Why Tyrants Ban the Bible

Eric Metaxas, wrote a column at USA Today several years back in which he suggested some answers to a couple of interesting questions: Why do tyrants almost always ban the Bible, and why do so many secular folks fear it?

Whether one believes that the Bible is the authoritative word of God or is convinced that it's merely a compilation of the literary and historical musings from a long dead civilization, the questions should have resonance, in fact they should have special piquancy for those who hold the latter view.

After all, why would a book of ancient legends and superstitions be feared by those who seek to exercise mind-control over the people? Why not treat it like they would treat Aesop's Fables?

Anyway, here are some excerpts from what Metaxas says:

Every single year the Bible is the world’s best-selling book. In fact, it’s the number one best-selling book in history. But recently it made another, less-coveted list: the American Library Association’s “top 10 most-challenged books of 2015.” This means the Bible is among the most frequently requested to be removed from public libraries.

But what’s so threatening about it? Why could owning one in Stalin’s Russia get you sent to the Gulag, and why is owning one today in North Korea punishable by death? What makes it scarier to some people than anything by Stephen King?

We could start with the radical notion that all human beings are created by God in His image, and are equal in His eyes. This means every human being should be accorded equal dignity and respect. If the wrong people read that, trouble will be sure to follow. And some real troublemakers have read it.

One of them was George Whitefield, who discovered the Bible as a teenager and began preaching the ideas in it all across England. Then he crossed the Atlantic and preached it up and down the thirteen colonies until 80 percent of Americans had heard him in person. They came to see that all authority comes from God, not from any King, and saw it was their right and duty to resist being governed by a tyrant, which led to something we call the American Revolution.

Another historical troublemaker was the British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce. When he read the Bible, he saw that the African slave trade — which was a great boon to the British economy — was nonetheless evil. He spent decades trying to stop it. Slave traders threatened to have him killed, but in 1807, he won his battle and the slave trade was abolished throughout the British Empire. In 1833, slavery itself was abolished.

In the 20th century, an Indian lawyer named Mohandas Gandhi picked up some ideas from the Bible about non-violent resistance that influenced his views as he led the Indian people to independence. And who could deny the Bible’s impact on the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said the Bible led him to choose love and peaceful protest over hatred and violence?

He cited the Sermon on the Mount as his inspiration for the Civil Rights movement, and his concept of the "creative suffering," endured by activists who withstood persecution and police brutality, came from his knowledge of Jesus’ trials and tribulations.

It could be added to these examples that a book that teaches that no earthly authority is ultimate, that men must obey God's law when it conflicts with man's law, that tyrants who abuse their power, which they all do, will answer for their evil, a book that says all that is not going to find favor with dictators.

But why is it often banned from public libraries in countries which ostensibly have freedom of speech? Perhaps one reason is that the Bible defies the secularist orthodoxy that "the cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be" to quote Carl Sagan.

Any book that claims to be divinely inspired and which which asserts that the physical world is just a shadow of the really real, is simply not to be tolerated, even by those who claim to make a virtue of tolerance. These folks may not be tyrants of the sort who rule North Korea, but they share some aspects of the tyrannical spirit all the same.

To paraphrase the French polymath Blaise Pascal, they despise the Bible, they hate it and fear it may be true.

Truth and Mr. Biden

One of the more amusing themes adopted by the Democrats in the wake of President Biden's dismal performance in last week's debate is the notion that despite his struggles that evening, at least Mr. Biden, unlike Mr. Trump, is a man of integrity who tells the truth.

That claim, which has appeared in a number of different variations, is humorous in its brazen dishonesty.

Shawn Fleetwood at The Federalist lists twenty different whoppers Mr. Biden foisted on the audience during the debate, few of which the Democrat damage control teams in the legacy media felt impelled to remark upon.

Townhall's Larry Elder explains that the Democrats strategy from here on out will be to,

Make sure Biden never again gets caught without a teleprompter and a speechwriter. Praise Harris and "put her out there more" so she can pick up the baton if Biden declines even more. Repeatedly chant "Abortion and our democracy are on the ballot."

And triple down on calling Trump a lying, election-denying, racist Nazi who "threatens our democracy."

They rely on the Democrats/media to ignore the strategy's defects and contradictions. As to Trump's so-called election denying/refusal to accept results, the Dems/media have consigned to the memory hole the time Biden preemptively questioned the results of the 2022 midterms.

At the time, most Democrats and Republicans expected a "red wave." Asked if he'd accept the results, Biden said: "It easily could be illegitimate. I'm not going to say it's going to be legit.... The increase of the prospect of it being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these (voting) reforms passed."

That sounds like it could've been lifted right out of a Trump campaign speech. Elder takes things a step further and considers Mr. Biden's asseverations that Mr. Trump is a liar whereas he is himself a slave to the truth. Elder demurs:

As to Biden's lies, they include, but are not limited to: how, why, and where his son Beau contracted brain cancer; that Biden desegregated movie theaters and restaurants; that he finished in the top half of his law school class; that he got arrested trying to visit Nelson Mandela during apartheid; was "raised in the black church"; played football for the University of Delaware; claimed the driver who accidentally struck and killed his first wife and daughter was drunk; intentionally misstating what Trump said about Charlottesville; that Trump said to drink/inject bleach; that Biden didn't pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma; that Biden never discussed son Hunter's business dealings; that a small kitchen fire "almost killed" his wife; that he was "shot at" in Iraq; that inflation was "9%" when he became president; the Border Patrol endorses him; the NAACP endorsed him in "all" of his elections; World War II's Uncle Bosie was eaten by cannibals; that "no one" advised him the Afghan government would quickly collapse and the Taliban would return if he abruptly pulled out of Afghanistan; that Trump referred to World War I American vets who lost their lives as "suckers and losers"; that Trump praised Hitler; among others.

Mr. Trump may play fast and loose with the truth, but Mr. Biden is almost in a class by himself. Whenever the president says, which he often does, "I give you my word as a Biden," it takes great effort to not spit out my coffee.

So, what about Mr. Trump's other moral failures?

Biden, during the debate, accused Trump of having "the morals of an alley cat" and that Trump's alleged affair with Stormy Daniels occurred "when (Trump's wife) was pregnant." Does Biden really want to go there?

The ex-husband of Jill Biden claims Biden met the married couple when they worked on his Senate campaign, and not on a "blind date" as Biden claims. Jill's ex says Jill cheated on him with Biden.

Biden ex-staffer Tara Reade claims the then-senator sexually assaulted her.

When this accusation surfaced during the 2020 campaign, as well as allegations by other women who accused Biden of unwanted touching and kissing, then-Sen. Kamala Harris said, "I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it."

The media were completely uncurious about the Reade allegations because Mr. Biden, as everyone knows, would never have done such a thing. He's not Donald Trump, after all.

Anyway, all this makes risible claims that Joe Biden is a virtuous, moral straight-shooter who the public can count on to always tell them the truth. In fact, we can count on the truth neither from Mr. Biden nor from an obsequious legacy media which has misled and lied to us about him for at least four years.

Happy Birthday America (Whatever's Left of You)

Is a Philosophy Degree Worth It?

I thought this was funny even if it's not quite true:

I say it's not quite true because an undergraduate degree in philosophy is often a gateway to graduate degrees in law, medicine, theology, and a host of other careers. Even if a student doesn't wish to take a degree in philosophy, taking philosophy courses can be, depending on how they're taught, a richly rewarding experience.

About eight years ago I wrote a post for VP in which I discussed the value of an undergrad philosophy degree, either major or minor, for anyone who has the intellectual interest and is strongly attracted to the life of the mind.

You can read that post here. If you're a high school student who enjoys ideas and is wrestling with whether you should go to college and, if so, what you should take when you're there, check it out.

Vultures

There are two species of vultures commonly seen in eastern North America: the turkey vulture and the black vulture. California condors are a third species of vulture that are found in the American west.

Vultures are aesthetically unattractive to look at up close, but they're marvelous to see soaring on thermal updrafts in large groups called "kettles." They're also environmentally important carrion-eaters as this lovely video explains:

The next time you look up and see one of these birds wheeling in the sky overhead, remember that you're watching an aeronautical and biological marvel.

One of the Two Most Important SCOTUS Decisions in Decades

Last Thursday night's disastrous debate performance by our president has consumed most of the attention of news commentators in the days since but maybe an even more gratifying development for conservatives was the SCOTUS ruling that overturned the infamous 1984 Chevron decision.

In a nutshell, Chevron had deferred to federal agencies the authority to determine what regulations should be imposed on businesses when the actual law was ambiguous. This has resulted in a massive increase in federal power over the last forty years.

The Supreme Court has now taken that authority from the federal government and given it to the courts where it belongs. Courts, not bureaucrats, are to interpret the law. Courts are more likely to be disinterested and objective; unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are more likely to have ideological agendas.

Paula Bolyard writes at PJ Media:

Today, the Supreme Court voted to overrule the so-called Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision. The ruling is a HUGE victory for those who hate the massive power the administrative state has amassed in recent decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded: "The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled."

In the most basic terms, the Chevron deference (also called the Chevron doctrine) allows the courts, through a two-step process, to defer to "reasonable" administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear or ambiguous. It was essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidents and agency hacks who liked to claim that a law says whatever they want it to say.

It gave federal agencies broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration to women's sports to COVID jabs.

Bolyard has much more information on this decision and the rationale for it at the link.

Tossing Chevron into the dumpster was a necessary first step in cutting big government down to size and returning government to its constitutional role as a servant of the people, not our master. This decision stands with Dobbs as perhaps the two most important decisions SCOTUS has made in decades.