why .
Independent Thinkers Who Can ’ t Be Wrong About God The Harrison would want his creatures to be independent thinkers , but he ’ d make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So much for independent thinking .
You must believe in Harrison !
But how would you or I be convinced this Harrison exists ?
He ’ d wow us with science trillions of years ahead of your time !
Schematics , even !
He thinks that would prove there ’ s a Harrison .
What it really shows is how grateful we should be that there isn ’ t .
I ’ d really hate to live in a world run by a god who thought that kind of thing would prove or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would have happened if our God had tried that .
( Don ’ t worry , He ’ s wiser than that . )
Forget “ trillions of years ; ” let ’ s just do hundreds , and let ’ s go with the best-case scenario : Isaac Newton , probably the greatest scientist of all time .
Imagine him looking at the schematics for your smartphone .
Would he conclude , “ A loving Harrison must exist , and want us to know Him ” ?
Worse yet , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely follow a logical syllogism .
But as James 2:19 tells us , the Enemy can manage that : “ You believe that God is one ; you do well .
Even the demons believe — and shudder !
” God is not seeking people who conclude that He exists .
He wants people who will love Him .
Schematics won ’ t do that .
They wouldn ’ t do it even if we could read them !
It takes a relationship , not a deduction .
God Gives Us Room To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Harrison would force people to believe in the Harrison .
The real God gives us room for choice : either to see Him for who He is or not to see Him , to love Him for who He is , or not to love Him at all .
He doesn ’ t force it on us ; not love , not even belief .
He has always there , always apparent to those with eyes to see Him ; yet at the same time He hangs back just enough so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
It ’ s astonishing , really , how it ’ s been that way since the beginning .
The more we know about , well , everything , the more God remains in that same position : We can still either see Him or not , depending on how we choose to look at reality .
You ’ d almost think Someone had fine-tuned the world so that belief in Him was always possible , but never compulsory .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Day .
That leaves us the freedom to believe , love , and worship Him freely .
Worship , by the way , isn ’ t for God to “ bathe in , ” as Harrison thinks .
God doesn ’ t need a bath .
It ’ s not for Him but for us .
We need to worship because it means we ’ re seeing God for who He .
We ’ re seeing reality itself for what it is .
Not to worship is to get the most fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nothing but our expression of wonder at the greatness we see in God .
But I suppose if our creator were a Harrison instead , worship wouldn ’ t mean the same thing .
It ’ s only natural to worship the Creator if the Creator is truly worth it .
The Harrison would create a nice universe .
Nice for his creatures , that is .
No one gets hurt , no one gets sick , you can go for a sail between the stars , and everyone is so really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to imagine why he ’ d start his ten recommendations with “ Forgive.
” But “ nice ” is boring .
Read any novel , watch any movie , and you ’ ll know exactly what I mean .
We want something to push against , something that ’ ll push back , so we can grow ; so we can become fully adult .
God wants it in order to build our souls for eternity .
And above all , our God hasn ’ t created the universe mostly for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His own glory , to display His beauty , His power , His grandeur .
And I think also for Himself to enjoy .
There is a Harrison , and there is a God .
God does His God job a whole lot better than this Harrison ever could .
I pray the Harrison will recognize that reality soon enough .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the forthcoming Too Good To Be False : How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

After a hiatus to work on another extended Stream project, I’m resuming my extended series of answers to Guy P. Harrison’s book 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian. Read the series intro here.
The Creator screwed up: Just ask Guy Harrison. He’ll tell you. Not that he thinks God really exists. If He did, though, this flawed and fatal world of ours would prove He didn’t know what He was doing. Harrison would have done a far better job of it, and he tells us about it in chapter 31 of his book of questions.
They say the basic human sin is pride. This certainly qualifies. But Harrison isn’t alone in it. Ideas like these have been reverberating through the atheist internet for years. Do they even make sense, though? Let’s look at some of them.
The Harrison’s Creation Story
Harrison’s first correction would be to make the universe human-friendly. Everywhere. “No deadly radiation, no asteroids or even micrometeorites. … Imagine being able to set sail across the solar system, across the galaxy in open-air space rafts, feeling the warm, gentle breeze of solar winds in your hair.”
To his credit, the Harrison recognizes that as a dream too far. But that doesn’t wake him from other dreams. He’d still create a world without all the nasty natural stuff that he says isn’t “much fun for the life-forms I intend to create.” There’d be no predators, no prey, no meat-eating at all. The only food would be plants, and he’d make sure they’d feel no pain.
There’d be no infectious diseases. Maybe not even any death, though he’s not quite sure of that. Overpopulation? He’d avoid that by “tweaking reproductive rates” and by making it easy for humans to spread across the galaxy.
He’s not sure he’d “bother with a worship-style religion for [his] more intelligent creatures.” He adds, “I certainly don’t imagine that I would feel a need to bath [sic] in their gratitude and reverence for my awesomeness every day.”
He definitely wouldn’t “generate doubt.” “My first step would be to make every one of them certain that I exist.” He’d do that, maybe, by writing the schematics to “an energy-producing machine that is trillions of light-years beyond their current technology.”
And as creator, he would give recommendations, not commandments. The first is simply “Forgive.” The fifth is, “Think independently.” Seventh: “Be nice; be really, really nice.”
That’s the kind of world he’d have created if he’d been offered the chance. It’s a proud vision in the worst sense of the word. He’s set himself as smarter than God, which makes it a very foolish vision. Let’s examine a couple reasons why.
Independent Thinkers Who Can’t Be Wrong About God
The Harrison would want his creatures to be independent thinkers, but he’d make absolutely certain they know he exists. So much for independent thinking. You must believe in Harrison!
But how would you or I be convinced this Harrison exists? He’d wow us with science trillions of years ahead of your time! Schematics, even! He thinks that would prove there’s a Harrison. What it really shows is how grateful we should be that there isn’t. I’d really hate to live in a world run by a god who thought that kind of thing would prove or mean anything at all.
Just picture what would have happened if our God had tried that. (Don’t worry, He’s wiser than that.) Forget “trillions of years;” let’s just do hundreds, and let’s go with the best-case scenario: Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist of all time. Imagine him looking at the schematics for your smartphone. Would he conclude, “A loving Harrison must exist, and want us to know Him”?
Worse yet, the Harrison imagines that God wants us to merely follow a logical syllogism. But as James 2:19 tells us, the Enemy can manage that: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder!” God is not seeking people who conclude that He exists. He wants people who will love Him. Schematics won’t do that. They wouldn’t do it even if we could read them! It takes a relationship, not a deduction.
God Gives Us Room To Choose
It takes a choice, too. Harrison would force people to believe in the Harrison. The real God gives us room for choice: either to see Him for who He is or not to see Him, to love Him for who He is, or not to love Him at all. He doesn’t force it on us; not love, not even belief. He has always there, always apparent to those with eyes to see Him; yet at the same time He hangs back just enough so that others can miss Him if they wish to.
It’s astonishing, really, how it’s been that way since the beginning. The more we know about, well, everything, the more God remains in that same position: We can still either see Him or not, depending on how we choose to look at reality. You’d almost think Someone had fine-tuned the world so that belief in Him was always possible, but never compulsory.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
That leaves us the freedom to believe, love, and worship Him freely.
Worship, by the way, isn’t for God to “bathe in,” as Harrison thinks. God doesn’t need a bath. It’s not for Him but for us. We need to worship because it means we’re seeing God for who He. We’re seeing reality itself for what it is. Not to worship is to get the most fundamental facts of reality completely wrong. Worship is nothing but our expression of wonder at the greatness we see in God.
But I suppose if our creator were a Harrison instead, worship wouldn’t mean the same thing. It’s only natural to worship the Creator if the Creator is truly worth it.
The Pride of a Foolish Creature
The Harrison would create a nice universe. Nice for his creatures, that is. No one gets hurt, no one gets sick, you can go for a sail between the stars, and everyone is so really, really nice, it’s hard to imagine why he’d start his ten recommendations with “Forgive.”
But “nice” is boring. Read any novel, watch any movie, and you’ll know exactly what I mean. We want something to push against, something that’ll push back, so we can grow; so we can become fully adult. God wants it in order to build our souls for eternity.
And above all, our God hasn’t created the universe mostly for us, anyway. He created it for His own glory, to display His beauty, His power, His grandeur. And I think also for Himself to enjoy.
There is a Harrison, and there is a God. God does His God job a whole lot better than this Harrison ever could. I pray the Harrison will recognize that reality soon enough.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the forthcoming Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.