Monthly Archives: November 2014

Christian worldview

One more book recommendation: Mark Twain: A Christian Response to His Battle With God

2 Comments

I really enjoyed Mark Twain: A Christian Response to His Battle With God by Ray Comfort.  It was a revealing look at a guy who is often cited by atheists as one of their own.

I actually read the book (unlike some reviewers – apparently one guy gave it and 93 other Christian books 1 star). It was fascinating to see how Twain’s thinking radically changed when bad things happened to him. Like many people, all the world’s tragedies were no big deal until something bad happened to them. Then it was God’s fault — no, they say He doesn’t exist — but they are mad at him anyway!

I hope a lot of people read this book. Twain was obviously not a Christian, but he was anything but an atheist. Oddly, he never blamed who he saw as the “real” god for everything that happened in the world.

A commentator of Clemens noted: As the years went by and he became successful, he became relatively conciliatory toward religion, but as his fortunes reversed late in life, he became bitterly sarcastic and hostile.

Bible, Sexuality

The Case for Idolatry and more . . .

2 Comments

This has gotten some well-deserved attention for showing how to use pro-LGBTQX reasoning to justify idolatry (as a parody, of course).  Via The Case for Idolatry: Why Evangelical Christians Can Worship Idols | Blog | Think Theology.  You may want to read it all.

[I really hope it’s obvious that this is a parody, but if not: it is.]

For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to worship idols. It’s not that my parents raised me that way, because they didn’t; I was brought up in a loving, secure, Christian home. But from childhood until today, my heart has been drawn to idolatry. In fact, if I’m honest, one of the defining features of my identity has been my desire to put something else – popularity, money, influence, sex, success – in place of God.

I did something similar years ago, though not as well written or publicized, where I took a look at 1 Corinthians 5 via a pro-gay theology lens.  As you’d expect, it made no sense.  The pro-gay theology arguments are fallacious but tempting for those with itching ears to believe.

Original

People who hold to pro-gay theology* (i.e., God doesn’t consider it a sin and that he approves of “same-sex marriage”) use all sorts of fallacious arguments to make their case.  In this post I am taking the pro-gay theological reasoning out for a test drive, so to speak, to see how it applies to other passages.  After all, if their principles are sound they should work in other situations as well.

You may be familiar with Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable) and some of the improper interpretations of it. But I wondered how their reasoning would apply to a verse in the same passage, such as Leviticus 18:8 –Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. After all, the context of Leviticus 18 is abundantly clear because it starts and ends with the same admonitions: Don’t be like the pagan Canaanites and do the detestable things listed in the middle of the text, or you will be vomited out of the land like they were.  These were obviously not ceremonial laws just for the Israelites.

You can use any verse from Leviticus 18 to make the same points (bestiality, child sacrifice, etc.).  I chose this one because it happened to be addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.  Especially note how Paul chides the Corinthians for being proud and boastful about this a man sleeping with his father’s wife.  Read it once, then read it again and replace the descriptions of incest with homosexual behavior.  That is how I view the pro-gay theology community (especially the heterosexuals): Proud and boastful for ignoring God’s Word.

1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

Now let’s apply the various lines of pro-gay theological reasoning to Leviticus 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 5 and see how well they work. I realize that not all pro-gay theologians hold all these views.  I tried to convey their reasoning as accurately as possible.  Using their logic, we could conclude that:

  • Even if it is a sin, we are being so inclusive by keeping him as a member!  Look at us, being open-minded and tolerant!
  • Jesus didn’t specifically say not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife, so it couldn’t have been very important and probably wasn’t even a sin (the argument from silence).  We should err on the side of saying it isn’t a sin.  We ignore the fact that Jesus, as God, authored the Old Testament and that He fully supported it.
  • The man was born that way (i.e., with the desire to have sex with females).  It was his natural desire and function.
  • He and his father’s wife love each other!  Who are you to say that is wrong?  Gene Robinson, a Bishop in the Episcopal church, left his wife and kids so he could be with his gay lover.  Pro-gay theologians usually affirm and applaud this behavior.  Living up to marriage commitments made before God isn’t nearly as important as indulging your sexual preferences.
  • How do you know he and his father’s wife didn’t pray about it?  Maybe God gave them a personal revelation permitting them to have sex and/or get married.  That would make it acceptable.
  • Maybe the couple says that Jesus told them it was OK.  Who are you to argue with Jesus?
  • Leviticus 18:8 was a ceremonial law.  It was only for the Jews.  It obviously doesn’t apply to Gentiles.  If you eat shellfish then you obviously are a hypocrite if you don’t condone incest.
  • The Bible never actually uses the word incest.
  • There are only a few verses saying not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife [probably less than there are describing homosexual behavior as sinful].Therefore, how can we be sure about it?  And they are kinda obscure as well.
  • The man or the father’s wife was a temple prostitute or this was part of some pagan temple worship, and that is what made it wrong [even though the text doesn’t even hint at that].
  • Paul was an ignorant prude.  He didn’t understand sexual behavior or have the advantage of all the knowledge we do.  [This assumes that the Holy Spirit wasn’t inspiring his writings, of course].
  • You are just using the “ick” factor and saying “Eeewww” because a man having sex with his father’s wife seems gross to you.  There is really nothing wrong with it, though – you were just made differently.
  • Judge not, lest ye be judged.  Paul must be sinning here because he is clearly making moral judgments.  [Please ignore the fact that I’m judging Paul for judging and that I’ve taken Matthew 7:1-5 out of context].
  • You are just an incest-o-phobe.  You need therapy for your irrational hatred.  In fact, speech like that should be prohibited because it will incite violence against those who practice incest.
  • You just don’t love the man and his father’s wife!  If you did, you’d want them to be happy.  Hater!  Hate speech!
  • Other parts of the Bible portray God acting in ways that don’t appear to be in line with his moral laws, so they obviously aren’t really from him.  Therefore, Leviticus 18:8 may not be his Word either.  When in doubt, we should ignore Scripture, because God’s revelation to my heart trumps anything in the Bible.
  • Some parts of the Bible aren’t clear to us [even though this part is] so we can ignore it.

If that sounds like an unsound line of reasoning that’s because it is an unsound line of reasoning. These principles don’t work on the passages they are designed to dismiss, and they completely self-destruct when applied to other passages.  Pro-gay theology is flawed, sinful and destructive and should be abandoned by any Christians who hold those views.

Once again, note that:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.  God is perfectly holy, but He is also perfectly gracious and merciful and will forgive those who repent and believe in Jesus.  Hear the Good News:

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Comments are welcome, but please stick to the topic.  We aren’t debating secular views, we aren’t demonizing anyone (pro-gay or orthodox) and we don’t need straw-man arguments (“You just don’t love them,” etc.).

Love LGBTQ people, be friends with them and pray for them.  If they need to develop a friendship with you so they can see what normal relationships should look like, then do so.  But don’t encourage them to participate in sinful behavior.  If you do, then you are loving yourself, not them.

And remember, God catches his fish and then He cleans them.  You don’t have to convert their sexuality before sharing the Good News that God adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

—

* There are the three commons ways pro-gay theologians make errors, namely by believing that:

  1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.
  3. The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful.  However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable and the “new” sin is saying that homosexual behavior is sinful.

—–

The Pyromaniacs make some great points on this passage as well.

Intelligent Design

The many lies from the Scopes trial

11 Comments

The impact of the false reporting of the 1925 Scopes trial still impacts the Darwinian evolution debate today.  Here are a few of the nine lies documented at Mencken’s Mendacity at the Scopes Trial:

First, Mencken lied about the key point at issue in the Scopes Trial, which was not whether the theory of evolution could be taught in Tennessee’s public high schools, but whether the evolution of man from “lower animals” could be taught as a scientific theory to high school students, in a state where a solid majority of parents in the state of Tennessee opposed the teaching of such a theory to their children, on both moral and religious grounds.

Second, Mencken lied by omission, by failing to mention that Hunter’s Civic Biology, a pro-evolution science textbook that was cited at the trial, and which high school teachers in the state of Tennessee were actually required to use at the time, endorsed both racism and eugenics: it taught the the Caucasoid race was “the highest” races, described people with mental handicaps and genetic deformities as “true parasites“, and highly commended the practice of eugenics.

Third, Mencken mis-represented the religious views of William Jennings Bryan, depicting him as a Biblical literalist and a “fundamentalist pope,” when Bryan’s own writings showed that he was a Presbyterian of fairly liberal views, who believed in an old Earth, and who was open to the possibility that plants and animals had evolved by Darwinian natural selection, making an exception only for man.

Fourth, Mencken mendaciously attributed to Bryan the statement that man is not a mammal, when Bryan said nothing of the sort. What Bryan did object to was the portrayal of man in Hunter’s Civic Biology as an unexceptional mammal, “so indistinguishable among the mammals that they leave him there with thirty-four hundred and ninety-nine other [species of] mammals.”

Fifth, Mencken consistently portrayed Bryan as a petty, hate-filled character when others who were present, including Scopes himself, testified to his magnanimity, affability and pleasant personality.

 

Pro-life

One pro-abortion meme, so much bad logic

3 Comments

This meme shared by the the “Christian” Left was a spectacular fail.

(Heads up: trolls, concern trolls and contrarians will be “invited” to leave the page. We’ve seen it and heard it before — and we’re simply not buying it.)
Agree? Then spread the message around and sign the boycott for birth control: http://actionsprout.io/597AC1

Photo: Agree? Then spread the message around and sign the boycott for birth control: http://actionsprout.io/597AC1

1. The “Christian” Left has to swear in their memes? Another meme today said, “Shut the f*ck up” and only commenter out of 30 had complained. Classy. Then again, they refuse to have any limits on child-killing in the womb, so what would you expect?

2. They use the same question-begging fallacy as most pro-abortion arguments, where they ignore the human being killed in the abortion. What about her choice?
Why are they anti-choice for the woman to own a gun whenever she likes, choose where her kids go to school, choose what size soda to drink, choose what the kids each for lunch (if they are allowed outside the womb), etc.?

3. The “Christian” Left is most certainly pro-abortion. Words mean things. Democrats are officially pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Why? Because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, laws requiring all health care plans to cover abortions, and no restrictions on anything, including “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide), late term abortions, gender-selection abortions, parental notification, etc.

From their platform (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform ): “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

4. It was cute how they pre-empted discussion as well. They are so open minded and tolerant!

5. They just got through quoting this verse, then they ignore it! What about the interests of the unborn?

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:4 (ESV)

They also reflexively quote verses about the “least of these” and loving your “neighbor,” while ignoring that abortion destroys both of those.

The Molech-worshipers will always be pro-abortion.

6. They claim to be pro-choice because it is none of their “da*n” business, but they simultaneous want to force employers and taxpayers to pay for abortions. See any “choice” contradiction there? Worse yet, they link to a boycott page that is mad that companies like Hobby Lobby “only” offer 16 forms of birth control. You see, they don’t offer the human being-killing kind, so that makes the “Christian” Left sad.

And of course abortion kills human beings who have already been reproduced, so birth control is another topic.

—–

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.

The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.

In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Bible, Christian worldview, Favorites, Intelligent Design, Sexuality

Jesus annihilates Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting in just two verses

6 Comments

No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics.  When the King of Kings and Lord of Lords speaks, you should pay close attention and trust him.

Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Churchgoers who  disagree have nearly identical views to the world. You should not follow them.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Media, Politics

Leftists dominate media, education and entertainment businesses

2 Comments

Yet we still managed to have a great showing on election night.  It shows the power of our ideas.

We should not discourage Christians from being in those businesses.  If we withdraw, what kind of results should we expect?

Also, we need to continue to be wise and work around the mainstream media.  People like Dan Patrick in Texas did it very successfully.

Via Donor Data Show Overwhelming Leftist Bias of News, Entertainment, and Academia

newspaper_print_media_liberal

entertainment_industry_liberal

academics_liberal

False teachers

The “Christian” Left believes Jesus is God! Except when they don’t! Which is all the time!

11 Comments

Please see the Exposing the The “Christian” Left for more like this!

—–

The self-parody of the “Christian” Left continues.  I wrote about them last week in The self-parody of the “Christian” Left (are you picking up on the theme?).  Then, to defend themselves, they posted this on their Facebook page, insisting that they accepted the divinity of Jesus.

Some of our fundie critics like to accuse us of denying the divinity of Christ. We can’t figure out if they’re purposely lying or just misled. We do no such thing. No one understands the Trinity. No one. We do not deny the divinity of Christ. In the past we’ve posted articles that attempt to analyze which aspects of Jesus were true man and which aspects were true God. Apparently the fundies freaked out about that. That’s generally what happens when they are forced to think outside their template.

Now how could we have possibly drawn the conclusion that they don’t think Jesus is God.  Maybe — just maybe! — it is because one of their leaders, Mark Sandlin, wrote this: Jesus Is Not My God.

I am a believer. Mostly.

I believe that there is probably a god — something bigger than us. I have a very hard time believing that there’s not something larger than humanity.

I mean, seriously? We are the best the universe has to offer? At least, as far as we know? That seems a bit egotistical to me, not to mention a bit unfortunate for the Universe. Ultimately, I don’t buy it.

I also believe there might not be a god — or, at the very least, I frequently feel the absence of God.

Even King David, felt the absence of God. It’s all over the Psalms. I really don’t feel that bad about doubting. I feel like it’s normal.

That’s why I think of myself as an agnostic Christian. I believe there is a God. I also accept that there might not be.

“I believe; help me in my disbelief.”

When I worship, I worship that God who is all-at-once bigger than me and might not be at all.

It’s the same god I believe Jesus was trying to teach us about.

. . .

For me, Jesus not being God is a good thing – a very good thing.

 

He also has a post called, “No Trinity for me.”  So, yeah, I think it is fair to say they deny the divinity of Jesus.  I was not lying or misled.  I was quoting them directly.  I’m sure I’ll get an apology message shortly . . .

Same goes for their denial that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  Their other leader, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie, preaches entire sermons on why Jesus is not the only way to salvation.

There is a reason they don’t let Christians post on their page.  It is too easy to expose them, just by quoting the titles of their posts!

—–

Bonus: The comment below from uber-commenter Danny got him banned from the “Christian” Left Facebook site.  Note that they didn’t delete a comment last week that said, “Take your Bible verses and shove them up your ass.  Any guesses as to why I put quotes around “Christian” when I refer to the “Christian” Left?

Dear friends. Something is wrong with this world. This site says that the problem is right wingers. But government cannot fix what is wrong. The problem with this world is sin. If there were no sin, this site, nor political parties, nor right or left wing politics, would be needed. The problem is that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, and the BIble tells us that the wrath of God is resting on all who do not repent and are born again. I urge all who visit here to read their Bibles. I suggest starting with the book of John. Pray to God. Ask him to have mercy on your soul. Ask him to reveal himself to you as you read his Holy Word. Eternity hangs in the balance dear friends.

 

Politics

Some clever ideas: 6 bills the GOP should pass

Congress has a unique opportunity to not only do a lot of good for the country but to be shrewd and position themselves for the future with young voters.  They would have tons to run on: They would have elected young people, females and minorities and addressed a lot of issues those constituencies care about.  They would also disarm the Left of their silly “war on women” meme.  Even if Obama vetoes them the Republicans would still score points and position the issues for future success under a Republican President.

Via 6 bills the GOP should pass:

1 End the federally imposed 21-year-old drinking age. The limit was dreamed up in the 1980s as a bit of political posturing by then-secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. It has been a disaster. College drinking hasn’t been reduced; it has just moved out of bars and into dorm rooms, fraternities/sororities and house parties. The result has been a boom in alcohol problems on campus. While drunken driving has declined, it was declining before the age was raised and has declined just as fast in Canada, where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province.

As John McCardell, vice chancellor of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., writes, “If you infantilize someone, do not be surprised when infantile behavior — like binge drinking — results.” . . .

2 Decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Many states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal under federal law. That’s bound to change sooner or later — and the GOP might as well get ahead of it. Would Obama veto it? Doubtful. . . .

3 Repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This awful law passed in the Clinton era is a giveaway to the entertainment industry. It places major burdens on Internet and computer users and electronic innovators. In fact, we should reform copyright law in general: A 28-year term was good enough when America was new; double that would be fair enough now as opposed to the nearly perpetual duration copyrights enjoy today. Shorter copyrights would encourage Hollywood and the music industry to produce new material, instead of endlessly recycling old stuff.

Bonus for Republicans: The entertainment industries hate them, so this would be a species of payback. Would Obama veto this, protecting fat-cat industry types who were his own big contributors? Probably, but it wouldn’t look good.

4 Make birth-control pills available over the counter. Cory Gardner made this a part of his winning platform in Colorado’s Senate race. Let women choose. If Obama vetoed this, Republicans could accuse him of waging “war on women.”

5 End public-sector employee unions. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker eliminated dues-withholding for public employee unions in his state. The unions were so angry that they organized a recall campaign against him. They lost. They then tried to recall a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who upheld his action. They lost. They then tried to beat Walker in last week’s election. They lost again.

President Franklin Roosevelt opposed public employee unions because he thought that people whose salaries came from the taxpayers shouldn’t have the right to collectively bargain against citizens whose taxes were being collected by force, and that collective bargaining by public employees was a conflict of interest. He was right. Obama would veto this, but his veto would be highly unpopular and set up an issue for 2016.

6 Institute a “revolving door” surtax on those who make more in post-government employment. Leave a Treasury job making $150,000 a year to take one in private industry paying $750,000, and you’ll pay 50% surtax on the $600,000 difference. Most of the increased pay is based on knowledge and connections you got while on Uncle Sam’s dime, so why shouldn’t Uncle Sam get a share? An Obama veto would be unpopular.

 

Economics, Politics

Great quotes on the minimum wage debate

27 Comments

The minimum wage is proven to hurt the Left’s voters, but they advance the argument anyway to demonize their opponents and buy votes. Here are some great responses. Note the racist beginnings. Thanks to Glenn for the list!

Intervention by politicians, judges, or others, in order to impose terms more favorable to one side – minimum wage laws or rent control laws, or example – reduces the overlapping set of mutually agreeable terms and, almost invariably, reduces the number of mutually acceptable transactions, as the party disfavored by the intervention makes fewer transactions subsequently.  Countries with generous minimum wage laws, for example, often have higher unemployment rates and longer periods of unemployment than other countries, as employers offer fewer jobs to inexperienced and low-skilled workers, who are typically the least valued and lowest paid – and who are most often priced out of a job by minimum wage laws.

It is not uncommon in European countries with generous minimum wage laws, as well as other worker benefits that employers are mandated to pay for, to have inexperienced younger workers with unemployment rates of 20 percent or more.  Employers are made slightly worse off by having to rearrange their businesses and perhaps pay for more machinery to replace the low-skilled workers whom it is no longer economic to hire.  But those low-skilled, usually younger, workers may be made much worse off by not being able to get jobs as readily, losing both the wages they could earn otherwise and sustaining the perhaps greater loss of not acquiring the work experience that would lead to better jobs and higher pay.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.70

If someone has a right, someone else has an obligation.  But the proposed right to a “living wage,” for example, is not based on any obligation agreed to by an employer.  On the contrary, this “right” is cited as a reason why government should force the employer to pay what third parties would like to be paid.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.157

Crusaders for a “living wage” or to end “sweatshop labor” in the Third World, for example, may invest great amounts of time and energy promoting those goals but virtually none in scrutinizing the many studies done in countries around the world to discover the actual consequences of minimum wage laws in general or of “living wage” laws in particular.  These consequences have included periods of unemployment, especially for the least skilled and least experienced segments of the population.  Whether one agrees with or disputes these studies, the crucial question here is whether one bothers to read them at all.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.181

The last year in which black unemployment was lower than white unemployment – 1930 – was also the last year in which there was no federal minimum wage law.  The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was openly advocated by some members of Congress on grounds that it would stop black construction workers from taking jobs from white construction workers by working for less than the union wages of white workers.  Nor was the use of minimum wage laws to deliberately price competing workers out of labor market unique to the Davis-Bacon Act or to the United States.  Similar arguments were made in Canada in the 1920s, where the object was to price Japanese immigrants out of the labor market, and in South Africa in the era of apartheid, to price non-whites out of the labor market.

Any group whose labor is less in demand, whether for lack of skills or for other reasons, is disproportionately priced out of labor markets when there are minimum wage laws, which are usually established in disregard of differences in skills or experience.  It has not been uncommon in Western Europe, for example, for young people to have unemployment rates above 20 percent.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, pp.450-451

Intellectuals give people who have the handicap of poverty the further handicap of a sense of victimhood. They have encouraged the poor to believe that their poverty is caused by the rich — a message which may be a passing annoyance to the rich but a lasting handicap to the poor, who may see less need to make fundamental changes in their own lives that could lift themselves up, instead of focusing their efforts on dragging others down.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.544