|November 3, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, morality, Obama, politics, Secular Humanism|
It was only two years ago that the great mass of swing voters, so called independents and moderates, scurried over like lemmings to vote for Obama and the Democrats. That any of them might have been surprised at what Obama and the Democrat congress actually did hints at a serious problem. No doubt many of these people voted against Obama this year- but did they do it because they have more carefully deliberated on their principles and the lessons of history?
I think it is clear that many of them did. Nonetheless, I am certain that a lot didn’t, and the fact that millions and millions still happily cast their lot with Obama and his socialist-by-another-name agenda shows that many people didn’t really move at all.
|October 7, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, General, Knights of Contention, politics, science, Secular Humanism, theology|
Those who know me know that I like a good scrap. Well, I thought it would be fun to host a bi-weekly event where people from across the spectrum of thought can get together and converse in a chat/voice conference format on topics of interest and importance.
So, I have set aside the second and fourth Tuesday of every month, at 9:30 p.m. CST, to hold this discussion. Expect each session to go from 90 minutes to 2 hours. Allowed to speak: atheists, theists, cynics, skeptics, knuckleheads, and the rest. Basic rule: behave as though you were in a public diner with friends and people they brought along but are strangers to you. It’s a little ambiguous, but if you can’t be courteous in your passionate discourse, we just won’t allow you back.
|September 10, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Blog, Christianity and Culture, General, human rights, Obama|
I just posted this column at The Cypress Times and in the meantime, contributor Kathy posted her own post here at Sntjohnny.com which I thought had a lot of good points. Click on her link to read what she had to say. Click ‘read more’ below to finish reading my column.
This thing down in Florida where a pastor of a congregation not much bigger than my thumbnail has threatened to burn korans has reached the heights of absurdity. Pastor Jone’s one long publicity stunt has paid off in spades. It has attracted all kinds of attention. Even Obama has noticed, and given how hard it is for a commoner to attract his eye, that’s really saying something. But maybe not. President Oblivious seems to have a keen eye for potential beer summits or things touching on Islam.
Now, Interpol has announced this warning:
LYON, France – INTERPOL has today issued a global alert to its 188 member countries following the request of Pakistan’s Minister of the Interior, and its own determination, that if the proposed Koran burning by a pastor in the US goes ahead as planned, there is a strong likelihood that violent attacks on innocent people would follow.
|August 9, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General, philosophy, politics, Secular Humanism|
The problem is that once one goes down the road to taking action in the cause of the ‘public good,’ or as the US Constitution puts it, the ‘general welfare,’ there seems to be no objective place to stop and desist taking action. Moreover, the actions taken tend to accrue over time so that today government at every level- local, state, and federal- has reached into every area of American life. I say ‘every’ on purpose and deliberately, for I am hard pressed to think of any part of my life that isn’t regulated somehow by some government somewhere in some measure.
However, even if we should stop and discover one or two that have been overlooked at present, my general point is that if history is any guide, even these will fall to the regulators at some point. Since it never happens that these impositions- for our own good- are rarely, if ever revoked, we can say with nearly perfect certainty that a day is coming when every little endeavor we engage in, no matter how trifling or miniscule, falls under the legislating eye of the Omni-Benevolent Government.
Thus, a little girl’s lemonade stand necessarily falls under the purview of inspectors.
|August 1, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, atheism, Christianity and Culture, General, morality, politics, pro-life, science|
In fashioning this response, I am in the difficult position of trying to respond to Anne’s position with only facebook status updates and past history to rely on. Readers (especially if that reader is Anne herself) will forgive any wrong inferences. With that important caveat out of the way…
The difficulty in dispensing with the Church and keeping Christ is that it is impossible and can’t be done. I’m not going to go Cyprian on you (“He who does not have the Church as his mother…”) because I think he was making a different point. Christians are not united by creed but by Christ, a person. You can step away from denominations and congregations but if you really stepped outside of the Church, you’d step out of Christ, because the Church is his body. (Eph. 5, 1 Cor 12:12-27, esp. 27).
The 1 Cor passage mentioned above is relevant in its own way because Paul points out that just because the foot says to the hand, “I am not the body because I am not a hand” the foot does not, in fact, cease to be part of the family. So long as Anne is in Christ, her declarations about not being part of the Church are no more than that- declarations. And what of those she would disassociate herself from? Is it her conviction that they are not in Christ? I doubt she would go that far. But if she thinks some Christians have been, well, asses, not even in this case can the hand say to the ass, “You are not part of the body,” for every body still has an ass!
|April 28, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, Love, Malthusians, philosophy, politics, Secular Humanism|
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51)
|April 27, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, Love, politics, pro-life|
This is the video of the presentation I delivered in Jan, 2010. The pro-life topic title was: “Be a hero.”
|April 18, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Blog, Christianity and Culture, politics, Secular Humanism|
From Dorothy Sayer’s lecture titled, “Are Women Human?” 1938.
To oppose one class perpetually to another- young against old, manual labour against brain-worker, rich against poor, woman against man- is to split the foundations of the State; and if the cleavage runs too deep, there remains no remedy but force and dictatorship. If you wish to preserve a free democracy, you must base it- not on classes and categories, for this will land you in the totalitarian State, where no one may act or think except as the member of a category. You must base it upon the individual Tom, Dick and Harry, and the individual Jack and Jill- in fact, upon you and me.