‘Catholic university recently denied the formation of a conservative group’s chapter on campus due to statements from its national organization that there are only two sexes, male and female.
Saint Mary’s University located in Notre Dame, Indiana denied an application to formally recognize a Turning Point USA chapter.
1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”.
‘During a radio interview on the BBC, Richard Dawkins once said, “The view that all living organisms have a common ancestor, from which they have evolved, is the correct one.” Statements like these often intimidate the layman into thinking that certain ideas in science, such as evolution, must have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Even serious articles and books written from an evolutionary standpoint have to acknowledge the nature of their theories. Evolutionists like to criticize less experienced creationists if the latter say something like, “But evolution is only a theory.” They will wax lyrical on how a scientific theory is something designed to fit all the available facts and evidences. Yet evolutionary theory fails to do that. It is indeed true that a theory cannot be proved. It can, of course, be disproved, and large amounts of evidence can be accumulated to support a theory. But the theory fails if just one piece of evidence is found which contradicts the theory.
There are innumerable pieces of evidence which do not fit into an evolutionary framework. Therefore, the theory ought to fall, but it doesn’t. The reason why it is difficult to overturn people’s belief in the theory of evolution is that so many people have invested heavily in it.
Rachel Levine, a biological man who identifies as a woman, openly validates @charliekirk11 assessment of woke neoliberalism: “…first it was you have to TOLERATE it, which was the tolerance campaign, and then you must ACCEPT it, and then CELEBRATE it, and then the final stage is… pic.twitter.com/P3wKwKEIEz
‘Transhumanism is a movement that holds that scientific and technological advances can be used to improve humanity. For example, to increase life-span, to get rid of diseases through gene modification, to implant electronic microchips for security purposes, or to monitor a person’s location, purchases, and movements. Some of this might seem only vaguely relevant to creation science apologetics. However, at its heart it is a godless movement, and ultimately is one that is justified by belief in evolution. Creation Ministries International first tackled the question of transhumanism in 2011. Fast forward to 2023 and it is being promoted more than ever by notable academics and leading forums, together with well-funded research grants such as one from President Biden’s government.’https://creation.com/transhumanism-image-of-god
‘Anthony Albanese keeps telling us the Voice is a “modest” proposal.
“It’s just an advisory body,” he says, over and over.
Well, he must be praying Australians don’t get to hear this.
It’s from Marcia Langton, co-chair of the government’s “Indigenous Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group” – this is the mob who actually invented the Voice.
She was on ABC radio this week, trying to explain how it would work when “advising” parliament and executive government.
Keep in mind Langton wrote the mind-numbing, 272-page “co-design” report that Albanese says has all the detail you need on the Voice.
“Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she said.
Langton was asked if she thought it was a problem that if a democratic government made a decision without listening to the Voice, it “could be challenged in the High Court and potentially stopped from being implemented until the Voice had been heard”.
Her response?
“That’s a possibility. And why wouldn’t we want that to be the case,” she said.
If the Voice is “completely gutted”, she said, “then the government can ignore all of the Voice’s decisions with impunity”.
The activists pushing the Voice insist that it won’t confer any special rights.
But can you take the government to the High Court of Australia if it doesn’t listen to what you want?
No bloody way!
But here we have the activist who designed the Voice to Parliament saying that if your democratically elected government makes a decision without “listening to the Voice”, they will wind up in court.
Maybe that’s why Albo said last year that it would be a “very brave government” that ignored the Voice?
Nope, there’s nothing “modest” about this massive overhaul of your Constitution.
The truth is that the dangerous and divisive Voice will exert a political – and legal – power unlike anything before seen in our nation.
They want you to think the Voice is just a feel-good “request”, a “modest” change to our nation’s founding document.
