Christian Politics and “Moral Values”

by Luke Muehlhauser on March 4, 2009 in Ethics,Politics,William Lane Craig

In an episode of his Defenders podcast from 2000, William Lane Craig rejoices in the victory of George W. Bush:

What a thrill it was to see those returns come in, a tremendous victory, I think, not only for George Bush but for evangelicals and people who believe in Biblical values… It was interesting to see that one of the issues that was ranked in the voters’ minds as most significant… was the issue of moral values. And 4 to 1, those who thought that was an important issue voted for George Bush.

I remember seeing something about… the amazement of the European press… that this would be an issue that would rank higher than the economy or health care of certain other issues… “moral values” – who cares about that?

Maybe the European press was shocked because they know that in America, “moral values” refers to topics like abortion, gay marriage (#1 in 2008 among evangelicals!), and faith-based initiatives.

…As opposed to issues that have the power to elevate or destroy far more lives, like economics, war, and and health care.

It was ugly enough in 2000 for evangelicals to think that gays having a piece of paper from the government was a greater moral issue than economics, war, and health care. But do they still think that after 8 years of Bush’s catastrophic “moral compass”? Bush, voted by professional historians as the worst U.S. president in history, got us:

  • stuck in a disastrous Iraq war that has ended a million lives, cost over 3 trillion dollars (money that could have been spent saving lives), and destabilized and mobilized a region of Muslim radicals.
  • in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, in which millions of people will lose their jobs and homes, be driven to crime and drugs and perhaps death – and not only that, but it has sunk the world economy, and and we’re seeing these effects on human life in every country on earth.
  • without decent health care for millions of Americans, a greater number than in 2001. And when Bush supported the drug benefit under medicare, he prohibited the Secretary of Health from negotiating for lower prices.

Seriously? These things are smaller “moral” issues than gay marriage? Gay marriage!?!?

What disturbs me is that many evangelicals I know are still more hung up on gay marriage than the economy, the war, or health care.

I can only say: “WTF, evengelicals! WTF.”

In the words of John Stewart, “Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.”

It could be a decade before the world recovers from what American evangelicals and their “moral values” have wrought.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }

Darius March 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Greetings,

This could be interpreted as an ad homonym attack on Craig and evangelicals. Look, Craig and the evangelicals endorsed the stupid guy! So, does that make Craig and the evangelicals stupid too? Just not a good argument. Quite elementary really. Plus, it seems a little too easy to bring up something that was said in 2000, which was before all of the events of the Bush administration happened.

It seems that Bush is always being blamed for the bad economy (I agree that Bush sucks!), but people may want to research Clinton’s policy creating “subprime mortgages!” Interesting stuff! Both parties/sides are to blame.

According to a 2009 (not 2008) report, Bush is actually the 7th to last worst president (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f7tRP0-YfM&eurl=http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:-8JYNkiMXk0J:airamerica.com/ringoffire/blog/2009/feb/18/daily-left-bush-not-worst-)! He’s indeed seems to be the most unpopular right now though.

Additionally, it appears that most voters have absolutely no clue about government, politicians, politics (anything) at all. Just check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 for example.

I agree that the gay marriage issue is moot and there are more important things to care about at his point.

It’s also a little hard swallowing your point when you appeal to such “entertainers” as “comedian” “Jon” Stewart. Come on man. Do you want us to take you seriously or what?

I’d expect more from a guy who claims that he’s going to show us all how to defeat William Lane Craig! If this is one of your examples then I’m not impressed, nor have that much hope in you.

I look forward to some real arguments!

Thanks,
D

P.S. I never voted for Bush!

P.P.S. I do enjoy your website, even though I don’t always agree with you.

  (Quote)

Darius March 6, 2009 at 1:22 am

I guess that either the comments don’t get posted right away, or there’s something wrong(?).

If you happen to screen the comments, my apologizes for submitting so many times.

The last time I submitted before this should be the correct one if you allow it up.

Thanks again,
D

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 6, 2009 at 10:17 am

Hmmm, I’m not sure why the last one didn’t show up, Darius. I’ll check my comments filter.

  (Quote)

Anselm March 8, 2009 at 7:06 pm

I realize this is a rant and not an argument, but I see some factual problems:

1) how is going into Iraq an indication that Bush is immoral? Tony Blair, a man of the left, also enthusiastically backed the Iraq war, for some of the same humanitarian reasons that he backed the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. You can say the negative consequences of the Iraq war show that Bush had flawed judgment (of course, that would mean Blair and all of the Democrats in Congress who authorized the war–Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden–also had flawed judgment) but it does not indicate a flawed “moral compass” (unless pacifism is the only acceptable foreign policy).

2) How exactly was it Bush who “got us” in this financial crisis? The crisis was triggered by mortgages given to uncreditworthy borrowers, a policy championed primarily by Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. You can say Bush did not oppose them vigorously enough, but their policies were the ones that “got us” into this situation.

3) On health care, let me get this straight–at the end of the Clinton adminstration, there was no universal health care and there was no Medicare prescription drug benefit. Bush did not give us universal health care, but did give us a Medicare prescription drug benefit–so the government was providing more health care after Bush than before Bush. And yet Bush is to be condemned for this?

  (Quote)

lukeprog March 10, 2009 at 2:57 am

Anselm, thanks for your comment.

1) I’m claiming that the Iraq invasion was deeply immoral, but don’t have time to defend that now. It has been defended thoroughly elsewhere, and I’m okay to agree to disagree.

2) Bush’s negligence was only one of several major players in causing the financial crisis. Democrats were also involved.

3) When I looked, the numbers on national health looked worse after Bush than before – but I’m certainly no expert on this! But it’s irrelevant, because…

My point wasn’t really that voting for Bush was immoral. My point was that it’s absurd for evangelicals to assert that something like gay marriage is a bigger moral issue than war, economics, or health care, and that this is a perfect example of how basing your morality on an ancient superstitious book really twists your moral code – even if you’re a brilliant philosopher like Craig!

  (Quote)

Anselm March 10, 2009 at 4:34 am

I think your argument, even on the issue of gay marriage, is with the judgment of those evangelicals who agree with Craig, not their moral compass. If you truly believe, as they do, that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution of heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family, or that abortion causes the destruction of human persons, then it makes perfect sense why those issues would be at the top of their agenda. Of course, they may be completely wrong on the facts regarding the consequences of gay marriage and abortion (and other Christians, e.g., Greg Boyd, Jim Wallis–not to mention Barack Obama!–disagree with them). But your argument is with their understanding of the consequences of those issues for society–if they were factually correct regarding those consequences, then many secular liberals would agree with Craig on the priority of those issues.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 18, 2009 at 8:13 am

“…As opposed to issues that have the power to elevate or destroy far more lives, like economics, war, and and health care.”
————————————————————————————–
You sure about that? Abortion has taken 40 million lives in the US alone. That compares to about 400,000 US deaths during WWII. Atheists are on the wrong side of the abortion issue just like they were on the wrong side of the scientific racism of the Enlightenment (recall David Hume’s quote compared the educated African man to a trained parrot), they were on the wrong side of the abolition movement, they were on the wrong side of social Darwinism, and they were on the wrong side of eugenics.
As to sexual morality, you need to go and read some sociobiology. You need to learn why rape, infanticide, adultery, promiscuity, polygamy, and more are all rational evolutionary strategies – and why they all create a free rider problem. I recommend <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0716740044″>The Myth of Monogamy</a> by evolutionary biologist David Barash as a place to start.
 
A lack of sexual morality is the root cause of the culture of poverty. It is yet another issue that atheists are on the wrong side of.
 

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 18, 2009 at 8:21 am

Here’s a tangible example since my last post is a little vague. The classic example of infanticide comes from langur monkeys. When an alpha male langur monkey defeats a rival and takes his harem the first thing he does is kill the infants. This came as a shock to evolutionary biologists back when this was first discovered because they were still operating under the mistaken assumption that evolution worked for the good of the species. The feminist sociobiologist Sarah Baffer Hrdy had the correct explanation: killing the infants brought the females into heat sooner. It allowed the new alpha male to reproduce more often.
 
Martin Daly and Margo Wilson wrote the book <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Homicide-Foundations-Human-Behavior-Wilson/dp/020201178X”>Homicide</a> to test this theory in humans. Sure enough, they found that children were 70 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a stepfather than by a biological father. And the evolutionary biologist D.S. Wilson points out that that estimate may be too low. It assumes that all the “biological fathers” really are the biological parents of their children. We know that about 10% all children of married parents are fathered by someone other than the biological father. The police do not do paternity tests on murdered children but they probably should. Wilson hypothesizes that most of the cases of infanticide by “biological fathers” are really by cuckolded men who are killing their non-biological offspring.
 
 

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 18, 2009 at 9:07 am

Justin Martyr,

1. Obviously, pro-choicers do not consider the destruction of certain tissues to be “human death.” That is exactly what the debate is about. Nevertheless, why assume that atheists are on the wrong side of that debate? Atheism says nothing about abortion, and neither does theism. Many atheists are pro-life. For example, ME.

2. Racism. Damn near everybody was racist back then, and there was more religiously-justified racism than scientifically justified racism, simply because religion was more widespread than scientific thinking (though the two are not mutually exclusive). Atheism says nothing about race, and neither does theism.

3. Neither atheism nor theism have anything to say about slavery, either. Slavery was defended by Christian theologians for millennia.

4. Neither atheism nor Darwinism says anything about eugenics as a moral code. That’s commits the naturalistic fallacy (in its common usage, not its original usage). Some atheists thought Darwininsm implied eugenics, and some others didn’t.

5. There are circumstances under which rape, infanticide, adultery, promiscuity, and polygamy are rational reproductive strategies. So what? What does this have to do with morality or atheism?

6. How is a lack of sexual morality the root cause of the culture of poverty? Are you talking about mothers in poor countries producing too many kids? I think matters of government policy and foreign relations are greater causes of poverty than, say, homosexuality or sexual promiscuity. Neither of which are necessarily immoral, I think.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 18, 2009 at 10:17 am

Hiya Luke,
1. Abortion. Whether or not a fetus has moral status is a subject of debate. Whether or not it is biologically a human being is an empirical matter that has been settle by science. Singer concedes the point in Practical Ethics (provided that ‘human being’ means ‘member of the species Homo sapeins’ and not ‘person’). I can also provide references from embryology textbooks. If atheists really are capable of rigorously following the science then they need to accept this.
2. Racism ended because of Christianity. Thus while David Hume compared an educated African to a talking parrot, John Wesley, basically the Jerry Falwell of the Enlightenment, called Hume the most insolent despiser of truth and virtue for comments like that. Wesley had the belief that if blacks were given the same education as whites they would be just as accomplished. Christians looked to passages like Acts 17:26 “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth;” to argue that all races were the same. The spiritual equality of the races was upheld in passages like Galatians 3:28.  Enlightened secular thinkers have unquestionably accepted scientific racism, social darwinism, and eugenics in the same way that they unquestionably accept abortion today.
3. There were pro-slavery Christians just like there are pro-abortion Christians. But just as we all know that the pro-life movement is closely tied to Christianity and the pro-choice movement is closely tied to secularism, so was the abolition movement. The Menonites, the Puritans, and the Quakers were the leaders in the abolition movement. You approvingly cite Rodney Stark elsewhere in your blog. Go check out his other book ‘One True God’ for an accessible summary on the abolition movement.
4. Secular people starting with Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton created social Darwinism. It was later extended into eugenics – basically the desire to accellerate evolution through reason. Sure, some atheists disagreed, but both movements captured the intellectual elites much like being pro-choice or pro-same-sex marriage has captured them today.  I konw plenty of secular people who are against both abortion and samesex marriage, but that we all know where the battle lines are drawn.
5. What does rape and murder have to do with morality? A lot!
6. I was referring to the culture of poverty in the affluent world, but it is a confounding issue in the third world as well. It is one reason why Christianity is sweeping through Africa. African Christians are generally against samesex marriage and single motherhood, but it is polygamy that is the hot button issue there. It leads to status-seeking behavior, celebrates alpha males over good husbands and providers, and results in less male investment in the well-being of children.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm

1. Agreed.
2. Tons of Christians used the Bible to support slavery, tons of them used the Bible to reject it. Tons of atheists rejected slavery millennia ago, tons of atheists argued in support of slavery. Neither atheism nor theism necessarily imply anything about slavery.
3. I don’t have time to research the history of abolition, but even if it was hugely religious, this provides no support for the claim that a particular religion is TRUE. Even conservative Christian apologists like Bill Craig know this. At the end of his debate with Hitchens he explicitly said that the social impact of a religion indicates NOTHING about it’s TRUTH.
4. See above. The social impact of a belief says nothing about its truth.
5. Rape and murder have a lot to do with morality. But neither atheism nor theism entail anything about morality.
6. I’m not an expert on poverty but I’ve never heard of a legit expert on poverty seriously defending the idea that homosexuality and polygamy are leading causes of poverty.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Hiya Luke,
1. Good :)
2. Tons of Christians use the bible to support abortion. Tons of secular people use science to oppose abortion. But we all know where the battle lines are drawn and where most people line up. The same is true of abolition.
 
3. This is a thread about Christian morality, not the truth of Christianity. Christian morality would still be true even if God didn’t exist. If God didn’t exist then the world would probably secularize. And, victory in hand, they would then realize that all the answers to the world’s moral questions are found in a 2000+ year old book.
 
5. Christianity entails a lot about morality. And modern science – evolution at that! – is providing powerful evidence for the truth of Christian sexual morality.
 
6. I was speaking generally towards Christian sexual morality. Homosexuality is not common enough to singlehandedly foster a culture of poverty. But do your reading on sociobiology. You may like it – its evolution applied to sexual selection – and you will not be so nonchalant about polygamy (or other alternative to monogamy). As the feminist sociobiologist Sarah Baffer Hrdy states in her book ‘Mother Nature’
“Sociobiology is not a field known for the encouraging news it offers either sex. Yet its most promising revelation to date has to be that over evolutionary time, lifelong monogamy turns out to be the cure for all sorts of detrimental devices that one sex uses to the exploit the other.”
 
That’s a strong statement coming from an avowed feminist.
 

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 18, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Justin Martyr: victory in hand, they would then realize that all the answers to the world’s moral questions are found in a 2000+ year old book.

I’m… speechless.

Justin Martyr: Christianity entails a lot about morality. And modern science – evolution at that! – is providing powerful evidence for the truth of Christian sexual morality.

Wow, no.

Also, I’ve read a lot of sociobiology – one of my favorite subjects. But I disagree with Sarah Baffer Hrdy. (Wow, her name really is “Hrdy”!!)

 

  (Quote)

drj August 19, 2009 at 7:32 am

 

Justin Martyr: 1. Abortion. Whether or not a fetus has moral status is a subject of debate. Whether or not it is biologically a human being is an empirical matter that has been settle by science. Singer concedes the point in Practical Ethics (provided that ‘human being’ means ‘member of the species Homo sapeins’ and not ‘person’). I can also provide references from embryology textbooks. If atheists really are capable of rigorously following the science then they need to accept this.

 
 
We have to be careful how terms like “human being” get thrown around when discussing abortion – equivocations get severe.  In my vocabulary at least (shared by many others who believe abortion is ethical) there are distinctions made between “Human”, “Human Being” and “Person”.
 
A person would be an being of any species with personhood.  Something that is “human” can be anything from corpses, to fetuses, to spit on the sidewalk, or to hair on your brush.   A “Human being” would be what I refer too as human thing, which also has personhood.
 
In your paraphrasing of Singer above, it looks like he is careful to point out that there is no problem admitting a fetus is a human being, as long as its not used in the sense that I or many other pro-choicers tend to use it.   One can certainly use the term human as  a noun referring to a human being, but that should typically be avoided in abortion discussions… one can also nonchalantly refer to corpses or fetuses as human beings… but that should be equally avoided without the types of caveat that Singer was careful to point out.
 
In short, I don’t think many pro-choicers have ever had much difficulty with conceding the fact that fetuses are human (or human beings under certain definitions), and demonstrably so through science.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 19, 2009 at 8:20 am

 

lukeprog: I’m… speechless. Wow, no. Also, I’ve read a lot of sociobiology – one of my favorite subjects. But I disagree with Sarah Baffer Hrdy. (Wow, her name really is “Hrdy”!!)

 
What books on sociobiology have you read? Because frankly you don’t show much understanding of the subject. Sociobiology 101 pretty much boils down to this:  the strategies of sexual selection are some really nasty stuff.

drj: In short, I don’t think many pro-choicers have ever had much difficulty with conceding the fact that fetuses are human (or human beings under certain definitions), and demonstrably so through science.

 
My experience is only anecdotal but I’ve found that few people defend the morality of abortion on the grounds of personhood, but rather that a fetus is not yet alive or an independent life form. I tend to see feminist arguments which compare a fetus to a toenail clipping or a kidney to argue that it isn’t really a living member of the species Homo sapiens.
 

  (Quote)

drj August 19, 2009 at 10:01 am

 

Justin Martyr: My experience is only anecdotal but I’ve found that few people defend the morality of abortion on the grounds of personhood, but rather that a fetus is not yet alive or an independent life form. I tend to see feminist arguments which compare a fetus to a toenail clipping or a kidney to argue that it isn’t really a living member of the species Homo sapiens.

 
You are right, pro-abortion arguments do come in many flavors…
 
But I do believe, that for those who havent thought about the issue that deeply who do often use vague arguments along the lines of independence and or “non-life” – I think the personhood theory captures the sentiment of what they are trying to articulate, in many cases.   Even if one isnt quite saying “personhood” they are often reaching for the same principles, but without the grammer.
 
As in the case of the feminists you mention… comparisons of a fetus to a toenail clipping or a kidney in a round about way speak to the personhood argument. In so many words, they are essentially claiming the fetus is “human” yes, but not a “person”.
 
 

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 19, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Justin,

I’m no expert in sociobiology. All I was saying is that sociobiology is a field of scientific explanation. It says nothing whatever about what IS moral, given atheism or theism. It merely DESCRIBES the world as it is. You seem to want to say that without God, whatever is adaptive is moral. This is the claim I deny. I do not deny that many sociobiological DESCRIPTIONS are plausible.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 20, 2009 at 9:08 am

Luke, are you being willfully obtuse? An alpha male langur monkey kills or drives off a rival male. It takes over the rivals harem (the females have little choice about this). It kills the females’ babies to bring the females into heat sooner. Then it procreates with the females.
 
Sure, we have Hume’s is-ought problem. But any serious of theory of morality, wether desirism, Rawlsian social contract, or rights-based, would have no problem saying that this behavior is immoral. Of course, monkeys aren’t moral agents with free will (or a close-enough approximation) so it is a moot point. But the point about sociobiology is to look at general patterns of behavior and these kinds of aggressive and even murderous tendencies also exist in humans. That was the main subject of Daly and Wilson’s book ‘Homocide’. They wanted to test sociobiology against the empirical evidence and humans and found a powerful match.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Justin,

What are you talking about? I haven’t denied ANY of these sociobiology claims.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 21, 2009 at 4:37 pm

lukeprog: What are you talking about? I haven’t denied ANY of these sociobiology claims.

No, but you have denied that they are problem.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 21, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Justin,

These claims of sociobiology are a problem for… what? For whom? Maybe they are a problem for someone who thinks there is a valid inference from “X is adaptive” to “X is morally good”, but I deny this inference.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 22, 2009 at 4:46 pm

lukeprog: These claims of sociobiology are a problem for… what? For whom?

They are a problem for social liberals who think that sex is essentially cooperative, and that evangelicals are crazy for fussing about “family values” and what goes on in the privacy in someone else’s bedroom. One of the main lessons of sociobiology is that all sex outside of lifelong monogamy is a form of strategic behavior by which people advance their own reproductive self-interest at the expense of others.

  (Quote)

lukeprog August 22, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Justin,

Hardly anyone these days uses sex outside lifelong monogamy for their own reproductive self-interest. Its the people in traditional-marriage-dominated societies that are popping out tons of babies, not those who are comfortable sleeping around. Those people are usually quite upset if pregnancy occurs.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 24, 2009 at 8:13 am

Hiya Luke,
 

lukeprog: Justin,Hardly anyone these days uses sex outside lifelong monogamy for their own reproductive self-interest. Its the people in traditional-marriage-dominated societies that are popping out tons of babies, not those who are comfortable sleeping around. Those people are usually quite upset if pregnancy occurs.

 
I’m not talking about procreation. Chimps don’t play sexual politics in order to procreate; they do it in order to gain sexual access to females. Chimps are horny and want to get laid. Humans too. This has some severe consequences.
 
1. It is not in the evolutionary self-interest for a man to raise another man’s offspring. The three most common defenses against this are: (1) murder and abuse, which is why children are 70 times more likely to be killed by a stepparent than by their biological parent (and that number is probably massively understated). (2) Neglect. The Cindarella effect. Invest your time into your own biological offspring and neglect the other man’s children. This later strategy is why stepfathers and boyfriends of single mothers are not reliable substitutes for biological fathers. It plays a key role in the fact that children of single mothers do worse than their peers with married parents in virtually every measurable endpoint ranging from cognitive development to grades to depression and delinquincy.
 
2. It results in highly strategic encounters between males and females. Informal relationships from serial monogamy result in people reserving the right to “trade up” to a higher status partner at any time. Thus sexual jealousy and domestic violence are much higher among cohabitating singles than among married couples. But I would use those as a proxy for how fulfilling the relationship is in general terms. Cohabitating couples have high rates of separation in the first two years and even when they do marry their divorce rate is about 80% higher when they do marry. Part of that is a signalling equilibrium – but you would have to be naive to assume that you can solve a signalling problem without signalling. Instead you have to hope to get lucky.
 
 

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 24, 2009 at 12:49 pm

The short version of my last post: unless you don’t think that poverty, child abuse, and domestic violence are problems, Christian sexual morality is extremely important.

  (Quote)

drj August 24, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Justin Martyr: The short version of my last post: unless you don’t think that poverty, child abuse, and domestic violence are problems, Christian sexual morality is extremely important.

Yet by refusing to take a pragmatic view of human sexuality, Christian sexual morality, I feel, generally works to exacerbate the problems you describe by creating taboos against two very pragmatic and effective solutions to those problems: birth control, and abortion.

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 25, 2009 at 6:03 am

Birth control and abortion does not do anything to stop (1) child abuse at the hands of stepfathers, (2) domestic violence in relationships by  cohabitating singles.
 
So you are left with abortion as the solution to the problem of single motherhood. I think that would even make secular people swallow pretty hard! There is an apocryphal quote from the Vietnam war: we had to kill the village in order to save it. Well, in the case of social liberals the quote really is true: we had to kill the baby in order to save it. Secondly, and here is the harsh truth that does not fit into the socially liberal worldview, most single mothers wanted to get pregnant. It is their ticket to the adult world. These children are wanted babies and the norms of the underclass are such that single motherhood is perfectly acceptable.

  (Quote)

drj August 25, 2009 at 6:37 am

Justin Martyr: Birth control and abortion does not do anything to stop (1) child abuse at the hands of stepfathers, (2) domestic violence in relationships by cohabitating singles.

So you are left with abortion as the solution to the problem of single motherhood

 
Well, yes, it does.  If there are far fewer single mothers, there are far fewer instances of (1) and (2).  I see both birth control and abortion as one of the most practical avenues to reduce the amount of one parent families.   I certainly see Christianity’s strategy against both BC and abortion as self-defeating if one ever hopes to reduce the instances of (1) and (2).   Where did that Old Testament pragmatism go? :P
 
 
 

Justin Martyr: Secondly, and here is the harsh truth that does not fit into the socially liberal worldview, most single mothers wanted to get pregnant. It is their ticket to the adult world. These children are wanted babies and the norms of the underclass are such that single motherhood is perfectly acceptable.

 
 
No offense, but that sounds fishy to me.  Do you have any links/sources for this claim?
 

  (Quote)

Justin Martyr August 25, 2009 at 1:09 pm

Abortion doesn’t do anything about divorce. Unless you mean infanticide and and child-cide? It certainly doesn’t do anything about domestic violence among cohabitating singles.

drj: No offense, but that sounds fishy to me. Do you have any links/sources for this claim?

Sure, go read ‘Promises I can Keep’ by Kathryn Edin.
 
 

  (Quote)

mojo.rhythm February 18, 2011 at 8:23 pm

I agree with this post. It is truly amazing how causally disconnected Craig and his acolytes are from the real world when it actually comes to issues that really matter and genuinely have an impact on our lives.

This post, Luke, is an absolutely superb vindication of Karl Marx’s phrase “religion is the opiate of the masses” (and I am not a Marxist by any means). Religion provides a convenient fiction for persons to impose on the world that inevitably smudges out such “mundane” issues as the class struggle, poverty, corruption, unjustified authority, totalitarianism, climate change, greed, unequal wealth distribution etc. All of these trifles will ultimately prove irrelevant when the Day of Judgement is nigh.

  (Quote)

Antsan October 16, 2011 at 2:01 pm

Abortion doesn’t do anything about divorce.

Not divorce is the problem but the inability of former couples to cope with it and we can do something about that – my parents broke up and they still can cooperate peacefully together just because they foresaw from the very beginning of their relationship that someday they wouldn’t love each other anymore. They prepared and now instead of a crumbling family, only hold together by tradition, we’ve got a somewhat complicated situation with much less bad feelings, much less potential for violence and the capacity to care for my youngest brother in any way we think is necessary to let him become a healthy adult.
The Christian morality not only prevents this solution to a problem occurring without failure everywhere but also prevents improving upon it into a direction where those who make a bad decision in their love life aren’t punished for it for the rest of their lives but can actually learn from it.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment