Why Bigotry Is Wrong

Insistent demands to end racism and bias against women and LBGTQ individuals are rife in our culture, but rarely, it seems, does anyone ask why these bigotries are wrong. On those occassions when it is asked it's sometimes replied that any form of discrimination is morally wrong, but what, exactly, is meant by this is unclear.

Here's what I'm getting at: Let's assume we've all adopted a secular perspective in which either there is no moral authority that transcends human society or, if there is, that that authority should be permitted no role in our secular affairs.

Given this assumption what does it mean to say that racism, misogyny and discrimination against LGBTQ folks are wrong? If there's no moral authority how can "wrong" mean anything more than "something some people don't like"? And if that's all we mean then what reason is there for all the outrage? Why not just accept that different people hold different values and let it go at that?

After all, something can be wrong in any meaningful moral sense only if there's an objective moral authority who promulgates an objective moral law and holds people accountable for living according to that law. If no such authority exists, or if any such authority is excluded from our public lives, then racism is little more than a behavior some people practice and some people don't like.

An example of the former is the famous 19th century British evolutionary biologist Thomas Huxley (1825-1895). Huxley was the man who coined the term "agnostic" to describe his own attitude toward God and was also a firm believer in the Darwinian doctrine of survival of the fittest.

His evolutionary convictions led him to believe that some races were superior to others, and he argued that emancipation of the slaves in the U.S. had doomed blacks who would now have to fend for themselves, a task for which he believed them poorly suited.

Huxley stated that, "no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man.”

Huxley's racism was little different from that of his hero Charles Darwin. Writing to the Rev. Charles Kingsley in 1862, Darwin stated,

It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.

Almost twenty years later he offered similar sentiments in a letter to Irish philosopher and political economist William Graham:

Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.

People today would be aghast were they to hear preeminent thinkers voice such bigotry, but the question we should ask is why do we consider views like those of Huxley and Darwin to be morally offensive?

One might answer that they're offensive because they're hurtful, but that answer assumes that it is objectively wrong to hurt others. But why is it? Is it wrong to hurt others because we wouldn't want someone to hurt us? It's of course true that we wouldn't want others to hurt us, but how does that make it wrong for us to hurt others? If we had the power to hurt others with impunity, in what sense would it be wrong to do so?

The secularist has no convincing answers to these questions. He or she has to assume that there is no relevant objective moral authority, that objective morality therefore doesn't exist and that all of our moral judgments are simply expressions of our own personal, subjective preferences, like one's preference for Ford trucks rather than Chevys.

If the secularist wishes to maintain that moral judgments are objectively meaningful then he's piggy-backing on a theistic worldview while all the while insisting that that worldview is either utterly false or irrelevant to morality.

In other words, the moral secularist must behave irrationally in order to assert that racism is wrong. On his own secular assumptions he has no grounds for claiming that anyone or anything is objectively wrong. All he can say is that he doesn't like it.

But how does a Judeo-Christian view of the world provide grounds for affirming that racism and other bigotries are morally wrong? It does so because according to that view all men are created by God in His image and are loved by Him. We are all equal in the sight of God, and God, the creator of the universe, demands that we treat each other with compassion and justice. Moreover, He will ultimately hold us accountable for whether we actually do or do not treat others this way.

To harm others is morally wrong because it violates the objective will, nature, and law of God who, being perfect goodness, is Himself the ultimate source of moral knowledge and the ultimate standard of right and wrong.

Only if this is true can racism, sexism and bigotry of any kind be objectively wrong. Only if this is true does our belief that human beings have rights and dignity make sense. If it's not true then Huxley and Darwin were probably right, and we should cease our pretensions of believing in moral right and wrong and the equality and dignity of men and just do whatever serves our own interests and desires.

Of course, the decision to follow that road leads to all the horrors perpetrated by the state atheisms of the 20th century.

Hamas Bears All the Guilt

The Western media have been very vocal in condemning Israel for alleged starvation in Gaza, even to the point of using photos of children with Cerebral Palsy as instances of starving children, but an article in the Free Beacon by Andrew Tobin paints a much different picture of the situation in Gaza. Everyone who thinks Israel is to blame for hungry Gazans should read it.

Here's the lede:

Every day this week, hundreds of U.N. trucks stacked with pallets of humanitarian aid have exited Israeli-patrolled routes and rumbled into population centers across the Gaza Strip, where Israel has implemented daily pauses in military operations.

Many of the trucks, though traveling under enhanced Israeli protections introduced on Sunday, have not reached U.N. warehouses, according to Gazans on the ground. Once the trucks have arrived in the population centers, armed Hamas militants have hijacked the cargo, the Gazans said, and what aid has arrived at the warehouses has disappeared into a patronage system controlled by the Palestinian terrorist group.

Most Gazans have been forced to buy the aid at exorbitant prices from merchants handpicked and heavily taxed by Hamas.

"Fifty trucks arrived yesterday at warehouses in Gaza City, and Hamas stole all of the aid," Moumen al-Natour, a 30-year-old lawyer in the northern Gaza capital, said on Tuesday. "Today, the aid went on sale in the black markets at very high prices."

Al-Natour said a childhood friend, seeking to feed his family, joined a hungry mob trying to loot the trucks and was trampled to death along with a number of other civilians.

Gazans and Israeli military officers say this has been the reality in Gaza since fighting resumed in March. Hamas exerts near-total control over U.N.-led aid operations and seizes nearly all the incoming goods to feed and finance its terrorist regime, according to the people. Rather than confront the problem, the United Nations has effectively aligned with Hamas, prolonging the Gaza war and the suffering of Gazans, the people say.

"Hamas has unfortunately been able to infiltrate the mechanism of the United Nations for a long time," said Al-Natour. "They take all the aid for their own people and leave nothing for the civilians. This is how they maintain their criminal government while their popularity is collapsing."

Tobin goes on to explain how Hamas and the U.N. essentially work together in a way that results in the immiseration of the Gazan people. Contrary to what the antisemites in our media and universities want us to believe, the war, the thousands of casualties, and the suffering of the Gazans are all crimes perpetrated by Hamas, and it is Hamas who bears the guilt and the blame for them.

Those critical of Israel in this war would be hard pressed to think of any other country in history that has done more in wartime to avoid civilian casualties and done more to try to ease the suffering of the very people (the Gazans) who have overwhelmingly supported their government (Hamas) in its efforts to annihilate the very people (the Israelis) who are coming to their aid.

The Evil That Men Do

International Christian Concern (ICC) reports that of the five most populous nations in the world, in four of them either the government persecutes Christians or it tolerates persecution of Christians by other groups within the country.

Here are some excerpts from the report:

Four of the five most populous countries in the world share a disturbing reality: Christians are systematically and harshly persecuted within their borders.

China (1.41 billion people), India (1.46 billion people), Indonesia (285 million people), and Pakistan (255 million people) routinely strip Christians of fundamental human rights like worshiping freely and sharing their faith with others. The United States (347 million people) is the other country in the top five.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China is openly atheistic and continuously attempts to curb the religious expression of Christians within its nation. According to a 2023 report from Pew Research, the CCP’s religious restrictions “are part of a long-standing strategy by the Chinese government to align religion with communism and ensure loyalty to the…CCP, which espouses and promotes atheism.”

In May, Chinese authorities released a plan to incorporate lyrics that applaud communism into church worship music.

In India, Christians endure being evicted from their homes simply for following Christ. Evictions are often carried out by Hindu nationalists who want Indians to adhere to Hinduism only.

According to the European Center for Law and Justice, Christians were the targets of more than 160 violent attacks [in India] in 2024, including physical assaults and attacks on church meetings.

Indonesian authorities, functioning in a Muslim-majority nation, routinely condone the suppression of Christian rights. A prayer house was attacked in July, and Christian churches have been closed in recent years due to restrictive Indonesian law.

According to Christianity Today, “a 2006 law requires churches to secure signatures of approval from 60 Christians and 90 people from another faith” to build a Christian church. This allows those opposed to Christianity to stop the construction of churches.

In predominantly Muslim Pakistan, blasphemy laws are egregiously used to target and punish Christians for following Jesus. Christ followers are often discriminated against and not given equal opportunities in employment. Jobs like sewer maintenance and street sweepers are typically reserved for Christians, and believers are jailed for their faith if they are found to have violated the nation’s strict blasphemy laws.

Christians in these nations may face harassment, intimidation, and imprisonment for following Christ. The most basic human right, the liberty to follow one’s own conscience, is often out of reach for believers in these countries.

They also face murder as in several countries in Africa where 62,000 Christians have been murdered by Muslims in Nigeria alone in the last two and a half decades, and any Christians caught practicing their faith in North Korea are subjected to horrific suffering.

This is evil and the religion, in the case of Islam, and the ideology, in the case of communism, that spawn this evil are rooted in a profound hatred for anyone who refuses to accept the haters' belief system, but any belief system that's rooted in hatred and which gives rise to so much evil, is itself evil. What else could it be?

D.C. Crime

Democrats are attacking Trump for taking action to clean up Washington by federalizing the city's law enforcement, a move the D.C. police themselves support and the mayor doesn't oppose. Apparently, some on the left think it's racist to fight crime, which says a lot about who they think the criminals must be. Either that, or they think that black and brown people should be left alone to pillage, rape, and murder.

One of their arguments is that violent crime in D.C. has declined by 30% so there's no need to bring in the National Guard, but what they don't say is that the former police commander is under investigation for falsifying crime data.

In any case, what are the facts about crime in D.C.? Here are some from the White House via Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com:

• In 2024, Washington, D.C. saw a homicide rate of 27.3 per 100,000 residents. That was the fourth-highest homicide rate in the country — nearly six times higher than New York City and also higher than Atlanta, Chicago, and Compton.
• If Washington, D.C. was a state, it would have the highest homicide rate of any state in the nation. It's murder rate is roughly three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-run Havana, Cuba.
• The number of juveniles arrested in Washington, D.C. has gone up each year since 2020 — many of whom have had prior arrests for violent crimes.
• There were 29,348 crimes reported in Washington, D.C. last year, including 3,469 violent offenses, 1,026 assaults with a dangerous weapon, 2,113 robberies, and 5,139 motor vehicle thefts.
• So far in 2025, there have already been nearly 1,600 violent crimes and nearly 16,000 total crimes reported in Washington, D.C.
• There have been nearly 100 homicides, including the fatal shootings of innocent civilians like three-year-old Honesty Cheadle and 21-year-old Capitol Hill intern Eric Tarpinian-Jachym.
• Vehicle theft in Washington, D.C. is more than three times the national average — ranking it among the most dangerous cities in the world. Carjackings increased 547% between 2018 and 2023. In 2024, there were triple the number of carjackings compared to 2018.

What President Trump is doing is perfectly legal, so one can only assume that those who oppose him on this are concerned about...what? Are they concerned that D.C. will be made safer and cleaner? Are they concerned that it'll be a bad look if more minorities are incarcerated?

One thing they should be concerned about is that once again they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue, but that doesn't seem to bother them. Maybe the Democrats' real concern is that they fear people will see that Republicans get things done that the people want done while Democrats do nothing but sit on their hands and fuss over pronouns.

Beautiful Ugliness

The title of this post is an oxymoron, but it befits the subject of the following wonderful 8:00 minute video about vultures.

In eastern North America there are two species of vultures that can be commonly seen - the turkey vulture and the black vulture - and neither of them would ever win a beauty contest. Yet, they're graceful flyers and play a very important role in the ecosystem of which they're a part.

Moreover, vultures in general are impressively designed to accomplish all that they do. Their digestive features are unique among birds.

In the video, the turkey vulture is the one shown in connection with Darwin's observation in South America, and the black vulture is shown at the end flying along with the photographers. Enjoy:

That Hideous Strength

C.S. Lewis was an Oxford scholar of medieval literature, prolific writer and a famous Christian apologist (i.e. defender of the faith). He died in 1963 on the same day John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

In his novel That Hideous Strength (1945) Lewis writes a "fairy tale," as he calls it, that's a prophetic allegory of the cultural battle we see raging in our own day between the forces of left-wing progressivism/scientism and those who struggle to hold on to the traditional values of family and religious commitment.

In THS Lewis illustrates this struggle by means of a plot by the progressive National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.) to take over, first a part of England, and ultimately the whole country and the world. N.I.C.E. is led by men who have embraced a scientistic worldview - naturalistic, atheistic, materialistic, reductionistic, objectivist, and purely rational.

As Lewis describes them in a classic work, The Abolition of Man, they're men without chests. They have no heart, no passions. They're men bereft of souls who can be pictured as disembodied heads, which is, in fact, how Lewis symbolically represents the leader of N.I.C.E.

N.I.C.E. and the men who run it may seem like fantastically implausible caricatures, but the story should be read as a bi-level allegory. On one level it's Lewis' portrayal of the spiritual nature of the battle, and on another level it's a portrait of the left's program for crushing their opposition and gaining power, a program that has been employed consistently by the left ever since the days of Karl Marx in the 19th century and perhaps since the French Revolution in 1789 and its ensuing terror.

The Marxists and their progressive allies have throughout this era sought to advance along three fronts. These can be summarized as follows (the summary is taken from Faith and the Arts):

The Four Stages of Cultural Revolution – As described by former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov in the 1970s, these are the stages by which Soviet agents worked to infiltrate and undermine America and other western societies.

1. Demoralization – using pornography and other methods through media, entertainment, education, etc., to break down the moral courage of the people. 
2. Destabilization – By undermining police, courts, borders, etc., to overwhelm public safety and further demoralize the people.
3. Crisis – Build 1 and 2 to the point of a crisis where people resort to rioting or to civil war.
4. New Normal – Declare emergency powers and install the administrative state as a solution for all of the problems which the revolutionary forces have themselves caused.

The Long March through the Institutions – This is a central concept of cultural Marxism. It concerns the strategy of neo-Marxists in America and in other Western societies to overcome the resistance of successful middle-class cultures to the Marxist rhetoric of revolution. Middle-class people tend to be somewhat satisfied with their lives and tolerant of income differences with others.

Cultural Marxists therefore target all of the institutions of middle-class society — church, family, public education, media, the press, entertainment, business, academia, science, law, etc. — in order to create the problems and crises that lead to the imposition of emergency powers and the administrative state. 

Mass Formation – This is an academic concept that has been used for many years to try to understand the mass psychology that appears to be at work in societies like Bolshevik Russia, Nazi Germany, and Mao’s China, where thousands of ordinary citizens either turned a blind eye to the suffering of their fellow citizens or, in some cases, joined the forces that shamed and tortured them.

The process is based on fear and the desire to survive or escape the threat of suffering. Under these conditions, “normal” people may become callous to the suffering of others. They “go along to get along,” but the result is a complete collapse of genuine religious and moral civilization.

All of these corrosive strategies certainly seem to be experiencing alarming success in our contemporary culture, and Lewis shines a light on them in his depiction of the machinations of N.I.C.E. and the spiritual barrenness of those employed in advancing its cause.

For those who may never have read That Hideous Strength, I'd recommend first reading Abolition of Man and perhaps then perusing brief summaries of the first two novels in Lewis' "space" trilogy Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra before tackling That Hideous Strength.

The story will make more sense if you do.

Orb Weaver Spiders

The following beautiful short film describes some of the amazing features of spiders in general and orb weaver spiders in particular. As you watch it you might ponder how such an astounding organism with such a tiny brain can "know" to do all that it instinctively does.

You might wonder, too, how its instinctive behaviors could've evolved through purely undirected, blind, and random processes, and not only its behavior but also all of the anatomical structures and functions necessary for the spider's mode of life.

If something looks like it was intelligently engineered, and if the alternative to intelligent engineering (undirected, unintelligent forces) is exceedingly implausible, then intelligent engineering should, at the very least, be considered a viable hypothesis.

In fact, the only reason one could have for not considering intelligent agency to be the most likely hypothesis is an apriori philosophical commitment to naturalism, but that's not a move based on science. It's not a move grounded in evidence, but is rather the intellectual expression of an irrational aversion to any suggestion that ultimate reality is immaterial and non-physical.

The video is produced by the John 10:10 Project and is about 8:00 minutes long:

Gulliver in Washington, D.C.

In Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, Lemuel Gulliver is shown around the Grand Academy of Lagado in which all sorts of projects are being conducted to improve the lives of the citizens. These projects included the following:

• Extracting sunbeams from cucumbers to warm the air in raw, inclement summers
• Reducing human excrement to its original food
• Learning to plow fields with pigs motivated by strategically placed acorns
• Extracting silk from spiders
• Developing a technique for building a house by starting at the roof and working down to the foundation
• A team of blind men learning to discern the color of paint by feel and smell

Of course each of these efforts was a colossal waste of time and money, and Swift was satirizing the stupidity of government waste in his own day.

I was reminded of his satire some time ago when reading about the some of the government programs the Trump administration has been keen on eliminating since his inauguration. Here are just a few examples:

• $45 million for diversity scholarships in Burma (Myanmar).
• $40 million for social and economic inclusion of "sedentary migrants" in Colombia, benefiting Venezuelan refugees.
• $10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique, reportedly for AIDS prevention.
• $20 million for the Arab "Sesame Street" a program focused on education and promoting inclusivity for young children.
• Programs aimed at promoting LGBTQ+ advocacy or acceptance in countries like Botswana, Belize, and Peru, including funding for an LGBTQ+ comic book.
• $325,000 for a program adapting an LGB+ teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.
• $22.6 billion for aiding illegal migrants through resettlement programs, home and car purchases, and loans.
• $7.5 billion for funding a few dozen electric vehicle stations across the nation.

Those who complain about the work that DOGE has done, and is doing, should understand that had the government not so severely abused taxpayers in the past, there wouldn't be so much appetite for paring it down today.

There may be worthwhile programs that've been thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak, but the abuse has been so massive that there's little inclination to spend time drawing subtle distinctions. The government workers who've lost their jobs in the first six months of the current administration have only themselves and/or their colleagues to blame.

Do They Really Think It's Not Alive?

Thirty years ago some embryos were produced by in vitro fertilization (IVF), and the mother had them frozen. Recently, one of those embryos was brought to term and born. It's a fascinating, and in some ways troubling, development, but some of the commenters to the report, in an apparent attempt to dump snark on pro-lifers, displayed alarming ignorance of basic biology.

One commenter wrote that "Since right wingers think life begins at conception is this baby old enough to go to war?" Another asked if "people who believe life begins at conception would sell liquor to this baby."

Implicit in these questions is the assumption that it's preposterous to believe that an embryo is a living entity, but of course it obviously is. Do these people think that the cells that comprise an embryo are non-living cells? Are the cells inert? Are they dead? It's simply absurd to imply that metabolizing, replicating cells are not alive.

If those who made these comments meant to suggest that the embryo is not really human then perhaps they'd be willing to tell us what sort of embryo it is. What sort of being was it that ultimately grew into a human baby? It wasn't the embryo of a cow or a frog or a tulip. Obviously, the being, or entity, which was frozen thirty years ago was a human entity. It was a living human being.

Another point: The assumption throughout the X thread that forms the basis for this article is that this newborn baby is actually thirty years old, but of course, it's not thirty years old. Everyone's age is calculated from the date of his or her birth, not the date of one's conception. This baby (its name is Thaddeus Daniel Pierce) was born on July 26th of this year and thus, as of this writing, is a little over one week old.

Blaise Pascal once stated that our first responsibility is to think clearly. That's good advice in any case, but in discussions that have life and death implications it has special salience.

80 Years Ago Today

Today marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. An old article by Max Hastings offers some thoughts on the bombing upon which we might reflect. He argues that there are good arguments both to justify and to condemn the use of the atomic bomb on Japan and anyone interested in the continuing debate on this historical watershed should read his column. He closes it with an important observation:

Those who today find it easy to condemn the architects of Hiroshima sometimes seem to lack humility in recognizing the frailties of the decision-makers, mortal men grappling with dilemmas of a magnitude our own generation has been spared.

In August 1945, amid a world sick of death in the cause of defeating evil, allied lives seemed very precious, while the enemy appeared to value neither his own nor those of the innocent. Truman's Hiroshima judgment may seem wrong in the eyes of posterity, but it is easy to understand why it seemed right to most of his contemporaries.

It's hard to disagree with what Hastings writes. I think we have an obligation to try to understand the circumstances in which the men who made the decision to drop the bomb found themselves. Even so, there is something Hastings omits from his column which I think is of overriding importance in judging what happened, not just at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also at Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg and many less-noted cities.

In all of these, there was a conscious decision to deliberately target civilians for death. It doesn't much matter, in my opinion, whether the death was administered by conventional or nuclear explosives, the salient point is that the intentional killing of non-combatants, women and children, is prima facie morally unjustifiable.

I am not saying that it is absolutely wrong. There may be circumstances which would make such a measure necessary, and perhaps such circumstances obtained in August of 1945, but it's not obvious that they did.

We were outraged on 9/11 when 3000 civilians lost their lives to Islamic terrorists. We were incensed that the hijackers targeted innocent people. We called them cowards (which they certainly weren't). We called them evil (which they certainly were), but in what morally significant ways did their deed differ from the fire-bombing of thousands of children in Dresden or Tokyo?

I sympathize with the difficulty of the decision those men had to make during WWII. I don't know what I would have decided myself, especially if I had a son slated to take part in the impending invasion of Japan. But I do think we can spare those men harsh judgment without withholding moral assessment of their choices.

If we seek to justify deliberately killing innocents now it will only make it easier for us to yield to the temptation to do it again.

We are fortunate to be in possession of precision weapons today that our fathers did not have and which enable us to target combatants without deliberately harming non-combatants. We have, as best as can be discerned, used these with great care and effectiveness. They have relieved us somewhat of the moral burden previous generations of Americans carried.

Even so, there are many times in war when the temptation to kill indiscriminately must seem overwhelming. To the extent we excuse what was done in WWII we make it more likely that it will happen again today in the war against Islamic terrorists.

If you'd like to learn more about the history of the American air war against the Japanese homeland, I highly recommend James M. Scott's book Black Snow: Curtis LeMay, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Road to the Atomic Bomb.

Dragonflies

All of us have seen dragonflies around ponds and lakes but there's a lot more to these fascinating creatures than perhaps we realized. They really are amazing and their anatomy and behavior is unique as the video below illustrates.

It's a bit long (18 minutes), but if nature is an interest of yours, once you start watching you'll probably want to watch the whole thing. It's certain that you'll never look at dragonflies quite the same way again, and you won't take them for granted.

One question you might keep in mind as you watch is how such amazing engineering ever could've evolved through chance and fortuitous genetic mutations as the modern Darwinists claim.

Is England Facing Civil War?

Writer Mark Steyn is predicting that there will be a civil war in England within the next fifteen years. His reason is that over the next decade Muslims will have gained decisive political clout and will begin imposing Sharia on the rest of the English who by that time will be fed up with the two-tier justice system that already prevails in England.

They will also be fed up with the criminalization of speech, especially speech critical of immigrants. You can read more of Steyn's thinking on this here.

Relatedly, Powerline's John Hinderaker notes a very disturbing trend in England. Whereas in recent years Muhammad has been the most popular name given to boys, Hinderaker cites a story from The Telegraph which tells us that another name is rising in the rankings:

Imagine if in 1945 hundreds of Brits christened their newborn sons Adolf. That might have rattled us as a nation, right?

I feel similarly about the news that, last year, 583 baby boys in the UK were given the name Yahya.

Yes, hundreds of families saw fit to bestow on their little ones the name shared by the one-time leader of Hamas and the architect of the worst mass murder of Jews since Adolf’s days – Yahya Sinwar.

The Top 100 Boys’ Names of 2024 were released this week, and Yahya has really blown up.

It reportedly enjoyed a larger spike in popularity than any other male name. It leapt a staggering 33 places up the rankings, to become the 93rd most popular boy’s name.

Hinderaker comments that,

No doubt some would argue that it is good, or at least acceptable, that large numbers of “British” babies are named Muhammad. But I don’t know how a positive spin can be put on the fact that a considerable number of Muslim parents are naming their male babies after the architect of the October 7 massacre.

How are actual Englishmen supposed to share their country with people whose values are literally as evil as Hitler’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s?

The Left has been telling us for decades that Muslim immigration into the West will have a meliorating affect on their religious fanaticisms, that they'll assimilate into the larger culture and adopt the values of the larger culture.

Well, in England, France, Germany, and The Netherlands Muslims are well on the way to becoming the larger culture and there seems to be scant indication that they have any desire to assimilate.

What Are They Afraid Of?

The Office of Personnel Managementsent out a memo the other day instructing federal workers that religious expression in the workplace will henceforth not be forbidden. The memo is reproduced here:

🚨Just in: The Trump administration has directed federal agencies to safeguard religious expression in the workplace, allowing employees to display crucifixes, carry Bibles, and pray with rosary beads pic.twitter.com/FZPwcpB7ya

— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) July 28, 2025

As anodyne and sensible as this directive is, the folks at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) considered it an intolerable breach of the "wall of separation" between church and state. Exactly how this memo violates that principle isn't clear but here's the memo they sent out:

An outrageous memo the United States Office of Personnel Management released yesterday says “during a break, an employee may engage another in polite discussion of why his faith is correct and why the nonadherent should rethink his religious beliefs.” https://t.co/8ExblnsKOe

— FFRF (@FFRF) July 29, 2025

What exactly are these people afraid of, that someone might have a meaningful conversation about what is perhaps the most important topic anybody could discuss? That someone might actually find themselves learning something important?

If two federal workers during their break got into a discussion on politics would that be considered "outrageous"? Since politics is an ersatz religion for some people, since some individuals are so zealous for their particular political beliefs that they're willing to estrange themselves from family and friends over their disagreements, why are the folks at the FFRF so allergic to the possibility that someone might bring up the topic of God in the workplace but not, presumably, to the possibility that someone might mention Biden or Trump?

Part of what it means to be an intellectually mature individual is being able to hear with equanimity opinions at variance with one's own. The person who cannot abide the knowledge that someone might disagree with them about something as important as religion is like a child who sticks his fingers in his ears while loudly insisting that he can't hear you.

Not only is the FFRF reaction childish, it also seems to be a symptom of insecurity. It's the sort of reaction one might expect from people who deep down fear that the views they've spent their lives believing and promoting simply cannot withstand scrutiny, and the only way to keep them from collapsing altogether is to avoid any discussion of their rationale.

Good for the Trump administration for treating federal workers like intellectually mature and psychologically healthy adults.

How Not to Find a Good Man

Nathanael Blake, writing at The Federalist, discusses a New York Times column titled "The Trouble With Wanting Men," by a writer named Jean Garnett. Blake writes that Garnett's piece,

portrays the sexual and relational landscape as a hellscape, or at least a dreary purgatory in which Garnett longs for men who are just not that into her. She is, as she eventually explained, on the dating scene because she recently divorced after her “open” marriage fell apart partially because she fell in love with a paramour who had no interest in a relationship.

One writer on X was quick to point out that Garnett had written a long, positive piece about said open marriage only a few years ago.

Now, Garnett is learning a painful lesson, as seen in her account of how she and her friends commiserate together, wondering, “Where were the men who could handle hard stuff? Like leaving the house for sex?” The answer should be obvious: Ladies, you’re competing with younger women — and endless internet porn — for the attention of guys who do not want a relationship.

Even if you were once irresistible to men, did you really think you would remain so forever?

It must be very difficult for women to understand that men are not like women. Men, quite often, are averse to commitment to one woman, and they're especially so if the women who desire a commitment are willing to give men what they do want without any serious conditions attached. Blake continues:

It is darkly humorous how these men have learned to use therapy-speak to dull the edge of the proverbial fury of a woman scorned. Garnett recounts one guy she hooked up with texting her the next week, “I was really looking forward to seeing you again … but I’m going through some intense anxiety today and need to lay low :(.” She reports that she replied, “Totally understand,” but tells her readers that she “didn’t. Feeble, fallible ‘looking forward’ is not longing; a man should want me urgently or not at all.”

Well, this guy clearly doesn’t want her — not really.

But Garnett doesn’t seem to get this, writing that, “lately I have been bruised by the ambivalence of men, how they can first want me and then become confused about what they want.” Again, they’re not confused. They’ve just learned that saying they are anxious and confused provides cover when they want to keep women of Garnett’s type at arm’s length.

It's just another way of saying, "It's not you, it's me" when in fact it's probably both of them.

It seems to be working. Though she wants to blame men for her miserable dating life, Garnett still writes that “the men my friends and I are feeling bleak about” are “the sweet, good ones. Dammit.” Of course, they aren’t sweet or good. They are selfish through and through. They’ve just learned that they can get away with that selfishness as long as they cover it with therapeutic language while telling women not to expect much from them.

And yet Garnett and her friends are somehow disappointed when the little they are promised is all they get.

Actually, "the sweet, good ones" are often the men most accomplished at play-acting. Their sweetness is a mask that hides both selfishness and arrested development, but they know that women like Garnett are easily fooled by the act.

In truth, the “good guys” aren’t the ones using anxiety as an excuse to ditch their middle-aged hook-ups. Indeed, the really good ones are, by Garnett’s age, mostly off the market. They aren’t hooking up with bitter writers. Rather, they are going to church and raising their children and are still married to their first wives. Those are the good ones. What Garnett is sifting through are the dregs — maybe superficially attractive dregs, but still the dregs — and dregs that have no intention of settling down with her.

This reality almost breaks through when Garnett reflects on the affair that ended her marriage:

“[T]hroughout the year and a half or so that we saw each other, he continued to gesture to his incapacity to commit as if it were a separate being, an unfortunate child who followed and relied upon him, maybe, or a physical constraint. I stood there reaching for him while he sad-faced back at me like a boxed mime: He couldn’t talk about it; he wished things were different; maybe someday the child would mature, the glass would break, but for now, there was really nothing to be done.

"It seems to me, surveying the field as a dating novice, that this kind of studiously irreproachable male helplessness abounds. I keep encountering and hearing about men who ‘can’t.’ Have these men not heard of ‘don’t want to?’"

Oh, they know about it. “Don’t want to” is indeed at the root of their refusal to commit to women such as Garnett. But anxiety and helplessness are palatable excuses, ones that women such as Garnett buy, or at least lease, because the alternative — realizing that she just isn’t that desirable and most of the good men are long gone anyway — is too painful.

If Garnett wants to find a good man, she should try joining a large, independent Christian church. She may find a good one through an online dating service, of course, but if she wants commitment and character in her man, especially at her age, she's going to have difficulty finding it amongst a secular demographic that hasn't ever made such virtues a priority in their lives. She's certainly going to have difficulty finding trust, respect, and faithfulness among acquaintances who've dabbled in open marriages which allow each spouse the freedom to "leave the house" to seek sex.

Blake concludes with this:

Garnett’s present unhappiness is a result of the ideology and behaviors she has promoted. The immediate cause of her unhappiness is that she’s a middle-aged woman hooking up with noncommittal men. The more comprehensive cause is the culture she has marinated in and furthered. She obviously yearns for the “old-fashioned man-woman stuff” she wants to dismiss. And she should — she was made for it.

But our culture encourages people to give their bodies quickly and their hearts slowly, if at all. This divides the person and precludes genuine love, which requires the gift of the whole self. This is why Christian sexual morality — and the marital sexual exclusivity it requires — is not a killjoy. Rather, it is a protector and promoter of human well-being. It directs us toward our good and the good of others.

The freedom, pleasure, and authentic flourishing the sexual revolution promised were lies and are why sexual liberation has hurt so many people. Sexual liberalism presumes that we thrive as autonomous pleasure seekers, unconstrained by norms or obligations. But this is false. We thrive through love, and real love, including romantic and sexual love, requires real commitment.

This, in turn, protects people by directing them toward their long-term fulfillment and happiness.

One hopes that Garnett and others like her find the happiness and fulfillment they're seeking, but until they realize why they're having trouble finding it the dating scene will, for many of them, largely remain a romantic hellscape.