Apologetics


The Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics is trying to get a 21 year veteran Wyoming judge removed from the bench for affirming a Biblical sexual ethic and telling a reporter that she would decline to marry a same-sex couple. They claim Judge Ruth Neely is incapable of being unbiased and thus unfit to be a judge. The case is currently being heard by the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Stories like this continue to abound. The trajectory our society is on is for liberals to bully everyone who does not agree with them, literally putting them out of a job for holding what they consider to be the wrong opinion. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re part of the problem, because this sort of fascism and bullying and thought police should scare anyone who loves freedom and believes in free speech.

Oxford University has published a statement signed by prominent bioethecists calling for doctors to yield their moral convictions to their patients’ desires/needs.  They want all doctors to either perform morally contested services or refer patients to those who will.  The direction is clear: you must violate your moral conscience or get out of medicine.  This point of view is gaining wide traction.  It won’t be long before it is legislated and morally sane doctors will find themselves forced out of their professions.

 

HT: Wesley J. Smith

Justin Brierley illustrates the fine-tuning argument using dice.

William Lane Craig’s latest illustrated argument for God’s existence takes up the ontological argument. This is quite a controversial argument, and many theists ignore it.  I must admit, I don’t use it myself.  It’s not because I don’t think it’s sound, but because it is so philosophically esoteric for most people to grasp, and because it is so nuanced.  Nevertheless, WLC has done a nice job helping people to better understand the argument through illustration.

For WLC’s other illustrated arguments, see:

I’ve been doing a lot of teaching and trying to buy a house.  Obviously, by the dates on my last blog posts, it has prohibited me from doing a lot of blogging.  Here’s some of the major stories from the past month or so that I found disturbing: (more…)

polyamoryWe said this was next given the logic of same-sex marriage, and here it is (not the first example). The headline says it all: “Love doesn’t just come in pairs. Is it time that marriage laws come to recognise the fact?”

If “love wins,” and love isn’t defined by gender, then love isn’t defined by twoness either. It’s a logical slippery slope, and we’re already slipping. Given how quickly people have acquiesced to transgenderism, I don’t suspect it will take too long for society and the legal system to give their approval to polyamory and polygamy.

NYC has declared that under its Human Rights Law, businesses must use a transgendered persons’ preferred pronoun when referring to him/her/ze/they/it/hir or they will be fined.

I’m not surprised that liberals would want to take away free speech to force people to say things they do not want to say and know are not true under the pain of financial penalty.  Liberals are not pro-freedom, but pro-liberal values.  They are only for the freedoms they want to champion, and if that requires reducing the overall amount of freedom in this country, they fully support that.

Next Page »