Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary

Ron Paul on the issues: Ron Paul’s positions on abortion and gay marriage

19 Comments

Ron Paul on gay marriage

Let’s look in this article from the Advocate to find out Ron Paul’s views on same-sex marriage.

Excerpt:

Paul was asked whether his libertarian views on such controversial issues — mainly his belief that personal liberties should not be encroached upon by the federal government — could help him attract socially conservative voters. Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.

“If you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s a First Amendment–type issue,” he said. “We don’t have a First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, ‘Yes, we have our religious beliefs protected, but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion — you can’t do this’ … if you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. But there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people, but yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial. If not, you’re going to end up with a government that can tell you what to eat or drink or whatever.”

Gay conservative group GOProud released a statement in support of Paul and the other politicians seeking the party’s nomination.

“[We] thank Congressman Ron Paul for rightly making the case that marriage and family laws should be decided at the state level, not by the politicians in Washington,” the organization said Friday.

That’s Ron Paul’s view of marriage.

Ron Paul on abortion

Here’s what Ron Paul wrote about abortion.

Excerpt:

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It’s equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

What states would legalize abortion if Ron Paul allowed states to decide whether abortion should be legal?

Here’s the map:

Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?
Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

That’s Ron Paul’s view of abortion.

You can read more about Ron Paul’s troubling views on social issues on Caffeinated Thoughts.

But there’s more. Here’s Ron Paul’s view of the Middle East. He is indifferent to Iran having nuclear weapons. Especially troubling, given the recent terrorist attack on American soil, which implicated the elite Iranian Quds Force.

UPDATE: A commenter adds:

It’s more accurate to say that these are Paul’s views on how states should go about answering these issues. His personal views on these issues are quite clear, that he ascribes to the natural view of marriage and abhors abortion. However he advocates relegating these issues to individual states because of his overriding commitment to a limited federal government and because he believes the constitution does not enumerate such decisions to the federal government for it to answer such questions for all states in the union.

This is true. But if the man becomes President, a lot of unborn babies will still be killed in states that he allows to legalize abortion, and a lot of children will still grow up without a mother or a father, in states that he allows to redefine marriage.  So despite his personal views, the net effect of electing him will be that abortion is permitted in some states, and same-sex marriage, too. So clearly, Ron Paul is not as pro-life or as pro-marriage as other candidates like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum.

Commentary

Women and apologetics: heads for men and hearts for women?

Leave a comment

Here’s an interesting essay about women and apologetics posted by Mary from South Africa.

Here’s her thesis:

If you like to potter around apologetics blogs on the internet (my guess, if you’re reading this, is that you do), or if you attend apologetics events, you’ll notice that the ratio of men to women is skewed somewhat towards there being a lot more men involved in such things than women.

Now before anyone thinks this is going to be a feminist diatribe about glass ceilings and male domination, hear me out. I have no problem with there being plenty of men in apologetics. I want every Christian I can get to take an interest in apologetics – male or female. Moreover, I’m a pretty traditional Christian woman who believes in male leadership in the home and church, so a radical feminist agenda is most definitely not my aim. My aim is not to discourage men from taking part in apologetics, or to advocate for any artificially imposed gender balance, but to encourage more women to get involved in apologetics.

To do that, we need to consider why this imbalance exists to the degree that it does.

And here’s a sample:

It may well be that there will still be fewer women taking part in debates because of women’s avoidance of emotionally upsetting situations. However, if a woman feels she can deal with such situations, all strength to her! Particularly when radical feminism lashes out at the Christian worldview as it applies to women there is a real opportunity for women to demonstrate that they can be strong in the way God intended without having to compromise their commitment to Christ or His plan for women.

Organized debates are also not the only platform to exercise apologetics. We’re not all able to be William Lane Craig, but we are all able to “(a)lways be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks [us] to give the reason for the hope that [we] have” (1 Peter 3:15). Moreover, Peter goes on to make clear that this should be done “with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against [our] good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander”. This is quite the opposite of cold and being hard. Yes, it is always a challenge (for men and for women) to be gentle and respectful while being uncompromising on the truth. But it’s certainly not a cold, unfeminine way to do things.

In fact, women’s greater tendency to connect with and express their emotions may actually help them to keep Peter’s suggested manner of apologetic practice in mind. It may also help them to strike up one-to-one connections with others which lead very naturally to discussions in which apologetics are useful in presenting the Christian faith.

Within the family too, every Christian wife and mother can play a vital role by using apologetics to encourage and support her husband and to instruct and bring up her children with a good, solid basis for Christian faith. We are so much stronger in a team than on our own and marriage is the best human team, designed by God, for navigating the world together for Him. One’s children too will be faced with a variety of arguments as to why they shouldn’t follow the faith of their parents. Thankfully there are good, logical reasons why they can make the Christian faith their own. It is an important parental responsibility to convey these reasons to one’s children and to help them grapple with the questions that will arise as they grow up. While this is important for both men and women to do, women usually spend more time with their children than men do, and they need to be prepared for the particular opportunities that this presents. Women have immense power as mothers to affect future generations. William Ross Wallace was right when he said that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Mothers and those who would be mothers need to equip themselves so that they may equip their children for godly influence in all spheres of life, not least of all in Christian apologetics.

It’s nice when women look forward to practicing apologetics in their roles of wife and mother. I think if women were more forward thinking, then they would not only see the value of learning apologetics for themselves, but they would also expect men to know apologetics.

I think I remember something about Mary… this other post on the prosperity gospel posted at Far Above Rubies was written by a “Mysterious M” from South Africa. Could it be the same person?

Commentary

Book review of “The Cell’s Design” by Fazale Rana

3 Comments

J.W. Wartick reviews “The Cell’s Design” by biochemist Fazale Rana.

Excerpt:

The first line of evidence comes from the machines in the cell. Again, Rana’s approach is analogical, rather than negative. The machine-like nature of the flagellum, along with other motor-like cellular functions presents an argument: “Organisms display design. Therefore, organisms are the product of a creator” (86).

The case doesn’t rest merely upon molecular machines. Rather, that is but one of the many lines of evidence. Rana draws out the implications of several “chicken-and-egg” paradoxes. These include the “mutual interdependence of DNA and proteins” (99), the origin of proteins themselves (100ff), and more (105ff). These systems present a kind of “irreducible complexity in which the system depends on the system to exist” (108).

Other elements of design are present in the cell as well. Aquaporins intricate and detailed workings illustrate the design that is present in the system (111ff). Other detailed, intricate designs (such as collagen, mRNA, and the breakdown of proteins) hint at the need for a designer. But the reasoning is not only supported by the details, it is also bolstered by the structural composition of the cell (126ff). The analogy of cells to machines is strengthened further by the quality control systems within the cell (198ff). Again, the reasoning is analogical–these things are designed, therefore they need a designer.

“Information can’t be separated from the activity of an intelligent agent” (142). The numerous examples of information in the cell lead to the inference of an agent. But it is not only the information’s presence that hints at a designer. Here Rana’s case really builds on and develops the work of other ID theorists. The information alone could be enough to infer an agent, but one must also account for the fact that cellular information follows rules like syntax, semantics, and pragmatics (144ff). It is not merely information, it is the use of that information and the rules governing that use that strengthen the case for an agent behind the information.

It never hurts to know a lot about cosmology and biochemistry, those seem to be the best areas for offensive science apologetics.

I have this book and a later book by Rana called “Creating Life in the Lab” sitting on my ironing board (which is where I put all my to-read books) . Maybe it’s time for me to start reading those and posting book reviews.