Finding Freedom

Every issue of Salvo includes a department we call the “Great Escapes“—Real-life stories of people finding freedom. Here’s a sampling of who’s been featured in the past:

• Sabbath School: On the Emancipation of Frederick Douglass by Means of Liberal Education

• A Change to Believe In: How The Raving Atheist Became The Raving Theist

• Son of Hope: The Story of “Son of Sam,” David Berkowitz

• The Evidentialist—J. Warner Wallace: How a Cold-Case Atheist Detective Became a Case-Making Christian

• Solitary Refinement: Fr. Roman Braga: How One Man Found Freedom Inside a Communist Prison

• Captive No More: The Thoroughly Rational Conversion of Michael Minot

• Recalled to Life—Annie Lobert: A Call Girl Becomes Christ’s Girl

Read their stories and many more in Salvo. Subscribe today!

The Weight of Evidence Does Not Favor Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Views

Looks like Mr. Science is at again. No not that one, the other one.

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 10.14.11 AM

I am not going to comment on any of the myriad problems with this line of thinking for human government—even Popular Science has already given it a proper take-down: Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Proposed “Rationalia” Government Won’t Work: Rationally speaking, it would be bad for people and bad for science—but I would like to point out a good book that was reviewed in Salvo that counters a lot of the blustery “science” that Tyson espouses in his recent revamp of Cosmos.

Clearing Up Cosmos
The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Science Series

Douglas Ell became an atheist as a youth because of misinformation handed down to him in the name of science. It took him thirty years “to climb out of the atheist hole.” Sadly, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the 2014 series brought to you by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Family Guy’s Seth MacFarlane, and a host of like-minded celebrity atheists, served up thirteen dazzling episodes containing similar misinformation. The series mixed, quoting Jay W. Richards, “one part illuminating discussion of scientific discoveries, one part fanciful, highly speculative narrative, and one part rigid ideology disguised as the assured results of scientific research.”

If you like science—science done well, that is—you’ll find invaluable help making sense out of Cosmos with The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Science Series, an easily readable volume co-authored by Ell, Richards, David Klinghoffer, and Casey Luskin. The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos sorts out, episode by episode, the legitimate science from the liberal doses of materialist philosophy, revised history, and brazen ideology the makers of the series have carelessly (or intentionally?) stirred into the mix.

Read the rest. . . .

And more from Salvo on this topic can be found under SCIENTISM. Here’s a few:

Faith Removal
Militant Science & Apostle Krauss
by Regis Nicoll

ETI In the Sky
What the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life Means for Us
by Hugh Ross

Tethered Professor
Dr. Eric Hedin & the Contested Boundaries of Science
by Terrell Clemmons

Salvo on Prudence

The Salvo website has recently been made easier to navigate and explore its content. You can now browse by topic or author.

One tag word we decided to use has become old-fashioned (and even derogatory), but regardless it’s one that we thought fitting and deserving of proper usage. And if we don’t use the word properly (and proudly), who will? Take a look at what Salvo has had to say about this over the years.* Could also be filed under: Common Sense.

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 11.28.21 AM

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 11.28.45 AM

*As of today we’ve only archived as far back as Salvo issue 18, but thought it was extensive enough for use now.

DECODE: Diversity

n. The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.

History: The word “diversity” dates back to the mid-14th century, where it initially meant “the quality of being different.” In the late 15th century, it took on a negative connotation, becoming associated with things that were “contrary to what is agreeable or right.” By the 17th century, however, this definition was obsolete, and in the 1790s, with the emergence of modern democracies, “diversity” was used to identify the virtue in those nations that attempted to keep a single faction from holding all of the state power. At that time, the term had nothing to do with ethnicity, gender, or sexual identity (these were not concerns of that age), but this would all change in the 20th century, particularly in the 1960s with the rise of the civil rights movement. What started as an honest effort to end the oppression of racial minorities soon devolved into an attempt to control thinking—to force people to acknowledge and respect all types of difference, whether sexual, ethnic, or cultural, but to do so without acceding to the concept of difference. Thus, today, we are expected to both value individuals who are different from ourselves and deny that there is any sort of norm from which they differ. Doing otherwise is the one type of “diversity” that cannot be tolerated.

Etymology: “Diversity” is derived from the Old French diversité, which means “a unique feature” or “oddness.” It also has roots in the Latin diversitatem, the definition of which is “contrariety, contradiction, or disagreement.” Consequently, one simply cannot divorce the word from the idea that differences do exist and that one such difference can be found in the differing opinions that we have about the value of attributes, behaviors, or beliefs that differ from our own. In the present era, of course, this is not the situation at all. Rather, “diversity” now demands that we not only accept all dissimilarities without judgment, but also refuse even to identify them as such. “Diversity training,” which is all the rage in both corporate and university contexts, has systematized these requirements. Participants are taught to respect the differences of their peers while at the same time turning a blind eye to them. They likewise learn to suppress any objections they have to “diversity” itself, these being opinions that are absolutely not protected within the social environment that “diversity training” seeks to create.

Effect: The ironic outcome of the present definition of “diversity” is that it has created a situation in which people no longer try to relate to those who are different from themselves, out of fear that they will accidentally call attention to the differences themselves. Those differences, therefore, become more marked and pronounced than ever before, preventing any true understanding or respect among differing groups of people, which is the very thing that the contemporary concept of “diversity” had hoped to foster. Worse still, “promoting diversity” has become shorthand for “policing thought.” No matter how obvious or factual a difference might be, you must not admit to noticing it, and heaven help you if you should harbor an opinion about that difference, especially if your opinion is a negative one or in any way constitutes a moral condemnation of another’s behavior or beliefs. All this is to say that “diversity” is really not about respect or understanding at all anymore; rather, it has quickly become one of the surest methods of imposing relativism upon the culture, scaring us into an ethic of silent and passive acceptance.

Are You a Honda or Are You a Hummer?


A popular article lately at the Salvo website is Regis Nicoll’s Hooked on a Feeling: Is Gender Just a State of Mind? from way back in 2007, our second issue. I recommend the entire article to you. It covers a lot of ground—from The Barbarians to the Greeks to Jean-Paul Sartre to the feministas—but I’ll just post this bit below as it is a helpful illustration.

Imagine the owner of a sport coupe who, desiring an off-road vehicle, attempts to modify his street car accordingly. Notwithstanding the merits of mud tires, grill guards, and heavy-duty shocks, no amount of alteration is going to turn his Accord LX into a Hummer. More likely, the minute gains he achieves will only exacerbate his frustration with the gap in what he has versus what he wants.

How much healthier for him and his Accord if, instead of trying to modify his car to suit his desire, he alters his desire to conform to his car? While the latter—even with much effort—may be difficult, at least it remains possible.

“Are you a boy or are you a girl?” asked The Barbarians. Those of us who can tell the difference between an Accord and a Hummer should have no trouble with our answer.

Further reading from Salvo:

Gender Benders
Is My Sexual Identity an Accident Just Waiting to Happen?
by Robin Phillips

Failed Operations
Medical Malpractice in an Age of Gender Denial Disorder
by Terrell Clemmons

The Feminist Mistake
by Terrell Clemmons

The History of the Bikini


Just in time to kick off the summer months, I share with you the following from Salvo issue 29. The “she” who is being referred to here is Jessica Rey, founder of Rey Swimwear, and this article tells a bit of her story—and the story of the bikini as well.

. . . In June 2013, she gave a genteel, ten-minute talk called “The Evolution of the Swimsuit” that set off a verbal firestorm in the blogosphere.

She started off with a little history. The first bikini was designed in 1946 by Louis Réard, who worked in his mother’s lingerie shop. He named it after Bikini Atoll, the site of post-World War II nuclear bomb testing, because he expected an explosive reaction from the public. He had to hire a stripper because no French model would debut it for him. Later, in the wake of the 1960s’ sexual revolution, “liberated” feminists began casting the bikini as symbolic of “the power of women.” The reframing stuck, and in 2003, a New York Times reporter called it “the millennial equivalent of the power suit.”

Jessica then related the results of a 2009 neural imaging study conducted on male students at Princeton University that had turned up some interesting results relevant to women’s choices in fashion. “Brain scans revealed that when men are shown pictures of scantily clad women, the region of the brain associated with tools, such as screwdrivers and hammers, lit up.” Furthermore, she said, some men showed “zero brain activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that lights up when one ponders another person’s thoughts, feelings, and intentions.”

This was not what the researchers had expected. One professor said, “It’s as if they’re reacting to these women as if they are not fully human,” as if they were “objects, not people.” This study, together with a related one on men’s language choices after seeing the images, led analysts at National Geographic to conclude that bikinis “really do inspire men to see [women] as objects”—as things to be used, rather than persons to connect with.

This turns the notion of the bikini as a “power suit” entirely on its head. If these findings are to be believed, the bikini is a profound tool of disempowerment. Jessica’s point, therefore, was this: If a woman wants to be taken seriously—as a valuable, fully human person rather than an object—she would do better to dress more modestly. . . .

Fascinating stuff. I recommend the entire article to you. Decent Exposure: And a Refreshing Resilience in Women’s Fashion by Terrell Clemmons. As a man, I can fully attest that these scientific findings on the male brain are accurate. Don’t shame me, feminists. I was born this way.

***Subscribe to Salvo today!*** One year for only $19.99 plus get the special Science & Faith issue FREE.