Safe Haven

5. Yes, school administrators do have discretion to limit symbolic speech of students, if that speech is disruptive, or has no obvious connection to educational objectives. In this situation, students wearing American flags to subtly protest Mexican ones on Cinco de Mayo are disrupting things (and being jerks). 4. Besides, Cinco de Mayo is awesome. Mexican patriotism gives us an excuse to eat chips and salsa, watch great boxing matches, and drink beer. There might be some downsides to this multiculturalism deal, but this isn't one. 3. To shift gears a bit, how do you get a transcendental universal morality from a natural process? That's my challenge to your atheism, dude. I'm not saying you're immoral; quite the opposite. In fact, that ought to be the basis to re-visit your naturalist assumption. 2. Nominalism, taken to its logical conclusion, ends in "might makes right." 1. All of this leads me to my unavoidable conclusion: The consent of the governed...

I read the text. I understand that the "optics" are bad with this bill, but it's well-written. Which is not to say I agree with it; I don't have a strong opinion. I can say that the definitions are clear, and the intent is also clear. The main thing it does, or so it appears , is equal out the burden of proof in a religious liberty case. The religious practitioner must show that being compelled to take a certain action violates his religious convictions. It cannot simply be asserted. On the other hand, the government must show a compelling interest to override, or "burden," an individual's free exercise. I can see why certain activists are angry about it; it broadly defines who may make a claim under Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (Or, who could "qualify.") Unlike the HHS mandate, religious businesses, churches, individuals, etc. may all make a claim under the Act. They must prove their rights were or would be violated, but...

5. It's not a cheap shot, Mike. If there are transcendentals, there must be a God. 4. If we can speak of an "unjust law" without being subjective, then Natural Law is real, and there must be a God. 3. Positivism, or Natural Law theism. You pick. 2. I'm no philosopher, really, but Kant's "oughts" come from nowhere. 1. I just don't believe the dignity of persons should be left to the whim of a majority.

An atheist news story blog post thing was making the rounds yesterday, which made the following logical argument, in substance: A Christian has failed my completely arbitrary standard for goodness and justice. Also, he fails his own moral code. Therefore, God does not exist. I'm no logic wizard, but that's a non sequitur to make all non sequiturs look like a quirky German band that's opening up for David Hasselhoff. It's emotionally appealing, and it may be a good charge to make on a personal level, depending. It's hard to accept God's claims on your life if His ambassadors are evil. But that's just it: He's either real, or not. If He is, he's not going to disappear into non-existence by your refusal to acknowledge Him. That should be fairly obvious.

Many, if not most atheists are quite intelligent. No, seriously. But atheism in most forms is completely indefensible, as an intellectual matter. We'll argue that later. Realize that Deism doesn't really matter, either. If it's true, it doesn't have an impact on us, because God won't intervene, and He'd be completely unknowable, to creatures so limited. So theism axiomatically means a personal God. So, the only questions are, "What is the content and location/means of God's revelation?" See how we get there? We know by reason that God must be one, because two supernatural beings sharing the stage as it were, means one is not God. Something caused by something else can't be the Creator of the universe, no matter how far it is above humans. If God is out there, and He communicates, you have to find Him. Do the terms "good" and "evil" refer to real things? If yes, then God must be all-good. Goodness itself. That would mean ...

I have heard some form of this argument over and over: "We don't need absolute certainty in religious doctrine, and it is inappropriate to seek it." This needs to be called out as a subtle form of religious indifferentism. If the man's lack of certitude is at all related to his creatureliness or original sin (in the latter case, excepting Jesus and Mary, if you don't mind) then it applies to all religious claims equally. Christianity happened here, in the real world. The Incarnation is the guarantor that our faith is not fideistic; it depends on the credibility of the witnesses, one of which is God, who raised the Incarnate Word to new life after death. It's been the fashion to deny that the visible community acts as a preserver of particular dogma, but we know by experience this is false. If you walk into a Presbyterian church, ordinarily, that community has distinctives that make it what it is. In other words, it's a theological heuristic. I'm simp...

5. We're going to have to define what we mean by, "good without God." Most theologians (even hacks like me) might well say that a moral code need not be joined as one with religious doctrine. But philosophically, if God is the First Cause, the ground of all being, then I'd say you can't be good without God in another sense, because you wouldn't be at all without Him. 4. I would agree that the fact the Earth is "fitted" for life doesn't prove anything. But I can hardly blame the pious for saying, "That's good enough for me." 3. You'll have to forgive the political scientist here, but the nature of law and the basis for its authority is really important, and it's one time that I'm unashamed to make a "slippery slope" argument. If law emerges by consensus, (positivism) then the only basis for the achievement of that consensus is power. Yikes. Even if one's intentions appear benign, even you cannot be blind...

5. Reaction to all sporting events: "Oh, yeah. That happened." 4. You footnote your phone conversations. 3. You think a Tic-Tac and a Coke is a solid meal. 2. You have two cats named, "Due Date" and "Extension". 1. You can't answer the question, "How are you?" because you are still discerning the "with-respect-to-whatness" of it. Viva Captain Jack!

In the course of time, when investigating the history of Christianity, and in fact tracing the development of Christian doctrine, we face two distinct problems. One problem relates to how one satisfactorily reconciles known Christian practice with the claim of continuity made by those who formed ecclesial communities at the Reformation. One must either say that a distinct continuity of doctrine and practice is not a necessary part of Christ’s faithful preservation of the Church, (which is absurd) or make oneself the arbiter of the marks of that continuity, which does an obvious violence to the historical data itself. The second problem emerges after one has assumed that the first problem is not in fact the problem, and that we can safely assume a continuity between the early Church and the communities of the Reformation. That second problem is this: How do we determine the doctrine of God, given Reformation assumptions, tools and methods, they use of which has obviously led to radical...

If that is the case, then the Holy Spirit cannot lie. He would not, and He cannot; he's bound by his nature. Thus, when the interpretive problem caused by Sola Scriptura hits, it is raised to a crisis only insofar as the problem is theological in the strict sense--that is, of or pertaining to God--and the two or more disputants have clear consciences, that is, a charge of dishonesty or manipulation from one to the other would be an act of bad faith, lacking any credible justification. The so-called Noltie Conundrum is a good faith problem. And if in fact one resorts to some notion of "total depravity" in order to explain it, some general idea of human sinfulness to avoid getting one's hands dirty with a particular accusation, then it bites back hard: one's own interpretive judgments can and ought to be similarly accused, having failed to even attain the right to be preferred over another view. Therefore, the multiplicity of opinions under the Protestant interpreti...

5. It's all relative, until you get punched in the face. 4. I wouldn't sign any bills criminalizing homosexuality. That doesn't mean I think it's a good thing. But the  people who use the useless phrase, "gay people" to normalize homosexual practices are not unlike the people who can't distinguish between a temptation and a sin in their own theology on the other side of the question. 3. You can't simultaneously say, "I'm so much more than my gayness" and "It's who I am, it's not a choice." The gay activists are winning the culture war, so to speak, because they're using the prospect of violence against persons (which no one of good will advocates or supports) to equivocate on the term, "acceptance." 2. Are we ever going to have a frank discussion about the high incidence of sexual abuse among those who self-indentify as "gay"? 1. Then again, when have we had a frank national discussion abo...

5. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 4. If it is broke, fix it. 3. If you can't fix it, get help. 2. If you don't want to get help, you can't whine that it's broken. 1. If there is no God, there is no morality. Why? Because every human thing is therefore subject to the charge of self-interest and arbitrariness, ad infinitum. This is why it's actually a short trip from the supposition of ecclesial fallibility to pure atheism. It's a little amusing to hear the atheists of the day proclaiming a "kinder, gentler" atheism, as if it matters. What do the words mean, ultimately, if there is no origin, no reference point from which the term derives its meaning? I could easily find fault with any group's definition, and so it goes. You may suppose to have done justly, but I may believe you have not. Even if terms are defined by mutual agreement, this is tenuous. Consent is soft ground for the noblest ideals. I see the will to power as the unav...

If you listen closely to the arguments of our modern/post-modern "enlightened" society, you may hear a lot of talk of "dignity." "Death with dignity." That the good life should be free of hardship. "This baby won't have the kind of life she deserves." Let's think it through, shall we? Camera 3. [Turns] You're saying that the worst of all possible evils is pain and suffering. Strip it down, that's what you're saying. But this is wrong. To suffer, and to suffer well, is to hold a mirror to injustice, to make the evildoer look upon the innocence that he transgresses, to ask him if he can continue it. We'll come back to this. No, the greatest evil is not suffering, but death itself. To die, never to live again. Even worse, to live a life unworthy of goodness, unworthy of a human being. There is good done in this world. We know it: The man who carries groceries for an elderly neighbor. The Army squad leader who falls on a g...

I thought I'd continue the friendship series here. I'm on a good roll. I know that some of you who read these might struggle with affirmation, and I sympathize, but your good is more important than your comfort. Deborah Allinder Lee is really funny. She's industrious, resourceful, talented, and a thousand other things. The truth is, though, in some ways, those are on the surface. Those are the things that make us who know her laugh, or give thanks. The deeper things are worth noting, too. She makes others feel safe. She understands what it means not to be whole in some way, and she lets you have the space to be a mess. I might say she could stand to give the same break to herself. But her cross is--like for any of us--her way of peace. I can honestly say that I see myself in a clearer way because of her. The lies that others have told me, and that I have told myself, are nothing next to her unconditional love. That is grace in a person's life, and it has spilled i...

5.Taxation may, in any one case, range from unnecessary, to objectively harmful and unjust. But it is not per se theft. To argue this renders all the purposes for which any tax may be collected illicit, and any such concession to it merely one of acquiescence to superior force. 4. The very reason to discuss limited government is to outline the terms under which the limitation of individual freedom is just, necessary, and prudent, and when it is not. 3. We cannot call ourselves "pro-life," attempting to recover the dignity of the human person, and remain silent about the many forms and instances of sexual violence. Rape can never be justified, and it is never a just penalty or the natural consequence of other crimes. 2. Therefore, we cannot stay silent about those things which especially incline young men to believe that they are entitled to sexual pleasure at any time, at any cost, but without cost to themselves. 1. My opposition to the death penalty arises directly o...

5. I seriously want to know why people whose very purpose is to limit what counts as true knowledge and true science by way of highly questionable philosophical assumptions (or at least unacknowledged ones) get to call themselves "rational" or "enlightened". 4. Just save us time, and admit to being a materialist and a utilitarian. That way, when we wake up in a Stalinist paradise, I can say, "I told you so." If I'm not dead. 3. Abortion and homosexual acts are both grave offenses against the dignity of the human person, and thus, against God, who made us, and took on our human nature to redeem us. They are by no means the only ones, but they are real, and this needs to be said clearly. 2. Is the yet-born fetus a person? The whole abortion issue turns on this question, and this alone. Consequently, there can be no "exceptions" to a prohibition on abortion, if we are to answer in the affirmative. If we answer in the negative, then abortio...

I'm not really sure how it came about, but that's how friends go. But I can remember when Lindsay and another friend said they were going to start a JK Fan Club. As if I needed one of those! But some way, God in His mercy has given me this great friend. She listens to me, even when it's hard. She never judges me, no matter what I say. We haven't had a friend fight yet, and I'm not looking forward to it. But I know it will be OK when it does. I'm telling you all this because it's my blog; I can say whatever I want. And if you need a marketing consultant, Lindsay is definitely the person you need. The real reason Lindsay is such an amazing friend is that she builds people up; she gives people confidence when maybe they didn't have it before. Today, and every day, I am thankful for my friend Lindsay.

Boxing is probably my second favorite sport, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that my favorite fighter is Muhammad Ali. Rarely has such a skill set been seen among heavyweights, if ever. And he came to us in the TV age, at the height of American post-war decadence, on the eve of our times of turmoil. He was in many ways the first sports superstar in the way we know it today: ubiquitous, a topic of conversation. Sports matters precisely where it intersects with life lived, which perhaps tells us nothing. Yet if it does, Ali certainly did that. You can read all over that he was polarizing, and I guess that's so. The liberal consensus of the time says that he got a raw deal in '67, and he did. That same consensus gives blacks a free pass on some of the extremism and hatred of the Nation Of Islam, because, after all, (or so the thinking goes) White America gave them a full measure of it, beginning from the time we landed until now. This is mostly true. Don't think for a se...

“Not to spoil the party but we do have the ecumenical creeds. The Apostles' and Nicene creeds exist as essentially definitions of what it means to be a Christian. That's why many of us recite them every week-- to reaffirm our identity and to reaffirm   our unity with all other Christians who confess this faith.” Not to spoil the party, but no, we don’t. The ecumenical creeds were given in a context, and if we should say that we agree with them, we are saying we agree with the context in which they were given, and on the terms with which the men who composed them proposed them. The very fact that I am Catholic, and the person who said this is not, is all the proof I need for what I have just said. The meaning of the creeds is itself in dispute between us. If this is not acknowledged, there is significant risk of false ecumenism, of which there is far too much in these days. I suppose it is a forgivable conceit, depending on when and why the person holds it, but this creedal...

So there's this . In some sense, the two American political impulses are locked in a perpetual unwinnable death-match, the reforming impulse and the conserving impulse. The extreme of Conservative America always builds monuments to itself in the past; the extreme of Liberal America denigrates the past to celebrate itself in the present. One sells the idolatry of "progress," while the other sells the idolatry of nostalgia. I have never minded these "liberal" films; I only mind when it is pretended that the imperfect narrative is itself a lie. Progressivism run amok is bitter and destructive; these people mistake cynicism for courage. Isn't the story of the Scriptures the story of a highly imperfect people under the loving tutelage of a holy God? Their imperfection does not invalidate the fact that they are His. Indeed, recognizing a need for growth does not require denouncing one's very existence. On the other hand, there is nothing truly conservative...