Diversity is not a value. Diversity just is. We don’t value diversity for diversity’s sake, but for what that diversity provides us. For example, we value diversity in food because we enjoy eating different kinds of food. We value diversity of clothing styles because we like to express ourselves in different ways, and we think it would be wrong to make everyone wear the same kind of clothes or eat the exact same food. But there are some examples of diversity that should not be valued or “celebrated.” We should not celebrate diversity in moral views, particularly when some of those moral views entail gross immorality. The British did not celebrate the diversity of Indians when they burned their widows on the funeral pyre. They forcibly ended that barbarism. We should not celebrate diversity in how women’s genitalia is treated – celebrating those who mutilate women’s genitalia alongside those who do not. We should not celebrate the diversity of killing one’s own daughter after she is raped to preserve the honor of the family. Not all ideas are of equal value. We celebrate the diversity of people, but not the diversity of ideas. Bad ideas should be fought against – first by persuasion, but if that fails, in some cases we must fight those ideas by force.
November 23, 2015
Diversity is not a value
Posted by Jason Dulle under Philosophy, Pluralism, Political Incorrectness, Politics, Relativism[15] Comments
November 20, 2015
My thoughts on the Syrian refugees
Posted by Jason Dulle under Odds & Ends, Politics, Social, Theology[13] Comments
A lot of Christians are arguing that our Christian principles, based in Scripture, demand that we welcome the Syrian refugees. This article shows why this is a hasty conclusion regarding the teaching of Scripture.
Surely the Scripture does not mean to say we should allow foreigners to come into our nation who intend to kill us (as if the Israelites would have let the Philistines or Babylonians into Jerusalem!). And surely those who argue that Scripture demands we accept the Syrian refugees would not cite those same passages if they knew members of ISIS or Al Qaeda were among them, but could not be identified. But here’s the thing: We know from the experience in France that terrorists are coming in with the refugees undetected, and people have been murdered as a result. Until and unless we can properly vet these refugees to determine who is a possible terrorist and who is not, how can any reasonable person say we should just let them into our country? It only takes a few terrorists to produce mass killing. 9/11 and the French attacks are proof of this.
November 20, 2015
Christian morality will never be palatable to the non-Christian
Posted by Jason Dulle under Hamartiology, Holiness, Theology[5] Comments
Trying to make Christian morality palatable to those in moral rebellion against God is like trying to make civil law palpable to criminals. They will never like God’s laws no matter how reasonable we demonstrate those laws to be. Defiant children do not care that eating too much candy will make them throw up or give them diabetes. They simply want candy. Likewise, those who want their sexual sin, their abortion, and a myriad of other sins do not care about the wisdom in God’s laws. They want what they want, and they will ridicule and deride those who say otherwise. This is not to say that we should not attempt to explain the reason for and benefits of God’s law. It’s just to say that we shouldn’t be surprised when this fails to change their behavior.
November 18, 2015
Imagine for a moment that a man wrecks his car in a rural area. The car bursts in flames and the man is trapped inside. There is no way for authorities to reach him in time before he dies. Knowing this, he reaches for his gun in his glove box and shoots himself in the head to avoid a long and agonizing death by fire. Did he commit sin (suicide), or is this morally justified?
Now let’s change the scenario a bit. A man wrecks his car in a rural area, right in front of your house. The authorities could never reach him in time to save him. In this scenario, however, he does not have a gun. You hear the accident and explosion from your house and rush to the road to see what has happened. You can hear the man writing in pain from within the car. He sees you through the flames and shouts, “Shoot me! Kill me please!” Is it morally permissible for you to honor his request, killing him with a gun to shorten the amount of agony he must suffer? Or is this murder?
November 13, 2015
In Texas of all places. Two employees at a daycare in Houston were fired for refusing to call a six year old girl a boy after her two fathers instructed the daycare center leadership that she should now be referred to as a boy. Only in our day can people be fired for refusing to deny reality.
I always knew the move to normalize transgenderism would follow on the coattails of the “homosexual campaign,” but I never anticipated that the acceptance of transgenderism was actually embedded within the very pockets of the coat itself.
HT: Wintery Knight
November 10, 2015
The Supposed Science and Religion Conflict
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Science[43] Comments
Many people assume that science and religion conflict. Who believes this? The religious people, right? They are the ones who are anti-science, right? No. Pew Research indicates that those most likely to see a conflict between religion and science are not the most religious, but the least religious.
Why is that? It could be that the most religious people are scientifically illiterate, and are unaware of the conflict between their faith and science. But this is opposed to the meme that the most religious people are the most anti-science because they recognize that science conflicts with their religious faith. One cannot be both scientifically illiterate and know enough about science to determine that science conflicts with one’s faith.
Perhaps the most religious people do not see a science-faith conflict because they are scientifically literate and have found a way to reconcile the findings of both (e.g. theistic evolution).
November 4, 2015
Legalizing suicides increases suicides…obviously
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Euthanasia1 Comment
Ryan Anderson writes in the Daily Signal about a new study showing that contrary to the claims of some physician assisted suicide (PAS) advocates, legalizing PAS increases the number of suicides. Did we really need a study to tell us this? No, but these days common sense can’t get a hearing unless it is confirmed by a study.
HT: Wintery Knight
October 26, 2015
What’s wrong with the modern sexual ethic
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Odds & Ends, Relativism, Sin[14] Comments
The predominant sexual ethic today is built on three moral principles: 1) Consent; 2) No harm involved; 3) Whatever feels good. As long as it feels good, no one is getting hurt, and those involved are consenting to it, it is deemed to be morally acceptable. Timothy Hsiao has written a great article showing why consent and harmlessness are not sufficient to justify a sexual behavior.
Regarding consent, Hsiao argues that consent ought to be based on what is good for us (not just desired by us), and thus the inherent goodness of the act – not just consent – is required. Furthermore, to give consent is to give someone moral permission to do what they would not be justified in doing absent the consent. Giving consent, then, presumes that one has the moral authority to give that permission to another. But if one lacks the moral authority to grant such permissions, consent is not sufficient to make an act ethical. If the act in question is not morally good, then the consenter lacks the proper authority to give consent.
October 20, 2015
Long commutes, domestic responsibilities, teaching, and the need for more sleep (old age) have prevented me from blogging as much as I would like to. That means I get behind on my cultural commentary. Case in point: the legalization of assisted suicide in California.
On October 5 Governor Brown signed the bill into law after years of failed attempts from the assisted suicide lobby (the CA Senate approved it by a vote of 23 to 14, and the CA House approved it by a vote of 43 to 34). Assisted suicide is not something I write about too often, but it is a matter of concern to me. Here’s why I think it should be a matter of concern to you as well:
Legalizing suicide sends the message that there are some human lives not worth living. While suicide advocates say the option for suicide gives people dignity, it does anything but. It robs them of their dignity and value. It communicates a message to them that they are better off dead than alive. Indeed, to claim that this is “death with dignity” is a backhanded way of saying those who choose to suffer in life rather than choosing to take their own life lack dignity. The message is loud and clear: death is more noble than life.
October 8, 2015
Does Libertarian Freedom Require the Possibility of Evil?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Calvinism v Arminianism, Determinism, Philosophy, Theology[43] Comments
Steven Cowan and Greg Welty argue contra Jerry Walls that compatibilism is consistent with Christianity.[1] What they question is the value of libertarian free will (the freedom to do other than what one, in fact, chooses to do, including evil). Why would God create human beings with the ability to choose evil? Libertarians typically argue that such is necessary in order to have genuine freedom, including the freedom to enter into a loving relationship with God. After all, if one could only choose A (the good), and could never choose B (the evil), then their “choice” of A is meaningless. The possibility of truly and freely choosing A requires at least the possibility of choosing B. The possibility of evil, then, is necessary for a free, loving relationship with God. It is logically impossible for God to create free creatures who are unable to choose anything other than A.
Cowan and Wells ask, however, what would be wrong with God creating us in a way that made it impossible for us to desire or choose evil, and yet our choice would still be free. All that would be required is the presence of more than one good to choose from (A, C, D, E, F…). No matter what we choose, we could have chosen some other good, but never evil. This avoids the logical contradiction and preserves real freedom of choice. Cowan and Wells argue that such a world would be superior to our world since this possible world preserves libertarian free will, but lacks evil. In their assessment, there is no reason for the actual world if the value of libertarian free will (relationship with God, gives us freedom to choose the good, gives us the freedom to do otherwise) could be obtained without the possibility of evil. For the libertarian who wants to maintain that the actual world is superior to this possible world, they must maintain that the greatest value of libertarian freedom is that it gives us the opportunity to do evil. Why would God value our ability to do evil if He is good and hates evil? Why would God create a world in which libertarian freedom results in evil if He could have achieved all of the goals of libertarian freedom without evil?
September 23, 2015
Mr. Vice President, who else will you reluctantly let be killed with the blessing of the law?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics[8] Comments
Vice President Biden says abortion is always wrong, but he won’t impose his views on others. Mr. Biden, are there any other human beings believe it’s wrong to kill, but won’t impose that view on others? How about newborns? How about toddlers? How about teenagers (some parents would like to kill a few)? Why not allow others to kill newborns, toddlers, and teenagers? Why do you feel the right to impose your view on others for these human beings, but not unborn humans? Why are you discriminating against the unborn?
September 21, 2015
Compatibilists: Why do you deliberate?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Calvinism v Arminianism, Determinism, Epistemology, Philosophy, Theology[111] Comments
Compatibilists are those who believe that freedom and determinism are compatible with each other. On their view, one is free so long as they make actual choices. And they maintain that people do make actual choices: They choose what they desire. Of course, the problem comes when you ask where those desires come from. The desires are determined by God or physics. So what if physics or God determined for you to desire to kill your roommate? Then you will “choose” to kill your roommate.
In my estimation, this is not a very robust sense of freedom. Indeed, I would argue that it is not freedom at all. If desires cause actions, but the desires are determined by something other than the self, then the actions are determined as well, even if only in a secondary or intermediate sense. More could be said in the way of critique, but I have done so elsewhere.
For this post, I just want to pose a simple question to compatibilists: If our choices are caused by our desires, are our desires are determined by God/physics, then why is “choosing” so hard? Why do we struggle with deliberation? The only reason we experience deliberation is because we possess conflicting desires and we need to weigh them to decide which desire to act on. If our desires are determined, does that mean God (or physics) determined for us to have conflicting desires? If so, what would the purpose be other than to give us the false appearance of having libertarian free will?
September 18, 2015
Gayritos: Shoving the gay down our throat
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Fun, Homosexuality[2] Comments
Tongue-in-cheek, of course, but c’mon! What’s next? Polygamous Doritos that contain three flavors in a single bag? I can see the ad: “They’re Doritogomous!” Or perhaps Bisexual Doritos (Bi-ritos), where each chip contains two flavors?
It’s just amazing to me how brands like Oreos and Doritos are bending over backwards to promote the moral acceptance of homosexuality. Enough already. Let me eat my Doritos in peace. They are “food,” not propaganda.
September 16, 2015
Freedom of religion is not just the freedom to believe
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics1 Comment
It’s alarming to me how the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment is being framed these days by government officials. It is being limited to the freedom to believe as you want privately, rather than the ability to practice your faith publicly. Case in point: same-sex marriage. A Christian business owner is free to believe that same-sex marriage is immoral, but they are not free to act on their convictions by denying a request to offer their services in support of a same-sex wedding. They can believe as they want, but they cannot act on those beliefs in a public manner.
This is wrong. The First Amendment guarantees us the right to believe and practice our religion without government interference. The freedom of religion is not limited to the private sphere, but to public expression as well. Indeed, religious freedom that doesn’t allow one to act as if their beliefs are actually true is not religious freedom at all.
If we allow the government to reinterpret the First Amendment as a right to private belief only, we will cease to have true religious freedom in this country. Freedom of religion means that one is free to believe as they want, and to act on those beliefs.
September 14, 2015
Head transplants and substance dualism
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Dualism[9] Comments
Medical history is going to be attempted in 2017 with the world’s first head transplant. Does anyone see any implications this might have for substance dualism?
September 5, 2015
Christians should be made to take homosexuality off of the sin list
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality[83] Comments
Back in April, Frank Bruni wrote an opinion article for the New York Times on the Indiana religious freedom debacle. Bruni is very negative toward conservative Christians in his article. In his opinion, conservative Christians can support homosexuality, but choose not to do so. Instead, they cling to outdated interpretations of an outdated text. Bruni writes:
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
September 3, 2015
New pronouns for the gender confused
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality[2] Comments
The University of Tennessee is inventing new gender neutral language for those who do not want to identify by the traditional gendered “he” and “she.” Instead of “he” and “she,” it’s ze and xe. Of course, these need object and pronoun forms as well. Here’s the interpretive chart:
Insanity.
September 3, 2015
To issue or not to issue a marriage license – Kim Davis and the law of the land
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Political Incorrectness, Same-sex Marriage[23] Comments
Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court of the United States created a right for same-sex couples to marry in all 50 states (and at this point refuses to issue any marriage licenses at all). The reason? It violates her conscience and Christian faith. She was sued and lost. A request for a stay on the decision was even sent to the U.S. Supreme Court and denied. As an elected official, she can’t be fired. But she can be impeached, fined, and even jailed for her refusal to carry out her state-mandated duties.
I must say that I am amazed Kim Davis is standing alone on this issue. Surely there are thousands of Christians employed across our nation to perform the same job as Kim Davis, and yet Kim Davis is the only person who has the courage to stand by her convictions. Perhaps others quit in protest, but I imagine that most Christians just went along with the program.
September 1, 2015
Judges in Ohio: Marry same-sex couples or find a new job
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Political Incorrectness, Politics, Same-sex Marriage[10] Comments
That’s the recommendation of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct. In their opinion, judges should not be allowed to marry only opposite-sex couples or even forego marrying anyone in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples. Either marry same-sex couples or find a new job:
A judge’s oath to support the constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio requires the judge to recognize and adhere to binding court interpretations of the same. A judge’s unilateral decision to refuse to perform same-sex marriages based on his or her own personal, religious, or moral beliefs ignores the holding in Obergefell and thus, directly contravenes the oath of office.
In other words, Christian judges who want to be faithful to their God and their conscience need not apply. Religious liberty and the freedom of conscience is not allowed as a judge. We are watching religious liberty and the freedom of conscience erode before our very eyes and yet few hear the alarm going off. We said it would happen, and it’s happening left and right. This is just the beginning.
Everyone on the left said that giving rights to gays and allowing same-sex marriage wouldn’t affect anyone. It was a lie. The effects have been immediate. Think of all the professions that Christians are being excised from by the threat of the law: judge, county clerk, florist, wedding photographer, wedding cake baker, wedding planner, adoption agency. The list will continue to grow. People outside of the law and wedding industry are already starting to lose their jobs simply for believing in natural marriage. I fear this trend will only grow in the coming years.
HT: The Blaze
September 1, 2015
Chaplain required not to say homosexuality is a sin…or lose his job
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Political Incorrectness[2] Comments
The Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice had threatened Chaplain David Wells that if he does not sign a state-mandated document promising not to identify homosexuality as a sin, he will lose his chaplain credentials. He would not sign it, and thus lost his credentials after serving for 13 years.
Once again we see how the push for homosexual rights hasn’t affected anyone!
The state is being faithful to the gay rights agenda. The question is whether or not Christians will continue to be faithful to Christ or will buckle to Caesar. I congratulate David Wells for standing strong.
Thinking to Believe 