Kerby Anderson
Tomorrow is the 4th of July, when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. For many Americans it is merely a summer holiday that we celebrate with fireworks and parades.
Tomorrow I will talk about the history of the Declaration and its significance to us in America. Today, let’s ask some questions that arise from the foundational principles found in the Declaration of Independence.
A key phrase in the Declaration is the claim that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” But do we really believe that phrase? Do we believe there are truths in a culture awash in post-modernism? We don’t seem to believe there is anything like absolute truth. Truth for most Americans is personal and relative.
What about the idea that these truths are self-evident? That assumes we believe in natural law at the very least, or perhaps more significantly, that we believe in biblical principles behind our laws. Is that an accurate assessment of what Americans believe in the 21st century? Do we believe that human reason and experience can be our guide as we pass laws and implement them in society?
The Declaration also says that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Do we still believe in the Creator? Do we still believe that rights exist because we are created in God’s image? Or do we believe that government creates rights?
The Declaration rests upon the “Laws of nature and of Nature’s God.” The laws of nature are general revelation in creation and human conscience. The laws of nature’s God are revelation found in the Bible. Do we still believe in revelation?
These are important questions we must ask ourselves, and they illustrate why a biblical perspective is crucial to the future of this republic.

Penna Dexter
Hundreds of parents showed up recently to oppose a piece of legislation being considered in the California State Senate. The bill pertains to custody battles that involve transgender-identifying children. The version that passed the State Assembly in March requires judges to favor the parent who “affirms” a trans child in his or her gender identity over one who does not.  The bill moved over to the California Senate and recently passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line vote.
Then, the bill’s co-authors upped the ante.
As if the bill’s bias toward the gender-affirming parent were not bad enough, before the vote in the Judiciary Committee, Assemblywoman Lori Wilson — who has a transgender child —and Senator Scott Wiener — who is gay — updated the bill’s language to make parents’ “non-affirmation” of a child’s gender identity a violation of the California Family Code’s standard for the health, safety, and welfare of a child. This means non-affirming parents could be subject to claims of child abuse.
The bill provides no definition of “non-affirming.” In each case, a judge would have to make the determination.
Over 100 California residents testified against AB 957. Only 17 voiced their support.
In her testimony against the bill, attorney Erin Friday said she’s the “mother of a girl who used to believe she was a boy. She said, “AB 957 is the first bill in the nation to codify into law that a parent who does not affirm the gender identity of their child is abusive.” She emphasized the danger, stating, “There is no nuance in this bill.”
Senator Scott Wilk, one of two Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has served in the Legislature for 11 years and sees it increasingly putting government between parents and children. He says he believes this bill will result in “children being taken away from the home.” He warned parents: “If you love your children, you need to flee California.”