Strong majorities were also found to errantly believe that all religious faiths are of equal value, people are basically good and that people can use acts of goodness to earn their way into Heaven. The study further showed that majorities don’t believe in moral absolutes, consider feelings, experience or the input of friends and family as their most trusted sources of moral guidance, and say that having faith matters more than which faith you pursue.

Nearly 70% of born-again Christians disagree with the biblical position that Jesus is the only way to God, according to a new survey from Probe Ministries, a nonprofit that seeks to help the Church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview.
The survey, which looked at religious beliefs and attitudes toward cultural behaviors, polled 3,106 Americans ages 18 to 55 from all religious groups, including 717 respondents who identified as born-again Christians.
Born-again respondents were identified based on their affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?” They were also identified by their belief about what happens after they die. Born-again believers agree that “I will go to Heaven because I confessed my sins and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior.”
Despite this claim by the self-identified born-again Christians in the study, however, among all respondents ages 18 to 39, who profess an affiliation with some religion, fewer than 1 out of 5 of them strongly disagree with the statement that Muhammad, Buddha and Jesus all taught valid ways to God.
Still, some 60% of this cohort said they shared their faith with someone else at least annually with the intent of converting them.
“If you think that there are multiple ways to Heaven, why would you want to go out of your way to convert someone to your religion? Of course, you could be sharing with an unaffiliated person who needs to choose a valid religion,” noted Steve Cable, senior vice president of Probe Ministries, in his analysis of the data.
The survey also found that among the top reasons given by born-again Christians for not telling others about their faith is the acceptance of pluralism. When asked why they don’t share their beliefs with others, born-again respondents chose “They can get to Heaven through their different religious belief,” “We shouldn’t impose our ideas on others,” and “The Bible tells us not to judge others” as their top three responses, respectively.
Read More

Written by R. Scott Clark |
Sunday, April 3, 2022
Grammar is not racist, ableist, classist or any other —ist. Anyone can learn grammar. Everyone should learn good grammar. If you struggle with grammar, writing, or learning please do not let the virtue-signalling Rhiannon Giles’ of the world convince you that you cannot or should not learn. 

This tweet, which was published by Rhiannon Giles, who writes for the New York Times among other prestigious publications, appeared on March 3, 2022, National Grammar Day. There are three things to observe here. One has to do with grammar itself. The second has to do with fun and learning. The other has to do why she is fundamentally and even dangerously wrongheaded about who needs to learn grammar and why (or why virtue signaling is harmful).
First, her grammatical mistake. She wrote, “A good day to remember that while grammar can be fun…”. What she should have written is, “though grammar can be fun.” She was not signaling the passage of time. She was intending to signal a concessive: “Though x is the case, y is also the case.” She meant to concede the first clause while simultaneously asserting a complementary truth. Did you notice what I did there? I used while correctly. It signals the passage of time. “Joey whistled while he waited for the train to arrive.” While signals the passage of time. One thing is happening at the same time something else is happening. I understand that usage changes and that the abuse of while is widespread but that makes the abuse no less incorrect. That virtually no one, even academics, seem to know the meaning of “to beg the question,” does not make the abuse of that expression correct.
Second, grammar well taught can be fun but there are things to be learned that are hard work. Learning English well, especially as a second language, is hard work. One should not think that whatever is difficult is not to be attempted.
Third, her virtue signaling scold regard “ableism” etc should be repudiated by anyone who cares about the education of young people and the social mobility of those about whom she ostensibly cares. There is nothing  inherently ableist, racist, or classist about grammar. To suggest that good grammar belongs only to the able, the wealthy, or to any particular race (or that it is racist to learn or teach grammar) is nonsense and potentially damaging to the education of many young people. As a matter of fact and morals, good English does not belong to people who are able, of any particular race, class, or ability.
Her caveat is grounded in the unstated assumption that grammar is a mere convention, i.e., it is arbitrary and subject to deconstruction and therefore to insist on good grammar is the sign of privilege and potentially racist etc. This is not true. Sentences necessarily must have verbs, subjects, objects, and qualifiers. Languages vary in the way they express these relations but these relations are baked into the nature of things. Learning how to understand and express these relations well is what grammar helps us do.
Read More

Given the current conservative leanings of the high court and its recent decisions affirming religious freedom, this case is setting up to be an important one. It may prove to be the perfect opportunity for the high court to finally vindicate the free speech rights of Christian creative professionals whose chosen messages do not conform to the politically mandated ideology of the local governments where they operate.

When Denver-area baker Jack Phillips won his religious discrimination case against the state of Colorado at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 after declining to create a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage,” the justices decided in his favor on the basis of the religious hostility exhibited by particular state officials toward his religious beliefs about marriage. The court avoided the even weightier questions of free speech that lay at the heart of the case.
Now, four years later, another creative artist is challenging the same Colorado nondiscrimination statute that ensnared Jack Phillips—as well as other wedding professionals in other states dealing with similar statutes—for compelling Christian businesspeople to express messages contrary to their faith.
Lorie Smith is the owner of 303 Creative LLC, a Denver-area graphic design and wedding website where Lorie hopes to celebrate marriages and bring her Christian faith to bear on the creative work she does in blogging about and building memories for the couples that hire her.
While she doesn’t discriminate against any customer because of who they are, she does desire to limit her wedding business to opposite-sex couples because of her Christian beliefs about marriage, and that’s something that Colorado law does not permit.
Smith’s courageous legal efforts to fight the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) and operate her business in accordance with her faith have not gone well to date. When she sued the state in 2019 to have the law declared unconstitutional, she lost in federal district court and again at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That didn’t discourage Smith, to her credit.
Lorie appealed the 10th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on February 22 announced it would hear her case. The news is encouraging for those who value religious freedom, free speech, and the right of creative professionals to be free from government-compelled ideology.
Given the current conservative leanings of the high court and its recent decisions affirming religious freedom, this case is setting up to be an important one. It may prove to be the perfect opportunity for the high court to finally vindicate the free speech rights of Christian creative professionals whose chosen messages do not conform to the politically mandated ideology of the local governments where they operate.
Read More