"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
C.S. Lewis
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
Charles Reznikoff
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
G.K. Chesterton
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
Francis Quarles
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
C.S. Lewis
Resistance Thinking Society
'Society' is a term used to describe a grouping of individuals and outlines the structures employed to ensure that the individuals within a society relate to each other in an appropriate fashion. Different societies may have distinctive cultural behaviours and different institutions. In this society section you will find news, articles and reviews that relate to Australian society, or more specifically, individuals who live in Australia.
Topics in this section will cover: science and technology - stem cell research, IVF, cloning, intelligent design, evolution etc.; politics - ideologies (communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, capitalism etc.), state and federal politics, the free market, the United Nations etc.; sociology - globalisation, prisons, welfare, government; environment - global warming, alternative energy etc.; and moral issues - poverty, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion etc.
The role of the Christian within society is to stand for truth, for justice and most importantly, to represent God's agenda on the earth. As the Resistance Thinking journey continues, our aim is to stimulate engaging dialogue exploring the complexities of how followers of Jesus should engage with society in our day and age.
"Don't blame the kid" were the words uttered by a shell-shocked Gary Lyon on last night's Footy Classified. To be fair Gary was probably the only one in the large AFL community that wasn't expecting it. I actually appreciate his naivety to believe that Tom Scully was actually going to stay at the Melbourne Football Club.
Yet, as we have suspected all along, Tom Scully walked. And he had 2 million good reasons to walk as well. That's right, next year his contract will be front-loaded (that is he will be paid excessively his first year and scaled back in the years to come) and he will be paid $2 million to play for new franchise club Greater Western Sydney. To put this into perspective he is getting paid more than Gary Ablett and much more than Chris Judd despite them being the best two players of the competition for the last three years. Given that Tom is also seven years younger (20-years old) than either Judd or Ablett this is impressive money.
Of course, compared to contracts in the EPL this is slim-pickings, yet this is big bucks for an Australia sports star (well, maybe not Sam Stoser). Of note is the reason why he is being paid so much. Looking at his list of achievements does not reveal the necessity of a large pay packet. The kid has only played 31 games and averaged 21 disposals and only received 3 Brownlow votes. By comparison both Judd and Ablett have played over the two-hundred games average over 23 touches (both significantly more than this in the past three years) and have combined for 279 Brownlow votes (and that is before this years count which, it is likely, one of them will win).
It is clear that what Greater Western Sydney are paying for, and why Melbourne are so disappointed in losing Tom, comes down to potential. And Tom Scully has oodles of it. I can't blame Melbourne supporters for feeling utterly crushed by this decision. After all, Tom was compensation for coming last in 2009, he was supposed to be their ticket into the top 8. Yet some, like Gary Lyon, believe a "don't blame the kid" mentality. That it was not his fault that the carrot dangled in front of his face was so enticing. Even fellow GWS recruit Callan Ward's mother has "blasted" the AFL for the system in place.
It is interesting that sometimes we can fall into this mentality as Christians. We blame the system that has seen us born in sin. We may not say we were "born this way" specifically but we do rationalise to ourselves that we are in a system that we can't break out of. Sin, after all, is continuously practiced by everyone on the planet. So, if God has dealt us a bad hand of cards, then why is it our fault that we succumb to our inane desires? Surely God allows us to sin so His grace is more powerful? Paul has much to say on this in his letter to the church in Rome:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as rChrist was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:1-4
The fact that we cannot be free from all sin is not a justification for continuing to flaunt God's laws. The vast majority of times we step out of bounds we are aware of what we are doing but we insist, at least to ourselves, that our own way is far more important than the way given to us by our designer. We may not do this consciously but, intuitively, we know that we can make the decision between our way and God's way. In the end, no amount of pointing the finger at the system will save us from the wrath we deserve.
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Ah Julia, that voice and that smile (and those beady eyes) could convince me of anything.
Yes, of course, you are being sincere when you say you are bringing in a carbon tax for the benefit of the environment and not dancing to Bob Brown's strings.
I do not doubt that you are also implementing compensation because you are concerned about the tight-budget family and would never dignify the idea that this was merely a poorly-veiled attempt at social engineering. After all, it is such a transparent possibility it would be foolishness for you to utilise this scheme to redistribute wealth.
I know that this tax is not an example of your lies and deceit but of your incredible and inflexible moral ideology. This is great to know because when you face the Labor masses in regards to same-sex marriage I know you will stand strong and will not compromise even if it requires you to give up the mantle you have fought so hard for.
In all, I know you will do what is best for this country.
Bill Muehlenberg reviews Francis Beckwith's book 'Defending Life' which lays out the legal, rational, moral and philosophical case against abortion choice, making the case for human equality and the sanctity of life. For more great articles and reviews by Bill visit culture watch.
Defending Life (Francis Beckwith, Cambridge University Press, 2007) Reviewed by Bill Muehlenberg This is certainly the newest pro-life work to appear, and arguably among the best. It not only lays out the legal, rational, moral and philosophical case against abortion choice, but it more broadly makes the case for human equality and the sanctity of life.
Beckwith is an American professor of law and philosophy who has written extensively on these issues previously. This volume brings together years of thinking and debating on this contentious issue. It is an invaluable resource for all those wishing to stand up for human life at all stages of development, and to counter the arguments of the pro-choice brigade.
The first third of the book paints with broad brush strokes, examining moral reasoning, legal considerations, and political dimensions of the abortion debate.
The second third of the book looks more closely at the abortion debate per se, looking at the science, the morality and the arguments involved in the debate about abortion.
The final third of the book extends these considerations to recent developments in bioethics, including cloning and stem cell research.
The second and longest section of this book does many things, including carefully dismantling the various arguments put forward by the pro-abortion camp. All the leading pro-abortion thinkers, such as Thompson, Boonin, Stretton, and Dworkin are taken on, with their positions carefully assessed and interacted with.
On the broader issue of human equality, Beckwith argues for the substance view which states that a human being “is intrinsically valuable because of the sort of thing it is and the human being remains that sort of thing as long as it exists”. That is, an individual “maintains absolute identity through time while it grows, develops, and undergoes numerous changes”.
Various functions and capacities, whether fully realised or utilised do not constitute a person. Thus a human being is never a potential person, but is always a person at different stages of development, whether potential properties and capacities are actualised or not.
This view stands in stark contrast to the utilitarian and functionalist views held by most pro-abortionists. They argue that personhood is not inherent or intrinsic, but based on certain capacities and functions, be it consciousness, sentience, self-awareness, the ability to reason, and so on.
As to the specifics of the abortion debate, Beckwith responds to the numerous objections raised by pro-abortionists over the years. For example, consider the argument often heard, involving the hard cases of rape and incest. These are certainly tragic events, but in no way can they be used to justify an abortion.
First, such cases are extremely rare, making up just a tiny fraction of all abortions. Second, to argue for the legalisation of abortion because of these extreme cases would be similar to arguing that we eliminate traffic laws because in some rare cases they need to be violated, as in rushing a loved one to hospital.
Third, it simply begs the question by assuming the unborn child is not fully human. Fourth, to justify abortion in these circumstances is to argue that it is acceptable to forfeit a life for the alleged benefit of another. But a basic ethical intuition argues that we may not kill one person to possibly save another. John may desperately need a vital organ of Mary to stay alive, but he has no right to demand it, especially if it entails killing her in the process.
The more recent, and difficult, cases of embryo research, human cloning and stem cell therapies are also examined, looking at the various justifications given for them, and their pro-life responses. Similar issues arise here concerning the nature of personhood and the inviolability of life.
Beckwith closes by laying out his case as it has been argued throughout: the unborn are full members of the human community; it is wrong to kill members of that community; abortion kills the unborn entity; therefore abortion is morally wrong.
The three hundred pages of tightly-knit argumentation and logically constructed reasoning take on nearly all the major justifications for abortion. All are found wanting – morally, legally, and philosophically. Beckwith is to be praised for assembling in one volume some of the best pro-life argumentation around.
Review found at culture watch (Used with permission)
On 21st of September the Durban III conference is scheduled to begin in New York.
Unfortunately this conference, titled the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and the two proceeding it, are merely platforms for anti-semitic hate.
Here's what Dennis Prager had to say about the conference:
"Next month, the UN-sponsored hate-Israel festival known as Durban III takes place. Under the heading "anti-racism," the great bulk of the conference, like Durban I and Durban II, consists of condemning Israel for racism and equating it to an apartheid state.
Of the world's many great lies, this is among the greatest.
How do we know it is a lie? Because when South Africa was an apartheid state, no one accused Israel of being one. Even the UN would have regarded the accusation as absurd.
Israel has nothing in common with an apartheid state, but few people know enough about Israel -- or about apartheid South Africa -- to refute the slander...."
Here is a recent article by Greg Koukl looking at whether the claim that "homosexuality is natural" actually stands up under scrutiny. I have only included the start of the article but it is well worth going to Stand To Reason and reading the full article because it is very likely that you will be faced with arguments like this.
"Recently a caller to the radio told me about a conversation he’d had about homosexuality. The caller made the teleological argument, that looking at what the natural functions of the male and female reproductive organs are for, we can draw certain conclusions about how they should properly be used. The person he was talking with challenged his argument that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”. The challenger seemed to be saying that just because it is that way in nature doesn’t mean that we can derive a moral rule from it. The caller asked if the challenge was incorrect and how to respond to it.
On the principle the challenger is correct in describing the is-ought fallacy. But rather than working against the teleological argument, that principle works against a common argument in favor of homosexuality, which is, if homosexual interests are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. That is an example of an is-ought fallacy.
The is-ought fallacy, first articulated, by David Hume is put simply as you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ The more precise way of characterizing it is this; You cannot have a syllogism that has a moral term in the conclusion if there is no moral term in the premises. To be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises. You can’t have anything in the conclusion that isn’t already set up in the premises. Hume identified this particular fallacy in arguments that were based on mere descriptive elements but had a conclusion with moral terms in it. That is the is-ought fallacy.
People sometimes argue in favor of homosexuality by arguing that their inclination is natural, and if it’s natural, then we shouldn’t be making any moral objections about it. If that is their argument they are guilty of is-ought...."
Click here to go to the full article on Stand To Reason.
We Will Be Remembered for This Reviewed by Emma Hughes
Monash Law student, Jessie Taylor has produced this documentary about a group of young people’s responses upon visiting the Baxter Detention Centre. With a film promising to be a “clear, rational and non-politicised look at the human issues of Australia’s mandatory immigration detention policy” I thought I’d definitely have to take a look.
Basically the format of the film is a road trip, taking a “group of young people of different nationalities, backgrounds, attitudes and political views” on a journey into the detention centre, allowing for comment by activist lawyer Julian Burnside, QC and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser along the way.
The production values are noteworthy, with scenes being artistically shot and edited in post-production. The soundtrack is also commanding with songs from Justin Grounds often providing the backdrop. The concept is also commendable and Taylor tries to steer clear of blatant Howard-hatred (although Burnside and Fraser seem to need no encouragement in that area). There were disappointing aspects about the pace of the film; however, as it didn’t seem to hit a climax and felt like it was winding down for the last half hour, basically repeating the same sentiments over and over against the poignant soundtrack. Another criticism was that I often got the sensation of watching Big Brother, with a group of young people sitting around in front of a camera, making conversation and broad statements about policy issues and motivations of political leaders without much perspective or understanding.
The problem with the documentary is that it isn’t the neutral offering it promises. A common hallmark of a more ‘left’ (for want of a better word) approach to issues is a micro, emotional one. Explained this basically means that those adhering to such a philosophical commitment tend to view issues idealistically and connect with people and faces who are affected (think David Hicks, Cornelia Rau etc). This is then extrapolated out into policy recommendations with the thought in the back of one’s mind that there are thousands others like these people, all deserving of government help and assistance. The political right is often criticised for it’s ‘clinical’ approach to issues such as these (including refugees, war, approach to terrorism, and poverty) and accused of not caring about the people, only the broad policy, or economics/security at the expense of civil liberties. The approach of the right also tends to emphasise personal responsibility over corporate/government action in contrast with the left.
Why did I just spend a paragraph on the distinctions? Basically because I found the documentary to be an example of the former approach. The young adults on the journey were confronted with the reality of human suffering and predictably changed their opinion about the broader issue of refugees because to fail to do so would be seen as heartless. It made me wish someone was there to ask some critical questions such as ‘is the answer an open door policy?’, ‘if 8% of asylum seekers are not found to be genuine how would you propose we isolate these people?’, ‘if our policy is not to treat asylum seekers seriously will this result in that percentage increasing?’, ‘if Australia has to make a choice between poverty stricken refugees waiting in UN camps to be sent here or between those who are able to arrange boat passage on their own all the way down to our island, which should we prefer?’ and ‘who will take care of the refugees if they are not placed in detention centres?’ The sentiment expressed in the documentary was that those who do ask the questions are motivated by fear, selfishness, greed and ignorance rather than a genuine concern for all facets of the issue.
So can one still view the human suffering and remain committed to refugee quotas and opposed to the encouragement of the black market of refugee transportation? The documentary appears to say ‘no’, but is this too simplistic? On the website FAQ section the question is raised: ‘Why doesn’t the film include any interviews or viewpoints from Liberals, or people who actively support the current policy?’ The answer to this is that they searched high and low for someone to defend the Government’s position but that no one would rise to the challenge, even after they promised not to demonise their viewpoints, and even offered them final right of veto on the interview footage!
The sad thing here is that people are too afraid to speak up in defense of an unpopular perspective. There is no illusion for those who support the Government’s policy; they know that they will be demonised, no matter how politely they put their case. Why? Because the debate ultimately turns on emotion. This is painfully clear in Burnside and Fraser’s part of the documentary. Burnside in particular asks people to imagine how they would feel if they had to flee a war-torn country and fight to protect their children’s lives. With all due respect this simply isn’t a helpful question. Anyone would be devastated to be in the situation of an asylum seeker or refugee but to limit the debate to that sentiment is to miss out on all the other perspectives and policy considerations that are also important.
On reflecting back and addressing this issue for Christians, perhaps the questions we should be asking ourselves first are: ‘what am I personally doing to help out with refugees that are already in our midst?’, and ‘am I living in a way that is consistent with my concerns?’ To merely see our response as attempting to change government policy rather than take personal responsibility for the matter misses the mark somewhat. To give credit where it is due the website does reveal a broader approach and emphasises the need for individuals to get involved and do something themselves providing links to like organisations. The film however leaves the viewer with the impression that a caring person cannot hold a view that favours border control and that those who do are either ignorant or selfish. Limiting the debate in this way is not helpful for such an issue and may in fact hinder the cause rather than further it.
Looking at his list of achievements does not reveal the necessity of a large pay packet. The kid has only played 31 games and averaged 21 disposals and only received 3 Brownlow votes. By comparison both Judd and Ablett have played over the two-hundred games average over 23 touches (both significantly more than this in the past three years) and have combined for 279 Brownlow votes (and that is before this years count which, it is likely, one of them will win).