Richard Dawkins, the widely quoted evolutionary biologist from Oxford and an avowed atheist, raised eyebrows last week when he told a reporter he much prefers living in a Christian country rather than a Muslim one.

“I call myself a cultural Christian,” Hawkins told Rachel Johnson of LBC News in the United Kingdom. “I’m not a believer, but there’s a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian. I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos … We [Great Britain] are a ‘Christian country’ in that sense.”

He continued:

“If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I’d choose Christianity every single time. It seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.”

At first glance, Richard Dawkins’ comments might be qualified as something of a backhanded compliment to Christianity. But when pressed about Christians in certain states in America who support the protection of pre-born life, Dawkins’ friendliness to the faith cooled considerably.

“Well, you didn’t ask me about Christianity in America,” he replied. “That’s a different matter entirely.”

Bible-believing Christians simultaneously find Dawkins’ comments nonsensical and immediately identifiable.

That’s because the United States and the world are jammed with people who share Dawkins’ sentiments.

The U.S. inflation rate accelerated in March, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rising 0.4%, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today.

The CPI measures the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for goods and services. The CPI also rose 0.4% in February, after increasing 0.3% in January.

Inflation has come down sharply over the past two years, after peaking at 9.1% in 2022. But over the past 12 months, the CPI has still risen 3.5% — nearly double the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2.0%.

Economists widely regard high inflation as harmful to families, particularly those that struggle to make ends meet.

Higher inflation means items families need — food, gasoline, housing, utilities, clothing, transportation — become and remain more expensive.

When couples encounter financial struggles, it can quickly begin weighing on their relationship and become harmful to their marriage if not dealt with in a healthy way.

A 2018 survey from Ramsey Solutions found that money is the number one issue that couples fight about, concluding that “both high levels of debt and a lack of communication are major causes for the stress and anxiety surrounding household finances.”

The survey also revealed that “money fights are the second leading cause of divorce, behind infidelity” [emphasis added].

Comedian, social commentator and late-night talk-show host Bill Maher has long wandered off the reservation of prescribed liberal talking points, regularly calling his crowd to task for being all manner of just not thinking things through adequately enough. (Two infamous examples: Here on the unreasonableness of “LGBT” and here on the brutal absolutism of current pro-Palestinian politics.)

But now Maher has outdone himself on the very important issue of abortion.

On April 12, 2024, the host broached the topic with his two guests, Piers Morgan and Gillian Tett, provost of King’s College, Cambridge, saying what no one on the Left is allowed to admit out loud: Abortion is the killing of a human being.

Maher was talking about the difficulty Republican politicians are finding themselves in this election season with abortion now returned state jurisdiction with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

He declared that he can now respect the position of pro-lifers who insist on no accommodations for abortion because they believe every abortion stops an innocent and beating human heart.

Without the slightest reservation, Maher pronounced,

“I can respect the absolutist position, I really can. I scold the Left when they say, ‘Oh, you know what? They [pro-lifers] just hate women.’

“People who aren’t pro-choice, they don’t hate women. They [the Left] just made that up.”

Doctors in Massachusetts’ largest healthcare network no longer have to report when babies are born with drugs in their system, Mass General Brigham announced earlier this month.

The organization claims it designed the policy, which additionally prevents doctors from drug testing mothers and newborns without consent, to fight racism in medicine.

A close read of its reasoning, however, reveals Mass General’s intention to enforce a new medical norm: that drug abuse during pregnancy isn’t necessarily child abuse.

At first, the hospital network couches its loosened drug reporting and screening requirements as part of their “United Against Racism” effort to “prioritize health conditions with the greatest racial disparities in outcomes and address policies that may unwittingly perpetuate structural racism.” Though the new policies purportedly address the “significant racial and ethnic inequities [of substance use disorder (SUD)],” Mass General’s press release only offers one sentence describing these inequities:

“Studies — including some within our system — have found that Black pregnant [women] are more likely to be drug tested and reported to child welfare systems than white people.”

More importantly, Mass General neglects to explain how the policy changes — allowing mothers to refuse drug screening and letting doctors choose whether to report newborns with drugs in their system — will solve said racial inequities.