Tuesday, December 9, 2008
True Intolerance
Racism? That's so passé. Sexism? Go back to the Dark Ages. Being against gay marriage? What kind of a bigot are you?! Believing in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ? How can you be so intolerant and ignorant?
The fact is, the one area where it is still acceptable to vent intolerance is when it comes to discussing Christians. They are called ignorant, they are called hateful, they are said to be against scientific progress, and their belief in Biblical inerrancy is called a relic of the past. These same people then turn around and proclaim the need for universal tolerance.
Rather than spend time venting myself on this hypocrisy, I will instead focus on the recent bit of Christian bashing in the recent Newsweek cover story, entitled The Religious Case for Gay Marriage. From what I can tell, the article has essentially four premises:
1) The Bible is ambiguous on the morality of same-sex relationships.
2) The Bible is so littered with bizarre rules and horrid tales that its teachings should be ignored anyway.
3) The Bible was written for a different culture, and is therefore not directly applicable (my translation: the Bible is irrelevant).
4) Because slavery was eventually outlawed, segregation ended, and women's rights were won, and because some opinion polls show that younger people are more open to legalizing gay marriage, it must be the case that gay marriage is the right way to go and anybody standing against it is merely resisting the inevitable course of history.
It is beyond me how an article which essentially bashes the Bible can claim to be making a religious case for gay marriage. Even beyond that, Lisa Miller is clearly ignorant when it comes to Biblical teachings. Rather than go into each and every point where she goes wrong, I will send you here.
In response to the outcry over his magazine's piece, Jon Meacham writes the following:
"Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."
In other words, to argue that the Bible contains the ultimate truth, and that therefore what it says is correct, is unserious and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition. I ask again: how can you have a Judeo-Christian tradition that is not based on the Christian truths of the Bible?
Lastly, I will point you to a short musical made by the enlightened ones in Hollywood against Proposition 8 where they, you guessed it, made Bible believers look like intolerant, uneducated, closed-minded dupes and where Jesus himself criticizes the Bible and seems to endorse gay marriage. How strange.
For more reaction to this video, go here.
If you are interested in knowing the truth about what the Bible says about homosexuality, you should watch this video with Dr. Robert Gagnon:
Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? S3E2 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.
Addendum: I am sure that some people who read this will conclude that I am against gay marriage based on Biblical grounds, and that my main reason for posting this was to defend that view. This is not true. I do believe that the Bible is unambiguous on the immorality of same-sex relationships, but that is not why I oppose legalizing them. After all, I believe the Bible is unambiguous on the immorality of adultery, but I do not favor having the government enforce marriage fidelity.
To the contrary, I oppose same-sex marriage for two main reasons.
1) There is no Natural Law or biological purpose for same-sex relationships. Heterosexual unions are the only unions that can naturally bring about new generations. Like it or not, we live in a world where babies result from one man and one woman. As a result, I believe that these relationships serve a vital purpose that no other relationship can serve as fully.
2) If you believe that the only important thing about marriage is that the people love each other (I believe marriage is much bigger than that), then you probably support gay marriage. After all, why should we stop two people from acting on their love for each other? However, if you truly believe that our current laws are discriminatory, why not take that to its inevitable conclusion? Are ANY limits on the definition of marriage between consenting adults justified? Should we legalize polygamy, marriage between relatives, and group marriages? Most honest people, including those who honestly support gay marriage, will answer this question in the negative.
I have many more thoughts on this issue, but alas, I do have other things to do, you know! If anybody has comments, questions, or thoughts, I would like to hear them and I will respond.
The fact is, the one area where it is still acceptable to vent intolerance is when it comes to discussing Christians. They are called ignorant, they are called hateful, they are said to be against scientific progress, and their belief in Biblical inerrancy is called a relic of the past. These same people then turn around and proclaim the need for universal tolerance.
Rather than spend time venting myself on this hypocrisy, I will instead focus on the recent bit of Christian bashing in the recent Newsweek cover story, entitled The Religious Case for Gay Marriage. From what I can tell, the article has essentially four premises:
1) The Bible is ambiguous on the morality of same-sex relationships.
2) The Bible is so littered with bizarre rules and horrid tales that its teachings should be ignored anyway.
3) The Bible was written for a different culture, and is therefore not directly applicable (my translation: the Bible is irrelevant).
4) Because slavery was eventually outlawed, segregation ended, and women's rights were won, and because some opinion polls show that younger people are more open to legalizing gay marriage, it must be the case that gay marriage is the right way to go and anybody standing against it is merely resisting the inevitable course of history.
It is beyond me how an article which essentially bashes the Bible can claim to be making a religious case for gay marriage. Even beyond that, Lisa Miller is clearly ignorant when it comes to Biblical teachings. Rather than go into each and every point where she goes wrong, I will send you here.
In response to the outcry over his magazine's piece, Jon Meacham writes the following:
"Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."
In other words, to argue that the Bible contains the ultimate truth, and that therefore what it says is correct, is unserious and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition. I ask again: how can you have a Judeo-Christian tradition that is not based on the Christian truths of the Bible?
Lastly, I will point you to a short musical made by the enlightened ones in Hollywood against Proposition 8 where they, you guessed it, made Bible believers look like intolerant, uneducated, closed-minded dupes and where Jesus himself criticizes the Bible and seems to endorse gay marriage. How strange.
For more reaction to this video, go here.
If you are interested in knowing the truth about what the Bible says about homosexuality, you should watch this video with Dr. Robert Gagnon:
Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? S3E2 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.
Addendum: I am sure that some people who read this will conclude that I am against gay marriage based on Biblical grounds, and that my main reason for posting this was to defend that view. This is not true. I do believe that the Bible is unambiguous on the immorality of same-sex relationships, but that is not why I oppose legalizing them. After all, I believe the Bible is unambiguous on the immorality of adultery, but I do not favor having the government enforce marriage fidelity.
To the contrary, I oppose same-sex marriage for two main reasons.
1) There is no Natural Law or biological purpose for same-sex relationships. Heterosexual unions are the only unions that can naturally bring about new generations. Like it or not, we live in a world where babies result from one man and one woman. As a result, I believe that these relationships serve a vital purpose that no other relationship can serve as fully.
2) If you believe that the only important thing about marriage is that the people love each other (I believe marriage is much bigger than that), then you probably support gay marriage. After all, why should we stop two people from acting on their love for each other? However, if you truly believe that our current laws are discriminatory, why not take that to its inevitable conclusion? Are ANY limits on the definition of marriage between consenting adults justified? Should we legalize polygamy, marriage between relatives, and group marriages? Most honest people, including those who honestly support gay marriage, will answer this question in the negative.
I have many more thoughts on this issue, but alas, I do have other things to do, you know! If anybody has comments, questions, or thoughts, I would like to hear them and I will respond.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
What To Do About The Auto Industry
The automotive industry has been going before Congress with a mixture of groveling, implicit threats, and dooms-day scenarios, proclaiming the urgent need for a bailout of their industry. It is true that if the auto industry fails, there will be some heavy initial job losses for people who are currently employed by Ford, GM, and Chrysler. On the other hand, who is to say that a $25 billion low-interest loan to these companies will do anything to contribute to their long-term viability.
Congress has been responding to this by demanding that the Big 3 draw up plans for their viability and present them before Congress. This approach is ridiculous. Congress has no ability whatsoever to judge how likely the business plans are to succeed. Having Senator Dodd or Barney Frank put their stamp of approval on GM's business plan says absolutely nothing about how the market will value the companies' products and business strategies.
Another problem with the potential bail-out is the precedent it sets. What distinguishes the auto industry from any other major US industry (aside from its inability to be competitive)? What if the pharmaceutical industry knocks on Congress' door, or large energy companies, or agribusiness? Will Congress expect all of them to draw up business plans for Congress to evaluate? The whole notion is patently absurd.
My preferred approach is to let the marketplace decide the fate of the auto companies, just as it does all other companies. In the meantime, the government should focus on helping out the workers themselves who would be potentially affected by a bankruptcy. These workers should not get any more insurance or protection than workers at other US companies, nor should they receive less. I do not doubt that a bankruptcy would have some negative short-term consequences for the US macroeconomy, but that is no different than any other major loss of jobs. If we start meddling in the economy to prevent companies from failing, in the long-run all we will really end up doing is to ensure that fewer companies end up truly succeeding. That is a consequence we should all hope to avoid.
Congress has been responding to this by demanding that the Big 3 draw up plans for their viability and present them before Congress. This approach is ridiculous. Congress has no ability whatsoever to judge how likely the business plans are to succeed. Having Senator Dodd or Barney Frank put their stamp of approval on GM's business plan says absolutely nothing about how the market will value the companies' products and business strategies.
Another problem with the potential bail-out is the precedent it sets. What distinguishes the auto industry from any other major US industry (aside from its inability to be competitive)? What if the pharmaceutical industry knocks on Congress' door, or large energy companies, or agribusiness? Will Congress expect all of them to draw up business plans for Congress to evaluate? The whole notion is patently absurd.
My preferred approach is to let the marketplace decide the fate of the auto companies, just as it does all other companies. In the meantime, the government should focus on helping out the workers themselves who would be potentially affected by a bankruptcy. These workers should not get any more insurance or protection than workers at other US companies, nor should they receive less. I do not doubt that a bankruptcy would have some negative short-term consequences for the US macroeconomy, but that is no different than any other major loss of jobs. If we start meddling in the economy to prevent companies from failing, in the long-run all we will really end up doing is to ensure that fewer companies end up truly succeeding. That is a consequence we should all hope to avoid.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Future of Free Market Conservatism
Richard Posner and Gary Becker discuss this on their joint blog. Both offer very thoughtful insight on the matter. Richard Posner would welcome the death of conservatism, and of liberalism. He recommends a more pragmatic, nonideological approach to policymaking. Gary Becker agrees to a point, but notes that without a framework to interpret facts, we have little guidance when it comes to policymaking. See Posner's entry here, and Becker's entry here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)