Further. Every. Day.

Find Dennis Mark:https://www.redeemedtx.org/

We asked a Human Trafficking Revover Expert Your Questions and this is how he responded:

Question: Are not Christians simply enforcing their worldview and religion on other people when they force laws on Sex Trafficking?

Answer: Most of the people who use this verbiage are oftentimes the ones benefiting from the exploitation, mainly the traffickers (pimps) and the consumers (a.k.a. johns).

Question: I mean, you can't legislate morality, right?

Answer: No, but you can legislate and prosecute exploitation.

Question: How should the Church respond to people who are actively being trafficked?

Answer: Everything survivors of human trafficking need to be successful is sitting in the pews of our church. Overcoming their own fears, moving from being paralyzed to engagement, and living out their faith at the level they understand the Word.

Question: What if they are still committed to their lifestyle?

Answer: One of the biggest mistakes and myths about trafficking is this idea of “choice.” So much more to that…

Question: How can a Christian respond effectively to those who are being trafficked?

Answer: With the fruit of the spirit, the ideas of love found in 1 Corinthians 13 and holistic healing…understanding and meeting a person's emotional, physical, relational, and spiritual needs as they are affected by trauma, and yes, trauma affects each of these areas.

Question: Isn't this an issue of the heart and not an issue for government intervention as far as laws are concerned?

Answer: Yes, it is an issue of the heart, but it should be the heart of our elected officials to use their heart and provide a compassionate response to the exploitation of the innocent. In 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed and signed into law to provide the prevention of trafficking, protection of all victims, guidelines for prosecution, and provision of services. In this law was built the ability to reauthorize this act and amend it with improvements as more knowledge is gained.

Question: Don't laws prohibiting a commodity simply create a black market?

Answer: It is already illegal and it is a “underground” market or a viable sub-culture. What is dangerous is legalizing it so that the demand increases and thereby increasing the need for supply which typically involves younger victims.

Question: Shouldn't these women be able to just walk out the door?

Answer: Yes, but it is extremely important to understand the reality of coercion.

Question: If they are really being forced into this, why not just call the police?

Answer: I teach a six-hour course on the realities of survivor care and two-hours is dedicated to just answering this question. It's not about choice, its about control and eliminating options.

Question: Pornography is usually practiced between consenting adults, why should we prohibit anything to do with artistic expression?

Answer: Again, not expression when coercion and exploitation are involved.

Question: Everyone needs to sow their wild oats and experience sexuality of various kinds before they settle down in a marriage. What's wrong with engaging in these acts with these people who are doing it to my understanding willingly if this ultimately benefits my future marriage since I won't want to do it later. And if men can't get sex, doesn't the Sex Trade also reduce violence against women when men can just pay for it when they couldn't get it while dating?

Answer: I'm not sure I can good conscience combine the words “Sex Trade” and “reducing violence” in the same sentence. How dark do you want me to share?

Question: Effectively, for all of the above reasons, isn't the Sex Trade a societal good?

Answer: Effectively, NO.

Question: Doesn't the Constitution provide freedom of association?

Answer: Yes, and I assume you mean Intimate Freedom of Association. But exploitation crosses a line into the violation of the 13th Amendment and the aforementioned TVPA.

Question: How is allowing sex work any different from any other form of occupation?

Answer: I'm going to repeat this premise often, “Not choice or an occupation, but exploitation.”

Question: “If Houston is at the top of the sex trade for national and international exporting what does the increase in volume of illegal border crossings mean for your ministry, the Human Trafficking Industrial Complex, and Political Structure?

What policy measures, in your opinion, should be considered given current circumstances?”

Answer: Not sure where this information is found, but two fundamental problems exist with the statement, 1) “sex trade for national and international exporting”, the reality of sex trafficking in Houston is that rough average of 85% of victims identified are not international victims, and 2) “at the top of the sex trade”, where and how Houston ranks has been grossly misrepresented, especially as “number 1”. In 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Texas prosecuted 42% of trafficking related crimes in the United States. Does that mean we are worse? The better and more accurate answer is that because of the length of time the Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance of the SDTX and the experience level of 37 law enforcement agencies with roughly 196 LE personnel means we have the knowledge and knowhow to identify, investigate, and prosecute trafficking cases, and with the addition of the United Against Human Trafficking Coalition with its 57 service provider agencies provides a greater response to survivor needs and healing.

Question: “Some of these women can only make this kind of money doing sex work? Why would you rob them of an income?”

Answer: There's that ugly word again, “sex work”, the heart of exploitation is to generate income not for the victim, but for the trafficker.

Question: “Being trafficked devalues the Human Being, how can we restore the self-worth and identity of an Image Bearer of God who has lived through these experiences?”

Answer: Get educated to the reality of human trafficking (not watching bad Hollywood interpretations) and the difficulty of restoration and engage. I would encourage you listeners to seek out reputable organizations and get involved, we are always looking for volunteers and staff to be engaged in the fight. Don't start something new, join someone already engaged in the fight who has the right knowledge, understanding, and reputation of work.

Find Dennis Mark:https://www.redeemedtx.org/

Find Dennis Mark:https://www.redeemedtx.org/

We asked a Human Trafficking Revover Expert Your Questions and this is how he responded:

Question: Are not Christians simply enforcing their worldview and religion on other people when they force laws on Sex Trafficking?

Answer: Most of the people who use this verbiage are oftentimes the ones benefiting from the exploitation, mainly the traffickers (pimps) and the consumers (a.k.a. johns).

Question: I mean, you can't legislate morality, right?

Answer: No, but you can legislate and prosecute exploitation.

Question: How should the Church respond to people who are actively being trafficked?

Answer: Everything survivors of human trafficking need to be successful is sitting in the pews of our church. Overcoming their own fears, moving from being paralyzed to engagement, and living out their faith at the level they understand the Word.

Question: What if they are still committed to their lifestyle?

Answer: One of the biggest mistakes and myths about trafficking is this idea of “choice.” So much more to that…

Question: How can a Christian respond effectively to those who are being trafficked?

Answer: With the fruit of the spirit, the ideas of love found in 1 Corinthians 13 and holistic healing…understanding and meeting a person's emotional, physical, relational, and spiritual needs as they are affected by trauma, and yes, trauma affects each of these areas.

Question: Isn't this an issue of the heart and not an issue for government intervention as far as laws are concerned?

Answer: Yes, it is an issue of the heart, but it should be the heart of our elected officials to use their heart and provide a compassionate response to the exploitation of the innocent. In 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed and signed into law to provide the prevention of trafficking, protection of all victims, guidelines for prosecution, and provision of services. In this law was built the ability to reauthorize this act and amend it with improvements as more knowledge is gained.

Question: Don't laws prohibiting a commodity simply create a black market?

Answer: It is already illegal and it is a “underground” market or a viable sub-culture. What is dangerous is legalizing it so that the demand increases and thereby increasing the need for supply which typically involves younger victims.

Question: Shouldn't these women be able to just walk out the door?

Answer: Yes, but it is extremely important to understand the reality of coercion.

Question: If they are really being forced into this, why not just call the police?

Answer: I teach a six-hour course on the realities of survivor care and two-hours is dedicated to just answering this question. It's not about choice, its about control and eliminating options.

Question: Pornography is usually practiced between consenting adults, why should we prohibit anything to do with artistic expression?

Answer: Again, not expression when coercion and exploitation are involved.

Question: Everyone needs to sow their wild oats and experience sexuality of various kinds before they settle down in a marriage. What's wrong with engaging in these acts with these people who are doing it to my understanding willingly if this ultimately benefits my future marriage since I won't want to do it later. And if men can't get sex, doesn't the Sex Trade also reduce violence against women when men can just pay for it when they couldn't get it while dating?

Answer: I'm not sure I can good conscience combine the words “Sex Trade” and “reducing violence” in the same sentence. How dark do you want me to share?

Question: Effectively, for all of the above reasons, isn't the Sex Trade a societal good?

Answer: Effectively, NO.

Question: Doesn't the Constitution provide freedom of association?

Answer: Yes, and I assume you mean Intimate Freedom of Association. But exploitation crosses a line into the violation of the 13th Amendment and the aforementioned TVPA.

Question: How is allowing sex work any different from any other form of occupation?

Answer: I'm going to repeat this premise often, “Not choice or an occupation, but exploitation.”

Question: “If Houston is at the top of the sex trade for national and international exporting what does the increase in volume of illegal border crossings mean for your ministry, the Human Trafficking Industrial Complex, and Political Structure?

What policy measures, in your opinion, should be considered given current circumstances?”

Answer: Not sure where this information is found, but two fundamental problems exist with the statement, 1) “sex trade for national and international exporting”, the reality of sex trafficking in Houston is that rough average of 85% of victims identified are not international victims, and 2) “at the top of the sex trade”, where and how Houston ranks has been grossly misrepresented, especially as “number 1”. In 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Texas prosecuted 42% of trafficking related crimes in the United States. Does that mean we are worse? The better and more accurate answer is that because of the length of time the Human Trafficking Rescue Alliance of the SDTX and the experience level of 37 law enforcement agencies with roughly 196 LE personnel means we have the knowledge and knowhow to identify, investigate, and prosecute trafficking cases, and with the addition of the United Against Human Trafficking Coalition with its 57 service provider agencies provides a greater response to survivor needs and healing.

Question: “Some of these women can only make this kind of money doing sex work? Why would you rob them of an income?”

Answer: There's that ugly word again, “sex work”, the heart of exploitation is to generate income not for the victim, but for the trafficker.

Question: “Being trafficked devalues the Human Being, how can we restore the self-worth and identity of an Image Bearer of God who has lived through these experiences?”

Answer: Get educated to the reality of human trafficking (not watching bad Hollywood interpretations) and the difficulty of restoration and engage. I would encourage you listeners to seek out reputable organizations and get involved, we are always looking for volunteers and staff to be engaged in the fight. Don't start something new, join someone already engaged in the fight who has the right knowledge, understanding, and reputation of work.

Find Dennis Mark:https://www.redeemedtx.org/

When we allowed secularists to rewrite history, they wrote our history books so that the American Founders were secularists too. We lost the nature of the founding of America to a narrative of a secular enlightenment.

We left Europe for a New World to escape a monarchy that dictated your job and class, how much they could take from you, and what you would believe. What are we headed towards again? An America where you have to appeal for a license to be a plumber or lawyer, where your money is either taxed or devalued in your hands (inflation is hidden taxation), and where dissent from the secular humanist orthodoxy is a prison level offense (look to Australia's laws concerning prayer as conversion therapy and you'll see where America is headed.)

If you don't believe me, just try to be legal counsel for someone else without having a license to practice. Ofcourse having a guarantee of education is important, but that's what a degree is for. Why do I have to apply for a license, permission to do something that isn't my right to do, so that I can pursue a career in law? My clients should be able to ask, “Did you go to law school? What are your recommendations?” They ask these things anyway, they usually assume the license. This means that the government, and not God, has decreed what occupation you may consider. This is why we left Europe 400 years ago.

And what about taxes? If you can tax a right, is it a right? Your income is yours, why should the government have it? If you paid for it, you have a right to your homestead. The government was never meant to garner money by taxing its citizens, but by trade and tariffs (yes these are a tax, but on foreign goods). Our government ran without income tax until 1913. This came with an enormous expansion of the government and an increase in welfare by the State, instead of the Church. This means that the government “allows” you a portion of your income, and they “allow” you to stay on what you think is your land, try not paying your property tax some time and you'll see whose land they think it is. This again, lends back to the Feudal System that the Founding Fathers were seeking to escape. Yet, we put ourselves back into bondage when we forget our history and our God.

On the note of religion, many cultures have allowed “Christianity” to exist, as long as the Christians didn't hold Christ as the exclusive Truth. If you bowed to the State and/or local religions, many cultures never cared if you also believed in Christ. But if you refused to bow to the government or false gods, it was a different story. The Church of Smyrna mentioned in Revelation endured this.

Biblical Scholar William Barclay on Smyrna: “Emperor worship had begin as spontaneous demonstration of gratitude to Rome; but toward the end of the first century, in the days of Domitian, the final step was taken and Caesar worship became compulsory. Once a year the Roman citizen must burn a pinch of incense on the altar to the godhead of Caesar; and having done so, he was given a certificate to guarantee that he had performed his religious duty...All that the Christians had to do was to burn that pinch of incense, say, ‘Caesar is Lord,' receive their certificate, and go away and worship as they pleased. But that is precisely what the Christians would not do. They would give no man the name of Lord; that name they would keep for Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. They would not conform.”

If you do not believe that we are or will be shortly facing this sort of treatment, know that Australia is legalizing imprisonment for people who pray for LGBT individuals. The same movement wants to duplicate this in the United States. Parents are having their children removed for not chemically castrating teenagers and preteens with so-called “gender affirmation treatment.”

That is a long winded way of saying that we are seeing the regression back to a centralized government built on man's law and not God's Natural Law. But how did we get a free and prosperous United States of America? What made her exceptional?

When the Pilgrims came from the Old World to Plymouth Rock on November 11, 1620, they were coming from a feudal system. They weren't familiar with individualism, they were used to quotas and hard labor. They had lived all of their lives under tyranny. This led to some unfortunate circumstances which included a “Common Storehouse System” where the fruits of the community's labor were stored. Some worked hard and others didn't. This led to a famine and eventually a new reading of 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” This was the basis for the “Protestant Work Ethic”. This is where we understood that your food is your own. Your income is your own, not someone else's. Charity is commanded by the Bible, entitlements by definition are antithetical to the Scriptures.

Now that we've covered the basis of the individual work ethic, formed out of the Bible and Human experience, the next question is where did we get our government structure? Well, our legal system is founded on “Common Law” or God's Natural Law. A University of Houston study found that of 15,000 documents from America's Founding Fathers, 34% of the quotations used were directly out of Scripture. No other source was so widely quoted. For a group of atheists and deists, this is an interesting pattern.

In fact, these men founded a nation on the concept that the majority of the individuals in the nation had the Spirit of God in their hearts, or at least understood the same moral code. This led to the Federalist ideal that limited government at the Federal level so that the states, counties, and individuals would have more freedom. This system relied on citizens to be Spirit Filled or at least Biblically virtuous. Just to give you some quotes back up that claim:

John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia in 10-11-1798:

“Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge, or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."

George Washington

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

Patrick Henry

We have always been framed as a soft theocracy. Just remember that when pseudo-intellectuals attempt to inform you about the secularist nature of our America's founding.

Notes on Smyrna:

https://www.bible.com/events/43944

John Adams' Letter to the Massachusetts Militia:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

Bible Most Quoted Document by Founders:

https://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.046_0212_0213/?st=gallery

With Roe v Wade overturned, the fight for life is on at the state level. This week, we explored some of the most commonly asked questions on the subject.

From the Chair of Theology:

Question 1: “Jesus didn't talk about Abortion. In fact it isn't even mentioned in the Bible, why are you so against something that is not even mentioned in the Bible?”

Answer: But what does the Bible say about actively taking life? Life may be hard, and for many it is, but when did murder get an exemption?

Psalms 139:13-16

“13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Jeremiah 1:5

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Exodus 20:13

“13 Thou shalt not murder.”

Question 2: “What do we say to someone who believes that the child is an imposition on the mother and she cannot be burdened to carry this child?”

Answer: But what does the Bible say about motherhood? In secular humanistic terms, perhaps one could argue that humans dictate morality based on cultural norms. This Theology was very widely implemented in the 20th Century in Europe and Asia. Atheism and Humanism are responsible for more death than any other religion. When man decides that expedience determines morality and not God, the young, sick, and elderly die. Do you want to go down that road?

From the Chair of Philosophy:

Question 1: “If the child is conceived from incest or rape, does that not give the woman the ability to abort the child, even if the child is a human being?”

Answer: In what situation is this logic ever accepted? One evil man did evil to both the woman and the child. How does this translate to the woman now committing a second atrocity onto her child in her womb? If it is murder, then it is no different than a mother of a 2 year old murdering her child because her husband violates her after the child is born.

This is also what we call in philosophical terms: A Red Herring (something that is unrelated being presented as part of the argument.) Less than 2% involve these circumstances. The question should be asked, if we allowed abortions for rape and incest, would you consider restricting purely elective abortions. No? Then these women's suffering is simply a tool being used to justify killing infants.

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

Question 2: “If you are pro life, then you cannot possibly support the death penalty. So why NO to abortion and YES to death penalty if you are pro life?”

Answer: The death penalty is not related to killing infants. If a person murders someone else in cold blood and there are two or more witnesses, the Bible tells us in Genesis 9:6:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

This is not murder, but a form of societal standard that reduces crime by deterence. How many murders should an unrepentant murderer be allowed to commit? How many children should a pedophile be allowed to harm? How many born alive babies should a Kermit Gosnell be allowed to murder?

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-gets-life-term.html

From the Chair of Culture:

Question 1: “Isn't it better to have children who are wanted? Do we not already have an overloaded foster care system with 400,000 unwanted children? Where's the Church here?”

So, you are saying that you would rather we kill these children than allow them to live because the adoption process needs reform? I'm glad no one really thinks that way about immigration, healthcare triage, or any other aspect of policy. There are an estimated 1-2 million families waiting to get through the red tape, many of these can't have children and want them. They would love these babies who are being flushed down the sink.

Question 2: “Since it takes two to conceive a child, would not the father of said child have any say in wanting that child? Especially if the father would want to raise this child that is a separate individual (body) than the body of the mother?”

Absolutely, there are countless stories of fathers watching their partner abort their child to the horror of these men.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49240582

From the Chair of Politics:

Question 1: “We live in a nation that is built on individual freedoms. Does this not interfere with the woman's freedom? Does not the presence of the child encroach on the woman's autonomy?” *See Violinist Argument*

Answer: How does a 8 month pregnant mother's autonomy differ from the autonomy of an 8 month old's mother? Can the mother of the 8 month old ditch her child in a trash can or throw her child into a wood chipper? The issue of autonomy is complex, but it is very simple when it comes to the active act of ending someone else's life. Your autonomy does not allow for that.

Question 2: “Do you think that the GOP has done a poor job of framing the argument? If so, what would the best framing of the political argument be?”

Answer: “Sometimes we get bogged down in the statistics, data, and politics, but this is purely an issue of good and evil. The government has the duty to protect innocent life. Is the baby a human life? If yes, then it is simply the government's job to protect it.

From the Chair of Economics:

Question 1: “Are we not putting undue burden on 14 year olds who simply made a mistake? We wouldn't even allow these girls to adopt, why force them to have a child?”

Answer: That is a hard question. However, there is a lot of support for these girls in the churches (the good ones) and the pregnancy centers (both of which are being firebombed lately). Reform of the adoption system is critical, we recognize this. We need to have a system that can fast track these sort of adoptions to reduce the load on the foster care system.

Question 2: “Abortions are cheaper than hospital births, why are you putting the higher cost on Women? What answers do you have for women who are poor and an Abortion is cheaper and safer?”

Answer: Are they cheaper though? You may be correct to an extent, but if someone is in that situation, we have hospitals that will help you out or even forgive the debt. We do have these sort of entitlements that are being threatened by abortion. In fact, one could make the argument that abortion has been the single greatest enemy of government funded healthcare. Our country has become top heavy in population with 70 million taxpayers being aborted by those who now rely on a nearly insolvent social security system. So not only have we committed the worst type of genocide, but also made it more difficult to run the system doing it in the process.

All of that to say, when discussing these things with others, the Christian must be winsome. Let us approach these situations with the firmness and tact of Christ with the woman at the well. Let's be Christ's hands, feet, mouths, and ears in this debate by being prepared with an answer.

With Roe v Wade being struck down, there are many cries for freedom from the “tyranny” of not being able to murder a child in utero. Women's Rights, Workers' Rights, Trans Rights, are all misnomers, but everyone keeps using those words. This elicits the question that Indigo Montoya asks in the Princess Bride: “Why do you keep using that word? I don't think it means what you think it means.”

What does Freedom mean? What differentiates it from Entitlement? Well, Freedom is defined by Webster's 1826 as “1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious.”

Another word worth looking at here is Liberty:

Webster 1826: “Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.”

Let's compare that to what Entitlement used to mean and means now:

Webster 1826:

ENTI'TLED, participle passive Dignified or distinguished by a title; having a claim as, every good man is entitled to respect.

Webster 2022:

1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right. b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract. 2 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges.

Freedoms and Liberties come from our inherent value as humans, image bearers of God. Entitlements are granted to us by man, or the government. These two can easily become confused when we replace God with Secular Humanism.

Is healthcare a right? Access or the ability to access healthcare is a right, or rather preventing someone from being able to enlist the help of a doctor, for example, would be a violation of one's rights.However, doctors are not obligated to work for free and other people are not obligated to pay for your healthcare. That would be a violation of their rights and an entitlement. However, this is, to varying degrees, what we have here in America.

Government funded infanticide is not a right. It always has been an entitlement, an evil and twisted entitlement bestowed not by God, but by government. It is important that we understand the difference between Freedom and Entitlement, however the core of the issue here is always the heart.

Entitlements, in a way, are a cheap imitation of God-given Freedoms and Liberties. These entitlements, invariably, come at the cost of someone else. What I mean by that is Individual Freedoms come from God, they have an origin. Entitlements are no different than Freedoms, in that they have an origin. However, the source of Entitlements is always someone or something else. Government bestowed Entitlements, whether they be healthcare, school, or abortion always come at the cost of someone else. In fact, this is generally a great measure of whether or not something is a Freedom or an Entitlement: Does this take away Freedom from someone else?

Another aspect of Freedom is that it always comes with responsibilities. There are consequences for abuse with Freedom and Liberty. You have the right to life, but if you take away someone else's life, yours is forfeit. You have the right to economic freedom, but if you steal from someone else, you have to pay them back and you lose your economic freedom.

This differs from the way that many entitlements are handed out. You have the “right”/entitlement to bodily autonomy via abortion, but the infant inside the womb does not have bodily entitlement. You may be “entitled” to money or funds based on your economic, racial, or legal status in America. This money, however, comes from those who are not “entitled” to the same money. From where else does this money come?

You may think I'm splitting hairs with the definitions here, but it is important to know the difference. When you are discussing the issues of Entitlements and someone uses the word Freedom, it is important to understand where their worldview stands. From there we can unpack the lies that the Enemy of Our Souls has foisted upon them and point them to the source of True Freedom and Liberty. Entitlements pass away with legislation or governments, Freedom and Liberty in Christ define what Heaven will be in essence.

First off, some will attempt to dismiss anyone and everyone who has not transitioned as not an authority on the issue. (This would be a variation on the appeal to authority fallacy.) So today we'll attempt to primarily use non-Conservative, Transgender, and Detransitioner sources, in keeping with our general standard. However, if logical conclusions are obtainable in a conversation, then anyone with the facts can attempt to make sense of an issue. The Bible has all that we need, but we'll go over plenty of other evidence as well.

When we covered body dysmorphia, a common refrain was Psalm 139:

Psalm 139:13-18

“For thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: When I awake, I am still with thee.”

With that in mind, there are plenty of folks who have not enjoyed the peace that comes with this. Helena Kerschner is a prime example of one such individual who suffered from such feelings who was led to believe that she would be best served by the Transgendered lifestyle. She is one of many individuals who Dr. Lisa Littman would categorize as a victim of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

Dr. Littman caused a severe dust up a few years ago for merely suggesting that a significant amount of girls were affirmed erroneously online as transgender, and acted medically. This, however, led to detransitioning later on, but with the side effects of the cross-sex hormones. Statistics on this topic are hard to come by, due to the nature of the topic and affirmative care attitude of “health care professionals” involved. However, one case where informed consent is breached is one too many and there are many cases that meet the standard of not being given enough information for consent.

None of this is new, however. People like Walt Heyers have existed for years. People who go through the so-called transition and have the temerity to return to living as they once did in their biological gender. Heyers was prodded by his family members to identify as a girl when he was just starting to walk. This later culminated in a transition, detransition, and a life with the scars of the fake transition.

So where should the Church be in this? For starters, we need to be there for our youth. The only way LGBT can really reproduce is to co-opt our youth (barring medical intervention, but even then.) We need to be there for those who are struggling. This is not some law that we can pass. No amount of money can be donated or thrown at it. We need to invest in others' lives, just as Christ does in ours.

We need also to sound the alarm of cases like Tulip R, Helen Kerschner, and Walt Heyers. There are many more who have spoken out, but I suspect even more do not for fear of retribution from the LGBT community. Christians need to be ready to welcome these folks back to reality with a stiff dose of truth, mixed with abundant love. If we are there with the uncompromised Gospel (make no mistake, sin is sin. but forgiveness is offered to everyone), then they can have hope for the future.

https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/

Megan Kelly Interview with Dr. Lisa Littman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGrEJd-5dCw&ab_channel=MegynKelly

Graphic "reasignment" mutilation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czY25eZGets&ab_channel=LEARNIdeas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcpnlnkDHlw&ab_channel=TheOffensiveTranny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMB9Wx5VlOc&ab_channel=TEDxTalks

Graphic* Mutilation/Transition Surgery

https://youtu.be/5Mur3XP6yWM

What she wished she knew before transitioning.

https://youtu.be/rC7EtIeWrPs

First off, let's define what we mean by Biblical Innocence?

Mathew 10:16

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

The Greek word “akeraios”, rendered here as “harmless”, may also be rendered as innocent. This verse does not infer ignorance of evil, but rather a rigorous study of Scripture applied to the real world and to one's walk with the Lord. Too many people conflate innocence with naivete.

Daniel 6:22

“My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.”

Daniel was not “innocent” in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of God and in common sense. This was also an innocence with knowledge.

2 Corinthians 7:11

“For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.”

The word used for clear in the Greek, “hagnos”, means pure, chaste, innocent, or cleared of wrongdoing in a legal sense.

Naivete, however, is never looked upon kindly in the Bible. Just read Genesis 3 or Proverbs and we can see what the Bible has to say about the fool, also potentially rendered “the naive”.

Some people, with good intentions, believe that we shouldn't talk about issues concerning marital intimacy, let alone the deviations from Godly marital intimacy. We can clearly see however, that the world has created its own narrative about sex and gender, and we can also see the harm it has caused.

I am not claiming that these people do not have agency and that the Church is directly responsible for the Pride movement growing in America. However, we've been given the task of being salt and light, restraining influences against decay. Most of us have lived clueless existences in regards to what has been happening in schools and campuses. We are only now seeing the depths of the evil when it shows up in our cities on stages or libraries, flouncing about with immunity from our politicians and police. Nancy Pelosi was recently on Rue Paul's Drag Race, Christina Aguelara pranced about on a pride stage with a 12 inch strapped on appendage flopping about whilst aggressively imitating sexual acts in front of children. These same acts performed on stage, would be prosecuted if done over text, and rightfully so. When we have not filled our children and culture with good ideas about sexuality, the vacuum will be filled by alternatives. We need to start grounding our children in reality so when they are inevitably exposed to the insanity of the world, they can remain innocent. If our children are only naive, and not innocent, but wise, many more will fall to this destructive ideology.

So, let us look at some of the facts surrounding the transgender movement, the current tip of the enemy's spear. Studies that claim a relationship between not transitioning and suicide are skewed. One such study published in JAMA Surgery, the people polled claimed up to a 50% reduction in suicidal thoughts in comparison to the last month or year. This claim might make some believe that the results are in and that “transitioning” ultimately helps a significant amount of people. The inverse actually appears to be true if you follow up a decade later.

In Sweden, where the trans movement is roughly a quarter century ahead of us, studies have been undertaken to better understand the long term consequences of “transitioning”.

“The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes), but death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease was increased 2 to 2.5 times as well. We note, mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years. The risk for psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times greater than in controls even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease (18 percent). The risk for attempted suicide was greater in male-to-female patients regardless of the gender of the control. Further, we cannot exclude therapeutic interventions as a cause of the observed excess morbidity and mortality. The study, however, was not constructed to assess the impact of gender reassignment surgery per se.” -(Trentacosti 2007, PRO 2009) (Appendices C and D).

In the states it has been difficult to do research on this topic because academics who do are often fired or brought into public ruin as in the cases of Dr. Alan Josephson or Dr. Lisa Littman. Stories below. However, the Heritage foundation has attempted to put some of the pieces together with comparing locals that allowed easy access to Transgender Hormones and care to minors:

“In the past several years, the suicide rate among those ages 12 to 23 has become significantly higher in states that have a provision that allows minors to receive routine health care without parental consent than in states without such a provision. Before 2010, these two groups of states did not differ in their youth suicide rates. Starting in 2010, when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became widely available, elevated suicide rates in states where minors can more easily access those medical interventions became observable.

Rather than being protective against suicide, this pattern indicates that easier access by minors to cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent is associated with higher risk of suicide. The Heritage model plotted the difference in a three-year rolling average of suicide rates between states with minor access provisions and states with no such provision. Chart 2 plots the trend in this difference for those ages 12 to 23 who could have been affected by the policy when cross-sex medical interventions became available. For comparison, Chart 2 also shows the trend in this difference for a group ages 28 to 39, who could not have been affected by these policies, since the people in this group would have been at least 18 when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became available.”

It is important to note, that while this recent trend is new to America, nothing is new under the sun. Rome and Greece fell to this. Israel, for that matter, fell to this. It is critical that we not only repent, but begin shoring up a new foundation of innocence, not naivete, for the next generation of children. This involves talking about sex, gender, and godlessness in a Biblical sense, with grace and thoughtfulness. We need to be aware of what is out there and we need to be a restraining purifying presence in our culture.

Innocence is not a naive blindness, but a committed walk with God, ministering truth and grace to a dying culture. Churches need to wake up from their naivete and realize how serious a fight we have ahead of us. We need to have answers, rooted in Scripture, prepared for those who are hurt and suffering as well as those looking for belonging in the LGBT movement. Who knows, perhaps they will come to know the Lord. What we do know, is that the world is sentencing many of these people to a life of misery and suicide without Christ if we do not present the Godly alternative.

Story on study claiming reduction on suicidal ideation within the last month or year.

https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-transgender-people-who-receive-gender-affirming-surgery-are-significantly-less-likely-to-experience-psychological-distress-or-suicidal-ideation/

Lisa Littman's Work Removed: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/brown-university-criticized-over-removal-transgender-study-n906741

Dr. Allan Josephson fired:

https://www.genderhq.org/blog/2019/8/30/academic-psychiatrist-fired-for-expressing-skepticism-about-safety-of-pediatric-transition

Heritage Study:

https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/puberty-blockers-cross-sex-hormones-and-youth-suicide

It is no longer a slippery slope fallacy to claim that after guns, they will come for metal knives, and after the metal knives, they will come for the plastic ones. Great Britain has seen a string of knife bans, to the point that it is not even legal to carry a knife if the authorities do not think that your reason is good enough. (Story from the hstoday.us below) The Church of England is literally using language like “pointy knifes” must be banned, letter below. To further the point, they are literally attempting to ban plastic cutlery for purposes of carbon footprint reduction (How will we prepare food at this rate?), again new story below. This may seem silly, but it is actually happening to knives. Many conservatives have been laughed at for even suggesting that this is the logical end of the gun debate, that all guns will be banned and knives will be next. We see that occurring in Britain in real time.

When discussing the topic of Gun Control, one can easily run into the weeds of stats and lose the war for winning the battle. We need to remember from where does this type of ideology stem, and what has it produced. Note, I am a stats guy. I believe in knowing the facts, but that is only a small percentage of the conversation if you wish to win someone on the other side of the Gun Control Debate.

Last week we discussed stats and common arguments, so now let's look at the origins of gun control and what the philosophy of gun control has produced in societies that have implemented it. In America, it bears merit to look at why gun control was even considered in a society that had recognized a citizen's common law right to own a firearm since the English Bill of Rights of 1688. This Bill of Rights, by the way, reinstated the rights of all to keep and bear arms. Protestants, specifically, had been stripped of this right under persecution by James II. So why would a Protestant nation even consider gun control laws, they had just left violent persecution in Europe. Many of them fought for these very reforms. So why would some of these refugees employ similar tyrannical policies? For the same reasons those in Europe oppressed the Protestants, sin and power.

Looking at American History is like looking at the tale of two Americas. One America was fighting for Christ's Liberty for all, and the other living in the same sin nature in which the rest of the world wallows. The gun control issue is one of many debates that has serious philosophical implications. Either all have the right to defend themselves, as God has declared in His Word, or Man has the right to pick and choose if man has the right to self defense. When man usurps God's authority, tragedy inevitably strikes.

One of the first gun laws in America was written in Virginia in 1640 specifically against the African Slaves who had been brought to the New World:

“Prohibiting negroes, slave and free, from carrying

weapons including clubs." (The Los Angeles Times, "To

Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control," January

19, 1992)

Also passed in 1640 Virginia was this statute: "That all such free Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians...shall appear without arms." [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W.W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

Virginia continued to institute such laws and was joined by South Carolina in 1712 when the latter codified a statute banning:"An act for the better

ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves." [7

Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D.J.

McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

In 1791 the 2nd Amendment was ratified, codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is important to note that the first congress almost split over the issue of slavery during our battle for independence from Britain, which truly didn't end until January 8, 1815 in New Orleans. Benjamin Franklin after having returned from France to broker the end of the French Revolutionary War brought a petition before Congress that read as such:

““Mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness.” All people were entitled to the “blessings of liberty . . . without distinction of color.” It noted the contradiction of slavery and freedom in the American experiment while seeking the means “for removing this inconsistency from the character of the American people,” and it called on Congress to grant “liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage.” It advocated not only the end of the slave trade, as the Quaker petition had the day before, but the end of slavery itself.” billofrightsinstitute.org

The Abolitionist case took a back seat to survival and rested until the decadespreceding the Civil War which, however complex, was at least in part foslavery.

In those decades marching up to the Civil War many states passed other egregious gun laws.

In 1825 Florida enstated a law allowing local authorities to ransack Melanated homes (slave or free) for the purposes of confiscating any weapons of any sort (even a cane could be considered contraband.

In 1828 Florida did in fact reverse somewhat to allow Free Melanated people to own firearms, only with a license. (Because you know you can't trust some sorts of people so we need licenses. This argument has become no less immoral with time.)

In 1831 Florrida reversed again and repealed all licenses held by melanated people. (If God is not the one endowing us with our rights, and government is, then our rights are based on elections and political whimsy.)

In 1857 the Dredd Scott vs Sandford case, one of the worst cases of jurisprudence ever seen in America, the court upheld the following: Fro Chief Justice Taney: “if

members of the African race were "citizens" they would

be exempt from the special "police regulations"

applicable to them. "It would give to persons of the

negro race...full liberty of speech...to hold public

meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry

arms wherever they went." (Id. p. 417) U.S. Supreme

Court held that descendants of Africans who were

imported into this country and sold as slaves were not

included nor intended to be included under the word

"citizens" in the Constitution, whether emancipated or

not, and remained without rights or privileges except

such as those which the government might grant them,

thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did

not become free when taken into a free state; that

Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that

blacks could not be citizens.”

After the Civil War, the reconstruction era saw the above laws “Slave Codes” become “Black Codes”. These often banned Melanated ownership of firearms without a license. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was meant to overturn these and the 14th Amendment reinforced the CRA of 1866, but states continued in their sin.

“Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its

adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of

the freedoms in the bill of rights. Sen. Thomas A.

Hendricks (D-Ind.) said "if this amendment be

adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship]

and enjoy its advantages in common with the negroes,

the coolies, and the Indians." [CONG. GLOBE, 39th

Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)].

Sen. Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner

in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because "it is

quite objectionable to provide that 'no State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges and immunities of citizens of the United

States'." Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as

necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

especially since the act "is pronounced void by the

jurists and courts of the South," e.g. Florida has as

"a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons...and

the punishment...is whipping..." [CONG GLOBE, 39th

Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June 1866)].”

The KKK was formed the same year in 1866, primarily by Democrats who felt as Thomas Hendricks did. This organization and those who held hate in their hearts towards the freed slaves wanted gun control to make their business of oppression easier.

Saturday Night Special Laws were concocted and enacted to make inexpensive firearms “Saturday Night Specials'' difficult to obtain. This made it difficult to afford a firearm for all of those who the left saw as undesirable, especially the melanated individuals, but also the Appalachian and Italian, who were also connoted with “higher criminality and lower breeding”. Remember, these were the same people who were enthralled with eugenics and thought the poor and slaves were in these circumstances because of their genetics and nature.

In 1911, the Sullivan Law was enacted. This law required police permission to obtain a permit to own a handgun. Again, the Southern Italian was also specifically singled out as particularly criminal in nature, as well as the more melanated African American.

In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed to prevent the ownership of firearms that were considered too dangerous to be left in the hands of the common folk. Firearms under this law were still available if you were to ask for a license and pay a tax equal to that of a used automobile.

In 1941 Florida a judge admitted to the unequal administration of a gun control law: “In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida

gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated

the 1893 law "was passed when there was a great influx

of negro laborers in this State....The same condition

existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act

was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro

laborers....The statute was never intended to be

applied to the white population and in practice has

never been so applied...". Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla.

516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)”

After MLK was assasinated in 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed and Robert Sherril, an avowed anti-gun journalist admitted that: “that the

Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control

guns but to control Blacks." [R. Sherrill, The

Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CR LJ, p.

80) "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to

control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a

majority of Congress did not want to do the former but

were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter,

the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law,

the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty

years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First

of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one

piece but was a combination of two laws. The original

1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev.

Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a

rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include

the control of rifles and shotguns after the

assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a

handgun.... The moralists of our federal legislature

as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that

the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and

Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird

memorial, as can be seen not merely by the

handgun/long-gun shellgame, but from the

inapplicability of the law to their deaths." (The

Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert

Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)”

In 1994 Clinton introduced HR 3838 to ban firearms in government housing, people who need to be able to protect themselves more than most.

All of this to say, Britain's gun and knife bans have not worked, Australia's bans have done little, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao's bans accomplished exactly what they wished. Why would we in America continue the regressive and Anti-God philosophy of Gun Control. Let us live in Liberty, but with responsibility. Those who commit heinous acts should be held to account, but we can also deter them with an armed populace.

Knife Crackdown:

https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/border-security/u-k-launches-nationwide-crackdown-on-knife-crime/

Pointy Knife Ban:

https://www.rochester.anglican.org/communications/news/government-urged-to-restrict-the-sale-of-pointed-knives.php

Plastic Cutlery Ban:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/20/single-use-plastic-plates-and-cutlery-could-be-banned-in-england

List of Gun Laws: https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf

Bill of Rights Institute: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/benjamin-franklin-and-the-first-abolitionist-petitions

NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen Debate:

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/08/a-historians-assessment-of-the-anti-immigrant-narrative-in-nysrpa-v-bruen/

The first thing we need to acknowledge when dealing with topics like mass shootings, is that there is a problem that we all want to solve. Put aside the arguments for a moment and remember that when we talk about the 2nd Amendment in America, there is a cultural, linguistic, and even religious charge to the words that we commonly use. “Common Sense Gun Control”, “If it saves one life, isn't it worth it?, “The Gun Lobby”, “2nd Amendment Rights”, “The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!” all come to mind. To have these discussions, it is critical to disarm the explosive reactions that people are harboring for just the right phrases. Like an EOD expert unearthing the IED, let's attempt to unearth the truth from the lies that have buried the root issue: “Evil humans are doing evil things, often to the most vulnerable.” Today, let's look at seven of the common arguments and attempt to find the falsehoods that are hiding the solution. Argument 1#: If It Just Saves One Life, Is It Not Worth It? Response: Maybe. If you are willing to give up your freedoms for security, it sounds nice! I mean, just let the police handle it. They have guns. However, it's not like they can arrive on spot every time faster than you are able to draw from your own waistband. Not only do we have a recent poor showing at Uvalde, but we had Police preventing parents from rescuing their children. They went so far as to employ less lethal measures on a mother who just wanted to rescue her daughter. I understand the need to keep a clean scene, but that is only if the officers are going in. So police are not the answer, they are for bringing criminals to justice AFTER the murder has occured. During the murder incident is when most people want a force multiplier. The CDC has determined that roughly 500,000 to 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms occur every year. This is hard to determine because the mere presence of a firearm can de-escalate a scene (I've been there, done that). So would you save the 500,000 (just going on the low end) or the 20,000 cases of homicide by person with a firearm (I'm taking suicides out of the pile because suicide is easily carried out in other methods)? One death is always one too many, but we are looking at solving the impossible. Man is evil. Preventing people from being self sufficient and independent enough to protect themselves is statistically the winning choice between draconian laws vs 2nd Amendment Freedom. The problem is that good people with guns DO save the day countless times every year. Steve Wiliford at the Sutherland Springs Shooting came from several doors down to stop one of the Country's most deadly shootings. In December of 2019, a gun toting deacon took out an active shooter before more than 2 people were killed. More recently a woman at a West Virginia Graduation shot a gunman that had intended on making the scene one of a mass murder. What if taking away people's rights equals more suffering and death? Children are more likely to die of parental abuse in America than Mass Shootings according to the statistics. In 2020 79 people were killed in Mass Shootings while nearly 1000 children died from parental abuse. Noone in their right mind is suggesting comprehensive government audits of parents. Argument 2#: The Majority of Americans Want Common Sense Gun Legislation. Assault Weapon Bans and Gun Laws Work. Response: Common Sense Restrictions, like background checks? We have them. Age limits? We have them. 18 for rifles, 21 for pistols are the common limitations. Anyone who has bought a firearm in the years since 1998 has had the misfortune of encountering NICS, The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It is anything but instant and it has often has failures induced by the incompetence that only a government run system could produce. Consider this, a 21 year old girl (we won't even mention a 19 year old that couldn't purchase a firearm right now) has an abusive boyfriend, or has come under threat of violence when she lives in a bad part of town. She goes to purchase a handgun on the day after her 21st birthday and she gets a NICS check and it delays her purchase for days, or even weeks (as I have had). What if she gets a false negative? These mistakes happen every year. If this woman is raped or murdered by her abusive boyfriend, we prevented her from getting the protection she needed. Does the “If it saves one life” argument hold water here? Do Assault Weapons Bans work? Spoilers, they don't. This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other as far as the trend is concerned, but the Assault Weapons Ban did not have an appreciable effect on the gun violence issue as seen in this OJP report. Not only was there no appreciable decrease in violence, they even note that rifles represent a single digit number of the homicides in America year to year, but the proliferation of the contraband firearms grows when they become contraband. Prohibition vibes anyone? Argument 3#: You Don't Need Weapons of War for Hunting or Self-Defense Response: Maybe not, both are easier and safer with modern firearms but that is our right in America. (By the way, what the heck is a weapon not of war? Is this some sort of neutered firearm that has been neutered for no other reason than virtue signaling?) The real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against tyrants. In America the individual is the highest authority. Government officials were simply there to facilitate the protections of the inalienable rights granted by God. The 2nd Amendment was always intended as a deterrent to tyranny. The British would have done anything to have a defenseless population to oppress and the founding fathers knew that an armed populace was the best protection against the government's natural inclination to oppress its people. Argument 4#: Your 2nd Amendment Rights Have Limitations Response: Do they? What did the Founding Fathers think about canons, warships, and firearms? They had ample opportunity to speak on the issue. They did in fact mention the use of warships in the matter of Privateers. From Thought.com you can see this definition of Privateers: “Privateers were captains of merchant ships legally sanctioned to attack and capture ships of enemy nations. American privateers had played a useful role in the American Revolution, attacking British ships. And when the United States Constitution was drafted it contained a provision for the federal government to authorize privateers. In the War of 1812, American privateers played a major role, as armed merchant ships sailing from American ports attacked, seized, or destroyed a great many British merchant ships. The American privateers actually did much more damage to British shipping than the U.S. Navy, which was greatly outnumbered and outgunned by Britain's Royal Navy.” These people possessed much greater firepower than any AR-15. This issue is a non-start, and one could even argue that tanks, destroyers, etc are indeed all protected items within the 2nd Amendment. What kind of chaos this must have caused you may say. There is little to no chaos recorded because pirates were stringently dealt with. When there are dire and swift consequences for evil, people tend to not commit evil.. Argument 5#: The Founding Fathers Did Not Consider Semi-Automatic Weapons Response: Actually in 1777, Congress considered the Belton Flintlock which could fire 8 rounds in rapid succession. The only reason Congress did not proceed with the purchase was the cost of the rifles. The Founding Fathers had many chances to consider repeaters and revolvers and never held that a citizen shouldn't own one. Argument 6#: Are You Not Pro-Life? How Is Killing Someone The Right Answer? Response: Are you inferring that the active act of murdering an innocent is the same as protecting innocents by stopping an aggressor? What did God say about self-defense? Exodus 22:2-3: “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭11:21: ‬‬“When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:” ‭Luke‬ ‭22:35-37‬‬: “And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.” Argument 7#: Jesus Said To Turn The Other Cheek. Shouldn't We As The Church Do So? Response: That verse was in a chapter. Let's have a look at this one in context with the whole of Scripture in mind: Mathew 5:38-41: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” This was not in a vacuum. The same Christ also stated that one should sell their cloak if necessary to obtain the ability to defend themselves. In context this verse has nothing to do with self defense, but the issue of pride. From the Talmud: Sanhedrin 58b: “Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).” And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo'a] of the Holy One.” Note, this interpretation makes much more sense in the cultural framework than a call for pacifism. Remember, when we are fighting for the rights of Americans to defend themselves, we need to remember that those who disagree with us, may honestly want to solve the problem too. On the gun control side, there are those who want power and those who simply want peace. Remember that we must be winsome so that the latter may come to realize the truth. Bibliography: Defensive uses of firearms: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145 CDC on Gun Deaths: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence CNS on CDC Study NICS Information: http://fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm Charleston Loophole Fallacy: https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSSF-Factsheet-NICS-Delays.pdf Gun Free Zones Statistics: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/ Good Guys with guns: https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/stephen-willeford-sutherland-springs-mass-murder/ https://nypost.com/2019/12/29/texas-church-shooting-leaves-2-dead/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party On Privateers: https://www.thoughtco.com/privateers-definition-1773340 On the Belton Flintlock and other repeating Muskets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wOmUM40G2U&ab_channel=RoyalArmouries https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Belton_flintlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock Sanhedrin 58b: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.58b.18-19?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=en&lookup=nd%20Rabbi%20%E1%B8%A4anina%20says%3A%20One%20who%20slaps%20the%20cheek%20of%20a%20Jew%20is%20considered%20as%20though%20he%20slapped%20the%20cheek%20of%20the%20Divine%20Presence%3B%20as%20it%20is%20stated%3A%20%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20a%20snare%20%5Bmokesh%5D%20for%20a%20man%20to%20rashly%20say%20%5Byala%5D%3A%20Holy%E2%80%9D%20(Proverbs%2020%3A25).%20The%20verse%20is%20interpreted%20homiletically%20to%20mean%3A%20One%20who%20strikes%20%5Bnokesh%5D%20a%20Jew%20is%20considered%20as%20though%20he%20hurt%20the%20cheek%20%5Blo%E2%80%99a%5D%20of%20the%20Holy%20One.&with=Lexicon&lang2=en

Physical or Biological Determinism will always cause the sort of societal pain that comes from stripping man of his rights as an image bearer of God. If we view people as simply the flesh that they inhabit, we will rob them of what makes them special: God breathed life and a spirit into each one of us. This gives us a unique value. This realization of the infinite value should move us to view every human as priceless.

The trouble with Secular Humanism that neither the value of God nor the value of man is recognized. Only the need for self actualization is acknowledged. So what would happen to a culture saddled with such a worldview if a certain minority were to be singled out as an obstacle to the majority's self-actualization, whether through pseudoscience, religious innuendo, or avarice? We only need to look to recent history to see the results.

In the 1700s a man named Thomas Robert Malthus produced the theory that the exponential population growth, combined with an arithmetic food supply growth, would produce immense human suffering in the inevitable overpopulation that would occur. The Malthusian Theory of Population, when combined with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, bred an incredibly dangerous atmosphere where man thought it best to play God considering God's absence from man's worldview. This playing God took the form of Eugenics, or Good Birth (Eu-Greek for Good, Genes Greek for birth).

Eugenics was rather popular during Margret Sanger's day. It is important to remember that while she was a product of her times, those times are not that far behind us and neither are the propositions that motivated people like Margret Sanger.

So now that we have partially set the stage, let's not use some Pro-Life source. (Unfortunately, in the zeal for the Pro-Life cause, so many in the Pro-Life movement are not always accurate when representing Sanger. We should always build the strongest version of the opposition's argument when forming a response. Dismantling steelmen, not strawmen, prepares us to engage our culture successfully.) Let us use scholars like Edwin Black (not a conservative), Planned Parenthood, and most importantly, Sanger herself to look at the founder of the contraceptive movement that has evolved into the abortion movement.

From Planned Parenthood on Margret Sanger:

“Was Sanger Racist?

Arguments continue about whether or not her

outreach to the Black community was racist. We

know that Sanger was conscious of race, and that

she was capable of revolutionary thinking that

defied sexism of the time. She did not apply that

revolutionary thinking to race and class, choosing

instead to follow the paternalistic attitudes of the

time and willfully ignoring how Black people were

harmed by her movement. However, there is no

evidence that Sanger, or the Federation, intended to

coerce Black women into using birth control:

“The fundamental belief, underscored at

every meeting, mentioned in much of the

behind-the-scenes correspondence, and

evident in all the printed material put out

by the Division of Negro Service, was that

uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest

burden to the poor, and Southern blacks

were among the poorest Americans. In fact,

the Negro Project did not differ very much

from the earlier birth control campaigns in

the rural South...it would have been more

racist, in Sanger's mind, to ignore African

Americans in the South than to fail at trying

to raise the health and economic standards

of their communities” (“Birth Control or Race

Control,” 2001).”

There are several issues here. First, Sanger herself was an ardent supporter of sterilizing the “unfit”. Quote “As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out the unbalance between the birth of the ‘unfit' and the fit. Admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these classes.” -Sanger 1919

This was not simply one race, but many for the average eugenist. The Appalachian, the Southern Italian, the Jew, the Black were all common targets of Sanger's peers in the movement. She was somewhat tight lipped about race, though those she considered to be mentally unfit were fair game (again the issue of IQ was often deduced by race through weighted IQ tests as scholars like Edwin Black are quick to point out.) However, let's look at her actions and words as they speak volumes about her end goals.

More from Planned Parenthood

“However, it is true that Margaret Sanger made a

speech on birth control to a women's auxiliary branch

of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926

(Sanger, 1938, 366). Sanger was so intent on her

mission to advocate for birth control that she chose

to align herself with ideologies and organizations

that were explicitly ableist and white supremacist.

In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom

Black people, Latino people, Indigenous people,

immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low

incomes, and many others…”

But these were the targets of the Eugenics movement. Just recontextualize this with any other person who is not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Someone who believed in breeding better humans, proposed her ideas to racists, who then furthered her cause. But she was not a racist. She only did racist things surrounded by racist people.

“Sanger and Eugenics

Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved

through planned breeding for “desirable traits”

like intelligence and industriousness. In the early

20th century eugenic ideas were popular among

highly educated, privileged, and mostly white

Americans. Margaret Sanger pronounced her belief

in and alignment with the eugenics movement in

her writings, especially in the scientific journal Birth

Control Review. At times, Sanger tried to argue for

a eugenics that was not applied based on race or

religion (Katz, 1995, 47).”

Point of order, this is what someone else has postulated posthumously to save the face of Planned Parenthood.

“But in a society built on the belief of white supremacy, physical and mental

fitness are always judged based on race. Eugenics,

therefore, is inherently racist.”

Sanger also argued that reproductive choices should

be made by each woman, not by the state.

“Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's

first duty is to the state; we contend that her

duty to herself is her first duty to the state.

We maintain that a woman possessing an

adequate knowledge of her reproductive

functions is the best judge of the time and

conditions under which her child should be

brought into the world. We further maintain

that it is her right, regardless of all other

considerations, to determine whether she

shall bear children or not, and how many

children she shall bear if she chooses to

become a mother. ... Only upon a free,

self-determining motherhood can rest any

unshakable structure of racial betterment”

(Sanger, 1919a).”

Also from Sanger: “A marriage license shall in itself give a husband and a wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.” Sanger- Article 3, 27 March 1934

This provokes the question: Was she speaking about two different groups of people? She often referred to the fit and unfit. She doubled down even further in the same publication when she wrote: “No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child and no man shall have the right to become a father without a permit for parenthood.”

These last two quotes came after Sanger supported the Supreme Court Decision Buck v Bell.

“Yet Sanger's points of disagreement did not

prohibit her from embracing harmful eugenic ideas.

For example, she endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell

decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that

states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit”

without their consent and sometimes without their

knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by

Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation

for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often

against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485)

A majority of states would go on to adopt

involuntary sterilization policies, leading to more

than 60,000 people being sterilized by the states

in the 20th century. These policies targeted people

with disabilities and people broadly labeled

“feebleminded” or “mentally defective” by the state.

Sterilization policies were violently ableist, and

were applied in deeply racist ways. In the South,

so many Black women were given unnecessary

hysterectomies that it gave rise to the euphemism

“Mississippi appendectomy.” In California, 20,000

people were sterilized between 1909 and 1979,

among them a disproportionate number of Black,

Mexican American, and Asian American people. In

the 1970s and 80s, Indigenous women were sterilized

at staggering rates, without their consent: At least

25% of Native American women were sterilized

between 1970 and 1976. The ripples of the Buck

v. Bell decision are still felt today. In 2020 at Irwin

County Detention Center in Georgia, immigrant

detainees were sterilized against their will.

Sterilization policies in the U.S. in the 1930s would

ultimately inspire some of the worst human rights

atrocities in the history of the world, including the

Nazi regime's eugenics laws. While Sanger was not

associated with Nazism — her books were among the

first burned by Nazis in their campaign against family

planning (“Sanger on Exhibit,” 1999/2000), and she

helped several Jewish women and men and others

escape the Nazi regime in Germany (“Margaret

Sanger and the ‘Refugee Department',” 1993) — she is

not absolved of her endorsement of Buck v. Bell and

the harm it caused.

Sanger's belief in eugenics undermined reproductive

freedom and caused irreparable damage to the

health and lives of generations of Black people,

Latino people, Indigenous people, immigrants,

people with disabilities, people with low incomes,

and many others. Planned Parenthood denounces

Margaret Sanger's belief in eugenics.”

Sanger may not have liked where things ended up in Germany, but she had already met the Nazis half way with the Buck v Bell case. It is important to note, that she shifted her approach in light of the Nazi situation, but Edwin Black in his book “The War Against the Weak” is clear to note that he does not believe that Sanger was a racist, but consorted with the worst of them. Why might she have done this? She would say herself: “These two words (Birth Control) sum up our whole philosophy. It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination, and eventual extinction of defective stocks… Those human weeds which threaten the finest flowers of American Civilization.” -Sanger “Highlights in the History of Birth Control” October 1923.

All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class… Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately a cleaner race.” -Sanger “Morality and Birth Control.” Feb 1918.

She may have even had good intentions. But shouldn't that scare us all the more? Should this idea that all of this was done for the betterment of the human race and female sex be all the more frightening? We need a standard. The one that our Father in Heaven has set.

https://youtu.be/HsrOPDdbTzM

18:45 Quotes on Sanger arguing for sexual freedom

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf

https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/tag/edwin-black/

NM Holocaust Video On Eugenics:

https://youtu.be/jeSM9vz6ylg