by Chris Alexion, Copyright July 10, 2005, all rights reserved.
Sandra Day O'Connor's spot on the Supreme Court has ignited all kinds of rumors and infighting about Bush's potential nominee. But what's bound to follow is the most painful facet of judicial nominee battles, as well as similar skirmishes like 2002's Pledge of Allegiance case or 2003's Ten Commandments struggle. I'm referring to the banshee cry that "faith" belongs in its own sphere (i.e., a marginal corner), while "law" occupies another (i.e., everything else).
This dovetails with the notion that the First Amendment forbids the "endorsement of religion." Whenever an issue like Judge Moore or the Pledge of Allegiance comes up, secularists routinely remark that such-and-such constitutes a government endorsement of religion. To which thoughtful Christians should respond, "How many pipes did you smoke in order to make that deduction, Holmes?" Of course Judge Moore's monument is a government endorsement of a particular religious worldview; such an endorsement isn't necessarily a bad thing–not to mention philosophically inescapable. Government does take official religious positions, and does so quite often. In fact, the very claim to have "no position" is itself a definite philosophical and epistemological position. Neutrality is a figment of the modernist imagination. All philosophical or political theories rely inevitably on certain religious assumptions; the problem enters when we try to cover them up instead of bringing them to the table and discussing them openly. (See my article "HMS Modernity.")
So secularists fail to see their own endorsements of religion. But the mind-numbing part is this: the brilliant observation that such-and-such constitutes a government endorsement of religion becomes a key component of a First Amendment case against it, as if endorsement and establishment were the same. People really consider such a case to be valid, and rush to slap "a gag, a plastic bag on a monument." Logicians, on the other hand, beg to differ from such a hollow argument, and call it the fallacy of four terms: "All establishment of religion is forbidden by the First Amendment. This is an endorsement of religion. Therefore it is forbidden by the First Amendment."
Even granting the post-Lincoln theory that the Bill of Rights should be imposed on the states via the federal courts, it in no way follows that religious philosophy should be banished from the public square. The First Amendment says (rightly) that Congress cannot establish a church. Establishment, though, isn't necessarily the same as endorsement. How has Judge Moore, for instance, established a church? Which denomination has received taxpayer funding? If the secularists expect us to accept their arguments, they've got to learn to get past verbal smudging and logical fallacies.
No–I take it back. That would make them lose too many arguments.
Posted in Politics & Current Events • 2 Comments • Permalink • 217 views
by Chris Alexion, Copyright July 09, 2005, all rights reserved.
LOS ANGELES, CA–Rock and roll may be a leading cause of racist thought processes, according to a study just released by UCLA. The study, which examined the effects of exposure to rock and jazz music for six months, used a control group which listened to no music and an experimental group which listened to contemporary beats for at least three hours per day, including during meals. "The study noted a twenty-percent increase in racism in the experimental group versus the control group," said Dr. Fred Carman, one of the researchers.
"One theory as to why," said Dr. Thomas Cohen, "is that the characteristic 'off-beat' of rock and roll, jazz, hip-hop, and other contemporary forms of music actually goes against our body's natural rhythms. This unnatural counter-rhythm then causes interference in the brain, which leads to racism. That's why plants have been killed by rock music in the past–they actually become racist plants."
Reaction in the pop scene has been dramatic. U-2's Bono has retired as an artist, calling on other singers to do the same, and pledging to use his personal fortune to spread the word about the destructive and racist influences of rock and roll. Madonna has sought refuge in the Jewish mystical tradition of kaballah. Others, while not as quick to react as Bono and Madonna, still expressed angst and ambivalence over the question. "Why does everything have to be so complicated?" lamented singer Avril Lavigne. "So much for my happy ending," she said. Artist Jason Mraz said that the study lays a difficult decision on him, but that he won't worry his life away. Gavin DeGraw concurred, saying, "I don't want to be anything other than what I've been trying to be lately."
The rap industry, particularly its African-American contingent, has been rocked by this revelation. Dr. Annette Cole, a sociologist at the University of Miami, says that the coincidence of music produced by blacks being part of the cause of racist attitudes is fascinating. "It's either really weird, or a conspiracy giving evidence of far greater white dominance than previously imagined," she said. "The thought that white America has lured blacks into producing racist music is horrific." Rapper Jay-Z expressed characteristic anger at the discovery, noting that society is trying to "give the [expletive deleted] shaft again" and "messing with my bio-rhythms 'cause I'm African." He has left the industry, and plans to open his own children's bookstore. "I've got ninety-nine problems, but racism ain't one," he said.
Posted in Satire • 3 Comments • Permalink • 256 views
by Chris Alexion, Copyright July 08, 2005, all rights reserved.
As this blog's title–taken from Switchfoot's hit "Dare You To Move"–suggests, we're living in the fallout of man's rebellion against God, a rebellion that is both ethical and intellectual. When man fell, his whole being–including his thinking–became warped by sin.
As a result of our fall, we break the rules of logic. To put it another way, illogical thinking is a sin. And part of Christ's work of redemption and restoration is His call to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind." Scripture places a ton of emphasis on our mind, our thinking, our intellect. This is out of step with secular trends and even some perspectives in the church. But if we love God with "all [our] mind," the intellectual transformation Paul calls for is only our reasonable service.
My purpose is to dare you–and myself–to think logically and critically, and to view all that happens around us with a truly Christian perspective.
So welcome aboard.
-----Posted in General • 0 Comments • Permalink • 257 views
Page 121 of 121 pages « First < 119 120 121