Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 250 results found
Ideas have consequences.  Often they have unintended consequences that take time to present themselves.
Sadly, this isn't too surprising when homosexuality is deemed moral because it's natural. "Pedophilia is another “sexual orientation,” comparable to heterosexuality or homosexuality, according to expert testimony recently presented to the Canadian Parliament." (http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/)
One of the smartest men I know of, Robert P. George from Princeton University, with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson have written an argument for the traditional definition of marriage.  You can download the PDF and digest it.  The summary reads:
The Canadian Press reports that a polyamory group is taking the new rationale for marriage - the freedom to love whoever we wish - to its logical progression.  (I hesitate to say "logical conclusion" since I'm not sure where this will all conclude.)  Note the justification for polyamory.  It's identical to the justification for same-sex marriage.
A caller to the radio program Sunday, who ran out of time before he got on the air, asked a very good question.  Since Prop. 8 sought to clarify the definition of marriage and the judge struck it down, did he replace it with a new definition? What is the definition of marriage now in California?  Is there one?
I have to see "24" to the end next week out of loyalty for what it has been.  But it's deeply disturbing to see what the writers/producers have done to Jack Bauer.  The moral compass is gone, and the lesson is moral equivalency.
The "24" writers and producers have destroyed one of the best entertainment heroes.  Jack Bauer has become a moral monster.I haven't written about "24" this season because I've thought it was pretty boring most of the time.  Not much new moral meat to chew on.  But I've watched.  The show had lost it's punch without Joel Surnow and needed to be put out of its misery. Now it's sadly clear that it's also lost it's moral compass.
Here is a sampling of thoughtful considerations about the Manhattan Declaration.R.C. SproulAlistair BeggAl Mohler
Marvin Olasky did a great job of pressing an ungrounded moral claim to its real conclusion.  He writes:
Dinesh D'Souza does a good job critiquing attempts to explain morality in Darwinist terms.  Morality, along with consciousness, remains one of the stubborn features of reality that we all know intuitively, which cannot be explained in purely naturalistic terms.  The lack of explanatory power in Darwinism is called "the grounding problem."