Tag Archives: Religion

Polemics

MUST-READ: The Western Experience debunks the doomsday predictions of the left

3 Comments

I just got an e-mail this week from someone I know who voted for Obama. He was worried about the bogeyman peak oil. Where does the left get all these crazy views? I actually think that atheism causes people on the left to be afraid of the unpredictable future. They imagine insane doomsday scenarios and they become very frightened. They then try to make the world predictable by imposing totalitarianism, to control consumption of scarce resources.

It’s the secular equivalent of “Left Behind” fiction, only they actually believe it. It’s their religion.

But the thing is, it’s all false.

Take a look at this post by Jason over at The Western Experience.

Here’s the summary:

  • Who was Thomas Malthus?
  • What did he predict?
  • Why did his predictions fail?
  • Who was Paul Ehrlich?
  • What did he predict?
  • Why did his predictions fail?
  • Some more insane predictions of the left

You might want to read his short, informative post. (It’s a perfect post) And then remember, this is the worldview of the left. They believe this, right up to Obama’s mad science czar.

Previous stories about Obama’s science czar:

The fact that their predictions are always wrong doesn’t stop them from acting crazily.

News

Canadian court rules that Christians MUST perform same-sex marriages

3 Comments

Story from LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

Nichols, who served as a marriage commissioner from 1983 after retiring from a 25-year career in the police force, was approached by the complainant, only identified as M.J., in April 2005 to conduct the ceremony.  Nichols informed M.J. that he was available, but when he realized that M.J.’s partner, B.R., was a man, he told them that he could not “marry” them based on his religious beliefs.

[…]Nichols had himself complained to the human rights tribunal in February 2005 after he had been informed in November 2004 by the Saskatchewan Department of Justice that commissioners would be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies after the law changed to allow them.  That case was later dismissed, in March 2006.

He was fined $2,500 by the tribunal in June 2008, which decided that as an official of the government, Nichols was not entitled to have his religious beliefs accommodated.

Nichols appealed that decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench, contending that his right to religious freedom should have been protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But Justice Janet McMurtry upheld the tribunal’s decision.

Nichols’ religious views are not relevant in how he conducts his job, according to the judge in her 36-page decision.  “In that capacity [as marriage commissioner], his personal religious beliefs do not matter,” she wrote.

So much for the right to religious liberty. What this decision says is that government’s values supercede the values of individual citizens – even if it violates the fundamental right to religious liberty.

Commentary

Huge debate at Neil Simpson’s blog on religion and same-sex marriage

4 Comments

Neil Simpson has the best online debates. Here’s the post that kicked it all off.

Excerpt:

Here’s why I am free to support real marriage in the public square:

1. That First Amendment thingy.  We’re allowed to let our religious views inform our political views whether you like it or not. It doesn’t inhibit religious freedoms, it protects them.

2. My religion tells me that stealing, perjury, gay bashing and murder are also wrong.  Do you object to me letting those views inform my political views, or just the views you don’t like?

3. Lots of churches are thoroughly pro-gay, such as the UCC and the Episcopals.  I don’t recall you objecting to their advancement of the pro-gay cause.  If you were being consistent and if you really opposed any religious beliefs in the public square, shouldn’t you be objecting to their views just as strenuously?  Why do you just use that argument against views you disagree with?

4. You are begging the question by assuming what you should be proving.  You claim that we are denying “rights” to gays but you must change the definition of the word in question to draw that conclusion.  But the whole debate is whether to change the word and give them a new right.  You cheat and pretend that we’ve already changed the word and given them the right and then insist that we’re denying this existing right.  Sadly, pro-gay apologists commit this fallacy so reflexively that I doubt you realize what you are doing….

5. Finally, and most importantly, I didn’t bring up religion.  You did.  I can argue this topic without it — though of course, if you want to know Jesus’ views on it I’ll be glad to share the biblical view with you.

To give you a hint of how things are going over there with Neil, I’ve excerpted a sample exchange from the comments.

Sample exchange:

morsec0de writes:

Denying homosexuals the ability to marry each other has no secular justification.

Neil writes:

By nature and design [same-sex marriages] do not produce the next generation. Please don’t come back and tell me about infertile couples, those who use birth control, etc., as that isn’t the point I just made. My point is that by nature only heterosexual unions can produce children.

Homosexual couples can never provide a mother and father to a child, which by nature and design is the ideal. Again, just because there are non-traditional families doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage the ideal.

My own argument against same-sex marriage is here. Notice that it is completely fact-based, without even a hint of religion. That’s the way we roll on the Wintery Knight Blog.