Posts Tagged by Liberals
|January 10, 2013||Posted by Anthony under abortion, Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, General, human rights, Love, morality, Obama, original sin, philosophy, politics, pro-life, Secular Humanism|
The stalwart propaganda rag for Russia, Pravda, has published an article on gun control that makes a good point: The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain […]
|October 9, 2012||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General, Obama, politics, Secular Humanism|
The debate revealed nothing about Obama that attentive people have seen in him for the last four years: He is an ’empty suit.’ He is an ’empty chair.’ The debate only revealed something about Romney, but it only uncovered and crystallized anti-Obama sentiment that had been lying quietly beneath the surface for 2-4 years.
Romney in a landslide.
|May 24, 2012||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, General, Love, politics, scientism, Secular Humanism, theism, theology|
Get this on your E-reader using this link and coupon for 100% off: ZC29N I must at the outset admit the debt owed to GK Chesterton, for it was on the third reading of his “Eugenics and Other Evils” that his comments about ‘the anarchy from above’ finally made sense. They made sense because they […]
|December 9, 2011||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General, politics, taxation|
Everyone pays taxes even when nobody pays them; nobody pays taxes, because everyone pays them. You cannot target just one ‘group’ because that group will ultimately diffuse that tax to some other group. Hence, every tax becomes a tax on everyone, and never a tax on any particular group. Solution?
|May 24, 2011||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, family, General, homosexuality, human rights, Love, morality, pro-life, Secular Humanism|
That’s really what you have going on here… you know, the old “A rose by any other name is still a rose” thing… a boy is still a boy by any other name, and likewise a girl… but you have some people who think that by throwing off definitions you can obliterate, change, or deny the underlying reality. Are there sometimes when definitions can be unhelpful? Sure, I can buy that. But there are limits to that observation. This is secularism: taking an observation into account but jettisoning the limits or notion of limits.