Explanations

DT0001-SB
So, you found the link to the explanations! Here's a clue, if you go to our about page, you'll find another series of links to some essays and random thoughts we have about fundamental concepts intimately related to a Christian worldview. (Not to mention our own worldview) But hey, if that bores you, just rollover the design numbers on the order pages, and you'll get brief explanations of the concept behind the shirt!

As for this one, you can find it slightly more detailed in our essay on objectivity and the nature of truth, but the short version for design DT 0001-SB is simply this… If you don't have absolute values, you don't have values.

DT0002-EF
We support a woman's right to choose. But we don't quite mean it the way the feminist movement means it. When they say it, it is a slogan we've all heard to help describe abortion, the killing of children for a parent's "convenience" in a nice way. When you look at it, the mantra of the abortion crowd is phrased in the context of "rights", and who after all, couldn't agree that women should have the right to "choose"? Sounds nice and sanitary, doesn't it? Until you remember they are talking about destroying a human life. We don't care if you call it a fetus, embryo, undifferentiated tissue, zygote, or blastocyst… If it's in a woman's womb, it is not going to grow up to be a chicken. So, won't you help us support a woman's (or a man's) right to choose? After all, if we obey God to begin with, (can you say abstinence) we wouldn't have to devise euphemistic rationalizations to cover our sin and try to make it look like we care.

DT0003-EF
We aren't against creating a government that helps our brothers and sisters out a bit when they are down. Really, we're not. We're not against charity either, but it seems the advocates of the left are, as they would rather government 'collect' charity in the form of taxes and redistribute it (aka Socialism) as welfare, social security, medicare Medicaid, (and if Democrats gain even more power, Universal health care) AFDC, General assistance and other 'programs' of the same ilk. (We're guessing the left thinks that if it's a tax, it's not so hard to "give" besides, who better than 'all knowing' government to provide for our needs, right?)

However, we are against the perpetually growing, never-ending "cradle to grave" Nanny State that the democrats advocate these days. Let's put a limit on these things, and see what we can do to make those who have become accustomed to the entitlements productive citizens again. Of course, this does not let you Christians off the hook, if there are those who truly cannot support themselves in any way, or contribute to society at least a bit; this is what Charity really is for.

DT0004-EF
Well finally, a controversial subject. Do we really need to explain this? Ok, so maybe someone from the left accidentally stumbles upon our site and gets his or her sensibilities offended. Perhaps we should explain. Oh, and if you buy this shirt, we admire your courage.

As we understand it the reasoning of those who advocate Gay Marriage is this:

1) They demand the right to be able to choose the gender of their marital partner.
2) It is unlawful to deny a person their right as claimed from 'time to time' according to the Constitution of the United States of America.
3) Therefore Gays should be allowed to marry.

The problem with this argument is that it is an Equivocation. (An equivocation is a form of logical fallacy, which renders an argument invalid) For a quick explanation of this term, see onegoodmove.org/fallacy/equiv.htm.

Simply stated, the word "Right" in the above argument must have the same meaning both times it is used for the logic to hold true. However, the word right as it is used in premise one means, "A legal standard setting apart or creating a new class of individuals based on their sexual behavior and affording them defined privileges." As it is used in the second premise, it takes on the constitutional definition of a 'right', which is clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence (and implied by our other constitutional documents) as "God given." What this means is, a 'right,' as our founding fathers understood it, is something that cannot be denied a man (or woman) by government because GOD ordains it, and therefore, government shall not attempt to take it away from men.

What all this means is if the Gay Marriage advocates (read homosexuals) were to be consistent, then they have to claim that God made them gay. If God really did make them gay, they would have a fairly decent argument. In fact, this is exactly what the majority of gays claim. Their sexual behavior is something they were born with. God (or nature for the atheistic) made them gay. Naturally they then conclude, everyone should legally recognize it and end the 'discrimination.'

So, how does this become a problem? Well, it's like this… if gays can claim this is their natural God given right, and our government gives in and acknowledges this, does it not follow that pedophilia, rape, incest and other assorted minority sexual behaviors could be justified on the same logic? Do we really want this?

Let's advocate marriage remain defined as a Man and a Woman.

DT0005-EF
Well, ok, we admit it; this is a not entirely unprovoked shot at the dems. But let's face it, as is explained in the paragraph for DT0003-EF, the social programs the left wants encourage self-serving voters. Want a raise? Vote democrat and the minimum wage increases. Want more excuses to not go to work? FMLA says OK! Gay and want to marry? The Democratic Party wants your vote. They even approve of those who practice things worthy of death. Just think of the "Tolerance" doctrine. Or the ACLU defending NAMBLA. The democrats want to serve you, and you want to serve yourself. Problem is… who gets to pay for it all? Ask the left and they'll say we'll enact laws, we'll raise taxes! We'll pay for it somehow!

Just remember that 'somehow' always means somebody. That somebody is you.

DT0006-SB
This one is all about the idea of "moral equivalence" Moral equivalence is the practical application of the belief that truth is relative and there are no absolutes. (DT 0001-SB)

It is when "journalists" call terrorists 'freedom fighters'. Or when people think North Korea should be allowed to have nuclear missiles because after all, America does, and who are we to force "our" will on them? It's as though they think North Korea will use them responsibly only for self-defense just like US. It's the idea of 'whatever works for you', and of course, when people see no moral difference between voting for adulterous democratic candidates who redefine "what is is", (while not having sex with that woman), environmental extremism, and murdering babies. These days, if you want, you can find an "expert" who will rationalize anything for you. A multitude of teachers for every itching ear.

There's an old saying that all roads lead to Rome, but lets try to remember why the Roman Empire fell.

DT0007-SB
Can you say custom morals? Situational ethicists can, and they do. At least we can give them some credit for assuming right and wrong exist. But for these folks, right and wrong never appear the same way twice. Everything is dependant upon the circumstance of the moment. The problem with this is, in order to determine what is right and what is wrong in any particular situation, you'd have to know everything about it. Since everything in this universe is in some way related to everything else, it's impossible to do. Unless you claim to literally know everything. But that would make you omniscient. Omniscience is of course, just one side of Omnipotence and Omnipresence. That is to claim one is to claim all three, and as we know, being all three is a claim to being God. We find that would make you just a touch arrogant. Honestly, so do most situational ethicists. (Ok, so they have two points.) But here's the rub…If you acknowledge you can't know everything, then tacitly you acknowledge your 'pronouncement', so to speak, on the rightness or wrongness of a situation is subject to change. Was it warm? Did you have enough to eat? Was the wind blowing strongly that day? Just about any new information could make you change your mind. Like a wave tossed about on the ocean. A candle in the wind. We find thinking like this leads to what James called "Double minded."

DT0008-SB
This one is for the scientific minded among us. It's a restatement of the scripture verses cited in the parlance of the classic cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. William Paley did it well. We think Michael Behe (from biochemistry) and others have updated it for the moderns among us, and Darwin still has a major (death blow to his theory) problem trying to get life from unliving chemicals. (Yes, we know Darwin did not expound directly on how the first organism came to be, but it's easy to see how if what he said is true, it must have happened at some point in order for his theory to be correct.)

DT0009-SB
We got tired of being characterized in the media in negative terms. Seems we're anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-freedom, or anti-women's rights, when the truth of the matter is we think human life is more valuable than anything else. We also got tired of the death merchants being proclaimed in positive terms. So here it is…their self-anointed slogan (PRO-"choice") used to remind them all, there really is a choice. Choose life.

DT0010-EF
We don't see anything wrong with humane treatment of animals. We are God's stewards after all. It just seems some folks are so into caring for animals, they'd put them before humans. Or, they act before they think. Like those who would break into a lab and "free" the animals, which then starve cruelly to death because they had spent their entire life being fed by humans and can't survive in the wild. They carry their thinking to an absurd degree. God put animals here to serve us, and us to care for them, but He did not create animals in His image. He actually values us more, believe it or not.

DT0011-EF
Tell them you are a Christian-American. Let's unite over something we can choose, rather than divide over something we can't.

DT0012-SB
We think this one is self-explanatory. Are you an Evolutionist, or a Theist? Darwin had no problem admitting the racist implications of his theory. Whereas God created the races, and loved them all. Which is the morally better position in your opinion? (Situational Ethicists may take as much time as they need to answer the question, but grading is pass/fail, there is no grading on a curve.)

DT0013-SB
Ok, we admit it. You finally caught us. We hold to an intolerant position. We believe that when Jesus said you couldn't serve both God and money, He meant it. This shirt is not about claiming that all rich people go to hell, it's about people who focus on anything other than Him as their God going to hell. Makes a bit more sense when it is placed in proper context doesn't it? There is nothing wrong with wealth, but it won't go with you, it can't save you, and it's not Jesus. If Jesus meant that all rich go to hell, then 99% of Americans would be well on their way, because even if you are in the upper two thirds of the lower class economically speaking, you are still well ahead of the majority of people on this planet, making you rich by comparison. What are you focused on?