Tag Archives: Public Square

News

What if Christians were treated like Muslims and vice versa?

4 Comments

ECM found this neat article in Human Events, a conservative news magazine.

Excerpt:

If Christians were treated like Muslims, conspicuous Christianity would be celebrated by our elites as a sign of our diversity and open-mindedness, not disparaged as an embarrassment, a nuisance and a breach of the law.

If Christianity were treated like Islam, our students would be taught a white-washed version of Christian history, with the troubling bits miscast or omitted from textbooks and lesson plans.

If Christianity were treated like Islam, if an evangelical Christian committed an evil act in the name of his faith, he would be portrayed in the media as a deviation from, not a personification of, the Gospel message. Meanwhile, our political and media elites would hasten to assure the public that evangelical Christianity is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of evangelical Christians do not support terrorism.

[…]If Christianity were treated like Islam, Christmas and Easter would be publicly celebrated for what they are — the signature events of Christianity, marking the birth and the death and Resurrection of Christ — not stripped of all their theological meaning and transformed into secular holidays devoted to crass consumerism.

If Christians were treated like Muslims, NASA would be tasked with reaching out to Christians and recognizing their faith’s profound achievements and contributions to science, math and engineering, instead of being told to make Muslims feel good about their rather meager scientific accomplishments.

[…]If Christians were treated like Muslims in America, amusement parks would celebrate “Christian Family Day,” (Six Flags recently celebrated “Muslim Family Day”), and Christians would be asked to embrace, not set aside, their religious convictions at the door when they entered the public square. Meanwhile, Muslim imams, not Christian pastors, would fear hate crimes lawsuits for preaching orthodox views of sexuality and sin.

This is a pretty clever article, and I wish I had written it.

Non-Christian sometimes ask me whether I believe in Hell and whether I think that they are going there. And the answer is YES, I do believe in Hell, and YES, they are going there. And one of the reasons why they are going there to roast for an eternity (oh yes, I have the traditional view of Hell) is because of the way that people treat Christians in the here and now. I am talking about in the university, in the the news media, and in Hollywood. Christians always seem to be the only group that you can make feel bad for what they believe. I think that this factor will play a significant part in the degree of punishment that non-Christians get in the afterlife. (And that doesn’t mean that I’m going to treat them people badly because my goal is to persuade people and that means being nice to them).

Here’s a tip for non-Christians who read my blog. You can fight with Christians all you like about whether Christianity is true, and no harm done. But whatever you do, do not be found on that day guilty of making us feel bad about our faith. Do not make it harder for us to be who we are. Do not be one of the people who pressures us to keep silent about what we believe. I understand that non-Christians do not like the things we do, like chastity and sobriety and being pro-life and pro-marriage. Those are good things that prevent harm and evil, and they should not be opposed.

News

Does Mark Driscoll know anything about economics, politics and foreign policy?

45 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Peter Lumpkins. Thanks for the link, Peter.

I find this article on religion and politics by shallow, trendy metrosexual pop star pastor Mark Driscoll to be extremely disturbing.

Excerpt:

People are longing for Jesus, and tragically left voting for mere presidential candidates. For those whose candidate wins today there will be some months of groundless euphoric faith in that candidate and the atoning salvation that their kingdom will bring. But, in time, their supporters will see that no matter who wins the presidency, they are mere mortals prone to sin, folly, and self-interest just like all the other sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. To help extend naïve false hope as long as possible, a great enemy will be named and demonized as the one who is hindering all of the progress to atone for our sins and usher in our kingdom. If the Democrats win it will be the rich, and if the Republicans win it will be the terrorists. This diversionary trick is as old as Eve who blamed her sin on Satan rather than repenting. The lie is that it’s always someone else’s fault and we’re always the victim of sinners and never the sinner. Speaking of repentance, sadly, no matter who wins there will be no call to personal repentance of our own personal sins which contributes to cultural suffering and decline such as our pride, gluttony, covetousness, greed, indebtedness, self-righteousness, perversion, and laziness.

And, in four years we’ll do it all again and pretend that this time things will be different. Four years after that, we’ll do it yet again. And, we’ll continue driving around this cul de sac until Jesus returns, sets up his throne, and puts an end to folly once and for all.

From this regrettable post, I understand that Mark Driscoll thinks that Christians should not try to assess which party best promotes policies that will promote liberty and goodness in the world. And that they should not take seriously their duty to vote, and to convince others to inform themselves and vote. Instead, I understand that he thinks that it doesn’t really matter who wins. Democrats, Republicans – who cares?

What does it mean when someone says that it doesn’t matter who wins elections?

  • It means that the pro-life and pro-abortion positions are equivalent
  • It means that traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are equivalent
  • It means that intact families and single-mother families are equivalent
  • It means that Iran and Israel are equally threatening to world peace
  • It means that North Korea and the United States are equally free
  • It means that Zimbabwe and Canada are equally prosperous
  • It means that sex education and abstinence education are equivalent
  • It means that public schools and homeschooling are equivalent
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether Darwinism is taught as dogma or taught critically in schools
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether there is another terrorist attack and millions of Americans are killed
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether people have jobs or enough money left over after taxes
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether tax dollars go to fund abortion, ESCR, IVF or sex changes
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether religious liberty is limited by repressive fascist policies
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether Iran nukes Israel back to the stone age
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether poor children have the choice to go to a better school
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether people die while waiting in line for health care
  • and so on…

Back in the days of slavery, it wouldn’t have mattered to such a person whether the slavers or the abolitionists won the election.

Avoid Mark Driscoll at all costs on these political and economic issues – stick with Wayne Grudem on politics/economics. Grudem actually knows about how reality functions. He studies the Bible and then he studies how the world actually works. Unlike Driscoll. Driscoll needs to spend less time on his hair and clothes, and more time reading actual books on economics, social policy and military affairs.

Here is my previous article about how Mark Driscoll minimizes women’s responsibility for their own poor choices.

Commentary

Why do secularists think their view should be privileged in debates?

7 Comments

This is a good article from Matt at MandM.

Excerpt:

[Secularism] is the view that citizens of liberal democracies may justly support the implementation of a law only if they reasonably believe themselves to have a plausible secular justification for that law. Further, they must be willing to appeal to secular justifications alone in political discussion. The upshot of this perspective is that it is perceived to be unjust to support or advocate for laws for theological or religious reasons.

[…]This raises an obvious question, why the asymmetry? On the face of it secularism appears to privilege secular ideologies and doctrines in public debate whilst relegating religious or theological perspectives to the private sphere.  What is the basis for this? Two reasons are typically offered and neither is terribly compelling.

The first is that it is dangerous to allow theological or religious concerns into public debate. Defenders of secularism raise the specter of the wars of religion that tore Europe apart during the 17th century or they mention episodes such as the Inquisition and Crusades, which are said to be consequences of allowing religious reasons to influence public and political life. It is argued that the only way to keep social peace and prevent the kind of violence that Europe witnessed is to ensure religious reasons do not influence public life and that all political discussions take place on secular terms.

[…]The fear of religious wars is not the only argument typically offered for the secular public square. The main reason offered for secularism is that religious reasons are not accessible to all people. Auckland Law Professor Paul Rishworth observes, “some have contended that the nature of religious belief is such that, while it may be integral to individual autonomy and development, it has no proper role in public policy debates and that these ought to be conducted exclusively in secular terms that are equally accessible to all.” [Emphasis added]

Something like this is also evident in defences of secularism. Leading secular Philosopher Michael Tooley states, “For it is surely true that it is inappropriate, at least in a pluralistic society, to appeal to specific theological beliefs of a non moral sort… in support of legislation that will be binding upon everyone.”

Ever heard this argument that only secularism is allowed in public? I actually try to respect their standards of evidence, but I draw conclusions that implicate theism. But Matt and Madeleine disagree with me – or at least they say that neither of these two reasons is enough to rule out reasoning based on religious premises. Intriguing, isn’t it?