Moral Decay Begets Mass Killings

Many believe the epidemic of mass public killings largely stems from easy access to guns. But that can’t be right, because mass killings – whether carried out with guns, bombs, planes or other weapons – used to be a rarity in America even though guns were easy to come by.

What changed in America? What led to the era of mass killings? Scratch guns off the list, because they always have been around. In fact, it used to be even easier to buy a gun than it is now – no background checks required – yet people didn’t go around massacring just for the sake of it.

Preventing them from doing so was a stronger sense of morals, propriety, decency, respect for family, respect for life, and respect for God.

The 1960s are widely viewed as a time of accelerated moral decline in America. Recreational drug use, divorce, premarital sex, pornography, vulgarity, and violence shot up – in everyday life as well as in movies and TV. There was less of a sense of community and a sense of trust among citizens, and less involvement in civic and church groups.

It’s no coincidence that the 1960s were the beginning of the era of mass public killings, when in 1966 Charles Whitman killed 14 people and wounded 31 with a high-powered rifle from atop a tower at the University of Texas. The declining morals of that decade resulted in more widespread depression, anger, resentment, and mental illness, and less respect for and sacredness of life. The more people affected by such ills of society, the more likely a tiny minority of them do what Charles Whitman did.

There had been mass killings in previous decades, but those typically were associated with simultaneous criminal activity (such as killings during robberies or gang killings) or with familicides. Those crimes are heinous enough. But there’s something even more heinous, even more evil about mass public killings of people who are unknown to the assailant.

While violent crime overall declined since 1980 (until this year, when homicides started to go back up in many cities), mass public killings have increased. In the 1970s there were an average of 1.1 mass public shootings per year, according to the Congressional Research Service. They rose to 2.7 in the 1980s, 4 in the 1990s, and 4.1 per year in the 2000s. (And these numbers don’t include the Timothy McVeigh or 9/11 terrorist attacks.) Such shootings have risen dramatically in the last five years, happening every 172 days on average since 1982 but every 64 days since mid-2011.

There’s of course a confluence of factors behind the rise in mass public killings. They include the influence of violent movies, TV shows and video games. The desire for fame – or more accurately infamy – is another motivation. The high divorce rate is a factor; most shooters come from broken homes. Another contributor are higher rates of mental illness, and, since the 1970s, a greater tendency to let dangerously mentally ill people roam free rather than commit them to institutions.

But I believe the biggest factor is the declining prevalence of Christianity and Judaism in America. In 1955 Christians constituted 92 percent of the U.S. population and Jews 4 percent. By 2014 the numbers had declined to 72 percent and 2 percent respectively. Far fewer of them attend religious services regularly.

In tandem with the retreat of Judeo-Christianity is the retreat of Judeo-Christian values. They include forgiveness, compassion, humility, generosity, self-control, nonviolence, love of God, love of neighbor, love of enemies, and renunciation of worldly values such as pleasure, status, and fame.

An absence of Judeo-Christianity is associated with a cheapening of human life. The atheist and agnostic worldview presupposes that life arose by pure chance; that we’re merely animals in a more evolved form, living on a tiny, insignificant planet amid the vast universe. Many are led to believe, what’s the point of life? So mass killers seek to end their own life, along with as many other lives as they can.

While mass public killings are correlated with a declining prevalence of Judeo-Christianity, such is not the case of course vis-à-vis all religions. Islam shares many of the same values as that of Christianity and Judaism such as charity, honesty, generosity, purity, and self-restraint. Unfortunately for some practitioners of that religion, exhortations to kill the “infidel” often win out.

The only way to curb the rise in mass public killings, in addition to slowed immigration, is a return to the aforementioned virtues that were once widely held in America.

(Originally published in

And No Religion Too

It’s symbolic – and ironic – that in Europe following terrorist attacks, the unofficial anthem of choice is that ode to atheism, John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

After the November 13 attacks in Paris, a pianist attracted the attention of millions via the mainstream press and social media when he played Imagine outside one of the places of carnage, The Bataclan. Last February in the aftermath of killings in Copenhagen by a radical Muslim, tens of thousands of Danes sang Imagine at memorials across the country.

“Imagine there’s no heaven …. No hell below us … And no religion too,” go the lyrics.

It’s symbolic because religionless is what Europe has become – particularly Northern Europe. Churches in France are closing for lack of worshipers. Only about 5-10 percent of the French go to church regularly. That percentage is even less in Denmark.

So the ethnic French (as opposed to ethnic Arabs in France) largely have attained one of the sentiments longed for in the song: no religion. They have abandoned the Christian faith.

Are they better off without Christianity? The tragic event of last weekend suggests they are not.

French society still retains some Christian values. They include a love of peace, justice, and civility, and helping the poor and downtrodden. The latter manifests itself in the form of generous foreign aid programs, and taking in refugees afflicted by war and poverty.

It is one thing for a country to open one’s doors to a certain number of the poor and downtrodden. It is quite another thing to open one’s doors to whole nations of poor and downtrodden – from radically different cultures. That is what France and other developed countries including the United States have been doing. (And it’s not just motivated by compassion, but also by a desire to import future liberal-left voters.)

Taking in what amounts to whole nations of peoples fundamentally transforms the identity and culture of the host nation. After decades of migration from the Middle East and North Africa, many aspects of French society are being upended, such as a rise in economic inequality. But worst is the importation of the culture of violence. It should not surprise anyone that terrorist attacks that always have been so common in the Middle East are now taking place in Europe.

Had the French remained devout Christians, it is doubtful they ever would have taken in such huge numbers of Muslims. They would have recognized the threat it would have posed to their Christian identity, to their freedom of worship, and to their security.

Europeans have taken to heart another piece of bad advice contained in John Lennon’s song: “Imagine there’s (sic) no countries…” The open-borders policy reflects that. And it’s devouring them.

Imagine also makes a nod to communism with the “Imagine no possessions” line. At least the French haven’t gone that far – yet.

But getting back to imagining no religion, the abandonment of Christianity in France invites another great danger: less protection from God.

All you atheists, agnostics, and Christians who don’t take your religion too seriously may laugh off what you just read. I would have, back when I was in your camp. But a couple of years and a lot of investigation later, I’ve become convinced that all those things that we associate with religion are actually true: God, the spiritual world, the divinity of Christ, the authenticity of the gospels, heaven and hell, angels, and fallen angels. Evidence of that will be presented in future articles. But for now, suffice it to say that fallen angels do exist. (The Drudge Report posts stories on that topic practically every few days – and many of them are credible.) The earth truly is the devil’s playground. His greatest triumph is convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.

According to theologians, God protects us from the evil one all the time. Without such protection, the whole of the earth would degenerate into one big slaughterhouse. When nations turn further away from God, His protective hand eases up.

That’s what’s happening in France. Last weekend we saw one of the consequences. As America turns further away from God, we too tread on more dangerous territory.

It behooves those in France, America, and other Western nations to return to their Christian roots. Otherwise, expect more tragedies such as what happened in Paris.

(Originally published in

Routine Events Don’t Make the News

Within days of the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people, a string of terrorist attacks took place in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, killing more than 80 people. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius laments the fact that the Middle East terrorist attacks got far less press attention than the Paris attacks. “Do Western nations think that Muslim lives matter less?”, he asks.

The reason terrorist attacks in the Middle East get less press attention is because they’re such a common occurrence there. It’s akin to how morning traffic jams on the George Washington Parkway near D.C. never get mentioned in radio station traffic reports – because traffic jams there are expected and routine. It doesn’t mean that the radio stations think that G.W. Parkway commuters matter less.

And that prompts the question: Given that terrorist attacks are so common in Middle Eastern culture, is it wise to transplant that culture into Western countries? We saw the consequences of that in Paris November 13.

It’s kind and compassionate to take in limited numbers of poor and downtrodden from the Middle East. It’s foolish to take in what amounts to whole nations of peoples from the Middle East, to the extent that our own culture and identity get transformed.

Immigration Breeds Inequality

President Obama and the left rail against income inequality. Yet they invariably champion one of the biggest causes of that phenomenon: mass immigration.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to grasp that when rich countries accept massive inflows of poor and uneducated migrants who can’t speak the host country’s language, the gap between the rich and poor widens in those countries. The newcomers’ earnings potential is far below that of the native population, and often remains that way for generations to come.

Not that there’s anything wrong with income inequality as long as the poor and middle class get richer even as the rich get richer. It’s mainly the envious among us who have a hard time with that.

Northern Europeans pride themselves on their relative income equality – and often find fault with America for not accomplishing the same. But the massive influx of immigrants into Europe from the Middle East and Africa is upending that state of affairs.

Sweden is a case in point. Beginning in the 1970s it started taking in immigrants mainly from poor countries, and nowadays accepts more immigrants than other European countries many times its population size. Sweden’s foreign-born population is now about 15 percent of the population; including those born to two-immigrant parents it’s 20 percent.

While Sweden has been and still is among the most income-equal of all European countries, its rise in inequality between 1985 and the early 2010s was the sharpest in the developed world, according to a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Immigration fueled that. In the 1990s the average income in Sweden of the top 10 percent was about four times greater than that of the bottom 10 percent. By 2007 that gap had risen to 5.75 times greater, and in 2012 the multiple was 6.3. According to The Economist, 40 percent of non-Europeans in Sweden are classified as poor, compared with 10 percent of native Swedes.

A 2014 study by researchers at the University of Gothenburg found that poverty in Sweden among ethnic Turkish children is three times higher than among native Swedish children. Ethnic Turks are less educated and frequently can’t learn fluent Swedish. What education they do have is often not transferable to the Swedish labor market, which requires increasingly higher skills.

One may posit that the income inequality is a short-term phenomenon – that over the long term second-generation immigrants and their offspring will become more integrated and better educated.

That’s not what has happened in Germany. Turkish immigrants started settling in that country in the early 1960s as part of a guest worker program. Now ethnic Turks comprise 3.7 percent of Germany’s population. A half-century after their arrival, as a whole they earn less, are less educated, suffer higher unemployment, and have much higher welfare dependency compared with native-born Germans. Even more significantly, according to a 2010 study, not first but second-generation Turkish immigrants have a higher propensity to be welfare dependent than native Germans.

The Turks’ experience in Germany suggests that Europe’s current large influx of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants will expand the low-income and welfare-dependent population of Germany and other European nations, thus worsening income inequality both in the short and long term.

Of course, not all of the immigrants are or will remain low-income. A portion of them and/or second-generation immigrants eventually will join the ranks of the professional and high-income groups.

In fact, mass immigration often results in more people on the higher end in addition to more people on the lower end of the income spectrum. Certain immigrant groups are sometimes considerably more economically successful than other such groups – and more so than the established population. In the United States, the highest income group is now Asian-Americans, and Indian-Americans in particular with a median household income of $86,135 as of 2010. Mexican-Americans’ median household income is less than half that. (The difference may not be so much a function of culture, but of proximity to the U.S. – it’s a lot easier for poor Mexicans to make the trek to America than it is for poor Indians.)

While mass immigration into a wealthy country often exacerbates inequality within that country, it reduces inequality from a world perspective. Immigrants may be classified as low-income in their new countries, but their incomes typically are a lot higher than what they were in their country of origin. The United Nations Development Programme estimated that migrants moving from developing to developed countries enjoy a 15-fold increase in income on average.

But leftists are almost always referring to income inequality within a specific country, such as President Obama when he bemoans U.S. inequality.

He can rail against inequality, and he can rail against efforts to curb legal and/or illegal immigration, but he can’t rail against both and still be taken seriously.


(Originally published in

Obama’s Weak Rationale for the Iran Deal

Apart from being shocking, the Iran deal is baffling. Why would a U.S. president enter into an agreement that so empowers a nation that behaves so badly?

Iran’s leaders – including its supreme leader – routinely call for the annihilation of Israel. It’s designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. It sends money, weapons and military experts to forces hostile to the U.S. and Israel. Its proxies killed more than a thousand U.S. troops in Iraq. It aids the Taliban. It’s holding U.S. citizens hostage. And most alarming, it’s bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, likely with the intention of making good on its pledge to erase Israel from the map.

Within Iran, political prisoners are common, with reports of torture, rape, and killings of them. It lacks freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It practices Sharia law. Democracy and the rule of law are absent, with most power in the hands of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Council of Guardians determines who can run for office, and holds veto power over the parliament.

Responsible countries typically penalize such regimes through military containment, economic sanctions, and diplomatic isolation. Engaging with them amounts to rewarding bad behavior; top U.S. officials meeting with their leaders – such as what Secretary of State John Kerry has been doing – boosts them politically in the eyes of their citizenry and of other world leaders.

Why would President Obama not only engage in diplomacy with this rogue nation, but also lift economic sanctions and thereby enable increased funding of its terrorist activities abroad? Why would Obama give Iran express permission to build nuclear weapons starting in a decade, and leave open avenues for the country to cheat on the agreement before then?

His explanation is that he hopes the deal will prompt Iran to be “less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative,” and boost reformers within the country’s political system.

Yet he or his administration don’t explain how such goals will come about. They’re extremely unlikely.

Most of those who comprise Iran’s powerful, entrenched institutions shun any kind of political and economic reform. There’s nothing to indicate reformers will get the upper hand within Iran, with or without the agreement.

Those currently in place will use revenues gained from the lifting of sanctions to further entrench themselves. For example the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or goon squad as The Economist calls them, are set to profit handsomely from the lifting of sanctions; they control an array of businesses that span industries including construction, oil, automobiles, and telecommunications.

While the current president, Hassan Rouhani, seems open to economic reform, he’s no political reformer – and his powers pale in comparison to the ultra-hardline Ayatollah Khamenei. Reformists only make up less than a quarter of Iran’s parliament, and none are very well known, according to Arron Reza Merat, writing in The National Interest.

The next parliamentary elections are to be held this February, but all candidates have to be approved by the reactionary Guardian Council. Anyone who backed the 2009 protests against the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are expected to be disqualified.

Even if Iran were ever to get a reformist president and parliament again, as it did during the late 1990s and early 2000s when Mohammad Khatami was president, not much would change. The Guardian Council routinely vetoed reform-minded legislation during his tenure.

There’s no use in holding out hope for an “Arab spring”-style regime overthrow in Iran; even if it were to happen, we all have seen the dark winters that typically follow such events in Middle Eastern countries. And Iran’s reactionary institutions make it highly unlikely that a reformist would ever replace the 76-year-old Khamenei after he dies.

Defenders of the Iran deal point to Nixon’s outreach to China in 1972, when the U.S. made significant concessions to China such as plans to shutter the U.S. embassy in Taiwan. China thereafter scaled down its anti-American rhetoric, but the deal did nothing to quell that country’s totalitarianism or development of nukes. (And unlike Obama, Nixon gained the release American political prisoners.) As Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, authors of Mao: The Unknown Story point out, “The increased Western presence did not have any appreciable impact on Chinese society while Mao was alive….The only people who benefitted at all from the rapprochement were a small elite.”

While China opened up economically and moved from totalitarianism to authoritarianism under Deng Xiaoping, its lack of democracy and ever-increasing saber-rattling are a serious cause for concern more than four decades after Nixon went to China.

President Obama’s “encouraging reformers” argument for inking the Iran deal is incredibly weak. Don’t expect Iran to become a responsible player in the community of nations anytime soon. Expect it to keep causing trouble. When it gets nukes, expect the worst.


(Originally published in

Roots of the Planned Parenthood Debacle

In addition to the outrage, Americans are downright dumbfounded as to as to how our civilization could sink so low that Planned Parenthood professionals engage in the selling of organs of aborted human fetuses. Even worse, a large portion of the general public actually supports Planned Parenthood’s efforts, and the U.S. Congress chooses to continue to allocate U.S. taxpayer money toward the organization.

We’ve sunk so low in part because of three long-festering falsehoods that have pervaded our culture: that pre-born babies are not human beings, that humans are just another animal, and that abortion is a solution to overpopulation.

Most of us have no problem with the prospect of cutting up and selling body parts of pigs, chickens, cows, and other animals. The folks at Planned Parenthood and their supporters have no problem with doing the same to pre-born humans because they don’t look upon them as human beings. Using the word fetus helps condition people to not regard pre-born humans as actual humans.

But their DNA indicates that they’re human in every way.

Ask any biologist, and he or she will tell you a dog is a dog, regardless of whether it’s a fetus or a puppy. The DNA indicates this. Similarly a human is a human, regardless of whether it’s in the form of a fetus, baby, toddler, or adolescent.

The only difference between a developed human fetus and a newborn baby is the way each gets its oxygen and nourishment. In the womb it’s via the umbilical cord; out of the womb it’s via the mouth.

To deem a human fetus not to be human is absurd.

Consider another falsehood that likely helped shape general attitudes enabling the acceptance of Planned Parenthood’s heinous practices. Many believe we humans are mere animals that happen to be a little more advanced along the evolutionary scale. For the past several decades a common refrain (to which I subscribed) has been that humans differ from chimpanzees by only 1 percent genetically. Since we’re so similar to other animals, one may reason, how is killing a human so different from killing any other animal?

But research, such as presented in a 2007 Science article titled “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, reveals that we’re much more different biologically from chimps than previously thought. The 1 percent figure doesn’t take into account many sections of DNA that have been inserted or deleted in the respective genomes. Gene duplications and deletions represent a 6.4% difference between chimps and humans, according to researchers. Dr. Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute writes that by one measure, 17.4% of gene regulatory networks in the brain are unique to humans.

And regardless how similar or different we are genetically from chimps and other animals, this much is clear: we’re the only species that has free will, and the ability to reason abstractly. These attributes make all the difference in the world.

So humans are unique, exceptional, and vastly more biologically advanced than any other species after all. We’re far from being just another animal. No fetus of such an extraordinary species merits being aborted, let alone sold for parts.

Now let’s address a third falsehood: it is commonly thought (and I used to think) that population growth is outstripping the carrying capacity of the planet. This prompts academics and many others to champion abortion. One academic paper states, “No nation desirous of reducing its growth rate to 1% or less can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion.”

Just as deer starve when their numbers grow too large for the local environment to support, so can people. But people differ from animals in that the human brain is so advanced that we have the ability to manipulate the Earth’s resources for our sustenance. Unlike all other animals, we can increase the land’s carrying capacity by growing crops, mining raw materials, building factories and transporting goods. Education and free markets greatly facilitate this process. As countries become more adept at carrying out these endeavors and prosperity increases, the environment typically improves (albeit perhaps after some time) even as the population grows.

Even if one thinks the world is overpopulated, the killing of human beings whether born or unborn should not be a population control mechanism. And from abortion, it’s a slippery slope to organ harvesting. And then on to infanticide. And then, genocide?

Three reasons America has sunk so low, therefore, is that so many Americans have become conditioned to believe that human fetuses are not fully human; that humans have no more intrinsic value than any other animal; and/or that abortion should be a means to curb population growth. If aborting pre-born babies is fine, goes the thinking of Planned Parenthood backers, then selling their body parts is fine as well. They’re tragically wrong on all counts.


(Originally published in

The Economist Eviscerates Roe vs. Wade

The Economist magazine says it favors legal abortion. Yet it excoriates the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all states. It writes that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority that year, citing a right to privacy that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. “In Roe the justices invented the law rather than interpreting it, substituting their preferences for those of voters,” writes The Economist. “Big social controversies are better settled democratically than by judicial fiat.”

That’s yet another compelling reason to revoke Roe vs. Wade.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be easier than overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges, the recent Supreme Court decision that compels all U.S. states to recognize two-person homosexual civil unions as genuine marriages. Nullifying Roe vs. Wade would mean abortion clinics would have to be shut down in states where it’s outlawed, and women no longer would be able to get legal abortions in those states. That would be a relatively simple undertaking compared with the aftermath of nullifying Obergefell vs. Hodges.

The longer the ramifications of Obergefell vs. Hodges percolate into society, the more institutionalized will become the gay union way of life. The political opposition to upending whole family and societal structures based on homosexual unions, and to revoking rights to extensive government benefits and privileges made possible by Obergefell vs. Hodges, would be overwhelming. A future Supreme Court would be highly reluctant to revoke the ruling. Even if it did, Congress would likely restore the law, given popular support for the now-institutionalized way of life.

With Obergefell vs. Hodges the law of the land, now it’s a matter of time until unions of three-or-more persons will be recognized by states as genuine marriages. In that scenario, millions of men won’t be able to find a mate, because other men will have multiple wives. A bleak future indeed.


A Divine Plan in Pope Francis?

Regarding the hard-core leftism of the current pope, it’s disturbing, but grin and bear it. There may be a divine plan in all of this: use this pope to cozy up to the billions of people on the left in the hope that at least some of them will consider embracing Christianity. And then once they’re in, have the next pope teach them deeper lessons in Christianity.

Still, the jury is still out as to whether the “Francis effect” is bringing more people into the Church. A survey in late 2013 showed no clear Francis effect in the U.S. Another survey at that time pointed to an increase in Catholic congregations in Italy.  Those surveys are ancient history now. As far as approval ratings (as opposed to conversions to Catholicism), in the wake of the Pope’s global warming and anti-free-market activism, a recent survey showed declining approval ratings among U.S. conservatives, which is no surprise. What is very surprising is that the same poll showed a decline in approval ratings among U.S. liberals. That doesn’t make sense; more research behind those numbers is needed.

In any case, don’t fret too much over Pope Francis. By reaching out to those on the left in such a forceful manner, he may actually be helping to bring many lost sheep into the Catholic fold. And one day they may in turn end up softening or abandoning their hardcore leftist attitudes.

Believing in the Nongod of Nothingness

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker recently quoted (or paraphrased) former Bush administration official Karl Rove as saying, “Faith is a gift that, unfortunately, I have not received.”

Based on that quote the assumption is that Rove is not a believer; on the other hand he’s quoted elsewhere as saying , “I am a practicing Christian who attends a bible-centered Episcopal church in Washington and an Anglican church in Texas.”

Whatever the case, let’s assume that someone says they don’t have the gift of faith. Actually that person does have a lot of faith – in the power of spontaneous self-assembly.

It takes more faith to believe that the raw materials of the universe and that the laws of physics arose from nothing, and that those raw materials somehow self-assembled themselves into stars and living organisms, than to believe that they were designed by an intelligent agent. That’s particularly remarkable because such assembly happened in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics – that things naturally go from order to disorder.

Cup with your hands some empty space in front of you. Then imagine nothing is there – not even any molecules. If you lack faith in God, then you believe in the unbelievable notion that (1) the laws of physics somehow appeared, (2) molecules somehow appeared, (3) those molecules self-assembled into chemicals (which is doable thanks to the laws of physics), (4) those chemicals somehow, on their own (with no input of stimuli) self-assembled into amino acids, (5) those amino acids somehow self-assembled into proteins, (6) those proteins somehow self-assembled into cells, and (7) those cells somehow self-assembled into bacteria, insects, plants, animals, and humans.

If you believe all that happened without the input of an intelligent agent, then you have a lot of faith in the impossible. You have faith in something for which there’s no evidence – not even circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence for God. Just as a house is circumstantial evidence that it was created by a human or humans (not direct evidence because we didn’t directly see anyone building it decades ago), a tree or an animal is circumstantial evidence that it was created by an intelligent agent, i.e. God.

Walk into a factory. Tell someone that all the components and functions of that factory randomly and coincidentally fell into place over time. Absurd, right? It’s the same idea with the cell – a factory vastly more complex than any factory man could ever build. (For a flavor for that, watch some of the video animations that the folks at the Discovery Institute put together, such as at

It also takes a lot of faith not to believe in the divinity of Christ and authenticity of the Gospels. As former atheist Lee Strobel said, “In the face of this overwhelming avalanche of evidence in the case for Christ, the great irony was this: it would require much more faith for me to maintain my atheism than to trust in Jesus of Nazareth!” For more info read his book The Case for Christ or see his videos obtainable here. Also check out this.

There’s also the avalanche of accounts of mystical experiences. My favorite are appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary. On that, I point you to proof. Read about the story of Fatima, Portugal in 1917 and the Miracle of the Sun. Leading up to the event, the secular newspapers scoffed at such an idea. Now, you easily can find on the Internet English translations of newspaper articles by the secular press describing the extraordinary event, such as here.

So to reiterate, given the abundant evidence of an intelligent creator, it takes more faith (in the non-god of nothingness?) not to believe in Him than to believe in Him.

AP and Fox News Make Big Grammatical Mistake

A stark manifestation of our increasingly atheistic and anti-religious culture is the frequent writing of God in lowercase. It’s quite common among people who aren’t writing professionals, e.g. users of social media or those who post their comments to articles.

Now, even writing professionals are carrying out the practice. They’re willing to break the rules of grammar in an apparent effort to snub God and religion.

An article by the Associated Press and picked up by describes a particularly disturbing murder in which a father allegedly threw his four-year-old daughter off a cliff.

Outside the courthouse the girl’s mother, Sarah Key-Marer, declared “Lauren was our gift from God, the best thing that ever happened to us.” But in the article it was written as, “Lauren was our gift from god, the best thing that ever happened to us.”

It’s likely that God was lowercase in the original AP article and Fox News left it that way. It’s always possible that God was uppercase in the original and Fox News changed it to lower case. Assuming the former, then the writer of the article, the AP editor, and the Fox News editor not only insulted God and people of faith, they also made an egregious grammatical error.

Sarah Key-Marer wasn’t referring to a Hindu god or some other pagan god. She no doubt was referring to God – the monotheistic God so ingrained in our culture. God is a proper noun, and proper nouns (e.g. names of persons and places) should always be written in uppercase.

What if AP would have written, “The bracelet was our gift from susan.” Or, “The necklace was our gift from mom.” And what if Fox News would have left it that way when they ran the article? It would have been obvious that they made a grammatical mistake.

Or, maybe the writer and editors consciously made a grammatical mistake but so loathed Susan, or so loathed Mom, that they wanted to insult them by writing their names in lowercase, regardless of the damage to their reputation as good stewards of the English language. Even such widely reviled figures as Hitler and Osama bin Laden get their names written in uppercase, as they should.

So why write God’s name in lowercase?

Maybe the AP and Fox News writers and editors are atheists and think that God is fictitious. Then they’re still in the wrong. Names of fictitious persons, such as Alice of Alice in Wonderland, are still written in uppercase.

My bet is that they wrote God in lowercase because they so loathe or disrespect people of faith, and/or are so committed to the atheist cause, that they want to send a clear message. Not only are they damaging their reputations as good stewards of the English language, but if God does exists, then they could be setting themselves up for a very rude awakening when they’re finished up with this life.