Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance
Introduction
A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called "The Beauty of Intolerance." In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today's society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of "hate" and "phobias" and "intolerance." He focused specifically on the Church's speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, "The Beauty of Intolerance," that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.Why Must Christians Appeal to Science In Arguing Against Abortion?
Abortion has recently become a hot topic again in American politics. With President Trump's appointments of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and the States' legislators proposing and passing more restrictions on abortions, it is very possible that we will see the decision that legalized abortion (Roe v. Wade) challenged, if not overturned.
I was in a discussion with a fellow pro-life advocate this week, and he took issue with my use of science to make the case for the humanity of the unborn. His position was that we did not need to use science but only use the Bible to make the case. So, I was in a position of needing to defend my defense.
Sources of Truth
I want to start out by affirming my pro-life brother in his belief that the Bible is indeed sufficient to make the case, but it is sufficient to make the case to Christians- those who recognize the Bible as an authoritative (and inerrant) source of truth. But not everyone accepts the Bible as an authoritative source of truth. Not everyone in America (and especially not in American government) is a Christian, and even if people are Christians, there is no guarantee they hold the Bible to be inerrant and the final authority in their lives. For people in these two categories, making appeals to the Bible to argue for anything is not going to get very far. If we want to see a non-Christian or a more "liberal" Christian agree with us against abortion (or any other matter of truth), we need to argue to our conclusion using a source of truth that they also recognize.Alfie Evans, Humanism, and Christ
Introduction
Those who have followed the Faithful Thinkers blog for a year or more know that I followed the case of Charlie Gard last summer. Gard was born with a rare disease that the medical facility that was treating him was ill-equipped to deal with. He died at the hand of the British courts and doctors because these ill-equipped doctors refused to recognize other possible solutions. Instead of seeking outside help to save the life of a defenseless child, they sought to legally kill him instead. Other nations and medical facilities offered to transport and treat Gard at their expense, but all volunteered help was rejected and condemned by the doctors, and courts were eventually appealed to by the British doctors to order that Gard be left in their knowingly-incapable hands. The courts granted that request much to the horror of the parents and the rest of the civilized world. And now in 2018, it is happening again; this time to a child by the name of Alfie Evans. LifeSiteNews has been following the story carefully, so for the details, please click the link. The suffering that is being endured by Alfie and his parents is unnecessary, gratuitous, and atrocious.Would Jesus Participate in Politics?
Would Jesus Participate in Politics?- Introduction
"Would Jesus participate in politics?" This has been a common question posed among followers of Jesus Christ since he was asked about paying taxes to Caesar. It came across my Facebook feed a few weeks ago, so I thought I'd take some time to prepare a careful answer. Some Christians believe that a theocracy should be established on earth, while some other Christians believe that we should not have anything to do with politics. The rest of us believe that the correct position falls somewhere in the middle, and we struggle to find where. While I do not claim to know exactly where the correct balance is located, I do want to offer some observations and reflections that may help us identify an acceptable range of options.Deconstructionism, the Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation
Introduction
As a defender of the Christian worldview my primary goal is to see unsaved people be saved, but in many conversations, I see numerous intellectual stumbling blocks for them, many put in place by other Christians. This is the reason that I not only defend the Christian worldview in general but also in details, often to fellow Christians who disagree with me (see a fuller explanation in this post: Internal Debates and Apologetics). In many of my discussions with fellow Christians on different theological positions, the proper interpretation (meaning) of what the Bible says is the focus. I also have political discussions with Christians in which we discuss the meaning of the words of the U.S. Constitution. Most of us agree that the proper interpretation of the Constitution is found in its authors, just as we believe that the proper interpretation of the Bible is found in its Author. We agree that in neither case is the meaning of the two ever found in the readers (deconstructionism). However, I have detected an inconsistency in the rejection of such an idea when it comes to one and not the other. Today, I want to explore this inconsistency and how removing it from our thinking can help, at least one, theological debate come closer to resolution.Book Review: Come Let Us Reason
Introduction
It is necessary that Christians be able to think properly. As we discuss our worldview with unbelievers and present arguments for God's existence and the resurrection of Jesus Christ it is necessary that we present sound arguments. It is also necessary that we be able to properly identify mistakes in arguments for other views so that the unsaved will see that their view is actually false and they need to change it. I read "Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking" many years ago, and it helped me greatly with being able to order my thoughts and identify incorrect thinking. This has helped me tremendously as I "tear down arguments against the knowledge of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5) and "provide a reason for the hope that I have" (1 Peter 3:15). I recently read the book again to refresh my memory and to write this review. As usual, the review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's contents and conclude with my thoughts about the book.📚 Top 5 Books For Ethics and Politics 🗽
Common Questions and Challenges in Political Discussions
- Who are you to judge someone else?
- Who's ethical system are we to abide by (if anyone's)?
- Isn't it wrong to legislate a specific morality?
- Isn't morality relative to each individual, anyway?
Top 5 Books for Discussing Ethics and Politics
- Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air- Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith
- Christian Ethics: Options and Issues- Norman Geisler
- Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible- Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
- The Case For Life- Scott Klusendorf
- Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions- Greg Koukl
Why Did I Choose These Books?
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
Christian Ethics: Options and Issues
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
The Case For Life
Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions
Related Posts: Conducting Controversial Conversations
Related Posts: Ethics and Politics
Providing The Case Against And Solutions For Abortion
Introduction
As I have defended the truth of the Christian worldview over the last decade or so, I have been investigating the finer details of the Christian worldview also. It is not enough to defend a "mere" Christianity, for many skeptics see contradictions between reality and what many Christians believe. We must also investigate and defend these theologically nuanced portions of the Christian faith (for more details on the importance of investigating and defending the details, see my post "Internal Debates and Apologetics").
One the big internal debates that skeptics see as internally inconsistent is the area of ethics and morality. But not just having the proper view of morality, but seeing it lived out in the Christian's life (the issue of hypocrisy in the Church). An accurate ethical system and the consistent application of it are just as apologetically important as defending the essential truths of the Christian worldview. But this goes beyond just those who are intentional with philosophically and scientifically defending the faith. This affects every Christian's evangelical witness. This is why I have been recently addressing defending the correct ethical system (see my review of "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues" by Norm Geisler) and how it should be applied in our lives (particularly in the area of politics; see my review of "Legislating Morality" by Geisler and Turek and my post "How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections"). My attention has been more acutely focused on our moral duty to protect life.
Gentleness and Respect in Debate and Discussion
Gentleness and Respect in Debate and Discussion- Introduction
As a defender of the Christian worldview, I get involved in many discussions with skeptics. These discussions often not only touch on the existence of God, but on the problem of evil, the nature of man, and ethics, which all overlap into politics during certain years. As many have experienced first hand, these discussions often get heated. There is a temptation that is difficult to avoid in these situations, but it must be resisted.The Temptation
The temptation to become defensive in our attitude (especially when the other person already is) is not easy to avoid. Sometimes we permit ourselves some freedom in our rhetorical force combined with our aggressive posture, and before we know it, those freedoms have produced sarcasm, disrespect, belligerence, or dismissiveness. Many times justified as "passion."While there is nothing wrong about being passionate about the truth and justifying its belief, we must always be careful that we articulate our points "with gentleness and respect." Christians are urged in scripture to do so (1 Peter 3:15b). But this is not merely an arbitrary command, it has real-world negative effects.
If we do not present the truth in love, then people are less likely to accept it. And if we present the truth in a snide or condescending way, then people are likely to project that condescension onto the truth and be repulsed by it.
There are two parties negatively affected by the uncontrolled rhetoric and posture: the defender and the skeptic. The defender is demonstrating the evidences that justify belief in Jesus Christ, yet he does so in a very unloving and unChrist-like way. This creates a contradiction in the defender's life: his actions do not seem to match what he professes. This walking contradiction causes the defender to lose credibility.
Hypocrisy in the Church is one of the big stumbling blocks to skeptics. When skeptics see a contradiction in a worldview, they know intuitively that they must question its truthfulness. And if the contradiction includes poor attitudes (as this particular one does), it makes that worldview appear less deserving of consideration and a commitment even if it is true.
Been There, Done That
So what can we do about this? For anyone who is constantly on the lookout for opportunities to share and defend the truth of the Gospel and the whole of the Christian worldview (that should be all of us), we always need to be in prayer that we will remain conscious of our level of rhetoric and postures. When we engage, we need to focus on the concerns of the person asking the questions. This will allow us to address the issue with truth but do so in a way that connects personally with the person. If (when) we find that we have crossed the line of passion into belligerence, we must backtrack- ask the person's forgiveness and permission to start over, reminding ourselves of something. I like the way that Greg Koukl puts it in his book "Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions":"Being defensive and belligerent always looks weak. Instead, stay focused on the issues, not on the attitude."
Conclusion
Love, gentleness, humility, and respect in our discussions will go a long way. Whether we are discussing the truth of the Christian worldview with a skeptic, discussing theology, debating politics, or whatever, if these are not present we have no reason to expect our message to be persuasive. We can compromise neither truth nor character. We claim that Christ can transform lives; we need to allow Him to transform ours so we can be His hands and feet that people can see, hear, and touch in this physical world.Norman Geisler: There Is Some Truth In False Views
Introduction
In the process of defending views (whether they are worldview, political, or others) we will always come across people who hold to other views. Usually people hold to a particular view because they believe the view accurately reflects reality. However, since no two contradicting views can both be correct, one or both must be incorrect. But why would someone believe a false view? Norman Geisler provides insight into this in his book "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues":"Few positions are totally without any merit. There is usually enough truth in any false view to make it hold water."
Distinguishing the True and False Parts
It is often difficult to persuade someone of the truth of your view if they believe that their view is accurate. The fact that their view may be able to explain certain parts of reality is what is the foundation for their holding their view. If their view did not have portions of it that were correct, they would not believe it. It is important to recognize these true parts as areas of agreement between the two different views. This will usually establish some trust between the two parties and allow for intellectual (rather than emotive and rhetorical) discussion about the false areas of their opposing view. We can then challenge the false views and show how our view not only explains the true views we've already agreed upon but better explains the areas of reality that the other view cannot.Could WE Have The False View?
It is important that we also recognize the fact that none of us is omniscient. It is very possible that we would be the one with the incorrect view and are holding to that view because it explains enough (has enough truth) to appear accurate. The difficulty in persuading someone thatbelieve our view is correct could be founded in the fact that our view is actually false. We need to be willing to not only challenge other views but allow our views to be challenged. If our views are the false views, we must change them.Conclusion
All views that people hold to explain reality contain some portion of truth that allows them a logical reason to believe the view. However, if the true parts are the only part they focus on, they can be blinded to the falsehood of their overall view. It is important that we recognize the true parts of their view to establish unity, but we do that in order to show them where they have gone wrong. If we expect others to recognize that their views may be false and need changing, we must be willing to examine our own views and change them when the evidence and logic is against our view.To Investigate More, I Recommend:
- Reasons In And Out of a Worldview
- 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
- Is Your View Falsifiable?
- Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions
Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media
John Oswalt: Progress Requires God
Introduction
Nobody likes to think that they are holding back progress. The idea of progress is used in many areas of political and moral debate as a weapon against those who tend to hold to "traditional" values. "Progressives" argue against the objective truth of Judeo-Christian morality in an effort to legalize their particular desires. In an effort to do so, though, "progressives' are trying to eliminate the only foundation for judging what can be rightly called "progress" and what can rightly be called "regress." In his book The Bible Among The Myths, John N. Oswalt uses philosophy of history to show the necessity of the Creator for progress to even be possible:"The idea of progress is dependent on the idea that our Creator has a goal for us, outside of ourselves, toward which we humans were made to progress and against which our progress can be measured. Give up that truth, and 'progress' becomes a chimera."
The Foundation Removed
Without an objective goal set, there is no way to determine what truly is progressive and what is not. If an event or action moves a group closer to the realization of the goal, then progress has taken place. If an event or action moves a group away from the realization of the goal, then progress has not taken place. Without a goal, this cannot be judged. In their efforts to eliminate objective morality from public life, "progressives" must argue against God's existence in order to show that morality is relative. But in doing so, they have also forfeited the right to call themselves "progressives."Conclusion
Interestingly enough, if a "progressive" skeptic wishes to assert and be committed to the idea that progress can objectively be made (by judging those who stand against their views as "regressive"), they implicitly assume that an objective purpose exists outside themselves and outside humanity as a whole. It is up to them to ground such an obligation without God. The reality that progress can be judged against an ideal purpose is evidence that an ideal purpose exists, and that ideal purpose must have a Purposer. If "progress" is possible, God exists.The Bible Among The Myths contains several nuggets regarding the existence of God, like this one. If you have not taken the time to read this book, you will not be disappointed.
For further investigation into moral relativism, ethics, politics, and purpose, I highly recommend checking out these books:
Norm Geisler and Frank Turek: Legislating Tolerance
Introduction
As a defender of the Christian worldview, I often defend the rightness or wrongness of certain acts, and with that, whether they should be made legal or illegal. I will usually appeal science and logic in these discussions. If the person is a Christian, then I will also appeal to the Bible, if it speaks specifically or general to the topic at hand. When it is clear that all the evidence stands against their view, in a "last-ditch" effort to undermine my arguments the challenger often resorts to appealing to "tolerance." This comes in the form of the person who wants to legalize some particular act saying that by not permitting the act (legalizing it), those in opposition to the legalization (conservatives, usually) are being intolerant and trying to force their morality on the world.I recently finished reading the book "Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Here is their response to such a challenge:
"When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals."
Who's Legislating Their Morality, Again?
The problem with any law is that it affirms that something is right and its violation is wrong. Laws often include penalties for violating the right that has been provided by the law. What is right and what is wrong is morality. If we truly want to avoid legalizing morality then no law should ever be created. So, if someone is successful in getting their particular behavior legalized, they have just legalized their morality and have successfully forced it on the masses. This means that the complaint of the person trying to get their act to be made legal has just violated their own moral standard of "tolerance."Conclusion
The next time that someone complains that you just want to force your morality on them, remind them that they are in the same position- they are, in fact, attempting to force their morality on you. Ask them to explain how their doing so is right and your doing so is wrong. This is not something that can be logically defended without affirming the right of the other to do the same. This results in a "stale-mate" and requires that both sides go back to the evidence. This will (hopefully) keep the discussion focused on actual reasons and not go down the "rabbit hole" is emotive rhetoric.To Investigate Further, I recommend:
- How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
- Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible?
- Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
- Book Review: Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air
How Should Christians Vote in Political Elections?
Introduction
As a defender of the Christian worldview, I do not defend just a "mere Christianity" but an entire worldview that encompasses morality and ethics. Unfortunately, politics is necessarily dependent upon those two. How a person governs, legislates, judges, and even votes all comes down to their view of morality and ethics. In any political season, it is necessary for the Christian to understand the proper (true) ethical view to guide their decision in how they vote. They need to not only be grounded for their own decisions, but they need to be prepared for the times in which they can have intelligent discussions on the topic, rather than contributing to the simplistic emoting that we see on the internet today. In this post, I want to take a look at how (if) a Christian should vote when the given option is not clear (who or if we should vote). I will conclude with books that I highly recommend for everyone interested in ethics and politics to read. Please take the time to read this post carefully and the links provided at the end. I believe that they will help prepare you for making the right decision when you go to the voting booth and will help you intelligently discuss and defend your decision.Don't Force Your Beliefs on Others
Introduction
An interesting meme came across my Facebook feed the other day. It states, "It is okay for you to believe what you believe. It is not okay for you to insist that everyone else believe the same as you." I shared it with a short explanation of the fact that the claim self-destructs. This meme self-destructs because it violates its own claim. It insists that the readers believe what is included in the meme (the idea that we should not insist others believe what we believe). It was not long before my comments were challenged. The conversation included a few different challenges that I addressed. I have included those challenges and my responses below (with a few edits for clarity).Challenge #1: This is a religion thing!
Response: This is actually a belief that someone is affirming is right and affirming that its opposite is wrong. "Right" and "wrong" are terms of morality. It is logically impossible to not affirm someone's morality with the statement in the meme because it is affirming a moral belief. If someone affirms that the belief (that you should not force your beliefs on others) is right, then they affirm that its opposite (that you should force your beliefs on others) is wrong. If they insist that others hold to that same belief, then they have violated their own belief. That is why it is self-defeating. This has nothing to do with religion; rather it has everything to do with logic.Challenge #2: There is no morality in this meme.
Response: morality is found in the meme in the implied "should" or "ought" in the affirmative phrase "is not okay." These are terms of obligation that are independent of a person (this is called "objective"). The moral claim is that someone should not force their beliefs on someone else. However, for something like morality to exist, it must have an ontological/metaphysical grounding. If your worldview does not contain such an object (such as God), then objective morality does not exist in your worldview, and nothing can be said to be truly "right" or "wrong;" it is all just a matter of opinion (and enforceable by who's in power). Now, if the person posting this meme is merely offering an opinion, then that is fine. It is their opinion that beliefs should not be forced on someone else, but it cannot go beyond an opinion to be an actual moral obligation. If morality is not objective, then any obligations end at the person asserting them; they do not apply beyond that person (this is called "subjective"). And that is exactly what this meme is denouncing and violating simultaneously. There is morality in this meme; there is not sound logic in this meme.Challenge #3: We can be good without God. You are saying that I'm immoral because I don't believe the way you do.
Response: That is not my claim. I'm saying that it is only with an ontological foundation that morality (in any objective sense, which is what the meme seems to want to enforce) even exists. It is only if God exists that someone can be either moral or immoral. If there is no ontological grounding for morality, then we are all amoral because the world is amoral. This is not the same as "immoral." "Amoral" indicates the absence of a standard by which to conclude someone or something is moral or immoral. None of what I have said even implies someone's moral status; I've only made claims about the existence of morality that would allow statements about someone's moral status.Conclusion
This meme and many of its type are quite common on social media these days. It is imperative that we logically evaluate their claims for soundness. If we find that they are not, we need to show how that is so. It is important that people be able to recognize bad logic when they see it, so they can learn to think clearly as other issues and claims arise.Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media
Recommended Books for Further Investigation:
- Time For Truth: Living Free In A World Of Lies, Hype, and Spin by Os Guinness
- The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting A Generation Free to Know Truth And Love by Josh and Sean McDowell
- Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith
- Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Book Review: Legislating Morality- Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
Introduction
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek has been on my reading list for quite some time. It is often brought up by skeptics that Christians do not have a consistent view of morality, especially when it comes to government. This is often used as evidence of internal inconsistency within the Christian worldview and often leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. And with the political season upon us yet again, I have been involved in many discussions about morality and politics. When defending the existence of God by using the moral argument, it is important to recognize the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology (does objective morality exist vs. which objective morality exists) to address the claim of an internal inconsistency; however, we cannot stop there. Often the challenge comes from a genuine concern about the consistency of the moral code that Christians say is objectively established by the God of the Bible. So, it is important that defenders of the Christian worldview educate themselves on views of morality, and in political seasons, the morality of legislating morality.A few weeks ago I decided to put reading two other books on hold and go through this one to better prepare myself as these discussions become more and more common with the season. Was I disappointed with that decision? I will give this book my usual chapter-by-chapter summary treatment then provide my recommendations at the end.
Religious Refugees and the Mission Field
Introduction
Since the recent attacks by Muslim extremists in Paris, there has been much debate on the internet and in the media about whether or not it is wise for America (or any other western country) to accept refugees from Islamic countries. I've heard the arguments for both sides. One side says we must accept every refugee that seeks asylum because it is our duty to protect their lives, while the other side says that we should not because it is our duty to protect our own lives. The debate in America has even become politically polarized. Liberals tend to be on the side of accepting them, and conservatives are saying to reject them. Liberals are accusing conservatives (mainly conservative Christians) of being hypocritical in refusing to care for the widows and orphans (James 1:27); while conservatives accuse liberals of refusing to protect the people God has placed under their protection. I have seen Christians taking both sides (yes, I'm guilty too). Since this is an issue that I do not see going away as long as evil exists in our world (it is not just an issue that we will deal with today), I do feel the need to address it.My intention with this post is not to get political, but to help Christians think through the situation given the truth of the Christian worldview. It is important that Christians take a position that is consistent with their worldview; otherwise, they will be accused of hypocrisy, and that will be used by the skeptic as a reason to believe that Christianity is not true. This is not only a practical issue, it is an apologetic issue.
Book Review: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
Introduction
More and more it seems that society and culture are attempting to jettison objective morality in favor of their own moral autonomy. It is a challenge that takes place at both an individual level and a political level. The Christian worldview holds that certain actions and behaviors are right or wrong regardless of who believes or does not believe that they are. Christians need to be able to defend this position in their everyday discussions with friends, family, and coworkers; otherwise, they may cave to the "wisdom of the world." Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith wrote Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (soft cover, Kindle, GoodReads) precisely with these everyday Christians in mind.The book is divided into five parts (sixteen chapters) and 170 pages. This review will be a part-by-part review (rather than my usual chapter-by-chapter, due to the short length of some chapters) to provide the reader with a quick summary of what they can expect from the book. My thoughts will conclude the review. While both Koukl and Beckwith are in agreement with all the content in the book, they each were the primary authors of certain parts, so I will refer to them by name (even though both authors are represented).
SCOTUS' Decision on Gay Marriage: A Philosophical Critique
Introduction
As the entire world is probably aware by now, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in late June 2015 that "marriage" does include same-sex couples. The majority opinion (written and presented by Justice Kennedy) includes the recognition that historically "marriage" has been defined as being a union between two individuals of the opposite sex. The opinion describes three cases that the SCOTUS heard and its reasoning for its conclusion that it was time to redefine "marriage."As a defender of the Christian worldview, which includes objective value and objective morality, I feel that it is necessary to comment on this highly emotional and political issue. I have read and heard several opinion pieces from various sources (my favorites on linked at the end of this article), and I hope to not be redundant with this article's more philosophical approach to critiquing the ruling. I also hope to provide a reasoned and gracious response that, I pray, will speak to the hearts and minds of those caught in the middle of this battle. I want to start with two important recognitions:
Must Groups Require Leaders That Stand Against Their Beliefs?
This is an action that has dire consequences for all groups, not just religious. All other groups (regardless of affiliation, liberal or not) should be concerned about logical implications of this decision. Logically it opens the door to any group being required to allow leaders that not only do not represent the beliefs and convictions of the group, but that stand in direct opposition to them. For example: an atheist group could be led by a Christian; a pro-choice group could be led by a pro-life proponent; a Democrat group could be led by a Republican; a LGBT group could be led by a supporter of the Westboro Baptists.
The whole purpose of groups is to have a collection of people to support each other. These people must hold common convictions to do so. The leaders especially must hold the common convictions if they are to lead the support of the group. Without the common convictions among members and leadership the group will lose its purpose and reason for existence from within. The group will eventually disintegrate because there is nothing holding them together.
This could be a veiled attack against the right of assembly by attacking the very foundations of what a "group" is. A subtle way to squash opposition (academic or otherwise) seems to be in play here. Every group that assembles is in danger by this decision. This action is not something that ANY group should be excited to see happen...except those who are irrational, illogical and driven by their emotions. (Un)fortunately, one misstep by those groups will compromise their own group and convictions by the "reasoning" they are now championing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)