Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!



Assorted

Behind the scenes: the editorial cast and crew of RP

When my class did job shadowing for a couple days, it wasn’t hard for me to answer what I’m interested in. If you were to stop by my house almost anytime, you’d find me in my room, behind my laptop, working on a story. Fiction writing enthralled me when I was just four years old, and I’ve been writing ever since. So who did I want to follow around for two days to experience what it’s like to work in their field? I quickly scribbled out writing/editing as the first thing on my paper.

I got the opportunity to learn about writing and editing at the office of Mark Penninga, the executive director of RP and also my uncle. I showed up that first morning eager to see what he would be able to show and tell me about his work.

Now if I’m not writing, I’m probably watching and analyzing films. I’ve seen over 45 hours of The Hobbit behind-the-scenes footage, which is why you won’t be surprised when I compare Reformed Perspective to the behind-the-scenes of a movie.

So what really goes on behind the scenes at Reformed Perspective? Who are the editing cast and crew? During my job shadowing experience, I got to conduct some interviews and dig a little deeper into the answer to those questions.

It all began in 1982

Jon Dykstra is the editor of RP. The organization was started in 1982 as a monthly magazine and relied on subscriptions to stay afloat, printing about 1,500 copies of each issue. Much has changed since then, but the mission remains the same: “to explore what God’s up to anywhere and everywhere,” explains Jon.

While others have been part of the crew for a year or two, Jon joined in 1999, back when the magazine sometimes still received hand-written submissions. Both easy-going and spirited, he is one of only two full-time workers at the magazine. He started out as a part-time editor, but his passion for the project and increased workload led him to where he is today.

While there’s lots of variety in his job, he mainly edits other people’s articles and often writes book reviews from his home office in Lynden, WA. For fifteen years he was the sole full-time magazine staff member (talk about tiring!) yet he enjoys his work, although maybe not the overflow of emails he deals with every day. “Words have such flavors,” he explains, “that when you’re writing someone and you’re not talking to them, there’s a lot of different ways they can misunderstand what you’re saying.”

Words do have flavor. Jon is a big fan of wearing shirts with interesting pictures or phrases on them, such as a saying to defend the unborn, to get the conversation going.

For over 23 years, he has been riding the RP roller-coaster of ups and downs, but the pressing need for articles written from a Reformed angle and the great opportunities with RP kept him motivated. Also, “It’s just fun … God is powerful, He’s gracious, and He’s just fun,” says Jon.

His experience has led him to give this insightful advice for aspiring writers/editors: Appreciate getting beat up (find someone who is willing to critique you), be an observant listener, it’s about stealing (imitating) from the best, and finally, write, write, and write some more!

Big changes; same mission

Mark Penninga is the executive director of Reformed Perspective. He’s filled with dedication and passion for the mission of RP. He joined the organization when it was struggling financially, coming in with ideas on how to get the magazine back on its feet. Now, RP prints about 10,400 copies each issue and is available not only as a magazine, but as a website, podcasts, videos, and more. The concept of being online helps fulfill the idea of being a light to the world (Matt. 5:14).

He has plenty of thoughtful advice for those who are into writing and editing, such as: Writing is a tool, meant to fill a need and to serve a bigger purpose. As Christians, that purpose should be an expression of love for our neighbor and for God; we have “a message of love … writing is a means to communicate that hope.” When motivated by a purpose, your writing will show more passion, conviction, and meaning. Don’t expect to get it right on the first try, rather, keep at it. “Try, try, and try again,” he says. Turn off your distractions and focus on writing.

A phenomenal amount of work goes into writing articles for RP. Some of the articles are submitted by people like you and me, while most are written by the crew. Imagine sitting behind a desk for hours, researching by means of the Internet, books, and phone calls, to create an accurate article from, as you can probably guess, a Reformed perspective. As I am writing this, my uncle is sitting in the room next to me, typing away. He’s in his cozy office in Smithers, BC, sipping a warm cup of tea from a large “Reformed Perspective” mug. Gentle strains of music float through the air, a mix of worship songs and background piano. Every once in a while he takes a break to gaze out of the large window at the snow-dusted peaks of Hudson Bay Mountain, enjoying the afternoon sunlight streaming through the glass.

It takes a team

But Mark and Jon aren’t the only ones breaking a sweat for the company. Marty Van Driel balances his full-time job as the CEO for a trucking business in Bellingham, WA, with being the assistant editor for RP. According to Marty, “the greatest joy is when it’s done.” I think most writers can testify to that.

Marty loves telling stories to his grandkids, and says he especially loves telling stories in a way that relates to how we can serve God as Reformed Christians.

To ambitious writers like myself, Marty has two pieces of advice: Writers write. As he phrases it, don’t get “stuck in a brain fog.” Discipline is important. Set a goal to write every workday and then stick with that goal. His second piece of advice is this: Keep yourself grounded in God’s Word. There is nothing more important than the Bible and it’s crucial to keep this in mind.

“Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Col. 3: 23-24).

About a year ago, Jan Broersma from Langley, BC, joined the team at RP. Markings of red and blue cover her papers as she circles punctuation errors and notes details to doublecheck. She is the warm, friendly copy-editor for RP. Copy-editors focus on the technical, like tone, grammar, and factual correctness. Jan has always enjoyed writing, and decided to pursue a B.A. in English with some Creative Writing after high school, and then worked as a writer and editor before having a family. When her youngest child started Kindergarten, she had more time on her hands, spoke to Mark, and was able to get a job working part-time for RP. She loves the variety of the job.

Here is her advice to aspiring writers/editors: explore professional writing programs at college if you can, and if writing is what you love to do and is a talent God has given you, then it’s worth pursuing. Trust God will guide you.

Conclusion

After a peek behind the scenes of Reformed Perspective, I’ve realized it has come a long way since it first started. The only way that is possible is through generous donations and a hard-working group of people. The editorial team alone is composed of four dedicated individuals each using their unique, God-given talents to praise His name.

So open up that magazine on the coffee table and you can learn so much about God, His kingdom, and how we, as stewards, are to live.

And… cut!

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Climate conference hypocrisy continues to be instructive

COP28, this year’s edition of the annual United Nations climate conference, has come and gone, setting a record for accredited participants, with more than 70,000. That’s a sizable increase over the previous year’s 49,000, and there were estimates of 400,000 others in the trade and technology expo around the conference. Canada sent more than 700. The Nov. 30 to Dec. 12 event took place in the United Arab Emirates, one of the planet’s leading fossil fuel producers. There’s an irony there, but more pointed is the hypocrisy. These are the same politicians who are deliberately making fossil fuels more expensive to discourage your and my usage. It needs to be done, we’re told, because we face an “existential crisis.” Whatever it takes, because there is no Planet B! But what’s up with the 70,000 plane tickets? What’s the CO2 count for that? Why doesn’t that matter? If we’re really at a crisis point, wouldn’t drastic measures be warranted at the highest levels too? How painful is it, really, to hold their conference via Zoom? But no, we’re not at that level of crisis yet. The hypocrisy is aggravating, but more importantly it is instructive. Whatever our leaders might be saying about a crisis, their actions tell us what they really think (1 John 3:18, Tit 1:16a, James 1:22) and what we should think too. In a Dec. 6 post, the folks at the Climate Discussion Nexus made a plea for world leaders to demonstrate good faith by showing they can actually do what they propose. “To all the people gathering at COP28 ….if you’re so sure this energy transition can work, and be fun exciting cheap easy and great, stop with the grand pontificating and finger-pointing, and show us a demonstration project. Show us just one large or even medium-sized jurisdiction that can run its economy on ‘green’ energy.” We need to move off of fossil fuels? Before you propose it for the entire world, show us it can work in a small town somewhere. Show us how it can be done reliably and affordably. But until you can do that for a town, what reason would we have to think you could ever do it for the world?...

Red heart icon with + sign.

Top 10 RP articles of 2023

Is it a little too ironic that two Top 10 lists are there at the top of our list of our Top 10 articles of the year? Shucks, who doesn't like a good Top 10 list, especially when one celebrates good movies, and the other celebrates fantastic fantasy novels. And here are the rest, starting at #10 and counting up to the top article of the year. If you're interested in past year's lists, be sure to check out 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, and 2017. #10 – Why do we suffer? Buddhism vs. Christianity This is likely the most popular article – at least online – that RP has published, with more than 50,000 views on our old website, and still challenging people each year again on the new one. What's the appeal? The stark, clarifying contrast between Buddhism's "answer" to suffering and the only real comfort to be had, from God Himself. #9 – Is Creation worth fighting about? “In the creation vs. theistic evolution debate, there are a lot of Christians who aren’t prepared to pick a side. They aren’t loyal to 6 days or billions of years, perhaps believing they need a theology or science degree to be qualified to take a stand. They don’t want to be forced to pick one team over the other. However, when the question is ‘Does this matter?’ then not picking a side is still picking a side. Refusing to choose is only legitimate if this is no big thing. So is it really no big thing… or is it huge?” #8 – Calvin’s Institutes: Which edition should you read? We aren't supposed to judge a book by its cover... but we do. And even more so, we judge it by its font, layout, and, in this case, translator. So, with three main translations of Calvin's key work, here's what you need to know to pick the right one for you. #7 – Infant baptism vs. believers-only baptism: what's the main difference? Wonderfully concise, here's a key, often-overlooked argument. #6 – 20+ Christian fiction suggestions for your 10-15-year-old boys There is some great fantasy fiction out there, so if you're trying to keep your boys interested in reading, here's a list of 20 books, most of them fantasy, that'll grab their attention (and might make for a great last-minute present). #5 – Christianity explains everything…including Reincarnation Yes, the Christian worldview explains even reincarnation. First published back in 2020, this article didn’t make that year's Top 10, but has every year since then. #4 – Is recreational marijuana sinful? First published back in 2017, this remains every bit as relevant even with marijuana now legalized in Canada. #3 – Christian fantasy after Tolkien: a Top 10 If your kids are just gobbling books, and have already worked their way through Tolkien’s The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and Lewis’s Narnia, then what’s next? Here's a Top 10 list of Christian fantasy novels – some more obviously Christian than others – that they can check out next! #2 – The truth matters: analyzing the facts beneath the "mass burials" at residential schools Back in 2021, a report of more than 215 possible graves at a Kamloops residential school prompted the Canadian flag to be lowered to half mast across the country for months. But to this point, no bodies have actually been unearthed. That matters, because, as Mark Penninga argues, truth is important for reconciliation. #1 – Top 10 films on PureFlix right now The title of this one was a bit of a misnomer, as 20 films were recommended, 10 for mom and dad, and another 10 just for the kids. This was published way back in January, but updated again just a couple weeks ago so it should still be current....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Two months later, Poilievre’s apple moment keeps rolling

Back in October, Canada’s Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre went viral with a video clip that’s been characterized as a “masterclass” for dealing with hostile media. Poilievre was visiting an Okanagan orchard, and the editor of the local paper, the Times Chronicle, tried to get Poilievre to answers questions about how he was a rightwing “populist….taking a page out of the Donald Trump” playbook. In response, the Conservative leader – munching contently on a huge apple – batted away each loaded question by asking his own. He wanted Urquhart to define his terms. And Urquhart couldn’t. When Poilievre posted the clip to Twitter on Oct. 14, it garnered more than 1.5 million views, and national coverage by the likes of the Vancouver Sun, National Post, and Globe and Mail. His performance was so dominant the Winnipeg Free Press’s Charles Adler tried to recast the exchange as the Conservative leader “squashing” and “devouring” the poor reporter. Poilievre’s apple moment made a splash in the US too, and the rest of the English-speaking world (prompting an Australian Sky News anchor to wonder if “perhaps there is hope for Canada yet”). And two months later the clip was still making the rounds. Joe Rogan, possibly the world’s most popular podcaster (this is not a recommendation of his show), shared the clip with his tens of millions of listeners on a Dec. 7 episode. Christian apologist Tim Barnett highlighted the seven questions Poilievre posed as a “brilliant” example of “using good questions in tough conversations.” Poilievre went viral because he was effective and because he was confident in the face of an arrogant, unfair attack – asking the reporter to explain his insults dismantled them, and Poilievre’s casual apple-munching was the perfect optic. Barnett believes God’s children can be that effective and that confident in our own confrontations with a hostile world if we employ this same tactic. In attacking our God, the world is attacking the very Author of reason and reality, which leaves them open to the same sort of dismantling if only we are brave enough to ask them to explain themselves. And the apple? Well, that’s optional. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Trudeau’s ban on single-use plastic overturned

A Federal Court has ruled that the Liberals' decision to designate plastic as “toxic,” so they could ban single-use plastics, overstepped the federal government's authority. Since 2022, six types of single-use plastic have been banned, including bags, cutlery, and straws. Canadians have been slurping on soggy paper straws since, being told that this is for the good of the earth. Christians are called to be stewards of creation. But stewardship is connected to our God-given mandate to “have dominion over the earth” (Gen. 1:26) and is based on reality, not simply intentions. So, was the government’s plastics ban actually a good step forward for Canadians and the planet? As the Fraser Institute  explained in response to the court ruling, 99 percent of plastic waste in Canada is safely disposed. More striking, the federal government’s own analysis concluded that the ban will increase waste rather than decrease it: removing 1.5 million tonnes of plastic over a ten-year period while adding almost double the amount of other kinds of waste. Some of this other waste will be paper products, which break down more quickly than plastics, but these plastic substitutes will result in higher greenhouse gases and lower air quality. And the government’s plastic ban comes with a cost that goes beyond the inconvenience of carrying your groceries out the store in your arms and then proceeding to buy garbage bags rather than reuse the ones that used to carry our groceries. The $616 million in forecasted benefits over ten years are outweighed three to one by over $2 billion in additional costs from the new substitute products. In spite of the court ruling, the government may not be willing to change course. Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has said that the government is “strongly considering an appeal.”...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Will Canada start killing their mentally ill this March?

There are only a few more months until Bill C-7 could become law in Canada. This bill would allow doctors to euthanize some of Canada’s most vulnerable – those who are told they have an irremediable mental health condition. This past March 2023, the government tried to finalize this law, but by God’s grace, they were delayed a year. Bill C-7 would already be law today if it were not for so many Canadians who pushed back, wrote MPs, and made their voices heard. On November 24, 2023, I attended a meeting where Members of Parliament Dr. Leslyn Lewis, Ed Fast, Michael Cooper, Tako Van Popta, and Dr. Stephen Ellis spoke about doctor-assisted suicide, and the acceleration of our government’s agenda to create a culture of death. It was encouraging to hear this group of MPs passionate about a culture of life and empathy. MP Dr. Stephen Ellis was a long-practicing family physician before becoming an MP and he has been trying to stop euthanasia from gaining momentum. He stated some facts about euthanasia that he gleaned from his medical practice and research. 15,000 people per year are currently accessing euthanasia in Canada. Rates of doctor-assisted suicide are increasing by 30 per cent, annually. There is already a framework for a bill to suggest doctor-assisted suicide for those with opioid addictions. A Senate committee is also currently working on a framework for children to obtain euthanasia without parental consent. Health Canada is not keeping track of physicians’ non-compliance with safeguards. Thus, the public has no idea of the abuses taking place because there is no accountability for granting or coercing medically assisted deaths. Last March, Bill C-7 was delayed when many Canadians united to voice their anger. A letter was also produced by 17 chairs of psychiatry from Canadian medical schools urging the government to stop the bill. The government scrambled and produced Bill C-39 which created the one-year delay in offering suicide to the mentally ill. During that time, MP Ed Fast created a Private Member’s Bill, C-314, which stated that a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition for which a person could receive euthanasia. The supporters of Bill C-314 were able to persuade all NDP MPs and 8 Liberal MPs to vote in favor of this reversal of Bill C-7. Fifteen liberal MPs who agreed to support the bill changed their minds after Trudeau invited suicide activists into the House to convince his caucus. Still, Ed Fast’s Private Member’s Bill C-314 failed by only a very narrow margin in the House. And the battle is far from over. MP Ed Fast and MP Michael Cooper are on the special committee of medical experts, MPs, and Senate members whose job is to investigate the ethics of Bill C-7 and form a conclusion before the year allotted by Bill C-39 is over (March, 2024). The expert panel has concluded that it is impossible to determine whether a mental illness can cause an irreversible state of decline. No research has changed in the past year that would support Bill C-7. The government will very soon make their choice to either follow their expert panel’s advice or proceed while ignoring their advice. As Christians, we obviously do not agree with doctors murdering their patients, period. However, the inclusion of mental illness as a qualifier for doctor-assisted suicide makes this program just that much more damaging to our country. In the next few months, we have an opportunity to hold our government accountable for its decisions. We can pray for the MPs who are fighting Bill C-7, and we can again contact our MPs to voice our concern. We can also sign petitions to stop Bill C-7. According to this expert panel of MPs who spoke in November, all these actions really do make a difference....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Dec. 2, 2023

Minimum wage laws increase homelessness, new study finds Despite the best of intentions, minimum wage laws don't create wealth because they don't create jobs - they only outlaw low-paying ones. As economist Thomas Sowell noted, “Among the effects of a minimum wage law, when it is effective, is that many unskilled and inexperienced workers are priced out of a job, when employers do not find them worth what the law specifies.” The government's best of intentions pushes people into homelessness. The moral of the story? The need for humility. It is an arrogant government that thinks it knows best what everyone's labor is worth. This isn't a minor mistake either – when the government so mangles things that they hurt the people they are trying to help, that's not an "oopsy" but a travesty. They took on the role of omniscient hero, and because they couldn't possibly measure up, they've instead become the bumbling bully. The energy transition that isn't From 2004 to 2022, the world has spent $4.1 trillion on solar and wind energy efforts. But in that same time period, while wind and solar energy output grew by 32 exajoules (EJ), hydrocarbon (oil, gas, coal, etc.) consumption grew by 110 EJ – we're relying on hydrocarbons for energy even more than we used to. Climate conference hypocrisy is instructive The latest climate conference started this week, and it may set a new record for participation: tens of thousands will be jetting in and spewing CO2 on their way to and fro. Regardless of whether it is 70,000 or only the same 35,000 as last time, the hypocrisy is still enormous... and revealing. These are the same folks who make big of fossil fuels when it comes to your and my usage. Then they talk of climate change as an "existential crisis." And if it were a threat to our very existence, then we might all agree that governments would be justified in implementing painful, costly, and even draconian measures to counter it. Whatever it takes, because there is no Planet B! But 70,000 plane tickets? What's the CO2 count for that? Why doesn't that matter? If we're really at a crisis point, then wouldn't drastic measures be warranted at the highest levels too? Our leaders could show the way by implementing their own painful measures, holding their conference via teleconference. But no, we're not at that level of crisis yet. We're only at the level where ordinary citizens should tighten their belts to pay more for food and heating. But we're nowhere near where our elected leaders should have to sacrifice face time. Hypocrisy is aggravating, but more importantly it is instructive. Our leaders say there is a crisis, but their actions tell1 us otherwise, and actions do indeed speak louder than words (1 John 3:18, James 1:22, Titus 1:16, Luke 6:46). That's an important point to share, as Cardus notes, climate worry is one reason why women are having less children. Instagram addicted your teen because she's worth $270 to them "Meta designed its Facebook and Instagram products to keep young users on them for longer and repeatedly coming back, the attorneys general allege." So reports CNBC's Laura Feiner. It's worth noting, that the same could be said of any website, included ReformedPerspective.ca. Meta is, of course, way better at it, but that still wouldn't be a problem except that the content that Meta steers people to can exacerbate their problems. If, for example, you are spending too much time looking at the "beautiful people" – folks who have whole teams involved in their make-up and photography – then Meta will feed you more of it. And that can't help but shape self-perceptions, because we do become what we eat (John 6:51). So, this is another warning to parents to be actively involved in your children's smartphone and social media usage... and that might start with reassessing our own usage. We will be blamed for transgender crimes As more and more gender-confused youth start regretting the genital mutilation and chemical castration they have done to their bodies, the pro-mutilation side is going to have to find a way to dismiss and undermine their regrets – the transmutilation lobby will figure out how to gaslight the people they've damaged. And in this column, Jonathon Van Maren highlights the lie that is coming: that folks who regret the removal of their healthy body parts don't actually regret it; they just regret living in a trans-hating society that won't celebrate their new self. In other words, people, Christians among them, who won't pretend that you can transition, are to blame. Skaters glide across rate Alaska "ice window" This is just glorious - rare conditions up in Alaska set the scene for this unique opportunity to skate across a crystal clear lake. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion, RPTV

Pro-life legislation attempts in Canada

TRANSCRIPT Welcome to Reformed Perspective. I'm Alexander Ellison. Since the Morgentaler Decision in 1988 there has been no abortion law in Canada. The Supreme Court struck down the existing law, stating that it hindered equal access to abortion. However, it's essential to note that the Court's decision did not endorse the absence of federal legislation on abortion, or protection for pre-born children. In fact, it affirmed Parliament's right to create new legislation. In response to the Morgentaler Decision, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government attempted to draft a compromise abortion law in 1990. Despite efforts to balance pro-life and abortion advocate perspectives, Bill C-43, which permitted abortion only if a physician deemed it necessary for a woman's health, passed in the House of Commons, but was later defeated in the Senate. Since then, Member of Parliament Cathay Wagantall has championed change by introducing three private member's bills, each aimed at recognizing and upholding the inherent value of human life. Cathay Wagantall: So, I'm Cathay Wagantall and the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville which is a riding along the Manitoba border, a couple hours north of Regina, our capital. It's 42,000 square kilometers and it's rural and I've been a Member of Parliament for eight years now. The first was – we called it Cassie and Molly's Law – protecting pregnant women and their pre-born children. An individual named Jeff from Windsor had reached out. I think at one point in time he had become friends with folks at ARPA Canada. It was actually Mike Schouten who introduced me to the possibility of doing a bill in relation to what happened to Jeff when he lost his partner Cassie who was 7 months pregnant at the time. They weren't together anymore, but they were still in a very good relationship and had named Molly Molly and were ready to raise her together in their homes about a block apart. And was attacked in her home by someone who knew both of them and it was horrific. What Jeff didn't expect, and was thoroughly blown away, was that there was no recognition of Molly. So Cassie and Molly's Law was to protect pre-born children by basically bringing in a law that gave serious criminal charges for also either injuring or taking the life of a pre-born child. That bill used words like "pre-born child" which is in the Criminal Code but not in this context. And so it, of course, raised the angst of the House, well pretty well every other party, who are very very anti- pro-life legislation, and are very pro-abortion. So that's the direction that they wanted to take this bill, which they did. But I was very fortunate that my colleagues all supported it, except for two and one abstained for various reasons. But that being said, it did wake the House up to the fact that there was someone there who was willing to bring those issues to the floor. When I do trade shows or anything like that, I always have petitions. So I would have one on Firearms – I live in rural Saskatchewan – one on palliative care, and one on life issues. And I realized that although people want abortion to be available, they have this idea that it's already a law in Canada and it's minimal. So when I brought forward the next it was a sex-selection abortion bill, that basically should be illegal. And God is really good; He times things often to assist with what He's put you there to do, and at the same time a poll came out that made it clear that in Canada Canadians are not as divided on this issue, is what it said, as honestly, the media and politicians want you to think they are. What it did is it showed that the majority of Canadians want access to abortion, but as you dug deeper with their questions they totally want a law against sex selective abortion, late term abortion, they want more pregnancy counseling centers, not less, and they want doctors to have to share with their patient exactly what the dangers and and potential complications are of this type of surgery, which is not required in Canada. I mean, I've had my gallbladder out; I spent half a day at the hospital being told a number of things, and that does not happen in this case. So I brought it forward and people would come to sign my petitions and they'd go "I believe in access to abortion, I'm a nurse" or whatever, and I'd say "Oh, so you're okay with sex-selective abortion?" and they said "No." And then I explained the dynamics that are in Canada right now, where besides North Korea we're the only country without any laws. And they would sign my petition. So I realized that although was not going to pass in the House, and this is one of the challenges of this area, is that you have to win in different ways until it becomes something that can happen within our government, and because of the way the House is set up right now, the only political party that you can be a part of, that does not insist that you have to be pro-abortion is the Conservative Party. So you know you're not going to win a vote in the House. But it's important that we always keep these things in front of Canadians. I believe that as legislators we have a responsibility to respond to culture, but we are also responsible for shaping what our values are in Canada and this is part of that. So again, of course, the bill didn't pass and it was very vital if you ever want to go and listen to some of the speeches it's very clear that there's a lot of anger, and and an attempt to make those of us that are pro-life look like terrible people. Yeah, it's the House of Commons. But we made headway because across the country people woke up to realize that in Canada we we don't have these laws. As Wagantall mentions with the current political climate it's challenging to get parties with hard stances on abortion to side with pro-life bills. A policy analyst with ARPA who has worked on these pro-life bills explains why she says they take the incremental approach: Anna Nienhuis: Yeah, so we take an incremental approach just because of the legal reality in Canada. Right now there is no abortion law, so there is no legal protection for any pre-born children, and there's this polarized debate that kind of pits the pro-choice and pro-life side against each other, so we work to find common ground where Canadians can agree so that we can protect some pre-born children while we work for that cultural shift to be able to protect them all. This past spring Wagantall had the opportunity to introduce another private member's bill. Cathay Wagantall: I have to admit that after the third election I said, okay, Lord, I'd be okay if I didn't have another private member's bill, and He said no, nope, that's not how it's going to be, so I did get an opportunity again this last time around – number 62 or 63 – and I brought forward the violence against pregnant women act which is similar to Cassie and Molly's law but far more targeted. It didn't bring in any sentencing or anything like that but what it did is said that if an individual has committed this crime and that crime has been recognized by the courts and this person has been found guilty then the judge must consider that a child was also physically harmed or murdered as an aggravating factor and what that means is they absolutely must take that into account when they're sentencing and there's only about a handful of, circumstances where aggravating factors are required, but this is about violence against pregnant women and violence against women is a priority of this government and something that they want to champion that they're about. And, of course, I was able to indicate that well if that's the case then they definitely should be supporting this bill and again they took the same approach they always do, which is attack in the House of Commons. Then the Prime Minister, and a number of women Liberal Members of Parliament did a Twitter attack on me, and of course they tried to make it sound like this is all about abortion. Again, it's a hidden attempt, all that kind of thing. And it was amazing because, right across the country, people responded to that with their comments with saying here's the actual feedback on this bill – it's two sentences long and it's about women who want to have a child – and they really lit into them for taking advantage of this in the way that they did. Now, again, of course it didn't change the vote in the House unfortunately. They're representing – everyone else in the House of Commons is representing – about 16% of Canadians who are on the extreme perspective of abortion at any time for any reason. So it was exciting. It was exciting. Fortunately my leader was very supportive, as was our whole caucus. So we feel like a number of other issues around , and circumstances where this government is offside with Canadians because they're not out there representing the true perspectives, they have their own ideology and their own purposes, and their own attempts to use an issue as a wedge issue, that they're losing the ground to do that. Having a child is the most impressive thing that a human woman can do, is have those children. And there are many women who would love to have children that can't. And we need to, at the very least, continue to push for the fact that this is something on which women are being misled. They're being misled to think that they can't afford or they can't handle it. We're women; we can handle anything. And sometimes a bad choice is made, but that doesn't mean that you have a bad choice and you follow it up with another bad choice. So it's important to me that we celebrate life, and the beginning of that is we're knit together in our mothers' wombs (Ps. 139:13) and it's a spiritual experience and a privilege to be a mom and to have a child. Thanks for watching this week's episode. Please feel free to like this video and share it with family and friends. For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexander Ellison in Ottawa....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – Nov. 25, 2023

Refuting Mormonism – is there only one God? (9 min) It can be a bit confusing to nail down whether Mormons teach that we can become gods, and whether, consequently, there were gods before God. Official materials will seemingly deny it on the one hand, and on the other share how founder Joseph Smith taught his followers that God "was once as one of us," and how the fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow crafted this couplet: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." But as Jeff Durbin shows in this clip, that is not what the Bible teaches in Is. 43:10-11 and elsewhere. Turning cow poop into gas to run the tractors Some environmental sorts still see overpopulation as a threat to the planet. But God's people know He gave us a brain to problem-solve with, and two hands to put to work. So we can be creative like our Maker, and come up with intriguing energy-producing, pollution-reducing ideas like turning poop into fuel. Daddy has to work now... If your kids think work is the place that takes daddy from them, then they'll view it quite negatively. So how can we instill a biblical view of work in our kids? The insanity of denying free will To justify their rebellion against God, smart people can believe the craziest things... Potty humor from Old Testament times In 2 Kings 10:27 we read of Israel's King Jehu cleaning house by killing Baal's priests and tearing down his temple. But we get one more detail thrown in - the temple wasn't just destroyed, it was desecrated: "...people have used it for a latrine to this day." An archeological find shows that Judah's King Hezekiah may have done something similar, though more symbolically, one hundred years later. A "symbolic toilet" was found in a dig at Tel Lachish in what some archeologists believed to be a small shrine. They think the purpose was simply to desecrate the unknown false god's place of worship. Or as Newsweek's Kastalia Medrano put it: "Hezekiah's behavior basically stemmed from his belief that his ancestors hadn't worshipped piously enough by turning to other gods, a lapse he apparently intended to remedy by both literally and figuratively defecating on holy places set up to worship those gods." Does earth have methods to regulate climate? Here's an account of climate regulators that the climate models either haven't taken into account at all, or to the right extent. Billions of ways to die (2 min) The authors of Your Designed Body want us to understand while there are billions of ways to die, everything has to go just right for us to be alive. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
RPTV, Sexuality

RPTV: Jojo Ruba talking about Canada's Conversion Therapy Bill

 Welcome to Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexandra Ellison. Today we're here in the Canadian History Museum, reflecting on Canada's past. We're right now in front of the LGBTQ history section, and it's quite interesting to reflect on how things have changed. Today we're going to be talking about Bill C-4, which was first passed in 2021: the conversion therapy bill. I had a conversation with JoJo Ruba, a Christian apologist and communications director at Free to Care, reflecting on the history of the conversion therapy bill, and what this means for Christians, churches, and the general public. JoJo Ruba: Free to Care was a ministry that started about two years ago when conversion therapy legislation and bans were being put in place, particularly here in Alberta where I live; and these bans are so intrusive and badly written, that simple counseling by consenting adults is now criminal. And LGBTQ people no longer have access to that and Christians can no longer provide that support; so Free to Care now, as there's been legislation passed federally, is working to educate and equip churches and pastors and ordinary Christians to continue to support their LGBTQ-identified friends and family, and to continue to share the gospel even in this issue, believing full well that God can do wonderful things for people who are same-sex attracted, like myself. Alexandra Ellison: Yeah, and you know, going back to 2021, when Bill C-4 – the conversion therapy bill – was passed, could you kind of talk about that for people that maybe haven't heard much about it, or maybe just heard what they saw from the mainstream media? JoJo Ruba: Yeah, no, the mainstream media didn't cover much of it. It actually started with a man named Kris Wells out here in Alberta. Kristopher Wells : So today, in 2019, conversion therapy largely takes place underground; you won't be able to walk into a licensed counselor’s office and ask them to engage in this practice, because it would be deemed to be unethical and unprofessional. So we largely see conversion therapy happening underground in faith-based communities, which makes it harder to detect, but also more dangerous, the more underground a practice like this goes. JoJo Ruba: So the bylaws here in Alberta actually define conversion therapy as any practice, treatment, or service that offers even LGBTQ people simply to help reduce unwanted same-sex sexual behavior; not just attraction, behavior. So we called up about 25 counseling agencies, secular psychologists and psychiatrists, asked them for help with porn addiction. And all of them that did sexual addiction counseling said yes. But when we said it was gay porn addiction, suddenly they didn't want to help anymore. And two counseling agencies even said, we will let you get help, but you can't mention it's gay porn. So which is exactly the point we're making, right? This isn't a ban on torturing people, which is what the common mindset was, as with why the LGBTQ people were pushing this was because they had said, ‘Many of us have experienced torture, we were forced under, were tricked into getting counseling from these churches. And all they were trying to do is make us not gay.’ And so this narrative that homosexuality is this immutable identity was really at the heart of the debate, Alexandra, and the challenge was for us to actually speak to that mindset, to say as Christians, we actually don't believe sexuality should be your identity; we believe that we are much bigger, much better, more important than who we want to sleep with, or what kind of clothing we want to wear today. And we think God has designed us to find our identity in Christ, which means our priorities or choices are all about following how God designed us and not how we think about ourselves. And that we love people because we and they are made in God's image, not in our own image. That's the big mistake that this legislation is pushing. And so after the Calgary bylaw was passed, the same organizers, Kris Wells in particular, brought this to the federal level. So what happened was the Liberals called an election, the Bill had to be reintroduced as Bill C-4, it was called C-6 before – and Bill C-4, that's when they actually added that this also, this bill also applies to consenting adults. Before, consenting adults may have been challenged, but it wasn't specific, now it is specific that consenting adults, consenting Canadians can no longer access the counseling that they want if they're simply wanting to reduce same-sex sexual behavior. So we pointed out at this point, if you're providing marriage counseling, if your pastor is providing a marriage counseling – and of course marriage counseling means that you make a commitment to say, hey, we're not gonna be sleeping around with anyone other than our spouse, right? Of course, I mean, this is 2000 years of Christian teaching and the Jews before that, right? It's not a surprise, we teach that. Well, if that counseling includes, well, you can’t have sex with someone of your own sex, that's technically conversion therapy counseling now, and that's technically criminal, when by the way the results of that, the punishment, is five years in jail for offering that kind of counseling, and three years in jail for simply giving the phone number out of a pastor or Christian counselor, who would help you reduce your same-sex behavior.  That Bill went through, who because of the Conservatives and Liberals and the rest of the parties coming together said we're not going to debate it, even though it was radically changed by adding consenting adults. And we're going to pass it without any public inputs. Speaker of the House of Commons : Accordingly, all those opposed to the honourable Member moving the motion, will please say nay. Agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carries. JoJo Ruba: All they needed was one MP to say no, we're not going to let that happen; we need it to go through a democratic process. No MP from the Conservative Party; to vote against that, all we needed was one. And so it became law, the end of 2021, beginning of 2022. But here's the problem. The Liberals actually passed legislation that said, the Justice Department has to provide legal analysis for any new criminal legislation that would change the Criminal Code. Well, that analysis never came out until the day this Bill got royal assent and became law. So there's no way the Members of Parliament would have read that legal analysis. And particularly that legal analysis said exactly the same thing we were saying during committee stage: what you're doing is potentially violating the Charter rights of consenting adults to have the conversations that they want to have. And this Kris Wells guy actually compares people like myself, who’s a consenting adult, to drunk drivers who are incapable of making decisions. He actually did a CBC video saying that. So this is the kind of mindset that we're dealing with. And Alexandra, just to summarize all of this, it's been a year and a half now, almost two years since the Bill was passed. And not one person has been charged under this law. But what's interesting is during the time of this debate, the people who were pushing for this law said thousands of gay kids were being tortured in church basements as we speak. That's the kind of language they were using, ‘thousands.’ Well, if that's the case, then we should have had at least one person being, you know, rescued from these awful Christians, torturing them in the church basements. But again, torture and kidnapping are already criminal beyond this law. So that hasn't happened. And in fact, the first conversion therapy events in Vancouver and in Ontario for kids already were passed around 2015. So none of these laws or bylaws, both provincially and municipally, and federally, have had any one person convicted, or charged. So that tells me there's something else going on here in terms of legislation. And what we think it is and we've seen this sadly happen is it actually creates a chill effect among churches and pastors – so that churches are themselves self-censoring. One large church here had their pastor actually tell someone, that if someone, even a member of his own congregation, came to him asking for help dealing with same-sex attraction, he would refuse to help them. And that's the kind of stuff we're sadly seeing, because Christians are not understanding the ramifications of this. If the government can dictate what we believe, and how we practice our beliefs, even within our own members, in terms of how we teach the Bible, what the Bible teaches on sexuality, on this issue – they can do that on any issue. And the secular government coming into the churches, saying we will police you if you start praying for gay people and to help them not act the way they don't want to act themselves as consenting adults. That has to be something we understand is the most egregious religious freedom violation – in fact, human rights violation that is the case right now in Canada, I would argue. Alexandra Ellison: Yeah, well, I think it's great. Just, you know, thank you for taking the time to go over the history and what has happened. Kind of reflecting on that, as Christians, especially, you know, a large audience who's watching us are Christians, how should we react to this and is there anything that we can do to fight against legislation like this, even though it has already been passed? JoJo Ruba: Well, any legislation that's passed, of course, is always subject to the will of the democracy. So, as Augustine, I think it was, I think it was one of the one of the Catholic MPs actually told me, culture is always affecting politics. In fact, politics is downstream to culture. Which means if we want to change the law, we want to change the culture first. And part of the conversations that the church has to have is on sexuality and gender identity, being able to give a positive, life-affirming, real-person discussion, where we focus on God's truth and love for humanity. And the fact that because He loves us, He gives us rules on how we ought to behave. Right. So that's part of the conversation training I provided for you. I’m writing a book on that actually, hopefully, you guys here, your audience, I'd love to hear your prayers for this. And if you want to order one next year, hopefully, it'll be done by this time next year. We would love to share that with you. But it's about redeeming conversations. So that's part of the title, where we want to redeem the opportunity, so to have conversations with people. One of the saddest things, Alexandra, that I saw was the Members of Parliament debating the issue during question period during the debate on the Bill. And you could just see how ignorant so many of these Members of Parliament are not just of the Bill itself, but of Christians in general. So there were several Bloc Québécois MPs, for example, en français, who said we need to re-educate these ignorant, small minority groups of people who are torturing kids, basically, with Bibles. They often reference movies where kids were tortured with Bibles. When I went through my counseling that never happened, the person read the Bible with me, we prayed together. And he helped me understand that sexual attractions are things that I have, it's not things that we are unless we want to make them that way. And I've never acted on or identified as gay, because that's not what I am. And I think it's important to give that kind of messaging to the culture around us, especially to young people. But there's gonna be many times where we will find ourselves sexually attracted to or sexually confused in all kinds of ways. That's okay. But that's part of a fallen world. The challenge is, what do you do with that? What do you do with those attraction? What do you do with those feelings? Do you take the time to submit them to God and trust that God's design is good? Or do you act out and follow what the culture says you ought to become or do or be, right? So the first step is really we need to get our house in order if we as churches want to deal with this issue publicly. And with this law, we want to make sure our Christian community is actually solid on this issue. And sadly, there are Christian denominations, including Reformed denominations, that have gone completely off their rocker on this issue. As we reflect on the two years since the passage of Bill C-4, it's essential for Christians to stand firm in their faith and continue to reflect biblical sexuality, even if that means going against what the world has to say. If you enjoyed this video, make sure to give it a thumbs up and share it with family and friends. For Reformed Perspective, I'm Alexandra Ellison in Ottawa....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Fashion for a reason: RP’s t-shirt contest!

Some years ago, a Lisa Klassen took the idea of wearing clothes to God’s glory to a new level. When she was an ardent 16-year-old, she was suspended from school for wearing a sweatshirt which read, “ABORTION IS MEAN.” On the back the shirt read: “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation.” At a school where fellow students walked around wearing shirts promoting sex, alcohol and nihilistic rock bands, only Klassen’s shirt was deemed offensive. Her actions, and subsequent suspension prompted almost 50 other students to wear similar shirts. Her bold, brazen fashion statement got the whole school in an uproar. What a gutsy gal! RP wants to challenge our readers to create their own t-shirt designs, with slogans and designs that give God the glory. That can be through apologetic efforts that speak His truth about the unborn, or gender, or marriage, or whatever! Or it can be gorgeous pictures that celebrate His beauty. Or maybe it can be a combination thereof. If you're looking for some inspiration be sure to check out all sorts of RP t-shirt articles here. Categories: Children and youth (under 18) Adults (18+) Rules: Maximum 3 entries per person Must be an original design by you Please include a line to explain why and maybe how you created your design (max. 100 words) Provide permission to RP to publish your design online and/or in print if selected Include the name of the designer, and for the under 18 entries, the designer’s age. All submissions should be a high resolution jpg image (300 dpi, and at least 5 by 4 inches) Prizes: Winner and runner-up for both categories will be printed in Reformed Perspective Winner of each category will receive a $100 gift certificate to ChristianBooks.com; runner-up will receive a $75 gift certificate. Deadline: Send your designs (high-resolution) to [email protected] before Feb 29, 2024 ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Sexuality

Make it up as you go: Alfred Kinsey’s sex research

“Research” that opposes God’s law will be exposed…. eventually ***** When an immoral agenda is being advocated on the basis of “scientific” evidence, there is good reason to be suspicious. Science has a certain aura to it in Western societies, so promoting a particular view as being the “scientific” one is a clever strategy. However, sometimes the scientific veneer is just a Trojan Horse. This has been the case with some of the most influential social science of the twentieth century. Perhaps more than any other single individual, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana University could be blamed (or credited) with the breakdown of traditional morality in the USA and other major English-speaking countries. Kinsey was a pioneer “sex researcher” who published two ground-breaking studies, one on male sexual behavior (1948) and the other on female sexual behavior (1953), which rocked the Western world and led to the liberalization of laws regulating sexual conduct in the USA and other countries. That’s a notable accomplishment for one man. During much of the twentieth century science was seen as providing the answers to many of humanity’s problems, so any perspective couched in the language of science received instant respect and credibility. Kinsey was able to take advantage of this prevailing attitude to push his own personal political agenda of sexual freedom. He correctly figured that scientific data “proving” that most people were secretly promiscuous in one way or another would provide a powerful impetus to overthrow traditional conservative views. Kinsey thus conducted his “research” in such a way that it would produce the results he wanted. Judith Reisman unmasks Kinsey Beginning in the 1980s another American researcher, Dr. Judith Reisman, began uncovering the real truth behind Kinsey’s work. She discovered the deliberately fraudulent basis of Kinsey’s influential studies and began to actively alert people to the fact that many changes in American law and culture had been initiated on the basis of this fraud. Dr. Reisman’s work is very important but she is yet to receive the attention and credit that she is due for her efforts. This work  has been summarized in a small book – just 84 pages – by Susan Brinkmann, called The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose on the Most Influential “Scientist” of Our Time. There are many reasons to be outraged over Kinsey’s research, but we will touch on just two of them here. 1) He skewed his data Social science research often involves surveys of the general public. A large group of people is given a set of particular questions, then the answers to those questions are compiled and the survey results are considered to be empirical evidence regarding the issue being studied. Presumably the group of people surveyed is representative of the wider population. With this in mind it’s not too difficult for an unethical researcher to produce research that will give him the specific results he wants. If he knows beforehand that certain people are likely to give him particular answers to his questions, he can target those people for his survey so that he deliberately gets a larger proportion of them in his survey sample. Thus the results of his “scientific” study will be heavily weighted in favor of the results he wants. This is basically what Kinsey did. Kinsey’s research was based on survey data which he claimed represented the American population. But it did not represent the American population, and he knew it. His data included a disproportionately large percentage of people who engaged in sexually immoral behavior. "In an outrageous example, Kinsey classified 1,400 criminals and sex offenders as 'normal' on the grounds that such miscreants were essentially the same as other men – except that these had gotten caught." So the information about sexual behavior provided by these 1,400 degenerate men was considered to represent the sexual behavior of average American males. When it’s understood how Kinsey undertook much of his research, it’s not surprising that according to his, "skewed data, 95 per cent of the American male population regularly indulged in deviant sexual activities such as extra-marital affairs, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.” 2) He relied on rapists’ “data” More outrageous, however, is the way Kinsey obtained data about children’s sexual behavior. In short, children were sexually abused and the abusers would then provide information to Kinsey. One of the chief sources of information about children “was later discovered to be Rex King, the serial child rapist responsible for the rapes of more than 800 children.” Kinsey in Canada Reisman’s research focuses primarily on the USA where Kinsey worked and had the most obvious impact. However, Kinsey’s influence spread throughout the English-speaking world. Here in Canada, Kinsey’s studies have been used to justify cultural and legal changes as well. In 1969 Canada’s law was changed to legalize homosexuality. In the debates over this change, Kinsey was cited as an authority. For example, in the House of Commons on January 23, 1969, one MP read from an article stating that, “Homosexuality is now known to be much more widespread than was thought in the past, as the researches of Dr. Kinsey and others have shown.” He goes on to say that, Dr. Kinsey concluded “that 37 per cent of the male population of the United States had had some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age.” This MP then refers to Kinsey further. One of the documents cited most commonly in favor of legalizing homosexuality in Canada was the Wolfenden Report. This report was an official document produced in the 1950s for the British government recommending liberalization of laws relating to prostitution and homosexuality. In England, the recommendations on prostitution were implemented in 1959 and the recommendations for homosexuality were implemented in 1967. The Wolfenden Report was widely seen as very authoritative and it was unquestionably influential in the changes made to Canada’s law on homosexuality. In the House of Commons on January 24, 1969, one Liberal MP pointed out that the government’s proposals for legalizing homosexuality were based on the “recommendations of the Wolfenden committee.” He goes on to point out that the government’s perspective is “very close to the philosophy of the Wolfenden Report.” Throughout the Parliamentary debate, the Wolfenden Report is cited over and over again. Why is this relevant? Because Alfred Kinsey’s “research” on homosexuality was a source for the Wolfenden Report itself. The committee that produced the Wolfenden Report considered Kinsey to be an authority on homosexuality and freely referred to his work. In this respect, Kinsey indirectly influenced the change in Canadian law through his impact on the Wolfenden Report. In 1982 Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the federal and provincial governments were given three years to bring their laws into conformity to the Charter’s provisions on equality rights before they came into effect. A Parliamentary committee on equality rights traveled the country in 1985 to get citizen feedback on how the Charter’s equality provisions should be interpreted. Numerous homosexual activists made presentations to this committee advocating their perspective. It was common during these presentations for the activists to refer to Kinsey’s research as a justification for homosexual rights. For example, during a presentation to the committee in Vancouver on May 27, 1985, an activist claimed, “Approximately 10% of the population in Canada is gay.” Subsequently, MP Svend Robinson asked the presenter, “You made reference to 10%. I assume this is based on the studies by Kinsey and a number of others.” The activist replied, “That was the Kinsey Report, the 1948 studies, yes.” Another activist testified before the committee in Winnipeg on May 30, 1985, stating that "Our individual and collective experience has provided us with every reason to think that the statistics deduced by the Kinsey Institute in the 1940s were correct: that about 10% of the population is homosexual." On that same day another activist said, “Statistically, the invisible homosexual minority makes up approximately 10% of the population of this country.” And in yet another presentation, a United Church minister remarked, “We point out that about 10% of the population, according to sociological figures, are of homosexual orientation.” The point here is that Kinsey’s studies were viewed as pertinent and relevant to the advancement of homosexual rights here in Canada. His data provided an apparent scientific authority for arguments in favor of homosexual rights. But Kinsey had deliberately skewed his research to get the kind of figures that would support the changes in law and culture that he desired. Kinsey: the movie Some liberals have been concerned about the erosion of Kinsey’s credibility that has resulted from Reisman’s efforts. A Hollywood movie (appropriately entitled Kinsey) was made in 2004 to bolster Kinsey’s reputation. It starred Liam Neeson as Kinsey himself. You won’t learn about his fraud in this movie, though. Brinkmann writes that this movie “presents the life and work of Alfred C. Kinsey in the most glowing terms. Instead of presenting the facts, it glorifies him as a persecuted hero who found himself trapped in a world of sexual repression.” Conclusion Brinkmann notes in the conclusion of her book that the “legacy of Alfred C. Kinsey’s twisted life and work can be read daily in the ever-worsening moral condition of our country.” Of course, Kinsey alone cannot be blamed for the moral decline of the Western countries, but he certainly deserves more blame than just about anybody else. Kinsey is still widely recognized as an authority on sexual behavior despite the fact that the truth has begun to come out – his research is not reliable. This provides good grounds to be suspicious of “studies” promoting various aspects of modern sexual promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. When viewed carefully, many studies purporting to support various trendy views will be found to be faulty. Most researchers aren’t unethical like Kinsey. But all researchers (whether left-wing or right-wing) are influenced by their worldview – their studies will likely confirm their preconceived views. Social science is not like physical science where you can get precise measurements that are repeatable, giving exactly the same results every time. Social science is much more subjective than that. In other words, the rule “don’t believe everything you read” should be doubly applicable whenever the media reports a new study allegedly demonstrating that monogamy among human beings is unnatural, or that homosexual couples are better parents than heterosexuals, and other such things. Sure, that’s what the study concluded. But you have good grounds for being skeptical about the study itself. These kinds of studies have been flawed or “fixed” before, so the rational response is skepticism. This was first published in the March 2015 issue....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33