Anatomy of Deception: How Liberals Lie About Christianity
by Mark Jarmuth 7/12/2010 / Christian Apologetics
Below are excerpts from my new book debunking the anti-Christian claims of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other skeptics. The book, Anatomy of Deception, is 280 pages and available at https://www.createspace.com/3462109.
If you or anyone you know would help promote, market, list or publish the book, please contact me at email@example.com.
On Barack Obama's claim the United States is not a Christian Nation:
"Seventy-eight percent of our citizens claim they're Christians. So I disagree with President Obama. I guess if asked for my views I'd say the United States is a Christian nation. But it's debatable. In fact, if instead of listen to what our citizens say about their faith, we look at how they act and their attitudes on issues involving human life we might reach the opposite conclusion: we're no longer a Christian nation. At least we can say this much with complete certainty. The Christian faith has lost support among the American masses the last half-century. I say the issue is no longer open to debate. With the broad support for abortion and euthanasia, the frenzied interest in porn, and Christians being persecuted in most walks of life here, the point is hard to miss. Our country is not nearly as committed to Christian ideals now as it was post-WWII. Nor, I might add, are today's Americans as free or, in most cases, as prosperous or as satisfied with their lives as our people were back then.
On Ted Bundy's claim, in an interview hours before his electrocution for the murder of a 12-year-old Florida girl, that porn desensitized him to the pain he caused others:
"Some liberals disagreed with the implication from what Bundy said. Porn, they claimed after hearing about the interview, does not harm females, deranged killers like Bundy do. Most Americans had no response at all to his interview. I wonder why. Could it have been because viewing porn harms the mind instead of the body? I suspect this in fact was the case. There would not have been the same apathetic response to what Bundy said had, instead of talk about porn, he'd have spoken, for instance, about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
For decades, people were unaware cigarettes caused lung cancer. Had Bundy been among the first to tell how years of smoking ruined his health, his remarks and similar statements from many others would have helped launch a nation-wide, anti-smoking campaign. Moreover, since smoking often begins in the teen years, at word of remarks like those from Bundy our schools would have warned kids about the health-related risks of smoking.
In the two decades since Bundy's execution, this has not been the case with porn. Our schools have been silent about its harmful effects, even though one of our nation's most prolific serial killers claimed hours before his death that a decades-long porn addiction had fueled his rage toward females."
On liberals' support of laws lowering the age of sexual consent to twelve:
"Behind support for these laws is the belief that kids will weigh all relevant factors and choose a sex partner based on a fully informed decision. Sure they will. I think we know what kids will do if they can have sex with whomever they choose. Scores of kids will take on all comers, including adults who provide gifts, money or alcohol in exchange for sex. But would kids consent to sex with any adult who bribes them if aware of all the relevant data, if, that is, their decision to have sex was, in truth, fully informed? Would they do so if they knew, for instance, that many children have been murdered while being sexually assaulted by someone older? Probably not. If kids knew this, in fact, they'd probably avoid all contact with adults who are strangers. But often kids aren't aware of all the facts before deciding what to do, which is one reason I oppose laws lowering the age of sexual consent. If these laws are passed, kids who have sex with an adult won't do so based on a fully informed decision. Indeed, the opposite will occur. They'll do so completely unaware of the potential ramifications of their actions and thus be vulnerable to exploitation.
On Peter Singer's claim that only when babies are one month old, and show they have some minimum level of intelligence, should they have a right to life:
"I see what Singer means. Infants should have a right to life based on how long they've lived and whether they can reason. The right should be conferred at one month, at which time some babies begin to scream when hungry, showing they're capable of rationale thought. Prior to that, lacking rationality, unwanted newborns should be killed or allowed to die. It's easy for someone Singer's age to say."
On Sam Harris's claim that macroevolution is a fact and that doubting it is like doubting the sun is a star:
"If doubting macroevolution is like doubting the sun is a star, belief in evolution should be like the belief the sun is a star. This is the implication from Harris's claim and it's wrong. Belief in Darwinism is not like the belief the sun is a star. There's an obvious difference between the two, calling Harris's claim that macroevolution is a fact into serious question.
Belief in Darwinism is based on speculation, while the belief the sun is a star is not. Though we can't say man evolved from an ape-like creature based on what we see around us, we know the sun is a star from our own observations. We notice how it emits light, see its star-like luminance and coloration, feel its heat and see other similarities between it and other stars. We can imagine evidence of macroevolution as observable as the sun's star-like qualities. Transitional forms in the fossil record would make belief in Darwinism like the belief the sun is a star. But despite an exhaustive search for these fossils, they've never been found. Thus, people who accept Darwinism must do so not because of what they see, but based on faith: faith in time's infinite capacity to mold our universe and to enhance the adaptability of life-forms on earth.
UW honors grad. Received JD from Seattle U School of Law. Third book. For the second, I was interviewed as the guest on Matter at Hand, a thirty minute program on cultural and politics broadcast from central Pennsylvania to six sities.