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

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Pornography

How to lock your phone from pornography… 101

A taste of Into the Light Ministries’ TechSafe series

*****

Always lock the doors.” As a boy, this teaching served me well. We lived in a place with frequent break-ins, so the danger was real and present. We only had four doors in our home so “Always lock the doors” was an easy command to follow. Teaching us this was part of what my parents did to protect our home. And protecting the home front is what loving parents do, right?

But in 2025, there are new kinds of dangers. The most dangerous doorway into your house is no longer through your front entrance – it’s in your pocket. It is in our children’s pockets and hands. And there are often hundreds of doorways to pornography on your phone. It takes time and energy to find, monitor, and lock all of these.

I’m here to help. In this article, I will show you how to lock down your phones, protect yourself and your children, and live with a phone to the glory of God. Here are eight key steps that will make your devices far safer.

Step 1: Learn the phone

Think about how often you use your phone. Have you ever asked what a phone is? Have you ever asked how information gets to your phone?

Simply put, a smartphone is an information machine. Any time you use your phone to watch a video, listen to music, or read an article you are receiving video and audio information. But information can come into a phone through Wi-Fi, data, Bluetooth, the phone's camera, and other means. Each one of these represents a unique doorway into your device and, therefore, your home. And since smartphones can fit in your pocket, they are designed to be personal and private. Statistics show that most pornography is accessed on a smartphone.

What does this mean? You need to get to know your device. You do not need to be a tech wizard, but you do need to be generally familiar with it.

Step 2: Control Wi-Fi

The main way information enters the phone is through Wi-Fi. Every app on your phone uses Wi-Fi to access the internet to obtain whatever information it needs, whether that's Spotify to stream music or Google to find a new recipe.

We sometimes think of the internet as something that is in our home, but it’s not. The internet is way out in the wide world. We access the internet through our internet service providers (ISP), and we connect to the internet providers through Wi-Fi. How does that Wi-Fi get to our devices? A router.

A router makes Wi-Fi so that all your devices can connect to the internet. Without a router, your Wi-Fi could not travel from the wire in the wall, through the air, and into your phone. Your wireless devices couldn’t connect to the World Wide Web. The router creates a Wi-Fi signal and carries the internet service through the Wi-Fi signal to every part of your house so that all your devices can connect to the internet.

This access to the internet can be used for good, such as searching for a new recipe or for a used car on Facebook marketplace. It can also be used for evil, such as searching for pornography. Normal routers carry all of this information to your phone indiscriminately of what is good and what is evil.

A smart router, on the other hand, will monitor, filter, and (if necessary) block this content before it even sends it out over the Wi-Fi. This smart router will let that recipe reach any device that searches for it, but it might block Facebook for some of the younger teens' phones while allowing it for the parents’ phones. Best of all, it will block pornography for all devices, entirely. So your second step to locking doors on your phone is to buy a smart router like Bark or Gryphon to have powerful router-level monitoring, blocking and filtering tools.

If you want more information on routers, we have an entire video on this in the TechSafe router series.

Step 3: Install Covenant Eyes

Wi-Fi-level router monitoring systems are amazing, but they only work while on Wi-Fi. When a phone is not in your home or not on your Wi-Fi network, these smart routers can’t filter anything for you. This is why an accountability system that stays on the device at all times is essential. So step three is to install accountability software to monitor, filter, and block content on the smartphone device.

We recommend you install Covenant Eyes. This accountability software helps you keep your kids or yourself accountable to what is viewed online. It even sends reports to any ally of choice. Covenant Eyes enables you to block specific websites or apps that you don’t want your child browsing on, ranging from explicit websites to even benign websites that may waste time.

To learn how to set up and install Covenant Eyes on your phone, go to CovenantEyes.com, and they will walk you through the entire process. You can try it out and get your first month free by using the code: INTOTHELIGHT.

Step 4: Assess apps

In steps one through three, you have increased your security for the whole house, but there are many doors still left open on individual devices. The most common danger points show up in a phone's apps.

Apps are just roads to get you to the information you want to view, receive, or send. While some apps can be monitored by accountability software, some cannot. An app with open access to the internet that is not monitored, filtered, or blocked is simply too risky to leave unattended.

It is vital to go through all the apps on the phone and delete any that are unnecessary or could be a road to access explicit content. If you see apps that you or your child don’t need, then delete them! There are also app categories like social media, dating, or streaming services that are very dangerous to have on a device. Unless you or your child have demonstrated significant levels of self-control, these apps should not be on the phone. They often provide direct access to explicit material through their internal browsers.

Other app types like gaming or messaging can be dangerous for other reasons, like getting sent inappropriate pictures, being groomed by a predator, or seeing sexually provocative ads after a game. This is why every app must be assessed and reviewed before leaving it on your or your child's device. It will take some serious time to work through each app, testing links, looking for chat boxes, watching for ads, and assessing any other potential danger points, but it is worth it!

Step 5: Set up parental controls

Finally, step five is to set up parental controls. Many apps and phones have parental controls built into the phone – these are good and powerful tools. See our video on video smartphones to learn more about these parental controls and to find links to the websites of the specific devices you use.

What do parental controls do? Why are they helpful in protecting yourself and your home?

They keep you from losing all the work you did in step four. Without parental controls on the device level, locking down the app store or play store, the deleted apps can just be redownloaded!

Most phones have parental or screen time controls built in that allow you to disable the app store with a password that only you know. You can also set time limits for games or communication apps, set age-level content restrictions, block in-app purchases, and set device-specific downtime. For example, if you don't think that your children should be on their devices past 10:00 pm, you can set that up through parental controls on their devices.

Many of these parental controls can be found in the settings portion of the phone itself, or have their own accompanying app that can go on your phone, so you can monitor, block, and filter your child's phone from afar. Remember, these parental controls are not designed for tech wizards, they are made for you.

Step 6: Consider other devices

If you’ve not guessed it already, smartphones are complex and very difficult to lock down. They are very powerful devices, which make them powerful to accomplish good… but also evil. Because of this, you might want to question whether or not you or your child needs a smartphone. Step six, consider “dumbphones” and “child phones.”

On the outside, dumbphones look very similar to smartphones, but their operating system is hyper-minimalistic. They have black and white screens and only a handful of features like calling, text, GPS, and a few other basic functions. That's it.

Many adults love dumbphones because they are distraction-free. But because they are so limited, they are also a safe option for your child’s first phone. It's literally impossible to surf the internet on a dumbphone, unlike some old-school flip phones. We recommend looking at the LITE Phone and the WISE Phone. A quick Google search will bring you to their website, and you can also get a small discount on your order when you use the code: INTOTHELIGHT.

If the temptation to pornography or to doomscroll Instagram is an active struggle in your life, then you should consider a dumbphone or child phone.

Step 7: Change rhythms and rules

While all of these “tech” solutions are essential to making a smartphone safe to use, they are only one-half of the conversation. You need to think through household rhythms and rules that will bolster your ability to keep an eye on things and protect yourself. If your children want a particular app, allow them to make a case for it, and then evaluate together the dangers and benefits of the app.

Here is a list of ideas to get your brain working on the patterns you might want to put in place for your home. While this list isn’t comprehensive, it is a good place to start.

  1. No phones in the bedroom: personal devices need to be used in a common area in the house.
  2. Device curfew: All devices in the home get turned off at nine or ten at night. You can also have all devices charging in the kitchen overnight, even friends' devices.
  3. All apps, software, and media need to be approved by you, the parent, or your spouse before being downloaded or watched.
  4. You, not your children, own the devices in the home, and you have the authority to check on those devices as needed. Let your children know that you might look at their apps or search history from time to time.
  5. If there is a particular way you want your children to act with their smartphone, make sure you model that yourself.
  6. If you have children, invite your older children into the conversation. These ideas should just be a start to get your mind thinking.

Ultimately you know what's best for your home. Spend some time in prayer asking the Lord for wisdom as you set up rules for your house. If you are married, make sure you do this with your spouse.

Step 8: Rinse and repeat because it’s worth it

Step eight is to rinse and repeat. Imagine if you only locked your house’s doors one day in the year. You might say to yourself, “Alright, everything is safe and locked up!” Of course, this does not account for the other 364 days of the year or the regular unlocking that happens over time. The same is true for smartphones. This “how to” is not a one-time, fix-all solution. Rather, it’s a roadmap to a lifestyle change. And thankfully, God addresses the very work you’re doing here.

In Matthew 5, Jesus teaches us how to handle these temptations to sin – radical danger calls for radical measures. He says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” Of course, Jesus does not want you to literally tear your eyes out. Rather, He wants you to take the necessary steps to protect yourself from sin. Where temptation is present, radical measures are necessary. In fact, the way Jesus describes the dangerous result of indulging in sin – which is the eternal judgment of God – makes radical measures appear normal, even necessary. In fact, to Jesus losing an eye is nominal compared to losing your whole body. If you are tempted to sin with your phone, Jesus is calling you to tear out your right eye by locking down the doorways to sin on your phone.

Be encouraged, Jesus never calls His people to do something without providing the grace to do it.

Conclusion

Whew. That’s a lot. We understand how overwhelming this can be, but be encouraged – the fact that you are reading this article shows that you have the desire to make changes and protect your family.

May God bless your efforts to secure your home, raise children of integrity, and glorify Him supremely.

Where can I get more help?

This article is a taste of what we’re doing at TechSafe, a tutorial series for protecting every device in your home. The help doesn’t stop with just your phone; we’ve also tackled your computer, tablets, Smart TVs, gaming consoles, routers, VR headsets and more. And we have a separate tutorial for each one.

So now you don’t have to be a tech wizard to protect your home! Whether you are a parent wanting to safeguard your family, a struggler seeking to cut off access, or a pastor looking to equip your church, this series is for you. These tutorials will equip you to safely live with and enjoy your technology to the glory of God.

Let us walk you through this complicated process on our website, where we will provide everything you need to know about every device that you own. It’s all at IntoTheLightMinistries.ca/TechSafe – we will ask you for your name and email, but that’s it. It’s all free.



News

Saturday Selections – April 26, 2025

Christianity & global warming (10 min)

Some Christians think global warming is a scientific, and not a theological, question. To that, Jeff Durbin replies:

"I'll approach it as an atheist...As an atheist with an atheist worldview that believes that all of us are cosmic accidents and that our ancestors were bacteria and then into fish and then to African apes into where we are now, I have a question: Why should humans care? Right? Not a theological question? Really?"

Your phone habits aren't just about you

"The worst thing about collective action problems is that even those who are most resolute in opposing the trend have no choice but to either join it or suffer its effects anyway: if I decide to stubbornly hold out as the one person in the room not bending over my phone, I’ll only have the pleasure of looking at the tops of everyone else’s heads."

Ontario's top court rules against a COVID-era gatherings ban

"This is the first major court ruling that found COVID-era restrictions on gatherings unconstitutional..."

Coming away cold

"'The reason we come away so cold from reading the Word is, because we do not warm ourselves at the fire of meditation.' We must slowly ponder it, we must diligently apply ourselves to it, we must let ourselves meditate upon it until we have grown not only in information but in wisdom."

The Golden Rule's 3 impacts on a business's bottom line

So many employees hate their jobs. Changing that might be hard but it isn't complicated: follow the Golden Rule.

Taking down the arguments for tariffs (15 min)

Trudeau, Carney, and Poilievre have all agreed to impose tariffs on the US in response to Donald Trump's tariffs. So what's the other side (Prov. 18:17) you aren't hearing? As British economist Daniel Hannan notes, "Just because somebody else is shooting himself in the foot, the worst possible response is to take aim and blow off a couple of your own toes in order to show them."

He notes free trade, rather than tariffs, always makes countries richer. So why isn't free trade more popular? While Hannan says free trade is unpopular, he doesn't go too deep into why. One reason might be because it runs up against our sinful instincts. Those in power seem incapable of, or too arrogant to, consider a problem might be made worse via their active intervention. And citizens facing difficulties likely wouldn't accept their government doing nothing – tariffs might not make economic sense, but hitting back makes great political sense in the midst of an election. In the secular world, government is a God-substitute, and the world wants their god to act.


Today's Devotional

April 27 - It’s on his head

‘All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.” - Psalm 22:27-28 

Scripture reading: Psalm 22:22-26

It is all coming to a head. However, in complete contrast to earlier in this psalm when it all came upon >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

The Keys of the Kingdom: The Heidelberg Catechism

Serving #825 of Manna, prepared by Jake Torenvliet, is called "The Keys of the Kingdom" (The Heidelberg Catechism).















Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – July 13, 2024

Click on the titles below for the linked articles... One thing Trump and Biden agree on: tariffs Both Trump and Biden want to protect American producers by imposing tariffs (i.e., fines) on foreign goods. Their approach would make those foreign goods more expensive for Americans. If the fine is high enough, it will also make American-made versions of those same goods look comparatively attractive.... which is then supposed to save some American jobs. While tariffs do save some local jobs, they can do so only at the expense of other local jobs. Any American company that uses a tariffed good to make their own products, will have to pay these inflated prices, which in turn will make their own products more expensive... and less competitive in the international marketplace. Thus the tariff will cost them jobs. Tariffs also help some local producers by hurting local consumers, who have to pay more now. The overall impact of tariffs, then, is to help some domestic producers... but only at the expense of other domestic producers and domestic consumers overall. That leaves us with the question: why should the government be picking winners and losers, giving advantages to some citizens at the expense of others? How the US Republicans became pro-choice This is a US article but with real relevance to Canadian voters for its explanation of "median voter theorem." As Joe Carter outlines, it is only when a block of principled voters are willing to abandon a party that they gain influence over that party. If all their voters will always vote for the slightly lesser of two evils, then that is what their party will give them. The party only takes more extreme positions to appeal to voters who won't otherwise vote for them. Southern Baptists take on IVF Last month, the US's biggest protestant denomination passed a resolution on IVF. As Albert Mohler shares: "Far too many Christians say they believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life at every stage, from fertilization to natural death, but when the issue turns to the massive ethical issues related to IVF, many evangelicals, including far too many Southern Baptists, have refused to connect the dots." Jack Phillips still won't bake the cake After 12 years of legal battles and a Supreme Court victory, a Colorado baker is being dragged to court yet again for the same supposed crime – he will not decorate cakes to celebrate depravity. John Stonestreet explains that Baker Jack Phillips won't live by lies – it would be easier to bake the cake, but he will not call good what God calls evil. So, Phillips is working out his theology of getting fired. Forget grocery store boycotts - to lower food prices end supply management instead "...regulation that restricts supply and controls imports... shields Canadian producers of milk, eggs and poultry from competition, allowing them to maintain higher prices for their products than would otherwise exist in a competitive market.... due to supply management the average Canadian household pays an estimated extra $300 to $444 annually for groceries." Don't fall for projection Projecting is a particular form of hypocrisy in which you accuse others of the sin you are guilty of. A recent example is Kamala Harris accusing Donald Trump of planning to use lawfare on his opponents. Paul has an answer to the vice president in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." A recent, particularly blatant, instances of projection happens is this commercial below from Australia's Victoria State government below – they accuse a smaller woman of making a big guy in a dress feel "unsafe." The Left uses projection as a weapon to deflect, much like when one of your kids is called to account and wants to talk about what their sibling, neighbor, classmate, or even you did, rather than facing accountability for what they've done. Projection works on the soft-hearted, so it's a particularly effective tool against Christians. But there is a time and place to acknowledge your own sins, and a time when it isn't about you. When the prophets confronted God's people, they didn't do so as perfect representatives of God. Sinful though they were, they brought His Truth. So, if a homosexual accuses you of being unloving – if they are screaming it in your face, OR TYPING IT IN ALL CAPS – then now is not the time to acknowledge how you could have said things better, parsed your words more carefully or expressed the grace of God more clearly. Think like a parent, and realize that if you let their projection deflect you from expressing the truth they need to hear, you aren't doing them any good. ...





Red heart icon with + sign.
Human Rights, Parenting, Politics

How mom and dad can fight Big Brother

Governments in BC, Alberta and elsewhere have shown they want to use government schools to teach children that their gender is something they can choose. But gender isn’t a choice, and to teach impressionable children otherwise is to mislead them. Still, despite many parental objections, governments continue to move forward with these plans. It's important we understand, then, that this isn’t the first time a government has tried to override parental rights in education. Politicians and bureaucrats in various jurisdictions seem to be regularly devising new ways to thwart the freedom of parents to direct the education of their children. These government have the backing of intellectuals who produce academic materials arguing that parental rights in education need to be severely curtailed or even abolished. These intellectuals aim to persuade lawyers and judges that parental rights are unnecessary and no longer need to be recognized in law. Thankfully, not all intellectuals think that way. In recent years, a law professor named Stephen Gilles at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut has written a number of scholarly articles defending parental rights in education over against statist arguments. “Statist” here refers to the belief in the supremacy of the government – the State – over individual and family freedom. Arguments and counter arguments One of Professor Gilles’ most famous scholarly articles is entitled “Hey, Christians, Leave Your Kids Alone!” which was published in the Spring 1999 issue of Constitutional Commentary, an American law journal. In it he took on the Statist arguments of another law professor, James Dwyer, that Dwyer proposed in his Religious Schools v. Children's Rights. ATTACK #1: Parents harm their children What Dwyer argued was that religious education is harmful and damaging to children and therefore the government needs to protect children from the harm their parents will impose on them through a religious education. In short, Dwyer sees parental rights as an obstacle that must be eliminated to ensure the wellbeing of children. This differs only in degree, but not in kind, with what provincial governments have sought to do via their school systems. In BC the school curriculum was rewritten to promote homosexuality and parents were limited as to whether they could opt their children out of these classes. In Alberta and Manitoba the government wants to use the schools to promote transgenderism, over against our objections. And in Quebec the government wants schools to teach the equal validity of many religions, which is the very opposite of what we as parents want to teach our children. Our secular governments thinks they knows best. ANSWER: No, Parents know their children best But if our governments think like Dwyer, we have a friend in Professor Gilles. He completely rejects Dwyer’s statist perspective and demonstrates that following Dwyer’s proposals would, in fact, be positively harmful to children. Why? Because parents have a much better grasp of what their children need than government officials, so transferring decision-making power to those government officials would undermine the children’s well-being. ATTACK #2: Government knows best Dwyer’s statist thinking gives us a glimpse of where our government may be heading in the future. Dwyer provides a theoretical foundation for the use of government coercion against conservative Christians, an idea that is popular among some left-wing intellectuals. As Gilles explains, …many law professors see religious traditionalists – especially Christian Fundamentalists – as extremists whose beliefs and practices are irrational, without value, and positively dangerous to themselves and others. The dispositions these opinions induce are not limited to preventing religious traditionalists from gaining government power; they also include using government power to counter and undermine religious traditionalism as a movement. ANSWER: Parents know best In contrast Gilles wants to promote what he calls “parentalism,” which maximizes parental rights. This view has not just the Bible but history behind it. In the past, in the Anglo-American countries (of which Canada is one), it has always been assumed that parents act in the best interests of their children. Gilles calls this the “parentalist presumption” which he summarizes as follows: the state may not override a parental decision unless it overcomes the presumption and demonstrates that the parents' choice is in fact harmful to the child. ATTACK #3: Some parents are lousy Naturally, then, the next question is to determine what constitutes “harm” such that the parentalist presumption can be overcome. Gilles answers this way: If parents starve or brutalize their child, or prevent the child from acquiring foundational skills such as reading, writing, and calculating, there is consensus that they are doing harm, and state intervention is entirely appropriate. From time to time there are instances where the government may legitimately need to take action to protect children. While God calls on parents to care for their children, He also gives the State the power to administer justice, so when parents neglect their children the State does have the jurisdiction to step in. Most people would agree that children who are being starved, or tortured, or deliberately prevented from acquiring literacy and numeracy skills by their parents would need help. However, outside of these extremely rare occurrences families should be left alone by the government. ANSWER: The government always makes a lousy parent Now, parents are imperfect. We all fail to one degree or another. That leaves an opening for opponents of parental rights to point to these instances of parental failure and use them to justify increased government control over children. But Gilles points out that this line of reasoning is faulty: The relevant question is not whether robust parental rights are perfect when measured by the yardstick of children's best interests, but whether they are superior to alternative regimes that give the state more control over children's upbringing. To this question, the longstanding answer of our legal tradition has been that state authority over childrearing is more to be feared than comparable authority in the hands of parents. Parents make mistakes…but they are far better than a “government as parent” alternative. Of course, that’s the very point that Dwyer, and others of his ilk, will dispute. He argues that the government is much better suited to determine what is best for children. Therefore the government, rather than parents, should have ultimate control over education. So what answer does Gilles give? The flaw in this approach is its blithe assumption that state agencies, and above all courts, will expertly and disinterestedly pursue the best interests of children. A moment's reflection will show that courts are neither as well-placed as parents to discern the child's best interests nor as interested in ensuring that the child's welfare is in fact advanced. Unlike parents, judges will never have the time or the day-to-day contact necessary to acquire an intimate understanding of the procession of children who would come before them. Nor will they have to live with the many-faceted ramifications of their childrearing decisions. God has crafted a wonderful way to raise children that the government simply won’t be able to improve on. Parents have much more at stake in the well-being of their children than any employee of the government. Parents know their children much better and will have to endure the consequences of any bad decisions they make. In other words, the incentive for parents to watch out for the best interests of their children is infinitely higher than any social worker, teacher, or judge. That’s why it is absurd to suggest that these public employees are better at determining the best interests of the children. Nevertheless, theorists like Dwyer write as though teachers and judges are best suited to determine what’s good for children. Really? Gilles will have none of it: I find it naive to describe the run of state employees in such idealistic terms, let alone to believe that they will more often be better judges of a child's best interests than that child's parents. State agency personnel may spend years thinking about what is best for children – but parents spend decades doing what they think is best for their own children, and living with the consequences. Parents are far more likely to get it right, even if they have fewer course-credits in child development or education theory. Because children are young and immature, they need to be under the authority of adults. People like Dwyer who claim to be promoting children’s rights are not suggesting that the children be allowed to determine their own best interests. They just want the determination of best interest to be done by government employees rather than parents. Gilles notes that this is an issue of who has authority in the lives of children: Thus, the question is not whether our childrearing regime will entail other-determining governance of children by adults; it is which adults will enjoy the freedom to engage in this other-determining behavior. That’s how we need to present the issue: which adult will do the job best. When the government treads on parental toes we need to ask, “Are you trying to say that you think a government employee working 9-5 is a better parent for my child than me?” ATTACK #4: We should have a broad understanding of harm Historically, Anglo-American nations have recognized parental rights, with the only limits on these rights involving the rare instances where parents harm the children. So if the State can only act when a child is being harmed, we can predict what statists will do – they’ll want to greatly expand what we view as harm. So, for example, Dwyer hates conservative Christianity and what it stands for. Thus he argues that teaching children certain Christian doctrines is harmful. What are these harmful doctrines? Dwyer believes that teaching children that sex is only for married couples harms those children because it restricts their freedom. He also believes teaching girls that women have different roles than men is harmful. So he wants the government to prevent parents from teaching conservative Christian tenets to their children…to protect the children from “harm.” ANSWER: Labeling anything the government disagrees with as harmful is arbitrary As Christians we need to highlight the sheer arbitrariness of Dwyer’s definition of harm. We need to highlight that he is simply defining as harmful that with which he disagrees. In fact, Dwyer’s proposal has clear totalitarian implications, as Gilles points out: If the government can forbid parents and teachers to communicate any message it decides (based on value-laden and highly debatable criteria) is “harmful to children,” then the government can control the transmission of ideas to future generations. Conclusion Prof. Gilles has shown us what to watch out for, and how to present well-reasoned argumentation for defending parental rights in education. Since parents have such powerful incentives to promote their children’s best interests, it is clear that they should have virtually unhindered authority over their children. Government employees and institutions never have as much at stake in the well-being of children as the children’s parents. A tiny number of parents occasionally abusing their authority do not undermine this fact. To think that government employees will make better decisions about children than parents is naïve at best. And to use an anti-Christian ideological concept of harm to determine what children should be taught, clearly leads to a totalitarian government. Parentalism, as Prof. Gilles calls it, is much more reasonable and consistent with freedom than the statist perspective of the left-wing intellectuals. A version of this article was first published in the March 2016 issue under the title "Government knows best? Stephen Gills shows us how to defend parental rights"...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Thinking in terms of tradeoffs rather than solutions...

In a June 2 Facebook live discussion with fellow Conservative MP Garnett Genius, Arnold Viersen outlined two very different ways that politicians tend to approach problems. “One of my friends points out that the progressive vote thinks in terms of solutions, and the conservative thinks in terms of tradeoffs. And you can see that even in the COVID response. The progressives: ‘We have got to stop the spread of COVID!’ The conservative will much more think: ‘We have to trade off one health concern for another health concern.’ For example, in Alberta we’ve had, I think, just about 150 deaths from COVID. But in the same time period we’ve had 37 deaths from a lack of heart surgeries. And that’s a tradeoff that we’ve made. It’s not necessarily talked about. But that is the tradeoff.” That’s a fantastic point. And while Viersen framed it as a conservative vs. a progressive way of thinking, it might better be framed as a Christian vs. secular way of thinking. It is the Christian, after all, who knows why we should be acknowledging that our best efforts will always be trade-offs, rather than solutions for all. It comes down to our more accurate understanding of the world and of our own capabilities. For the secularist, G.K. Chesterton noted, “Once abolish God, and the government becomes God.” Refusing to turn upwards, the secularist is forced to look sideways for a savior, landing on the government because there is no more powerful human institution. But fallible, fallen, limited Man isn’t savior material, no matter what level of power he attains. So the secularist can only continue placing their hope in government by disregarding the limited nature of Man’s capabilities and character. Then they look for solutions rather than trade-offs because it has become their habit to overestimate what Man can do. The Christian, on the other hand, has no need to gloss over Man’s limitations. We also understand that time, money, and every other resource, are limited too, such that we need to count the cost before setting out on an endeavor (Luke 14:25-34). And, finally, we know that in this sin-stained world perfection is impossible. That’s why anything we do will always be a tradeoff, with one of the most common being that resources used for one purpose, can’t then be used to some other end. As Viersen pointed out, when most governments first proposed the lockdowns, we didn’t hear about the other health costs that would come along with doing so. Overall the situation was presented as being lives vs. money, and given that sort of tradeoff, then the choice was clear. And even as an economic tradeoff was noted, the government had their “solution” to that too – they were going to hand out money and lots of it, and we didn’t hear of any downside to doing that. However, it wasn’t just lives vs. money. The reality was that it was lives vs. other lives. There was a predictable, but overlooked cost that would come from heart surgeries, and other vital medical treatments, that were cancelled or delayed due to our COVID-19 response. There was also the physical and mental health concerns that come with unemployment on such a massive scale. Those weren’t widely acknowledged tradeoffs. Going forward, one hard-earned lesson we can take from this strange spring is to question whatever “solutions” we are offered (Prov. 18:17). As Christians, we can apply our God-given insights about the nature of Man, and our world, and help those around us by posing the important questions that spring from our better understanding. We can gently yet firmly ask: “What is the trade-off?” and “What are the costs you haven’t yet mentioned?” Because there will be such costs. In this finite, fallen world every proposal will always involve tradeoffs. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

States, cities, reverse course on plastic bag bans

In 2007, San Francisco was the first city to ban regular single-use plastic bags, directing businesses to use compostable plastic bags, paper, or, preferably, reusable bags. In the years since, more than 120 other cities, and some states have followed their lead. But now the city is reversing direction, at least in part. In the wake of the coronavirus crisis, the city's Department of Health issued a new guideline: people were not permitted "to bring their own bags, mugs, or other reusable items from home" to coffee shops, grocers, and other stores. An April 9 Wall Street Journal editorial noted: "The department was responding to fears that the reusable bags are more prone to carry coronavirus than the disposable bags that were standard before the 2007 ban." San Francisco isn't the only government changing course. Massachusetts, Oregon, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, and other locales across the US are responding to the coronavirus by discouraging or prohibiting reusable bags, and often times suspending or delaying the implementation of single-use plastic bag bans. While the coronavirus has brought increased attention to the health risks that can come with reusable bags, those risks have always existed. An earlier March 16 WSJ editorial shared that when researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University randomly tested grocery shopper's reusable bags they found, “Large numbers of bacteria were found in almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half.” The same researchers also discovered the reason why: most shoppers either rarely or never washed their reusable bags. One of the key benefits of all sorts of disposable plastics has been hygiene. As the Fraser Institute's Ross McKitrick wrote: We used to get our meat the way we still get most of our vegetables – from open counters. But people grew uncomfortable with the exposure of meat to insects and germs, not to mention the problem if people handle raw meat in one aisle then touch products in other aisles, so stores responded with those little Styrofoam trays with absorbent liners and clear plastic wrap, to which we all soon grew accustomed. Lots of things got wrapped in cellophane to avoid being touched by other customers. Would you want to buy a toothbrush from a bin that a hundred people rummaged through? As for disposable plastic water bottles, this is surely one of the great public health inventions of the modern age. They are remarkably cheap and they save us the ordeal of shared public water fountains. So the question might be asked, why does anyone have a problem with these plastics? What was motivating these bans? Part of the answer is probably related to plastics being produced from oil. But even in a world obsessed with global-warming, this doesn't make them worse than paper, which seems to have the higher carbon footprint. The real issue is pollution. Environmentalists point to the amount of plastic being ingested by animals, particularly marine animals. You may have heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or one of the other ocean garbage patches where the currents collect plastics into large islands, meters deep in some places. While this pollution is a problem, it is not a Western problem. Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, in their article "Plastic Pollution" published on OurWorldinData.org make the case that as of 2010 Canada and the US combined accounted for less than a percent of the "global total mismanaged plastic waste." They define this as "the sum of littered or inadequately disposed of waste...that could eventually enter the ocean..." The big polluters are China (28%), Indonesia (10%), the Philippines and Vietnam (both at 6%). These four, together, amount to just under 50% of all such mismanaged plastic. This is due in large part to inadequate or non-existent garbage disposal, with waste flowing directly into key rivers, and then out into the ocean. This isn't to dispute that there are plastic bags littering North American streets. That is a problem. But it a much smaller problem. And it is a problem that is eradicated by creating other problems: ban single-use plastics, and their replacements might well make us sick. Those who reject God will often look to the government as a replacement, turning to it to solve all their problems. In contrast, Christians, understand the government can't address every problem and shouldn't try – God has assigned them a limited role because they are made up of limited people. Our government should legislate with restraint because we live in a broken world and, consequently, any "solution" politicians settle on is going to come with tradeoffs – any benefit will come with a cost. One cost common to all government action is a loss of freedom for citizens to make choices for ourselves. It is, after all, the government that demands we do things their way or else. That "or else" might amount to fines, or jail time, or the loss of a business's license, but whatever the punishment might be, the ability to mete this out to dissenters is a fearsome power and one that, therefore, should be used with restraint. Another reason for restraint is simple humility – an acknowledgment of our finite abilities. If reasonable, informed, intelligent people can disagree about what approach might be best, the government should be hesitant about stepping in and deciding for everyone. With bag ban reversals highlighting how politicians missed something in their original deliberations, will they take the lesson and act with restraint going forward?...