Monthly Archives: August 2010

The Mosque Controversy

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America.

It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult.

What may surprise some people is that the American taxpayer is currently financing a trip to the Middle East by the imam who is pushing this project, so that he can raise the money to build it. The State Department is subsidizing his travel.

The big talking point is that this is an issue about “religious freedom” and that Muslims have a “right” to build a mosque where they choose. But those who oppose this project are not claiming that there is no legal right to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.

If anybody did, it would be a matter for the courts to decide — and they would undoubtedly say that it is not illegal to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack.

The intelligentsia and others who are wrapping themselves in the Constitution are fighting a phony war against a straw man. Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue?

Our betters are telling us that we need to be more “tolerant” and more “sensitive” to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?

It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.

When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.

He didn’t say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.

There is no question that Muslims have a right to build a mosque where they chose to. The real question is why they chose that particular location, in a country that covers more than 3 million square miles.

If we all did everything that we have a legal right to do, we could not even survive as individuals, much less as a society. So the question is whether those who are planning a Ground Zero mosque want to be part of American society or just to see how much they can get away with in American society?

Can anyone in his right mind believe that this was intended to show solidarity with Americans, rather than solidarity with those who attacked America? Does anyone imagine that the Middle East nations, including Iran, from whom financial contributions will be solicited, want to promote reconciliation between Americans and Muslims?

That the President of the United States has joined the chorus of those calling the Ground Zero mosque a religious freedom issue tells us a lot about the moral dry rot that is undermining this country from within.

In this, as in other things, Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it. He had many predecessors and many contemporaries who represent the same mindset and the same malaise.

There are people for whom moral preening has become a way of life. They are out in force denouncing critics of the Ground Zero mosque.

There are others for whom a citizen of the world affectation puts them one-up on those of us who are grateful to be Americans, and to enjoy a freedom that is all too rare in other countries around the world, even at this late date in human history.

They think the United States is somehow on trial, and needs to prove itself to others by bending over backwards. But bending over backwards does not win friends. It loses respect, including self-respect.


Saving Jobs Means Saving Us from Prosperity

The Calling | by Steven Horwitz

One of the most pernicious fallacies in popular economic discussions is that we should adopt policies designed to save jobs.  What was once just language used by those with a special interest in particular jobs (such as unions calling for import quotas as foreign cars became more popular) is now part of the Obama administration’s defense of its counterproductive “stimulus” program.  “Jobs created or saved” has become the standard of an economic program’s success.  There is so much wrong here, it’s hard to know where to start.

Let’s make the obvious point first:  Creating jobs is easy, but it’s nothing to be proud of.  In fact, destroying jobs is the real path to wealth.

To use an example I’ve used before: One way to create jobs on a big construction project is to take away the machines that dig out the foundation, and limit the workers to shovels.  Or better yet, spoons.  That will create lots of jobs.  But that is not progress.  Using more labor than needed to get the job done costs wealth.  Better to use the machinery and free up all the shovel- and spoon-toting workers to produce output in addition to the foundation.  By the same logic, we could create lots of jobs by destroying all the farm machinery.  Surely, though, we would not be richer for doing so.

The rhetoric of saving jobs is as misguided as the rhetoric of creating jobs.  We want jobs to disappear – that’s how we define progress!  Think of all the jobs that weren’t saved over during the twentieth century.  Agriculture employed about 40 percent of Americans in 1900.  Today it’s less than 2 percent.  Are we really worse off for not having saved those jobs?   Or consider this picture from 1947:

Telephone operators are nearly, if not totally, extinct 63 years later.  Has the loss of those jobs, or those in agriculture, meant massive unemployment?  Hardly.  In fact, the six decades since that picture was taken were ones of steady increase in the number of Americans working, and an even larger increase in the percentage of women.

But, goes the objection, if we invent substitutes like digital switches, then the cell phone, to replace operators, where will the new jobs come from?  One easy answer is that someone has to make the new technologies.  That’s true enough, but it’s only part of the story.  The rest is that new technologies open up new possibilities.  Yes, we’ve lost lots of telephone operator jobs and we’ve gained some in the production of the substitute goods, but we’ve gained a lot more jobs like these:

Cell phones need apps and someone has to write them.  And cell phones make possible new ways for firms to interact with customers. Someone has to write and implement that software and design the website, not to mention manage the process.  The real gains that offset the jobs lost are not just with the new technology directly, but all the other kinds of new opportunities that it opens up.

The women today who would have been operators generations ago are now better educated, doing more interesting and productive work, taking home higher wages, and far more independent as a result.  Meanwhile, the rest of us reap the bounty of all the new technology that destroyed those old jobs.  My $30 per month unlimited data plan in 2010 would have covered just a couple of long-distance calls placed through those operators in 1947.

The rhetoric of “saving jobs” means that we never progress from telephone operators to software engineers.  It means that we never progress from rotary dial phones with per-minute costs representing many valuable hours of labor to the Internet at our fingertips for the equivalent of two hours of work per month at the average wage and phone calls that cost nothing on the margin.  Saving jobs means slaving away in manure-laden fields under the hot sun and brutal cold for 12 or 14 hours per day to feed your own family, with a little left over to buy a few necessities — rather than jobs with far better working conditions and far better pay and hours, jobs that afford most Americans the ability to pay other people to cook and serve their meals several times a week.

Saving jobs means putting the engine of human creativity in neutral if not reverse.  The healthiest economies are those that consistently destroy jobs by inventing new and better ways to satisfy existing human wants with less and less labor, while freeing other labor to satisfy new and not-yet-dreamed-of wants.

Whenever you hear politicians talk about the jobs they’ve saved, just think of your ancestors scraping out a living on the land, or a room full of women spending their days plugging wires into holes, and then think about how much better off we are because no one bothered to save those jobs.


Tags: ,

Thomas Jefferson and the Ground Zero Mosque

By Gary DeMar | Published: August 16, 2010

President Obama stepped into it over the weekend. Speaking Friday August 13, 2010, at a White House dinner to honor Ramadan, the President told his audience, “Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” an obvious reference to the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. On Saturday, while spending the day in the Gulf, the president attempted to clarify his earlier remarks: “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

Utah’s attempts at statehood were held up over the religious practice of polygamy. It wasn’t until Utah agreed to include in its constitution a ban on polygamy that the territory was considered for statehood. Statehood was officially granted on January 4, 1896.

Prior to Utah’s statehood, the Supreme Court had ruled that “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries”[1] and “the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.”[2] So contrary to President Obama, it’s not true that all people have “the right to practice their religion.” The First Amendment does not give unlimited freedom to individuals or groups who act in the name of religion, especially when that religion’s goal is the domination of the world or even a part of it by force.

On a side note, Judge Vaughn Walker, in the Proposition 8 decision, is arguing that the more than seven million people who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman have no standing in their appeal of the case because they could not prove how homosexual marriage harms them.[3] The same argument could be made over bigamy and polygamy since no one is forced into multiple marriages and thereby can’t suffer harm by the polygamous practices of others. The Supreme Court in 1890 saw great societal harm in the religious practice of polygamy. In my estimation, the same argument can be made for Islam. Consider that German authorities “have closed a Hamburg mosque used by the Sept. 11 attackers as a meeting place before they moved to the United States. A statement by Hamburg officials says the Taiba mosque was shut down and its cultural association was banned” August 9, 2010.

The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law. . . .” There is no prohibition on municipalities, counties, or states. Constitutionally, Congress, since it is supposed to be the only law-making national body, cannot make any law regarding religion that would affect the states. Cities, counties, and states can make determinations based on religion. An appeal to “our founding” will prove this to be true. Nearly all the state constitutions at the time had particular requirements dealing with religion over which the national government had no jurisdiction. If the states wanted the same, less, or more freedoms than found in the national constitution, the states had to provide for them in their constitutions. For example, here are the religious provisions in Alabama’s constitution:

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Why include these words if the First Amendment applied to the states?

President Obama and other supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque appeal to our nation’s “founding,” in particular Thomas Jefferson. Here are some additional comments the President made on August 14 in reference to Jefferson:

And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan—making it the first known iftar[4] at the White House, more than 200 years ago.

First, Islam is not noted for its religious diversity. Christians cannot evangelize in Muslim countries. Churches are burned while police do nothing. Muslims who convert to another religion can be executed. Even the presence of the Bible is prohibited by our own military and the behest of Islamic officials when American soldiers are deployed in Muslim nations:

Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeer television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty—including those based in places like Afghanistan—from trying to convert people to another religion. Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said “I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera’s clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.”[5]

Second, President Obama’s favorable appeal to Jefferson is only part of the story. The Koran’s peace initiatives are Orwellian: “Submission to Islam is peace.” Peace is the absence of any religious or political opposition. This is the indisputable history of Islam as Paul Johnson writes:

Koranic teaching that the faith or “submission” can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored. On the contrary, the history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.[6]

What did Jefferson learn from his study of the Koran? As early as 1786, Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. Peace would come at a price. If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other Muslim nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that America was not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.[7]

Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Koran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah: “Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.” Unless a nation submitted to an Islamic nation, whether it was the aggressor or not, that nation was by definition at war with Islam. Jihad means “to submit.” A non-aggressing nation is still at war with Islam as long as it hasn’t embraced Islam. Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, either by the submission of one’s will or by Allah’s sword.[8]

When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute demanded by the Islamists, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.

President Obama is not the first person who has tried to whitewash Islam’s history with America. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, took his constitutional oath on Jefferson’s copy of the Koran. How ironic given Jefferson’s disdain for Islam’s principles. There’s a reason the “Marines’ Hymn” begins with these words:

From the Halls of Montezuma,

to the shores of Tripoli.

The line “To the shores of Tripoli” refers to the First Barbary War, specifically the Battle of Derne in 1805. Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been suffered [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”[9] Little has changed since Jefferson’s day. The Muslims of the Ground Zero Mosque will say one thing and mean another.


  1. Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 341-344, 348 n. (1890). []
  2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States 136 U.S. 1, 49 (1890). []
  3. The seven million people have standing because their votes were nullified by a single judge. In addition, the process of amending the California constitution is by referendum: “A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise” (Art. 18, sec. 4). This, too, was violated by a single judge’s poorly argued decision. []
  4. “Iftar (Arabic: إفطار‎), refers to the evening meal when Muslims break their fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan.” []
  5. Fred Jackson, “U.S. military destroys soldier’s Bibles,” OneNewsNow (May 5, 2009). []
  6. Paul Johnson, “‘Relentlessly and Thoroughly’: The Only Way to Respond,” National Review (October 15, 2001). []
  7. Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 40–41. []
  8. Robert Spencer, The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006) and Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005). []
  9. Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102. []

This entry was posted in American History, Articles, Featured, History, Politics, dominion and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


Gary DeMar

Author: Gary DeMar

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandsons, Calvin and Paul. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

Gary has written 1032 articles.

Subscribe to feed via RSS or EMAIL to receive instant updates.

Subscribe to our daily podcast You Tube channel


The 14th Amendment Was Never intended to Cover Gay Marriages

The 14th Amendment: Its Original Intent
By Rev. Wayne Perryman
August 5, 2010

Although the Fourteenth Amendment uses the terms “all persons” and “any persons”, the primary original intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment was to specifically to give the newly freed slave citizenship and the rights and privileges of citizenship.

When Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and John Bingham of Ohio offered their proposed amendment to the Constitution on January 12, 1866, neither Congressman had in mind, women, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, Indians, Chinese or Mexicans. It is clear from the actual debates that their use of the word “all” and the “any” pertained to specifically to the African Americans and not necessarily to “all” other ethnic groups and to others who have since been included in the “all” and “any.” We believed this to be true based on Section Two of the June 28, 1868 Ratified version of the Fourteenth Amendment and the arguments that took place during the debate regarding who specifically would be covered by this law.

Section Two of the Amendment, specifically excludes Indians not taxed and includes only males ages twenty-one.

Congressman Stevens, the brainchild of the Fourteenth Amendment devoted much of his entire career working on behalf of African Americans. Not only did he support the efforts of the Abolitionist, he personally participated in the Underground Railroad. People of his day say that he was an “Abolitionist,” long before the word was universally known. Under the first proposed plan submitted by both Stevens and his colleague, Robert Dale Owens (the son an English reformer and philanthropist), the plan called for “civil rights for the Negro, a penalty for the whites who denied suffrage to the Negro after five years’ preparation; forfeiture of the Confederate debt, and the admission of the Southern states upon their agreeing to provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. (pg 268 Thaddeus Stevens).

Despite the later broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court, Congressman Stevens’ proposed amendment was not written to cover all other ethnic groups born in the United States (“anchor babies”), nor was it written to cover women, or married couples (gay or straight), his focus (as well as the supporters of the law) was on African Americans. It is clear from the debates that the word “all” and “any” was intended to make sure African Americans weren’t excluded, but not necessarily designed so that other groups would be included.

Excerpts For The Actual Debates

William Niblack [Republican from Indiana] pg. 197

“I beg to inquire of the gentleman whether the amendment to the Constitution he is advocating is intended or calculated to have any effect on the condition of the Chinamen in California. If it is to have any effect upon the Chinese population there, let us know what effect it is to have.”

Response William Higby [Republican from California] pg 197

“The Chinese are nothing but a pagan race…. You cannot make citizens of them….”

Mr. Niblack

“If a Chinaman is one of the human race, why should he be degraded below the Negro? Why should he not receive the same right as the negro? I should like to understand it. The negro is of a pagan race, and is a pagan before he comes here.”

Mr. Higby

“But he is not a pagan now. The negro is as much a native of this country as the gentleman or myself….”

Mr. Niblack

“…I was aware that the gentleman knew more about the Chinese people in this country and in the country from which they come than I do. I asked for information. I want to understand why we should exclude one race and include another, why we should deny to these people the right of naturalization, for instance, and allow it to others.”

Mr. Higby

“I will tell him. They are foreigners and the negro is a native.”

In his opening statements to his Congressional colleagues on May 8, 1866 Thaddeus Stevens said:

“This amendment…allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all. Whatever law punishes a white man for a crime shall punish the black man precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law protects the white man shall afford “equal protection to the black man. Whatever law allows the white man to testify in court shall allow the man of color to do the same. These are great advantages over their present codes. Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not on account of the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color of the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts, or being tried in the same way as white men. I need not enumerate these partial and oppressive laws. Unless the Constitution should restrain them those States will all, I fear keep up this discrimination, and crush to death the hated freedmen.” [Note: There were no references to marriage, gay or straight, or any references to any other ethnic group.]

Congressman Bingham said:

“As slaves were not protected by the Constitution, there might be some color of excuse for the slave States in their disregard for the requirement of the bill of rights as to slaves and refusing them protection in life or property, though in my judgment, there could be no possible apology for reducing men made like themselves, in the image of God, to level with the brutes of the field, and condemning them to toil without reward, to live without knowledge, and die without hope.

But, sir, there never was even colorable excuse, much less apology, for any man North or South claiming that any State Legislature or State court or State Executive, has any right to deny protection to any free citizen of the United States within their limits in the rights of life, liberty and property. Gentlemen who oppose this amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights. Gentlemen who oppose this amendment simply declare to these rebel States, go on with our confiscation statutes, your statutes of banishment, your statutes of unjust punishment, your statutes of murder and death against men….”

[Note: Again no mention of marriage gay or straight and no mention of any other ethnic group all of his reference pertain to the newly freed slave.] pg. 214

Samuel Randall of Pennsylvania, Republican says:

“ The first section [of the 14th Amendment] proposes to make an equality in every respect between the two races, notwithstanding the policy of discrimination which has heretofore been exclusively exercised by the states…. They relate to matter appertaining to State citizenship, and there is no occasion whatever for the Federal power to be exercised between the two races at variance with the wishes of the people of the state….” [Congressman Randall saw this an amendment to address the problem between two races, not an issue pertaining to women, all ethnic groups, or gay and straight marriages. Pg 241]

Andrew Rogers of New Jersey, Democrat response:

“Gentlemen, it is but the negro again appearing in the background. The only object of the constitutional amendment is to drive the people of the South, ay, and even the people of the North, where ever there is much of a negro population, to allow that population not qualified but universal suffrage, without regard to intelligence or character, to allow them to come to the ballot box and cast their votes equally with white men…. God save the people of the South from the degradation by which they would be obliged to to to the polls and vote side by side with the Negro….” pg 246

Jacob Howard of Michigan, Republican says:

“This law prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which a white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man.” Pg 261


Time will not permit me to include multitude of other arguments presented during these debates both for and against the Amendment from May 1866 to June 13th. However it is safe to say that the primary focus of this Amendment on both sides of the isle was on the equality of the African American and not on women, other ethnic groups or on gay or straight marriages. I doubt if members of the United States Supreme Court ever read these arguments.

The wording of the 14th Amendment took a hit in the Slaughterhouse Case. On April 14, 1873, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Slaughterhouse Case which challenged of the meaning of the“Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Legal experts say because of the poor use of words in the 14th Amendment, the courts were forced to issue a narrow interpretation of this Amendment – which made a “clear distinction between the rights of the state and the national citizenship that had not been in the minds of the framers, thus it took away or limited the national government’s power to intervene in matters at the state level, because the rights of national citizenship versus state citizenship was now legally define. It is because of the wording of the 14th Amendment versus the original intent of the framers, is why the court has such a liberal interpretation of this Amendment. Based on the debates and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens’ original proposal, it is clear that he and others did not intend to include women, foreign born babies, and gay and straight marriages when they used the words “all” and “any.”


Where Did The “Races” Come From?

by John D. Morris, Ph.D. 

Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.

As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.

Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?

Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for”God hath made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah’s family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.

Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah’s family, the creation model postulates a “racially mixed” population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.

Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.

While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn’t. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by “a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes” (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.

*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

1 Comment

Posted by on August 3, 2010 in Politics, Religion


Tags: , , ,