I'm a Christian, yet I don't want a secular country like my own, America, to be religiously involved. Of course, I would like to live in a country that shared my beliefs and its population did as well, but I don't; I live in a country with many religous people and a secular government. With a secular government, I'm not going to want to even slightly favor alarticular government by having "God Language" or religious ethics implemented within a secular government because it would be favoring monthsistic faiths and a particular religion's ethics. If I lived in a Christian government, I would understand that, but secular governments should stay true to their secularism, not do be against religon and favor any degree unbelief, but to allow for a secular government to act as it is intended to act. Although I may argue against some of its morals, I don't want jt to be religously offered, such as saying "I don't believe abortion should be legalized because it goes against God's plan." Good for you, now what about atheists or someone of a religion that believes abortion is perfectly fine? I believe that a secular government should act as it should: not favoring or excluding a religion. With that being said, the church seems to believe that they become incapacitated of sharing their beliefs in a secular government, which obviously isn't true. I can still offer my opinion to a potential mother that having a baby aborted is wrong or to not use contraceptives for the same reason, telling not to take the oppurtunity that she has available. I know it feels like you are being excluded because a secular government is acting as it should, not favoring your religion, but tough luck--you should go to a country that is governed with your beliefs or you can remain and preach your beliefs in a country that allows any to be preached.
Apparently I have. Perhaps you like to take a shot at answering my question regarding what WLC meant about "religion's role in the public square." Does he mean we should consult some interpretation of the Bible on various matters of public policy?
Ok that's fine. Sometimes putting pressure on a country from the outside helps them advance morally. And allowing access to contraception is certainly an advancement.
No but don't presume to tell a country what it can and cannot do. I fully support the use of contraception.
This is not an issue about abortion. This is about whether it is a right to have access to contraception, and whether governments can ban them for religious reasons. There is no secular argument against contraceptives. I don't care who's happier with how many kids or not, what matters is whether the women wants to have kids or not. I know in the Philippines for decades women have wanted to have less kids and access to contraceptives. On top of that, many are miserable because they live in abject poverty and have no access to means to stop having kids. No one's forcing them to use it, it's voluntary. Are you against citizens of a country from even having access because of your religious faith?
Again God' is capitalize. Now people that have more kids or just have kids are happier than those who don't. Also women live longer because they have kids. Why is because that women retain the antibodies that they produce to protect the babies in the womb. More kids more antibodies. Now Christian know that life begins at conception not just because of the Bible but also because of Biology tells us. For that I like to point you towards Secular Pro Life Facebook page for the science part.http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%...
LOL. Why not just let her have access to contraceptives if she wants to? The Church decided that was against god's will, so it banned it, forcing poor women in the Philippines to have 4, 5, 6 or more children. So don't give me any crap that they were banned because they're allegedly dangerous. And conflating communism with atheism is like conflating radical islamic terrorism with theism. Sorry bro, nice try.
Also basal body thermometer can measure when a woman is ovulating and she can make a decision when she wants to have a baby or not without having to put chemicals that don't always work and can cause problems. UTI are dangerous because a womens body can reject them or grow over them. Its safer not to use them if you can.
and only blame Communist Atheists for the 100 hundred million people that are dead because of their hatred of religion and trying to replace God with Communism Atheism.
Ok. Well legalizing contraceptives in 2013 is not exactly groundbreaking. I'd call it a shame that it took that long. I can blame only the Catholic Church for that.
I apologies I meant contraceptives not gay marriage. 9 percent are actual non believers in Argentina meaning atheist or agnostic.The rest believe in God but don't identify with a particular religion that makes the other 14 percent of the 24 that are non believers. The most of the country is Catholic nominal they might be but still Catholic.
Where did you hear that the Philippines legalized gay marriage? And Argentina is not very religious, only 20% of reported Catholics attend regular church services and 15% of the country is non-religious.
Do even listen to WLC because apparently you haven't
The Philippines legalized gay marriage so did Argentine. Both are highly religious countires
I like the fact that we have a political party that is embracing secularism. We live in a secular democracy, and religion and government should be separate. Government should play a neutral role when it comes from religion. Theists like Craig and many others, continually want to push religion further and further into the public sphere, where it does not belong.
As evident by what is happening in Muslim majority countries, and in Christian majority countries like Uganda, religion deeply embedded into government can lead to many problems as we have seen with laws punishing homosexuals with death, as the Bible condones. It is through problems like this that secularists like me have with religion having too strong a role in government.
Great video blog, very relevant. The culture war is ondisplay I think every time politics is discussed. And I certainly agree thatthere is a tremendous spiritual element ever present in this cultural struggle.Thank you for pointing out this particular instance.
Dr. Craig, the vote you described is not the vote to put the god language back into the platform; but instead language to affirm Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
Actually, many of our early congresses did that very thing. Not so much as an endorsement of religion but because many of our founders(even the agnostics and deists) found much in the Bible to be wise. But seriously, there is nothing to "read into" regarding Craig's statement. Take it at face value. He is simply showing how some parts of contemporary culture may perceive the role of God in politics...what exactly are you complaining about? Craig's exact speech could have been given by an atheist.
Based off of what? Because he is a Christian? Obviously, a reference to God could refer to many religious viewpoints. Not to mention, most non-religous people believe in God or at least some sort of higher reality.
What's sad about this is that it is that Christians have probably had a large part in this left-leaning animosity towards God. The Moral Majority and all of this social conservative angst from years passed created a very strong false dichotomy politically...so unfortunate.
"Both parties are corrupt but they are not the same. Is Obama the same as Romney? No. Is the democrat party the same as the republican party? No."
Yes, they are essentially the same. They both squabble over issues that are designed to illicit an emotional response from the general public; abortion, illegal immigration, gay marriage. This is done to provide the illusion to the masses that the parties are actually opposed to one another.
However, Obama and Romney share the SAME view on a wide variety of very significant issues. They both supported the bailouts. They both support socialized healthcare (Obamacare was patterned after Romney's healthcare system in Massachusetts). They both support the Federal Reserve System, which is destroying our currency. They both share views on gun control. They both support an interventionist foreign policy. They both support a police state, including heightened surveillance of American citizens. They both support the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which allows the President to arrest and detain indefinitely ANY American citizen (without access to a lawyer) who is simply ACCUSED (not convicted) of being associated with terrorism. They both support the president's power to assassinate American citizens, in violation of the Constitution. They are both bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and other large banks, who received billions in bailout money.
Yes, Obama is almost entirely a Marxist. But there is very little practical difference in the alternative. Republicans used to fight Democrats over the size of government. Now they just fight over who can manage a big government better.
The politicians and mainstream media have done well to fool us into the illusion that we have a choice this November. People need to wake up, because we are quickly approaching a society that resembles Stalinist Russia, rather than the Republic that our founders envisioned.
Yes Clockwork Cynic, many Christians in Europe take a socialist view, it is very different politically. However Europeans tend to be more discerning and less tribal when it comes to politics.In the U.S. I have lost friends over politics because they could not live with the fact I do not support Obama. We get so uptight about it, yet parts of Europe it is not even considered polite to ask or discuss who people vote for.In respect of the heated debates and the unsophisticated squabbles I agree, but sometimes you have to meet halfwits at their level. You can't win an argument with an idiot, so either walk away or speak their neanderthal back to 'em.
My 'L' key is not working properly, that should read 'world view'.
I suppose that was a bit harsh.It is just that I have read many of Spencer's comments and thought processes since he has been posting on here. To me they seem to implode through either his generally inconsistent word view or fallacious logic.Somebody previously said he would not get through a philosophy degree with his arguments and I concur. With all respect to him, I do not think he is educated in this area, his arguments are flawed too frequently for somebody who would even have a basic grasp of logic or even a semester in critical thinking.No offense intended, he may be a Prof for all I know!!
Dr. Craig may be referring to religion as "a system of belief" rather than the alternative "belief and worship in a deity" meaning.
A society is constituted by the individuals who make up that society. In theory, laws and conventions are created to serve the demands of that society. The demands of a society are made by the majority of individuals who live in that society and would be influenced by their worldview (series of beliefs). It seems that (apart from secularism being self-refuting) secularists fail to realize this and any attempt to remove society's collective beliefs from social and political activities would be futile.
Good point, especially regarding European attitudes to politics and religion. I would say that America does have a very strange entanglement of politics and God, which is probably doing untold harm to Theistic belief by association. It seems to me, partly responsible for the growing number of very heated and unsophisticated religious/anti-religious squabbles of the modern age. Especially when this overflows onto the Internet, where intelligent discussion reaches an all-time low.
"It is disappointing that the Democrats even removed references to God from their platform in the first place."
It's not a big surprise. The democrats got into bed with radical leftists and the radical leftists now control the party. What the vote showed was the split between the radicals who will openly say what they believe and the progressives who essentially believe the same thing but will lie about it.
"The reason that the crowd expressed disappointment is because they were being disenfranchised by the party leadership, who were shoving the measure through against the peoples' will. The Republicans did something similar during their convention"
That is true that the Republicans did something similar by refusing to seat delegates but the similarities end there. The democrats didn't want to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or God in their platform. The Chairman knew this was bad for the election and over ruled the will of the delegates. Not recognizing the capital of Israel or God is a pretty extreme position.
In the case of the Republicans, the establishment progressives are loosing power to people who actually want small government and a return to the constitution. The vote not to seat the delegates was the establishment attempting to keep it's power.
"I don't think that we should be so naive as to expect that one party is any better than the other."
Both parties are corrupt but they are not the same. Is Obama the same as Romney? No. Is the democrat party the same as the republican party? No.
The big government establishment Republicans do not want the same thing as the big government democrats. The democrats have ostensibly become Marxist/ socialist. The big government republicans with the exception of a few don't want the democrat version of big government. They are for big government but want their version of it, which isn't as large as the democrat view.
"There are almost no honest people in government anymore, and politicians frequently trumpet their faith as a means to gain votes while destroying our natural rights behind our back - rights that our founding fathers recognized as being given by God. "
Many of those entrenched establishment republicans who pay lip service to the constitution have lost in republican primaries and been kicked out of office by a tea party candidate.
Because David H., Spencer is irrational. The very thing he claims Christians are.I'm not sure Spencer really knows what he is about.I guess it is good that Spencer decides to come here, it makes us feel better about ourselves because it is good to be reminded from time to time of the feeble arguments people like Spencer put forward. I get the impression Spencer knows deep down that he is wrong on many of the issues he espouses and so attacks us due to the weight of a guilty conscience. There is too much protestation on his part, if he really believed what he says, then he would probably just go away and live and let live. I would if I were him.
If you find Christianity so disagreeable, why are you here? Just like to insult people? As a Christian, I would obviously not believe in the tenets of Islam - yet I've never felt the urge to go on to a Muslim website and tell everyone there how irrational and foolish I think they are. And if I were to go on such a site, I would respect their beliefs and perhaps offer some justification for my own.
Not only because Christianity is wildly false, but because it encourages irrational thinking, and is thus a dangerous "authority" to ground public policy. Which version of Christianity should be consulted? Who's to decide that? The notion that we can discern what a supposed God really thinks about, say, gay marriage is absurd. That kind of nonsense appeal has no place in public policy debates.
It is disappointing that the Democrats even removed references to God from their platform in the first place.
The reason that the crowd expressed disappointment is because they were being disenfranchised by the party leadership, who were shoving the measure through against the peoples' will. The Republicans did something similar during their convention. They passed a rule change that allows the party leadership to unseat and replace delegates of non-establishment candidates with delegates that THEY choose. This effectively makes the Republican nomination process into a dictatorship (rather than a fair and free electoral process), because the party leaders can now eliminate any delegates who represent a dissenting voice within the party. There are videos on the internet of John Boehner reading the results of this vote off of a teleprompter even as the vote is being taken, a clear sign that the entire process was scripted, rather than being a spontaneous vote.
I don't think that we should be so naive as to expect that one party is any better than the other. There are almost no honest people in government anymore, and politicians frequently trumpet their faith as a means to gain votes while destroying our natural rights behind our back - rights that our founding fathers recognized as being given by God.
Why would it be insane?
I'd really like Craig to explain what he means by "religion's role in the public square." Does he mean we should consult some interpretation of the Bible on various matters of public policy? That, of course, would be insane.
By "religion's role in the public square," Craig obviously means *Christianity* in the public square -- as opposed to Islam, Buddhism, etc. The less irrationality of religion in the public square, the better.
Here is the videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They were voting to put God back into the platform and to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Many people have characterized this as democrats booing God. They were booing the fact that they didn't get the 2/3 vote but passed it anyway. However, they did vote against putting God into the platform and recognizing the capital of Israel.
There isn't much difference between voting against changing the platform and booing God and and Israel. I am guessing the vote probably didn't go as smoothly as they anticipated it would.
Receive our free Newsletter
Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.
Get the free Reasonable Faith App for iPhone, iPad, & Android! Download →
Scholarly ArticlesArticles published in peer-reviewed journals
Popular ArticlesIntended for a general audience
DebatesSelect transcriptions of Dr. Craig's debates
Q & AWeekly question and answer
Video / AudioDebates, Talks, and Interviews
Reasonable Faith PodcastConversations with William Lane Craig
Defenders PodcastClass on Christian doctrine and apologetics
Defenders LiveLivestream of Defenders Class
DrCraigVideos ChannelShort Video Clips of Dr Craig
ReasonableFaithOrg ChannelFull Length Video Clips of Dr Craig
DrCraigInternational ChannelTranslated Video Clips of Dr Craig
Copyright Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Reasonable Faith is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.