Sed Contra: Genetic manipulation, even towards good ends, will likely not proportionally justify the dangers undertaken elsewhere using the means of genetic manipulation. Man’s conquest over nature, Lewis said, will begin benevolently and end malevolently. (FWIW, I think Lyman is a good guy so this is not meant as a flex on him, whose work I appreciate. As he notes below, problems subsist.)

This is neither honorable nor defensible in any way. Chumming it up with a human rights violator just to get the better of a former president and political opponent is manifestly undignified.

"In the popular imagination, religious faith and a thriving sex life don’t tend to go together. Movies, books, and TV shows depict religious couples as sexually inhibited or dysfunctional. But the data tell a different story." @TheAtlantic theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0… @FamStudies

Deep Midwest vibes here.

What a terrific day! Thanks for hosting, @HeathLambert!

You know you're a runner when you watch a trailer explode online (and the movie does indeed look excellent), and the one thing you notice most is the running gait, which honestly pains me to see. I know she's not the most sympathetic of persons, but I have sympathy for her joints getting obliterated.

Autonomy cannot be invoked to legitimate a practice and then set aside when the patient lacks the capacity to exercise it. wng.org/opinions/the-persona…

I would say over the last five years, I’ve read the primary sources, I’ve written somewhere between 10-15k words on Christian Nationalism, but yet I’m told I still don’t *get* Christian Nationalism. Maybe the dismissiveness is intentional at this point or else they’ve rigged the rules to make the whole CN project unfalsifiable. Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

What’s interesting is that Stephen applauded an article of mine from July where I apparently understood the argument but now I don’t. I just hope someday I’m smart enough to follow what is supposedly a clear argument. But if you press this argument a little bit, it ends up admitting variations of the same thing: The only way to win respect, to “understand the argument,” to “do the reading,” is to admit up front that it’s correct. If you don’t agree, you de facto do not understand the debate. Quite convenient!

If I were a progressive, the collapse of Nikole Hannah-Jones’s woke idealism—alongside the lesbian dispute over masking—would prompt me to question the deeper ideological foundations that produced both outcomes. We can laugh at this all we want as Ur-examples of stereotypical progressivism, but at the end of the road, a lot of very sad, broken, and disillusioned people will be left who built their worldview on a house of sand. newsweek.com/nikole-hannah-j… roddreher.substack.com/p/the…

When Christian nationalists criticize views like mine for supposedly offering theological justifications for liberal democracy, then Christian nationalism fares no better, for it is quietly beholden to the state and political conditions for its own legitimacy. In that form, Christian nationalism is often a form of Christian Hegelianism, wherein the operations of the state drive history—and the Kingdom of God—forward. Making the legitimacy of one’s political theology dependent on the state’s privileging it evinces a structural weakness in the program itself. The idea that the Kingdom of Christ requires formal dependence on, and enactment through, the state insults the efficacy of the blood of Christ. wng.org/opinions/michael-sco…

Michael Scott thought he could declare bankruptcy by yelling it across the office. A lot of the Christian nationalism conversation works the same way: Say it loud enough, post about it often enough, and surely it becomes real. It doesn't. I explain why the Christian nationalism conversation has run its course in my latest @WNGdotorg column. wng.org/opinions/michael-sco…

Congratulations to my friend @sherifgirgis on his appointment to the faculty of @Harvard_Law. Incredible news. Good evidence that viewpoint diversity, academic freedom, and meritocracy are alive and well at @Harvard. hls.harvard.edu/today/sherif…

Human Dignity And The West’s Uneasy Conscience: How assisted dying grew into state justified killing. - @AndrewTWalker @realDailyWire dailywire.com/news/human-dig…

The Netherlands, in what is a massive blow to the moral architecture of Western medicine, has undermined one of the key principles undergirding modern bioethics. dailywire.com/news/human-dig…

Between the Netherlands and the UK, mark September 2026 as a month when we are learning where Western culture’s uneasy conscience stands on the question of human dignity. My latest editorial @realDailyWire. dailywire.com/news/human-dig…’s+Uneasy+Conscience

Sorry to be the "actually guy," but the statement below is simply not true. The Catholic Church's position is an innovation, given its recent codification post-Vatican II. So if you want to accept Rome's authority, then okay. I do not. But Rome's position is not native to its own history. Nor are inclusivism and pluralism, by any stretch of the imagination, given equal weight in church history. They have always been minority viewpoints.

I cannot stop thinking about this. Modern bioethics arose, in significant part, as a response to the horrors of Nazi medicine. I would not call today’s practitioners of euthanasia “Nazis,” but it is deeply unsettling to watch society drift toward an attenuated version of the very moral logic that helped give birth to the field. Bioethics arose to prevent future atrocities and we are now slouching back toward Auschwitz. It is a sobering reminder of how short moral memory can be—especially when the only ethic permitted to speak publicly is a secular one.

Atheism is lame.

Consider the downstream consequences: A man without economic security is less likely to be seen as a viable provider, making marriage more difficult to attain. The decline of marriage then carries its own sexual and social costs—pornography addiction, serial fornication, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and ultimately lower fertility. Lower fertility, in turn, compounds an already serious demographic decline which creates later economic problems. Now multiply that pattern across millions of people and across an entire generation of men. What looks like an individual economic problem becomes a social crisis, then a demographic crisis, and finally a civilizational one.