After that, most well-catechized Christians find it difficult to extract biblical principles of good governance. It is oh, so tempting to stray into more familiar doctrinal debate. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the blanket condemnation that "Jefferson was a Deist."

By the same token, anti-Christian activists like to cherry-pick Jefferson's work to exclude faith from the public square.

An intrepid Daily Signal journalist takes this topic to a deeper level.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/07/04/4-facts-busting-myth-thomas-jefferson-secularist-hero/

4 Facts Busting the Myth of Thomas Jefferson as a Secularist Hero

Tyler O’Neil    |    July 4, 2026

Those who wish to purge Christianity and the Bible from American public life often trumpet the third president, Thomas Jefferson, as a champion of the “wall of separation between church and state.”

Yet Jefferson was far from a secularist hero.

As America celebrates the 250th anniversary of his most influential work, the Declaration of Independence, it seems fitting to revisit Jefferson’s relationship with public religion.

1. The Letter to Danbury Baptists

On Jan. 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the phrase secularists love to quote.

In referring to the First Amendment’s religion and establishment clauses, Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church & state.”

The “establishment” of religion forbidden in the First Amendment applied to the federal government, not the states—many of which had established churches long after the Constitution’s ratification. This “establishment” involved directing tax money to support churches, and forbidding it did not mean excising references to the Bible from public places.

Furthermore, the letter itself reveals a religious motivation for this declaration.

Jefferson wrote, not intending to purge the public square of religion, but intending to protect the Baptists’ religious freedom. Immediately before the “separation” passage, the president stated his belief “that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God, that he owes account to none other for this faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.”

He ended the letter by stating, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Jefferson did not intend to force religion out of public life—he explicitly grounded his respect for the establishment clause in his own high esteem for God and religion, and he stated his intention to pray for the Baptists.

2. Church Service in the Capitol

Two days after Jefferson sent that letter, he attended a Christian worship service at the U.S. Capitol. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, a Federalist member of the House of Representatives, noted Jefferson’s attendance in a Jan. 4, 1802, letter to Joseph Cutler.

Margaret Bayard Smith, a writer and social critic, wrote that “Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant” of Capitol worship services.

Whatever Jefferson meant by the “separation of church & state,” he took no objection to the notion of worship services in federal government buildings.

3. The Declaration of Independence

Any close reader of the Declaration of Independence would not come away with the opinion that its author wanted religion excised from the public square.

The declaration doesn’t just mention God four times; it credits God for giving the moral foundation of good government.

The declaration cites “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” for the notion that Americans have the right to assert their independence from Great Britain.

The document states that “certain unalienable Rights” are “endowed” by our “Creator.”

The signers appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world” to vouch for their righteous intentions, and declare their “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”

Jefferson wrote the document to represent the members of the Second Continental Congress, so he doubtless made compromises to represent the entire group, but he still grounded America’s fundamental rights in God, not in government.

4. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which the Old Dominion’s General Assembly passed in January 1786. While the statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia, it explicitly grounded the right of religious freedom not in secular government but in man’s duty to God.

The statute declares that “Almighty God hath created the mind free” and that “all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment… are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either.”

In fact, the document frames the disestablishment of Anglicanism as a way to protect religion, warning that establishing a religion “tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will eternally profess and conform to it.”

No Secularist Hero

As an American Christian, I am grateful to Jefferson for stating the principles that founded our country. I also acknowledge that Jefferson was hardly an example of Christian orthodoxy—he did cut up the Bible to remove passages describing miracles, after all.

However, the idea that Jefferson would have championed the secularist removal of symbols such as the Ten Commandments from government buildings is utterly contrary to his documented history.

Let’s set the record straight: Jefferson was no secularist hero, and his “separation of church & state” is a far cry from the modern secularist agenda.

For Christians, the short version may be:

You can view government as God, or you can view it as under God.

The Bible is very clear which view is correct. 

https://answersingenesis.org/science/microplastics-contamination-and-creation/

What Does Microplastics Contamination Have to Do with Creation?

Ken Ham   |   June 15, 2026

Have you ever heard the claim that the average person eats a credit card’s worth of plastic every single week? Well, turns out that popular statistic, based on the high-end numbers of a 2019 study, is probably wildly wrong because scientists have overlooked a “surprising source” of sample contamination that’s “led to wildly exaggerated results”: standard plastic gloves. But what does this have to do with creation?

According to a popular science article,

Scientists may have been unknowingly inflating microplastics pollution estimates, and the surprising source could be their own lab gloves. A University of Michigan study found that common nitrile and latex gloves release tiny particles called stearates, which closely resemble microplastics and can contaminate samples during testing. In some cases, this led to wildly exaggerated results, forcing researchers to track down the unexpected culprit.

Researchers will now need to revisit old datasets, using a new technique to separate out contamination from the real microplastics, to find the true quantity of microplastics. Now for the creation connection!

The grad student who made a surprising discovery using testable, observable, and repeatable science (what we call observational science) showed how the microplastics research field was getting it completely wrong. Her new research, based on experimentation in the present, calls into question much of the previous research done on this particular topic. So what happens when scientists are wrong about something they can’t test?

The only way to ensure you have the right worldview for interpreting the evidence is to start with a perfect eyewitness account.
When it comes to answering questions about the past, we can’t do direct experiments in the same way because we’re dealing with history—it’s gone—all we have is the present. This historical science is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable (like the origins issue as that concerns the past). Rather, it’s interpretations of the evidence in the present, trying to make sense of what happened in the past. And interpretation requires a worldview (yes, everyone has a worldview!).

The only way to ensure you have the right worldview for interpreting the evidence is to start with a perfect eyewitness account. And the only perfect eyewitness account is found in God’s Word.

If we want to be sure we have the right framework for interpreting the evidence and we aren’t missing anything that would totally change our interpretations of the present—like a global flood, a young earth, or a perfect creation marred by sin—we must start with Scripture!

Oh—and yes, evolutionists have had a massive number of wrong interpretations, and will continue to do so, as their worldview is based on fallible man’s word.

His video is well worth viewing and may be watched directly from the link.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2026/05/16/evolution-fuels-racism/

Evolution Fuels Racism
by

Ken Ham    |    May 16, 2026

Evolutionary ideas fueled racism in the past, and they continue to influence how people see one another.

The late Voddie Baucham was a great friend of the Answers in Genesis ministry. He spoke at several of our conferences, including our 2019 Answers for Pastors conference, which was themed One Race, One Blood. At that conference, he gave a powerful message regarding the evolutionary roots of racism and how Christians, starting with the Bible, should view this issue. His presentation has recently been uploaded to our YouTube channel, and I encourage you to watch it (and find part two on the AiG streaming platform, Answers TV).

We’re all one race—the human race—descended through Adam and Eve.

I’ve been passionate about this topic since the 1970s when I was teaching science at a public high school. During one of the classes, I shared about the tower of Babel and the truth that we’re all one race—the human race—descended through Adam and Eve (you had more freedom back then than many teachers do today!).

Afterward, several young aboriginal ladies came up to me with more questions about Babel and how we’re all related. After chatting with them, I realized the impact Darwin’s evolutionary ideas had had on them—he believed their people group was less evolved and was in fact the supposed missing link in human evolution. After that, I became passionate about the biblical truth regarding one race and developed a talk and later a book on the topic.

Well, that book is more relevant than ever—issues regarding “race” still plague our Western culture—so this year I significantly updated that book, including adding several brand-new chapters, for a new audience. One Blood is now available for preorder. In it, you’ll discover the truth of one race, one origin, and one Savior and will be equipped to point others toward the biblical truth of our origin and to the only solution for all humanity, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

<clip>

https://www.city-journal.org/article/derald-wing-sue-social-work-nursing-counseling-race

Why Are So Many Nurses Left-Wing?

By Forest Romm - March 3, 2026

Psychologist Derald Wing Sue’s racialist ideas have deeply influenced the helping professions.

National Nurses United has a message for the White House: “ICE messed with the wrong profession.” After intensive-care nurse Alex Pretti was killed in Minneapolis last month, the union’s members called U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement a “fascist, terrorizing, and lawless paramilitary force violently enforcing a white supremacist agenda.” In another statement, the union called federal immigration enforcement agencies one of America’s “top public health threats,” adding to a string of similar declarations it made about racism, climate change, and Israeli “apartheid.”

The helping professions—occupations like therapy, social work, and nursing—have increasingly drifted from their traditional roles as carers and embraced social-justice advocacy. These fields have long leaned left and female, but the skew has recently intensified, following broader trends in academia. Progressives now vastly outnumber conservatives, creating an echo chamber that has radicalized a segment of the workforce.

One reason for the change is the work of Derald Wing Sue, a psychologist whose racialist theories upended his field. His ideology captured professional organizations and accreditation bodies and changed the character of the helping professions.

Sue’s influence began to take hold in the late twentieth century, as patient populations became more racially and ethnically diverse. Therapists faced new challenges that demanded new competencies, and Sue filled the vacuum. His seminal 1981 text, Counseling the Culturally Diverse, established him as a leading figure in the emerging field of “multicultural counseling.”

His book was less concerned with the practical difficulties of cross-cultural therapy than with its premises. Sue argued that conventional mental-health models, rooted in the values and beliefs of “White Western Eurocentric culture,” wrongly cast individuals as autonomous agents responsible for their condition. Such assumptions were allegedly “oppressive and discriminating toward clients of color,” whose psychological and behavioral problems Sue attributed to “systemic factors” such as “stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and oppression.” The counselor’s role, he believed, was not merely to treat the individual but to eradicate structural oppression.

Sue later popularized the concept of “microaggressions”: “slights, snubs, or insults” that target “marginalized” people. Such covert bias, he insisted, is “many times over more problematic, damaging, and injurious to persons of color than overt racist acts.” This unfalsifiable construct made Sue an interpretive authority on “microaggressions”—and carved out a lucrative niche for such “experts” in education and consulting.

Research now suggests that microaggression trainings may heighten people’s perceptions of racism in ambiguous situations. After Scott Lilienfeld warned of these risks in 2017 and called for a moratorium on such trainings pending evidence of benefit, Sue blithely dismissed him: “those with power,” Sue quipped, “enjoy the luxury of waiting for proof.”

Meantime, Sue argued in Counseling the Culturally Diverse, minorities were being harmed by “White institutions.” He rejected “colorblindness,” denounced policies that “claim to ‘treat everyone the same,’” and classified the suggestion that unequal outcomes might reflect factors beyond prejudice as a category of microaggressions labeled the “Myth of Meritocracy.” Instead of individual change, he advocated “social therapy,” in which helping professionals pursue institutional reform.

Minorities, in Sue’s scheme, possess little agency, while whites enjoy the “power to define reality” as a result of their “privilege.” He compared whites with “fish in water,” oblivious to how their “Whiteness . . . intrudes and disadvantages people of color.”

These radical premises formed the basis of “multicultural counseling.” Sue argued that, to become “culturally competent,” white counselors needed to confront their complicity in perpetuating racism, acknowledge their “unearned privilege,” and develop an “antiracist White identity.”

In time, Sue’s theories infected professional counseling and psychological organizations. By 1994, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) had begun integrating his “multicultural competencies” into its training requirements. The American Psychological Association followed suit in 2002, publishing multicultural guidelines coauthored by Sue. Twelve years later, the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics required educators to “infuse material related to multiculturalism/diversity into all courses and workshops,” and subsequently adopted the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies, built explicitly on Sue’s original 1992 standards. CACREP updated its standards again in 2024 to reaffirm that “diversity, equity, and inclusion . . . are integral to counselor preparation and should be infused throughout the curriculum,” and to require instruction in “theories and models of multicultural counseling, social justice, and advocacy.”

Social work embraced similar principles. The 1993 National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics introduced “social justice,” which was elevated to a core professional value in 1996. In 2008, immigration status, sexual orientation, and gender identity were added to its nondiscrimination commitments. NASW then published Standards and Indicators for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice in 2015, invoking Sue’s language, and issued a 2021 revision clarifying expectations for “cultural competence.”

Today, accredited university social work programs must embed “anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion” across curricula. Students learn to recognize their “positionality, power, and privilege,” confront oppression, and “advocate at all system levels” to reduce “inequities,” aided by Sue’s widely assigned Multicultural Social Work Practice.

Nursing may seem a less obvious target for Sue’s influence. Yet the field enthusiastically embraced his brand of racialism. Accreditation is aligned with the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics for Nurses, a document that calls racism a “public health crisis”; tasks nurses with “dismantl structural barriers to a good and healthy society”; and calls on nurses to “condemn all forms of oppression” and oppose “voter suppression.”

Ethical codes are blends of enforceable rules and aspirational ideals. But for students, “multicultural competence” requirements are nonnegotiable. In counseling, psychology, social work, and nursing education, trainees are judged as much on ideological alignment as on clinical skill.

Professional psychology graduate programs, for example, consider “gatekeeping”—the “initial and ongoing academic, skill, and dispositional assessment of students’ competency for professional practice”—an ethical duty. Faculty are empowered to monitor students’ compliance with ethical standards and to pursue “remediation” or “termination as appropriate” when they resist dominant orthodoxies.

Roger Scruton observed that human beings are shaped through the giving and receiving of social recognition. The pursuit of recognition is among the most powerful human drives; threats of rejection and ostracism are existential. It’s little wonder, then, that so many students in helping fields align their beliefs with progressive norms.

In higher education, helping-professional programs often consider white students like Alex Pretti inherently “privileged.” Such students are told that their lives “must become a ‘have to’ in being constantly vigilant to manifestations of bias in both and the people around you ,” and that “dealing with racism means a personal commitment to action,” as Sue instructed in Counseling the Culturally Diverse. In response, some white students attempt to demonstrate their moral bona fides through “antiracist” activism.

A generation of counselors, social workers, and nurses have been influenced by Sue’s racialist theories. If accreditation bodies and professional organizations change course, some counselors, social workers, and nurses would, too. But as National Nurses United’s comments after Pretti’s death suggest, change may be a long way off.

Forest Romm is a collegiate associate at Manhattan Institute.

A brilliant tutorial on how to slice through the deliberate theft of our words.

https://pjmedia.com/jamie-wilson/2025/11/21/the-only-strategy-that-works-against-weaponized-language-n4946261

The Only Strategy That  Works Against Weaponized Language

Jamie K. Wilson   |  November 21, 2025

Yesterday, in my piece about why we can’t argue about fascism anymore, a commenter asked the natural follow-up: “Well, how do we take the word back?” Short answer: We can’t. The old meaning isn’t coming back.

What we can and must do is learn how to argue around a word that no longer means what we think it means, because clinging to the old definition blindsides us every time. These techniques will work not only for "fascist" and "Nazi" but for other words the left has corrupted as well, though perhaps not in the way you might expect.

Why We Can't Make the Word Mean What It Used To Mean

“Fascist” and “Nazi” no longer function as political descriptors. They’re moral labels now, emotional containers signaling “bad person,” “unsafe presence,” or “someone outside the (correct) moral community.” Once a word becomes a purity signal, emotional meaning crushes factual meaning every time.

Most people under forty have never learned the historical definition at all. They don’t know about corporatism, syndicalism, mass mobilization, mythic nationalism, or the revolutionary state. They learned “fascist” as a feeling, not a doctrine — a linguistic siren, not a political ideology. Digital culture has supercharged this drift. Algorithms reward emotional spikes and punish precision. The mutated definition spreads faster, bonds groups better, and hits harder. They have become part of tribal language, not American cultural language. The original meaning is now museum trivia.

We aren’t getting those words back. We can show that two incompatible meanings are colliding, and once people see that fracture, the slur loses most of its force.

A Meme That Makes the Fracture Obvious

This hit home when someone online insisted she “understood fascism” and sent me an authoritative-looking yellow-and-black meme claiming to diagnose fascism at a glance. The “definition” box on the left seemed to lay out criteria. The checklist on the right looked like analysis.

When you look closely, though, the logic evaporates.

The “definition” isn't historical at all. It lists vibes: authoritarian, nationalist, controlling — traits so elastic you could stretch them over anyone you dislike. It left out the economic structure, the mass-mobilization state, the mythic nationalism, the corporatist machinery, and everything else that actually defines fascism.

The checklist wasn’t evidence. It was ritual. Here’s the moral template — now let’s stamp the enemy with it. The confidence wasn’t dishonesty. It was fluency, but in the new meaning, not the old one. And this is exactly why arguments collapse: the two sides aren’t even using the same conceptual categories.

You aren’t disagreeing.

You’re miscommunicating across a linguistic chasm, and that chasm is widening.

Why Their Words Don’t Sound Like Language

If, like me, you care about precision, if you're the kind of word nerd who will hunt down the exact right word even if it means switching languages (which is why I'm learning German), this new rhetoric doesn’t sound like language at all. That's because it is not, not precisely. It’s not built to describe, clarify, or differentiate. It’s not intended to convey thought.

It’s symbolic signaling.

In progressive speech, words aren’t vessels for meaning. They’re vessels for emotion: disgust, fear, boundary-marking, tribal alert.

Once you realize this, the entire pattern snaps into place. Their conflict style isn’t adult debate. It’s the adolescent female model of social aggression:

• using labels as weapons
• policing group boundaries
• punishing outsiders through reputation
• escalating emotion to display loyalty
• enforcing purity tests
• exiling people as discipline

It’s not argument. It’s status warfare.

Meanwhile, you’re trying to build a conversation with tools meant for clarity, and they’re trying to control a social environment. Two different goals. Two different languages. Once you understand that, the insanity around you suddenly makes sense.

This is why getting angry never works. When you hear “fascist,” you hear the historical charge. When they say it, they mean “morally unsafe.” So when you respond with logic — “I’m not a fascist, I believe in limited government and individual rights” — you are answering an accusation they did not make. You are refuting Mussolini while they are signaling emotional danger.

Denial reads as guilt. Logic reads as defensiveness.

You can’t refute a definition the other person isn’t using.

This is not disagreement. It’s a category error.

The Moral Framework Behind the New Usage

In modern progressive moral logic, “fascist” functions as a moral alert, not an ideological label.

“Fascist” = someone whose beliefs disrupt the emotional or moral order of the group.
“Nazi” = someone cast outside the human circle entirely — a moral contaminant.
These aren’t political arguments. The words no longer have the meaning they originally carried. Instead, they’re purification tags. Their social purpose is to identify safety and non-safety, insiders and outsiders, protected and unclean. Once you see that, the speed of escalation makes perfect sense.

Inside this purity system, escalation is a form of loyalty.

The first person says “fascist.” The next must match or exceed it. Matching is safe. Exceeding earns status.

So the Defcon ladder of impurity rises like this:

• fascist
• white supremacist
• Nazi
• genocidal
• existential threat

Digital algorithms amplify the climb. Outrage gets reach; nuance disappears. And once someone is framed as a moral threat, ordinary moral restraints come off. Deplatforming feels protective. Ostracism feels virtuous. Harassment feels justified. And violence feels like self-defense.

This is the psychology behind Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Someone believed the rhetoric literally. Someone believed the label, not the person. When the emotional definition replaces the historical one, violence becomes thinkable.

The modern use of the term “Nazi” is moral dehumanization. It means: this person is outside the circle of moral duty.

This is the same psychological mechanism the early fascists used. They didn’t start with violence. They started with labels: “enemy,” “contaminant,” “dangerous element.” Strip away humanity, and anything becomes possible.

Young progressives believe they’re resisting fascism, but psychologically, they’re reenacting its first step. Whether the left wants to admit this parallel or not, the structure is identical.

No one wants to admit this parallel — but the structure is identical.

If this vocabulary drift continues, we already know where it leads:

• debates become impossible
• moderates retreat to avoid pain
• institutions enforce emotional language
• political violence becomes moralized
• shared reality collapses
• communication fails

Societies don’t fracture over ideology. They fracture when language stops connecting people. When words no longer carry meaning, violence becomes the only remaining form of communication. That’s the direction we’re heading. Fortunately, it is not inevitable.

Can Argumentation Slow or Reverse This? Yes — but Not by Converting Radicals

Radicals are unreachable. They’re performing, not thinking. They’re using language as a ritual, not a tool. But normal people — the folks in the middle, the witnesses — absolutely are reachable.

When you answer “fascist” with calm translation, when you name the emotion beneath the label, when you redirect to shared moral values, the entire emotional frame falls apart.

Bystanders see clarity. The radical looks theatrical. The spell breaks.

Extremists win only when the middle checks out. Your clarity gives the middle the confidence to stay.

And it's a fight we have to engage in. The extremists are picking off more and more people, those who are on the edges or who are weak of will, who see this insanity and think, well, yeah, that feels right. This is why the mainstream media's technique of flooding the airwaves works, as the ballot box shows. If we truly believe our causes are worth fighting for, we are morally impelled to engage. But we must engage in the correct way.

Remember this: By the time someone calls you a fascist, the one-on-one argument is over. You aren’t talking to the accuser anymore. You’re talking to everyone watching.

The audience decides whose frame holds: who looks grounded or unhinged, credible or ridiculous.

Your goal is no longer persuasion. Your goal is demonstration.

Three Strategies That Actually Work (With Normal People)

Radicals cannot be persuaded — but those watching absolutely can.

These three strategies work because they stabilize the audience, not the accuser.

1. Translate Their Meaning Out Loud

This is the single most effective move.

“You’re using ‘fascist’ to mean ‘someone who disagrees with your worldview.’ I hear that, but that’s not what the word actually means.”

This reframes the exchange instantly:

• The audience sees the category error.
• The emotional punch fizzles.
• You regain control of the frame.
• They now have to clarify, not escalate.

Translation turns confusion into clarity.

2. Address the Emotion Beneath the Word

“Fascist” is an emotional alarm, not a political descriptor. So answer the emotion:

“You’re calling me that because what I said feels threatening to you, not because it resembles historical fascism.”

You’re not defending yourself — you’re explaining the mechanism. And audiences hate being manipulated by someone else’s emotions. Naming the emotional process collapses the power of the slur.

3. Shift the Conversation to Shared Moral Ground

Progressives still claim to value:

• fairness
• autonomy
• freedom of conscience
• diversity of thought
• basic dignity

So stand inside their stated principles:

“We both believe people should speak without fear. That’s the principle I’m defending.”

Radicals can’t reject their own values without revealing themselves. Normal people respond instantly to shared moral ground.

The People You Cannot Reach

Accept this early to avoid wasting energy. You cannot reason with:

• people whose politics function as religion
• purity activists
• Antifa-style street ideologues
• online radicals addicted to emotional escalation
• anyone who treats emotions as truth and words as ritual

These people aren’t debating. They’re policing. And they are not your audience.

Your audience is everyone watching, the people who still believe language has meaning, that disagreement isn’t violence, and that labels should not replace arguments. Be true to them, not your "debate" opponent.

Practical Safety: How Not to Become a Target

When language becomes dehumanization, prudence matters. Not paranoia — prudence.

Here is what actually keeps you safe:

1. Don’t engage radicals alone. Purity-driven people escalate harder when they lack witnesses.

2. Avoid activist territory. Protests and counter-protests are escalation machines. Don’t physically wander in without purpose or backup.

3. Maintain situational awareness. Not fear — awareness: about exits, crowd mood, agitation level, whether the emotional tone shifts. Be ready to exit stage right when things take an ugly shift. It's not cowardly; it's smart, and it ensures you stick around to fight the good fight another day.

4. Cameras protect you. Radicals rarely escalate when recorded. Documentation restores moral constraints. It's better if you have a friend or ally doing the recording while you talk.

5. Leave at the first hint of real voltage. If someone shifts from theatrical to clipped, shaky, or hyper-focused — leave. You cannot de-escalate purity frenzy.

6. Remember Charlie Kirk. Someone took the nasty rhetoric about Charlie Kirk literally. Someone thought they were preventing harm, not causing it. That wasn’t an aberration. It was a logical endpoint. And it can happen to anyone. Never, ever take a chance with your safety or anyone else's.

Remember, the Audience Matters More Than the Accuser

• attacker
• target
• audience

And the audience decides which narrative survives. Radicals escalate to terrify the audience into silence. Your calm clarity shows the audience the truth: This is not a debate — it’s emotional theater. By refusing to mirror the hysteria, you expose it. Narrative dominance never comes from outshouting extremists. It comes from making their performance look absurd beside your composure.

In the end, there's only one path forward. We can’t reclaim the old definitions. We can’t force the language to behave.

But we can reclaim the space around the words.

We can expose the fracture. We can refuse to let dehumanization go unchallenged. We can show the middle how to stay grounded in reality. We can model the steadiness the moment lacks.

The danger isn’t in the semantic drift. Drift is going to happen, and that's not entirely a bad thing; a language that changes is a language that lives. The danger is a culture forgetting that disagreement is not danger, dissent is not violence, and political opponents are not monsters.

We may not be able to resurrect the old meaning of “fascist.” But we can stop the emotional meaning from dragging us into the abyss.

Clarity is resistance.

Precision is de-escalation.

And refusing dehumanization is the only way out of this spiral.

Part of me thinks: women lose at least one egg per cycle throughout their fertile years. If they are sexually active, some fertilized eggs are lost - no one knows exactly how many. Impossible to trace. If the fertilized egg implants and the embryo grows, it may still miscarry. Some estimate up to 1 in 3 pregnancies (pre-born children) are lost this way. Even with good health practices, some miscarriages seem to be unavoidable.

So here's my question on the ethics: is IVF, carried out with the full intent of live birth, materially different from normal reproduction in this regard?

(I would put deliberate destruction of embryos in a different category.)

https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/ivf-embryo-deaths-now-surpass-abortion-deaths/

IVF Embryo Deaths Now Surpass Abortion Deaths

Ken Ham    |     December 18, 2025

For years now, the leading cause of death in the United States has been abortion. Of course, it’s not reported like that—if you look up “leading cause of death,” you’ll read that it’s heart disease (680,981 lives lost in 2023), followed by cancer (613,352) and then unintentional injuries (222,698). But that’s not actually true, considering that unborn persons are indeed persons and abortion takes around a million lives each year here in the US (1,037,000 in 2023).

But, according to an analysis of new data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), abortion is no longer the leading cause of death because the number of deaths of embryos as part of the typical IVF (in vitro fertilization) process now tops the staggering number of lives lost to abortion.

As more and more couples tragically struggle with infertility, the demand for IVF has increased. Reportedly, “in 2023, there were 432,641 IVF cycles at 371 reporting clinics, but only 95,860 babies were born.” When the numbers are broken down, this means in just one year, “an estimated 1,946,884 embryos did not survive to be implanted, and another 1,759,664 were either frozen, destroyed, donated to research, or released for embryo adoption.”

That’s a staggering number of babies, many of whom were intentionally destroyed. (Yes, embryos are persons. Everything that made you “you,” a person made in the image of God, was present right from fertilization—nothing new was added. And, of course, a human embryo can’t be anything but . . . a human! “Embryo” just refers to a specific developmental milestone in a person’s life.) But why are so many destroyed?

Well, as these breakdowns from the companies themselves show, IVF cycles create a large number of embryos, and these “embryos graded and labeled during testing, and those not deemed healthy enough automatically destroyed.” It’s eugenics—filtering out and destroying those deemed “not good enough” to be born.

IVF Attrition Example (Step-by-Step)
Scenario: 19 eggs retrieved

15 mature eggs → (after retrieval)
12 fertilized embryos → (after fertilization)
6 blastocysts → (after blastulation)
3 normal embryos → (after PGT-A testing)
With three normal embryos, chances of at least one successful pregnancy are about 95%!

Source: Reproductive Medicine Associates

Sample IVF “Funnel”
15 Follicles in both ovaries at time of retrieval
14 Eggs retrieved from follicles
13 Mature eggs
10 Mature eggs fertilized with sperm
8 Embryos that develop to day 3
7 Embryos that develop to blastocyst stage
3 Embryos chromosomally “normal” after PGT testing
2 Embryos implant in the uterus
1 Live birth
Source: Alife

Live Action breaks down what these charts mean:

Based on these charts, there is an average of 10-12 embryos created per IVF cycle, but fertility businesses often list anywhere from seven embryos up to as many as 17 per cycle. Using a conservative nine embryos as the average number created per cycle, at 432,641 cycles, that totals about 3,893,769 embryos created via IVF in 2023 alone. Yet only 95,860 babies were born.

Here’s how those numbers break down. Up to half of the original 3,893,769, likely did not survive beyond the next two stages: the blastocyst stage and the genetic testing stage. . . .

That’s about 1,946,884 embryos who died or were deliberately killed without being given a chance to be implanted.

Of the remaining estimate of 1,946,884, SART states that 91,360 were automatically “banked” for “future use,” as was the parents’ plan when they began the process. We also know that after being graded, labeled, selected, and transferred, only 95,860 survived to birth.

That leaves 1,759,664 human embryos unaccounted for. They survived to the blastocyst stage and passed genetic testing, but they were then either miscarried, destroyed, donated to researchers (and ultimately destroyed), released for embryo adoption (just 1-6%), or are frozen indefinitely. The data don’t tell us, but we can estimate that at least 1.9 million died before even making it to the implantation or freezing stage of the IVF process, and another 1.7 million are not statistically accounted for.

That’s horrifying. The sheer number of persons destroyed in the typical IVF process highlights the commodification of life, where babies are created only to be destroyed if they aren’t “good enough.” (But who defines “good enough”?)

And, according to another news report, some of those “unaccounted for” persons may end up . . . as jewelry! Yes, you read that right—jewelry! A UK-based company “crafts modern heirloom jewelry for parents who have undergone IVF but can no longer store their unused embryos or feel uncertain about donation.” Hailed as a “gentler way to what created,” parents are offered their choice of rings, pendants, bracelets, and charms encasing the embryos they decided to destroy! Human life becomes nothing more than a macabre decoration.

Each individual embryo is a person made in the image of God, fearfully and wonderfully knit together by him and deserving of life.
Christians must speak out against the intentional killing of babies, whether those babies are forming in the womb or in a petri dish. Each individual embryo is a person made in the image of God, fearfully and wonderfully knit together by him and deserving of life. They are not a commodity to be kept or discarded at the whim of the parents or a technician in a lab.

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:13–16)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

I'm enjoying the most recent podcast which explores the intrinsic goodness of medicine, and contains echoes of Hillsdale College.

By way of introduction, a clip from Stanley Kurtz in the National Review.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/introducing-the-hippocratic-society/

Like the Federalist Society, the Hippocratic Society will be a place where conservative views are hosted and put into debate with progressive perspectives. And undoubtedly, conservative-leaning medical students will find colleagues and mentors among its members.

The Hippocratic Society has another function as well, however, ... likely to appeal regardless of political perspective. HippSoc (the abbreviated name of the group) addresses the closely related problems of physician burnout and the bureaucratization of medicine, modeling a return to human-scale doctoring. In furtherance of this, HippSoc reconnects doctors to the philosophical and religious roots of medicine, cultivating an active appreciation of the profession’s higher purpose. HippSoc’s activities on this front will surely appeal to many physicians and medical students, politically conservative or not.

... Hippocrates is most famous, of course, for his oath, the code of medical ethics that many or most modern doctors once swore to uphold. The original Hippocratic oath forbade both abortion and physician-assisted suicide. Most medical schools therefore now either forgo the oath altogether or rewrite it to modify or eliminate those and other provisions.

Most Hippocratic Society members, by contrast, tend to remain loyal to the original oath and to the more encompassing “do no harm” morality that lies behind it. Also, as we’ve seen, HippSoc works to revive knowledge of the philosophical and religious (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) foundations of medicine, going back as far as Aristotle. It’s a return to medicine in the great tradition.

<clip>

The Hippocratic Society is growing rapidly. When Kheriaty wrote his book, published in September of this year, HippSoc chapters for premedical and medical students had been established at nine universities. I now count 28. (If you’d like to join, or start a chapter of your own, go here.)

What Kheriaty recommends for medicine applies more broadly. We need to establish a set of alternative institutions across many fields of endeavor in order to break monolithic progressive control of our institutions under the guise of “professional” consensus. The Federalist Society established the model. The Hippocratic Society, with modifications, continues it. With luck, we’ll see yet more to come.

Life: it begins at conception. And it's precious.

Video available at the link.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2025/09/14/parents-choosing-babies-live-die-eye-color/

Parents Are Choosing Which Babies Live and Die Based on . . . Eye Color

Yes, this is real. Parents utilizing “boutique” genetic testing services are sorting their embryos—living human beings—based on IQ, gender, chance of future illness, and even. . . eye color! Those embryos that don’t match what the parents want are either discarded as medical waste or indefinitely frozen.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/to-address-the-mental-health-crisis-tackle-the-decline-in-religion/

To Address the Mental Health Crisis, Tackle the Decline in Religion
By Naomi Schaefer Riley | Michelle Shain
June 24, 2025

Americans are searching for an answer to the youth mental health crisis. While many experts rightfully scrutinize smartphones and social media as culprits, another profound shift deserves our attention: the dramatic retreat from religion in American life. As religious participation plummets, particularly among young people, we’re losing the profound social and psychological benefits once provided by religious communities. And our rapidly secularizing society has failed to offer compelling alternatives to replace religion’s protective effects on mental health.

Thousands of studies have shown that religious people are happier, more confident, more optimistic, and more satisfied with their lives. They are also less likely to suffer from anxiety or depression, commit suicide, or abuse alcohol or other drugs. While correlation doesn’t prove causation, longitudinal studies show that many people who become more religious subsequently show improved mental health. Yet the percent of Americans reporting no religious affiliation skyrocketed from just 5% in 1972 to almost 30% today, according to the Pew Research Center. Among the youngest U.S. adults, those ages 18-29, fully 44% are religiously unaffiliated.

Research identifies four distinct pathways through which religious involvement protects mental health — protection that many young Americans are now missing.

First, religion supports healthy families. Religious communities typically promote family stability, encourage parental involvement, and endorse values that strengthen family bonds. Practices such as attending worship services together create shared experiences and traditions that unite family members across generations. Rituals like Shabbat dinners for Jewish families or Family Home Evening for Latter-day Saints create sacred time for connection and conversation. The family structures and practices encouraged by religious participation create environments where children and adolescents are more likely to thrive emotionally and psychologically. As religious participation declines, we lose this institutional support for healthy family functioning.

Second, religion offers community and social support. Religious congregations provide connections that combat isolation and loneliness. Do not underestimate the power of studying together, singing together, and snacking together. The relationships formed during these activities provide a sense of belonging, as well as a place to give and receive help and advice.

Third, religion facilitates volunteerism and civic engagement. Religious institutions create structured opportunities for young people to contribute to their communities, develop empathy, and experience the psychological benefits of helping others. Religious teachings that emphasize service to others motivate prosocial behavior that benefits both the recipients and the volunteers themselves.

Fourth, religion helps people find meaning and purpose. Religious teachings address existential questions and help believers find purpose, direction, and an understanding of their place in the universe. In a world where social media teaches us to measure ourselves through views and likes, religion offers alternative metrics of value and worth. This sense of meaning serves as a powerful buffer against depression and helps youth develop resilience in the face of life’s challenges.

As religious participation declines, many young people are losing access to these protective factors. Regardless of how we feel about God and faith, neither triumphalism nor handwringing will solve the problem. Religious communities should continue reaching out to families with children, extolling the benefits of organized religion to parents in particular.

But we must also recognize that as one system of support fades, we need to develop alternatives intentionally.

We need programs that strengthen family bonds and teach parenting skills to replace religion’s family support function. Community organizations must create the social connections that religious congregations once offered. Schools and civic groups should expand service-learning and volunteerism programs to replace the structured helping opportunities religious institutions traditionally provided. And we need new frameworks that help young people find meaning and purpose in an increasingly secular world.

Restricting social media use and limiting screen time might help the teenage mental health crisis, but we need to do much more. We must build new structures that provide family support, community connection, opportunities for service, and pathways to meaning. We must fill the protective gap left by religion’s retreat.

This essay is adapted from a chapter in the edited volume Mind the Children: How to Think About the Youth Mental Health Collapse.

https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/abortion/inventor-abortion-pill-dies-age-98/

A Deadly Legacy: Inventor of the Abortion Pill Dies at Age 98

The Lord hates . . . hands that shed innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:16–17)

A French scientist, Étienne-Émile Baulieu, who recently died at the age of 98, is being hailed in headlines around the world as “a beacon of courage” and a world-changer, a hero for women’s rights. But his legacy isn’t one that uplifts women—it’s a legacy of bloodshed and brokenness. A legacy of death.

Ken Ham is the Founder CEO of Answers in Genesis and its two popular attractions: the acclaimed Creation Museum and the internationally known Ark Encounter, which features a life-size 510-foot-long Noah’s Ark—sometimes described as the “8th Wonder of the Modern World.” Each year, the two attractions host over 1.5 million guests.

A much-in-demand Christian speaker and interview guest, Ham became well known throughout America for his 2014 evolution/creation debate with Bill Nye, TV’s “The Science Guy.”

Ham hosts the daily radio program Answers, now on 1,000 stations. He’s also the founder of the award-winning Answers magazine. In 2020, Ham launched Answers TV, an ambitious streaming service. His website of AnswersInGenesis.org has twice won the top award from the National Religious Broadcasters for best website.

A prolific blogger and author of more than 30 books, Ham’s newest releases are Divine Dilemma (understanding death, disease, and suffering), Divided Nation (about today’s culture wars), and the devotional commentary Creation to Babel.