Summer Reading Suggestions

Looking for some ideas for Summer reading? Well if you have an issue of Salvo lying around,* flip to the back and you’ll find a regular department called the “Blips.” There you will find a full page review of a book or a movie we think Salvo readers will want to know about, as well as ten to fifteen shorter mentions of interesting titles available.

Past Blips include:

Steeled Faith: A Review of Against the Flow: The Inspiration of Daniel in an Age of Relativism by John Lennox

Redemption Afoot: A Review of Restoring All Things: God’s Audacious Plan to Change the World Through Everyday People

A Loving Proposal: A Review of Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God’s Design for Marriage

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

Unfashionable History
A Review of How the West Won by Rodney Stark

True Blue
A Review of Blue: For Earth. For Humanity. For Freedom.

Love Actualized
A Review of The Meaning of Marriage by Timothy Keller with Kathy Keller

The Moral Facts of Life
A Review of What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide by J. Budziszewski

A more complete list of past Blips can be found here.

*If you are not a subscriber, SUBSCRIBE TODAY! 4 issues for only $19.99 PLUS the Science and Faith issue free.


Being “Nice” is Overrated

Mike Adams is always a good read. Here’s something recent from him:

Onward Christian Pansies

Last week, a young Christian male asked me a pretty direct question. He wanted to know whether I ever worried that my blunt commentary on social media was “turning people away from Christianity.” I thought it was an honest question. So I gave him an honest answer. I told him that I believe the problem is just the opposite of what he considers it to be. In other words, it isn’t occasional blunt commentary that turns people away from Christianity. It is the constant displays of Christian cowardice that make people both reticent to join and quick to attack us. . . .

If you’ve spent any amount of time flipping through an issue of Salvo or perusing, you will have noticed that we agree with Mr. Adams assessment. You can read more about the good professor in the Salvo archives:

Twice Convicted
The Story of Mike Adams, Atheist Criminologist

Guide for the Misguided
A Clarifying Journey of Intervention, Detox & Recovery

And related to the title of this post, here’s a good article from Salvo contributing editor Regis Nicoll.

Speak No Evil
Judging by the New Blasphemy Code, Moral Views Are Excluded

. . . The person who can’t or won’t discern good from evil is destined to be a victim of those who are adept at disguising one as the other. Thus, abstaining from moral judgments is not a hallmark of nice people, but of foolish ones. And the person who makes judgments while insisting that he doesn’t or shouldn’t is naive, if not hypocritical. . . .

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.