I don’t usually get into the topic of abortion on this blog, however, this article by Kathryn Lopez over at ‘The Corner’ just floored me.  It is astonishing to me how many on the left can reach so disparate conclusions on 2 different forms of (essentially) the same moral question.

I was taken aback during Wednesday press conference when I noted the difference in Obama’s answers to the questions on waterboarding and abortion. I haven’t seen anyone note the inconsistency of his reasoning. When it came to torture/ waterboarding/ enhanced interrogation techniques, Obama said we shouldn’t take shortcuts. Even when it’s hard, we should take the high road. It’s in our nation’s character to take the more noble option, though it will require a lot more work and effort to get the same information. But when it came to the issue of abortion, while he readily acknowledged it was a morally and ethically weighty issue, he said it should be an available option. Why? Because he trusted that women, along with their doctors and their families, appreciate the ethical weightiness of their decision and will make the best decision for their circumstances…

How is it that he cannot trust the educated opinion of government lawyers as they balance ethics (of inducing discomfort and pain) with practicalities (of stopping mass murder) and advise as to where enhanced techniques cross the line to become illegal torture? But a woman, by virtue of having two x chromosomes, can be trusted to weigh ethics (of live and death) and practicalities (of inconvenience and economic difficulties) while having a personal vested interest in those practicalities.

If we should take the “high road” when it comes to the protections we offer hardened terrorists… why should we abandon the highway system entirely when it comes to life in the womb?

via Obama on Abortion & Interrogation – Kathryn Jean Lopez

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and member of the Dutch Freedom party has just released a documentary CRITICAL of radical Islamists called FITNA.  As expected, muslims around the world have condemned Wilders for releasing the film–threatening Wilders personally as well as the lives of any internet site complicit in its broadcast.  LiveLeak.com, a site famous for airing controversial footage was forced to remove the clip from their servers citing “very serious threats“.

If this were not distressing enough, WESTERN leaders also joined with the exreemists in condemning the film.  The EU’s Slovenian presidency said the film only “inflaming hatred”.  The U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Ban, “condemned” the film “in the strongest terms”.  He also said that, ”The right of free expression is not at stake here… Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”  Even the Dutch Prime Minister Mr. Balkenende said the film ”serves no purpose other than to offend”.

Mr. Wilders has just proven himself to be one of the gutsiest men alive.  The threats directed at him and at the free press outlets of the world only reinforce and validate his criticisms.  Mr. Ban just doesn’t get it:  Because those exercising free speech are being threatened with violence, free speech is VERY MUCH at stake here.  The basic message of the film film-that radical islamic terrorists are a very real threat-is what terrorists are affirming at every turn and what European leaders are in denial about.  As Eric Cartman so poignantly pointed out, using fear to get people to do what you want isn’t like terrorism, “it IS terrorism”.  I applaud Mr. Wilders for standing up for these principles… not many people do anymore.

I just finished a book by Dinesh D’souza titled “What’s so great about Christianity”.  I do not exaggerate when I say that D’souza is in the “Buckley” mold–his grasp of philosophy, history, and the sciences firmly establish him as a “renaissance man” (my kind of guy).  Throughout the pages of his book, he challenges and (in many cases ‘destroys’) the arguments and accusations Athiests such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made against the belief in Christ.  

The book’s basic outline is well constructed.  First, D’souza systematically questions many of the “new Athiesm’s” presuppositions about Christianity.  He points out that Christianity, far from causing the moral tragedies of the modern world… has, in fact, been the changing force that helped overcome these very moral travesties.  For example, Christianity lifted women out of the second-class status Roman society had imposed upon them; it was the impetus for the great artists of our time: Michalengelo, Da Vinchi, Mozart, Bach, Handel… etc… ; it helped create the concept of western government — a concept based around the Christian principle that society must fight against the inherent sinful nature of man and must keep leader’s actions in check.  These are but a few of Christianity’s contributions to world history…  

D’souza then calls Athiesm out — asking it to provide the same answers it chides Christianity for failing to answer.  When tragedy happens, Where is Atheism?  Atheism cannot console the victims of tradgey… nor can it condemn the aggressor.  When Athiest rulers murder millions of their subjects… where is Athiesm’s defense (or apology?).  When Athiesm claims rationality as their trump card… on what basis can they claim that rationality alone provides all answers?  For all it’s proponents, Athiesm still has much to account for.

What’s So Great About Christianity may be the best piece of Christian apologetics in the past decade;  don’t pass it up! 

I found this article on Americanthinker.com and wanted to share a few potions of it.

So, assuming you are a theist, what do you say to the atheist who asks, “You don’t (chuckle) actually believe in God, do you (snicker)?”…

No matter what evidence you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it. To him, it is not the case that your evidence for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior evidence against God. No, in the atheist’s mind your evidence does not even count as evidence…  

the atheist refuses to expand his mental universe by also believing in the transcendent things that the theist believes in: God, souls, angels and demons, for example. The atheist restricts himself to a sort of tunnel vision.

And this is where atheism becomes vulnerable. The atheist does not disbelieve in God because he has neutrally examined all the evidence, and drawn the proper conclusion that there is no God. On the contrary, the atheist radically misconstrues the plentiful evidence for God, and he does this because of his false worldview, which tells him that only the physical really exists. Before he has examined the evidence, the atheist thinks he knows that nothing non-physical actually exists, and this assumption governs how he responds to the evidence.

There is only one effective way to respond to the supercilious atheist’s question: Speak his language, the language of evidence and reasoning, of logic and proof… Say something like the following:

“I believe in God because that’s what the evidence shows. But before you try to debunk my evidence, we have to ask, what are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists, and how do you know that these criteria are correct? 

So when the atheist asserts that there is no evidence that any miracle has occurred, ask him: “What sort of evidence for a miracle would you regard as being valid? And how do you know ahead of time that any miracle not validated by this type of evidence must not have occurred?”
 

This is only a short portion of the entire article; the author goes on to take you through almost an entire debate … focusing on the weaknesses of the typical atheist position.  It is really a useful article for BOTH sides… atheist and theist alike.

I thought it would be worthwhile to get around to the “series” I began weeks ago which discuss the latest views Christopher Hitchens explains in his new book, “God is not Great.” The focus of this post is a discussion on Christianity Today, in which hitchens has a friendly debate with Douglas Wilson, a theology professor at New Saint Andrews College.

Hitchens argues, in part

Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral. I would principally wish to cite the concept of vicarious redemption, whereby one’s own responsibilities can be flung onto a scapegoat and thereby taken away. In my book, I argue that I can pay your debt or even take your place in prison but I cannot absolve you of what you actually did. This exorbitant fantasy of “forgiveness” is unfortunately matched by an equally extreme admonition‚Äîwhich is that the refusal to accept such a sublime offer may be punishable by eternal damnation. Not even the Old Testament, which speaks hotly in recommending genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors, stoops to mention the torture of the dead. Those who tell this evil story to small children are not damned by me, but have been damned by history and should also be condemned by those who shrink from cruelty to children (a moral essential that underlies all cultures).

I think it is clear hitches is trying to convince himself, against what seems to be his common sense judgement, that Christianity is the worst thing sense slised bread. He seems to think it unfair that humanity can “cheat” on their mortgage (i.e. sin) payments by accepting God’s free gift of forgiveness, but then fret that the consequences of that very sin will be visited upon those who do not cheat. In hitchens perfect world, sin should be repayable with human efforts… but wait, he doesn’t believe in sin.

I suggest you read the whole piece… it is quite worthwhile.

I don’t often follow the publishing industry with any interest, but the one development I have been looking forward to is the release of Christopher Hitchens’ new book, “God Is Not Great.” While I will no doubt disagree with many of Hitchen’s conclusions, I think that if read constructively, it can serve a good purpose in the Christian Community. It is rare that such an excellent communicator provides such a frank discussion of his personal beliefs about religion and I think that such an opportunity should not easily be dismissed.

One thing that surprised me about the book was hitchen’s research on the Mormon Church. It turns out that The Book of Mormon was quite clearly a sham. Joseph Smith supposedly had the book transcribed while he read from golden plates, except it turns out he was illiterate.?Ǭ† After a clever woman hid the first copy of the transcript, he was unable to duplicate the transcript in anywhere near its original form (in fact he refused to even try). I could provide a synopsis, but I might as well just let you read Hitchens own words…

….in the case of Smith it is likewise a simple if tedious task to discover that twenty-five thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken directly from the Old Testament…. A further two thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken from the New Testament. Of the three hundred and fifty “names” in the book, more than one hundred come straight from the Bible and a hundred more are as near stolen as makes no difference.

This is only a portion of the article… I suggest you read it in its entirety if you want to know more. In my next blog entry, which I will hopefully get around to next week, I hope to challenge Hitchen’s views on Christianity. Stay Tuned!