This man doesn’t want Christians in government

As a society, we have been told that the best sort of sex education in schools are ones that were contraception-focused, and that free contraception in schools reduced teen pregnancy. A new study out of England is casting some doubt on this assumption.

It seems like some folks (like Senator Bernie Sanders) would like to bring the idea of a religious test for government office back into vogue. They’d like to make sure that either you’re not of a particular religion, or at least are someone who doesn’t really take that particular religion too seriously.

Mentioned links:

Teen pregnancy rate falls 42.6 percent after UK cuts sex-ed, birth-control funding

No Religious Test Clause [Wikipedia]

Watch Bernie Sanders Attack a Christian Nominee and Impose an Unconstitutional Religious Test for Public Office

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm.

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

As a society, we have been told that the best sort of sex education in schools are ones that were contraception-focused, and that free contraception in schools reduced teen pregnancy. A new study out of England is casting some doubt on this assumption.

Between 2009 and 2014, the UK had to make some serious cuts to its budget, and that included providing tax money for sex-ed in schools and free birth control. Now, to listen to the Left, you’d have to believe that once that happened, teen pregnancies would start to rise. That has been their mantra for 2 generations. And so we had a perfect situation to test that hypothesis.

Testing a hypothesis; it’s the scientific method. Let’s see what this experiment found.

Turns out that teen pregnancies went down. In a survey of 149 municipalities, the rate went down. And not just by a little bit, by 43%, down to the lowest level since 1969! In fact, where the cuts were the most drastic, the pregnancy rate cuts were the largest.

Now, will the allegedly “pro-science” Left take this scientific evidence and consider it when forming public policy? Well, based on what they’ve done over the 30 years, probably not. I predict this because, after that 30 years ending in 1999, England wound up with one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. So since this has become something of an article of faith with the Left, such that they keep doubling down on the policy in spite of the stats going the wrong way, I really doubt this will affect them.

And speaking of doubling down, England made contraception-based sex-ed compulsory throughout the nation’s public high schools in its “Children and Social Work Act” of 2017.

Is this just a British thing? No. At the link in the show notes, there is also an example of this same thing happening in the US during the Obama administration.

So when I predict that the Left will not give up on this idea despite this information, I’m not exactly rolling dice.


There is a clause in Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution that says this, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Let me give you a little background on why we have that clause there. In the Europe that the Pilgrims and other colonists left, including England, there were religious tests to hold public office. Generally you had to be a member of the established church or swear an oath to it. Often it was to make sure that you were not of a particular religion or denomination. But one of the big reasons colonists came here was to be free of that, and so religious liberty was written into the very First Amendment, as well as in other areas of the Constitution, like this one.

Well, it seems like some folks would like to bring that idea back into vogue. They’d like to make sure that either you’re not of a particular religion, or at least are someone who doesn’t really take that particular religion too seriously. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders recently questioned Russell Vought about his religion as part of Mr. Vought’s Senate confirmation hearing.

[see the video above]

Trigger Warning: For some context here, I’m going to read a couple of Bible verses. Here they are:

Mark 16, verses 15 and 16: And he [meaning Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 3, 17 to 18 (and yes, this is right after the famous John 3:16): For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

So a Christian quoting Jesus is now…Islamaphobic? Was Jesus Islamophobic? Look, whether or not you believe Christianity, Senator Bernie Sanders decided to vote against this guy for a cabinet position because he dared to actually believe his own religion! If this isn’t a religious test, what is?

Definitely watch the video that appears in the show notes. If it’s up to Sanders, Mr. Vought will never become … Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Yeah, a civil servant with a calculator. How religion plays into that I have no idea.


So what do you think? I’ve read other articles that tend to suggest that it’s parental involvement rather than school classes that leads to better teen pregnancy outcomes, but this seems to suggest otherwise. Do you know of similar outcomes, or opposite ones? And would you have a problem with someone that thought you were going to eternal damnation being part of the budget team? Myself, I just want to know if they know the math and the politics, but what do you think?

Filed under: AbortionEducationGovernmentHuman SexualityReligion