Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 02, 2005

Moronic statement of the day

From Peter Steinfels' column in the New York Times...

Thus the devoutly religious judge who works within a secular framework of constitutional interpretation, the scientific researcher who rules out divine interventions in her empirical search for causes or the entrepreneur who operates on the basis of market dynamics may be doing so not because they have set their religious faith aside, or compartmentalized it into their personal and family lives, but precisely because their faith informs them that these may be the best ways of putting their particular talents at the service of God and their neighbors.

Oh, let's not stop there. Why not use rapists who rape, while claiming to hold a religious view opposed to it? How about murderers who kill innocent people while still claiming to believe in a faith that calls murder sin?

But look at Steinfels' examples. What secular framework of Constitutional interpretation?!? The Constitution was written by mostly Christians, and those few who weren't Christians, by their writings, were much more religious than many who claim to be Christians today. This imaginary “secular” framework is a myth forced on us by those opposed to the true framework of Judeo-Christian values. Such a judge would be ignoring the very heart of the Constitution and imposing an artificial interpretation. One could do the same thing with Moby Dick and finish it believing they'd read War and Peace.

What about  “the scientific researcher who rules out divine interventions in her empirical search for causes” (don't you just love the pronoun gender-switching these Liberals do?) What could be less scientific than excluding a hypothesis without a valid reason to do so. But that is exactly what “scientists” today do. How is that serving anyone, let alone God?

Is he seriously advocating the practices of “the entrepreneur who operates on the basis of market dynamics” (presumably void of any moral factors) as something good? When you remove morality from economics, you get slavery. That's the plain and simple of it. Even the most callous businessmen knows the value of the appearance of virtue.

The vast majority of Americans derive their morality from their faith. Those that don't, typically have a hard time explaining their morality. When we are asked to remove our faith from politics, economics, even science, we are asked to do that which empowers our present and future, void of morality. Does anyone seriously imagine that's not a recipe for disaster?!?

I had a friend that was once considering Amway, but one of their meetings was on a Sunday, and he didn't like the idea of missing church for a business meeting. The Amway guy who was trying to convince him to join said something to the effect of, “Don't you think you'd be serving God better by making more money so you can tithe more?” That, to my friend's credit, was the end of his involvement with Amway.

I don't want judges that are willing to divorce their morality from the law. I don't think much of “scientists” who are willing to dismiss possibilities simply because someone might think it's silly. I don't like the idea of businessmen who thinks anything and everything must take a back seat to money. Our values are what make these ventures worthwhile. Without them they become empty, meaningless and ultimately fruitless.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 2, 2005 08:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1764

Comments

I think there's an unbridgable gap here: Scientists make statements based on observable facts; religious devotees make statements based on faith. I don't think there's much room for argument. In the realm of religion, you either you believe or don't. It's a choice.

Posted by: Karlo at August 2, 2005 12:27 PM

But modern day science has been hijacked by those who adhere to the religion of Evolution. When theorizing about the origins of the universe, why are wild guesses about exploding nothings valid, but theories of an intelligent designer dismissed? Religion isn't a "believe it or you don't". That's a very one-dimensional, and false concept of religion. We all have have presuppositions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. just happen to be some of them along with Evolution. It is counter-productive to wrongly classify some religions as completely separate from science, while demanding that one religion, Evolution, must be accepted as a scientific fact.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 2, 2005 01:50 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.