Amazon.com Widgets

Starbucks Coffee Co. Officially Support Sodomy and Gay “Marriage”

Media Release — 3 February 2012

Right to Life is disappointed that Starbucks are officially supporting sodomy and gay marriage.

Starbucks executive vice President, Karen Holmes in a letter dated 24 January 2012, to United States partners expressed enthusiastic support for homosexual marriage legislation in Washington State. The “important legislation” says Karen Holmes “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.”

Customer Relations at Starbucks stated that “Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognising marriage equality for same–sex couples. From our very earliest days, Starbucks have strived to create a company culture that put our people first and our company has a lengthy history of leading on and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion.”

It is disappointing but not surprising that Starbucks wish to re-define marriage and believes that support for sodomy and homosexual marriage is a core value.

The family is at the centre of a culture of life, it is the foundation of a stable society. It is the family that brings forth children, future citizens who are essential for the continuance of society. The promotion of same sex marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage and on society itself. Right to Life supports the human rights of the homosexual members of our community, however there is no human right to homosexual marriage.

The support of Starbucks for homosexual marriage is no surprise, as the company has been putting pro-homosexual messages on its take-away cups since 2006. Starbucks claims in its mission statement to embrace diversity. It promotes gay pride events but refuses to support events celebrating heterosexual marriage.

Pro-family leaders in the United States are now calling for an international boycott of Starbucks.

The Starbucks brand is managed in New Zealand by Restaurant Brands NZ Ltd which has 32 Starbucks Coffee shops in New Zealand.

Those in the community who believe that marriage is exclusively for one man and one woman will be offended by the attack of Starbucks on the family. They are encouraged to boycott Starbucks Coffee shops and to take their business to coffee shops that support the family and who do not support sodomy and homosexual marriage.

Right to Life requests Restaurant Brands to publicly dissociate itself from the support for homosexual marriage expressed by Starbucks USA.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life
Phone +64 3 385 6111

William Dembski Interview

Get it here: www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/01/14/william-dembski-interview/

I love Dembski. He is an intellectual genius, and honest to the heart. With the persecution he has faced both inside and outside the church, he is also like a modern Galileo.

Christopher Hitchens, April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011

New Atheist Christopher Hitchens has passed on.

Hitchens, who wrote for publications such as The Atlantic Monthly, Slate and Vanity Fair, rose to prominence for his divisive opinions, his unabashed atheism, his scorching critiques of popular figures like Mother Teresa Henry Kissinger, and, above all, his razor wit. (Reuters)

I personally admire Hitchens for having the guts to stand up for what he believed, even if I would disagree with him as his brother Peter Hitchens did (blog, Amazon book “The rage against God”).

Our condolences go out to his family.

From those I follow on Twitter…

  • C Michael Patton: Christopher Hitchens died today. #verysad vnty.fr/vFD9TU Prayers are with his family and brother.
  • Lee Strobel: Feeling grief at Christopher Hitchens’ death. I was among many who shared Christ with him; so sad he rejected Gospel.
  • Douglas Wilson: How to think about the death of the outspoken atheist.
  • Albert Mohler: The point about Christopher Hitchens is not that he died of unbelief, but that his unbelief is all that matters now. Unspeakably sad.
  • Rick Warren: My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now.
  • Joe Fleener: Christopher Hitchens has died. Let’s pray for his family & those who he’s influenced that they may repent & trust Christ.
  • Larry Taunton: I am truly saddened to hear that my friend and debating opponent Christopher Hitchens has passed away. Our thoughts are with his family.
  • Hugh Hewitt: I am at a loss of what to say about Christopher Hitchens except that he was towards me and my audience unfailingly gracious –and dazzling.

A small book by Hitchens and friend Doug Wilson is available here:

What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts

Read all about it…

www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

The “Gaystapo” in Australia

Here.

In the past two days two prominent Labor personalities have come out crystal clear on the idiocy of Labor’s move to the loony left, and its subservience to the Greens on issues like same-sex marriage. Both have guts, common sense, and a strong moral compass. I just wish many more of our leaders – including church leaders – would be like this.

Yesterday in the Australian former heavyweight Labor leader Barry Cohen blasted his own party for their reckless direction and their dereliction of duty. The former Hawke Government minister pulled no punches when he stated that a “tsunami-sized backlash on same-sex marriage looms”.

and

He continued, “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman – full-stop. Neither my first lady nor I will budge on this and we will vote accordingly. Why? Because we believe that marriage as now defined is the basis for family life and has been for thousands of years. We want it to remain so.

“We are told everyone has the ‘right’ to marry whomsoever they wish. In fact, the ‘progressives’, as they like to describe themselves, seem to believe that they have a ‘right’ to do whatever they wish. Rights apply only to them. Does anyone have a right to have sexual relations with a 13 year old? Not when I last looked. How about polygamy and four wives or husbands. Not now, but give the “progressives” time and I have no doubt it will be proclaimed as another ‘right’. We don’t want to discriminate, do we? I could continue to list many other examples, but I’m sure you discern my drift.

“Moving forwards, as the ‘progressives’ like to say, let us ponder for a moment how human rights will affect our education system. How long will it be before the ‘progressives’ insist sex education be expanded to incorporate the glories of homosexuality and how to imbibe safely. Some will say, ‘Oh, that’s going too far.’ Some will, but others will demand it.

“Imagine dad’s reaction when little Johnny describes in graphic detail what happened in his sex education class. Choke is the word that comes to mind. Once heterosexuality and homosexuality are considered ‘natural’, how can it be otherwise?”

and

All three individuals are of course coming under a huge and ugly attack by the militant gaystapo. One simply has to read the poisonous and hate-drenched comments under the Age article for example to see the real demonic rage which emanates from this camp.

So I encourage all of you to support these three courageous and principled individuals. They certainly need our support at this time. They deserve heaps of praise, especially considering that most of our church leaders and celebrity pastors are not saying a word on this. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Most of these leaders who claim to be Christians are far too concerned about raking in the praises of men (and raking in their members’ hard-earned bucks). They should be shouting from the roof tops and their pulpits what God’s design for human sexuality and marriage is all about.

Instead, most remain silent – deathly silent. They are gutless wonder who will face the music one day. As Alan Sears has written recently, “It doesn’t take courage to ride the wave of support for same-sex ‘marriage.’ It takes courage to stand against the surging tide.”

Well said !

See also Bill’s book: Strained Relations: The Challenge Of Homosexuality

Steve Jobs Changed the World: His Adoption a Gift to the World

Steve Jobs was a creative genius who changed the world with his visionary work. He was the founder of the revolutionary Apple Company that has changed the way we communicate forever. He must rank among the greatest industrial innovators the world has seen. His contribution to society is immense. Steve Jobs was born in 1955, his destiny and his ability to affect people globally, may never have happened.

Steve Jobs was born out of wedlock and adopted into a loving home by Clara and Paul Jobs. Today as we commemorate the passing of Steve Jobs we should remember with gratitude the heroic birth mother who in the face of possible pressure to terminate Steve’s life chose life. We should reflect with gratitude on his adoptive parents who provided Steve with a loving home and nurtured his outstanding talents. His life is a reminder of the value of every human being made in the image and likeness of our Creator, a unique and unrepeatable miracle of His loving creation sent into this world with a special plan to fulfill.

It is an appalling tragedy that in New Zealand nearly 18,000 unborn children each year have their lives terminated in our nation’s hospitals. They are deemed to be of little worth. How many of these children would have made an outstanding contribution to society if only they had been allowed to live. Each one of these children came with special gifts to enrich our society. We should in sorrow mourn our irreparable loss. In 2009 there were only 43 babies adopted in New Zealand i.e. one adoption for every 408 abortions. Why do we as a nation have such antipathy to adoption? Abortion, the killing of the child in the womb is part of a culture of death. Adoption the positive option is part of a culture of life, let us be inspired by the life of Steve Jobs and make the promotion of adoption a national priority.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

When Christians Misbehave – William J. Murray

This is a pretty interesting scuffle. William J. Murray is the son of the late atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, of whom he declared “an evil person”.

What makes this discussion so interesting is the utter blindness of the atheist to the fact that he is pushing his worldview upon others. He seems to think that he holds the neutral ground and that Christians (and others) are trying to push their views upon others. Murray does not fall for this nonsense, rightly pointing out that the secular position is NOT neutral, but is in itself a biased position that forces its views upon the rest of us.

[Well, consider the secular media. They push their views about sex, marriage, relationships, politics, and almost everything else, upon all tax-payers.]

Murray also gets it right regarding atheism, situational ethics, and the Nazis.

Gutless pathetic atheists: A.C. Grayling, Polly Toynbee, Richard Dawkins

H/T to www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/

Another humdinger post from Rabbi Moshe Averick on atheist morality

I have picked out some quotes from the article which is here.  An excellent and well written argument titled:

A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late

Let the quotes roll….. here goes:

Since in the atheistic worldview we are nothing more than upright walking primates, our value systems have no more significance than those of our jungle dwelling relatives. In the Darwinian view, the human is to the cockroach as the cockroach is to the paramecium. To imagine that we are something “more” is just that: a product of the human imagination.

This is a great quote to memorize:

“Morality is the custom of one’s country and the current feeling of one’s peers. Cannibalism is moral in a cannibalistic country.” (Samuel Butler)

On the moral basis of the rightness and wrongness of molesting children:

One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential “intellectual elite” of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

And another:

Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the U. of New Haven, who for 10 years authored the “Moral Moments” column in Philosophy Now, made the following, rather shocking about-face in a 2010 article entitled, “An Amoral Manifesto.”

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.(www.philosophynow.org/issue80/An_Amoral_Manifesto_Part_I)

Marks then quite boldly and candidly addresses the implications of his newfound beliefs:

“Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality…yet we human beings can still discover plenty of completely naturally explainable resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molestation of children and would likely continue to be…

And finally:

A wise man once observed that while belief in God after the Holocaust may be difficult, belief in man after the Holocaust is impossible. The choices before us are clear: we will either seek a transcendent moral law to which we will all submit, or we will seek our own personal and societal indulgence. If we turn to God in our quest to create a moral and just world, we have a fighting chance; if not, we are doomed to spiral into the man-made hell of the human jungle.

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website at rabbimaverick.com/

Biblical Training, Bill Mounce, and certificate courses

New Certificate, CEU Credits, Annual Report, and The Story of Jesus Speaks!

Dear Friends,

Lots of things are happening at BiblicalTraining. Here are the highlights.

NEW CERTIFICATE

Christians in the Marketplace is a 10 hour certificate taught by Dr. Gerry Breshears and Kent Humphreys and is offered by Western Seminary and BiblicalTraining. It addresses the issue of how do business leaders apply biblical principles to their leadership and interaction with others in the marketplace in such a way that Christ is glorified and men and women are born into the Kingdom of God.

CEU CREDITS AT BIBLICALTRAINING

BiblicalTraining has been certified by ACSI so that we can offer versions of the Certificates for Continuing Education Units. Check out our offerings.

THE STORY OF JESUS SPEAKS

This is our translation of the Gospel of John specifically for seekers and new believers. A friend has just recorded the translation so you can listen to the Story as well as read it.

ANNUAL REPORT

You can download a copy of our Annual Report 2010. It will give you a snapshot of where we are, where we are going, and some financial numbers.

For His Glory,
Bill Mounce

P.S. Response to our last newsletter about helping the Chinese house church system was strong. Please pray for wisdom as we put a core curriculum together for them and all bi-vocational pastors around the world. Thanks to all who are helping with the transcriptions. And please, when school starts in a few weeks, remember to start your Amazon purchases at BiblicalTraining.org.

Police water cannon and plastic bullets? After 50 years of the most lavish welfare state on earth? What an abject failure

A snippet from an article by Peter Hitchens, brother of “new atheist” Christopher Hitchens:

So yes, I am deeply sorry for the innocent and gentle people who have lost lives, homes, businesses and security. Heaven knows I have argued for years for the measures that might have saved them.

But I am not really very sorry for the elite liberal Londoners who have suddenly discovered what millions of others have lived with for decades. The mass criminality in the big cities is merely a speeded-up and concentrated version of life on most large estates – fear, intimidation, cruelty, injustice, savagery towards the vulnerable and the different, a cold sneer turned towards any plea for pity, the awful realisation that when you call for help from the authorities, none will come.

Just look and see how many shops are protected with steel shutters, how many homes have bars on their windows. This is not new.

As the polluted flood (it is not a tide; it will not go back down again) of spite, greed and violence washes on to their very doorsteps, well-off and influential Left-wingers at last meet the filthy thing they have created, and which they ignored when it did not affect them personally.

No doubt they will find ways to save themselves. But they will not save the country. Because even now they will not admit that all their ideas are wrong, and that the policies of the past 50 years – the policies they love – have been a terrible mistake. I have heard them in the past few days clinging to their old excuses of non-existent ‘poverty’ and ‘exclusion’.

Take our Prime Minister, who is once again defrauding far too many people. He uses his expensive voice, his expensive clothes, his well-learned tone of public-school command, to give the impression of being an effective and decisive person. But it is all false. He has no real idea of what to do. He thinks the actual solutions to the problem are ‘fascist’. Deep down, he still wants to ‘understand’ the hoodies.

Say to him that naughty children should be smacked at home and caned in school, that the police (and responsible adults) should be free to wallop louts and vandals caught in the act, that the police should return to preventive foot patrols, that prisons should be austere places of hard work, plain food and discipline without TV sets or semi-licit drugs, and that wrongdoers should be sent to them when they first take to crime, not when they are already habitual crooks, and he will throw up his well-tailored arms in horror at your barbarity.

Say to him that divorce should be made very difficult and that the state should be energetically in favour of stable, married families with fathers (and cease forthwith to subsidise families without fathers) and he will smirk patronisingly and regard you as a pitiable lunatic.

Say to him that mass immigration should be stopped and reversed, and that those who refuse any of the huge number of jobs which are then available should be denied benefits of any kind, and he will gibber in shock.

Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

From Melanie Phillips at MailOnline:

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age.

Indeed, “The riots have been fuelled by moral collapse”…

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

Instead, it introduced the sexual free-for-all of ‘lifestyle choice’; claimed that the idea of the male breadwinner was a sexist anachronism; and told girls that they could, and should, go it alone as mothers.

This was the outcome of the shattering defeat of Tony Blair, in the two years or so after he came to power, at the hands of the ultra-feminists and apostles of non-judgmentalism in his Cabinet and party who were determined, above all, to destroy the traditional nuclear family.

Blair stood virtually alone against them, and lost.

One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.

But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.

And this breaking of the family was further condoned, rewarded and encouraged by the Welfare State, which conceives of need solely in terms of absence of money, and which accordingly subsidises lone parenthood and the destructive behaviour that fatherlessness brings in its train.

And finally a challenge:

When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation, and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then — and only then — will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem.

Until then, within the smouldering embers of our smashed and burned-out cities, we can only look upon the ruins of the Britain we have so dearly loved; the Britain that once led the world towards civilisation, but is now so tragically leading the way out.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html

Why Are There Not More Riots?

Much profound thinking from Justin Taylor:

C.S. Lewis, in his prophetic The Abolition of Man (1943):

And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for these very qualities we are rendering impossible.  You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’.  In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Brad Green comments:

. . . A culture—the UK or otherwise—cannot generation after generation laugh at honour and virtue and then be surprised that a culture has produced people who have no interest in honor or virtue.  The most foundational question is not, “what caused these riots?”, but rather, “why are there not more riots?”  That is, a culture that systematically and repeatedly and thoroughly laughs at virute and honor should not be surprised when they look up to see traitors in their midst.  We cannot make “men without chests” and then be surprised to see them face-to-face.  May God help the UK, and all of us.

See also Theodore Dalrymple’s comments in The Spectactor:

I doubt there are many people who have never in their lives experienced the pleasure of inflicting some kind of pain on others, physical or mental, from sheer malice and delight in doing so. It is an urge that we overcome first by effort and then by habit.

It is one of the tasks of civilisation to tame our inherent savagery. But who, contemplating contemporary British culture, would recognise in it any civilising influence, or rather fail to recognise its opposite? It is a constant call to and celebration of degradation, not only physical but spiritual and emotional. A culture in which Amy Winehouse, with her militant vulgarity and self-indulgent stupidity, combined with a very minor talent, could be so extravagantly admired and feted, is not one to put up strong barriers against our baser instincts, desires and urges. On the contrary, that culture has long been a celebration of those very urges. He who pays the savage never gets rid of the savagery; and this is only the beginning.

A Christian Terrorist in Norway?

From here: www.ligonier.org/blog/christian-terrorist-norway/

Last Friday (July 22, 2011), a bomb went off in Oslo killing eight people and injuring many more. Soon afterward, a gunman went on a shooting spree at an island youth camp in Norway, killing 68 people. The gunman was arrested and later claimed responsibility for both attacks.

When interviewed by the police, Breivik claimed that his actions were intended to save his country and all of Europe from Marxist and Muslim infiltration. Because of his belief that it is failing on the issue of immigration, he wanted to create as much loss as he could for Norway’s Labour Party. The bomb, therefore, was placed near buildings occupied by Labour Party members, and the shooting occurred at a Labour Party youth camp.

Political terrorism has not been unusual in the twentieth and twenty-first century, but this attack hits home for those of us who claim to be Christian because Breivik has identified himself as one of us on his Facebook page. He claims to be a Christian. This has raised important questions in the minds of many. First and foremost, does Christianity promote such politically inspired violence? Some would say yes, pointing to the Crusades as an example. In the following article, however, Dr. Robert Godfrey says no: He rightly points out that it is a betrayal of Christ to “identify Him with the slaughter of political enemies. As Christians, we must seek always to advance Christ’s cause through truth joined by love and self-sacrifice, not through violence.”

Read “The Crusades” by W. Robert Godfrey

150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years

This is shocking, but what else could we expect from the atheistic scientific materialists.

Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.

The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.

The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.

Last night a campaigner against the excesses of medical research said he was disgusted that scientists were ‘dabbling in the grotesque’.

Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.

This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.

Scientists say the techniques can be used to develop embryonic stem cells which can be used to treat a range of incurable illnesses.

Three labs in the UK – at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University – were granted licences to carry out the research after the Act came into force. 

All have now stopped creating hybrid embryos due to a lack of funding, but scientists believe that there will be more such work in the future.

The figure was revealed to crossbench peer Lord Alton following a Parliamentary question.

Last night he said: ‘I argued in Parliament against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment.

‘Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.

‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail.

‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.
‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’ 

Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.

‘Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light?

‘The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale.’

(More here: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html)

Albert Mohler and Alan Dershowitz on Israel and terrorism…

…and numerous other topics during a fascinating interview.  Here is the transcript of the podcast:

www.albertmohler.com/2011/05/25/moral-reasoning-in-a-secular-age-a-conversation-with-professor-alan-dershowitz/

Mohler: Thinking hard about those kind of issues leads me to a questions that’s drawn not so much from the kind of academic discussion or even the context of litigation but rather international relations. President Barak Obama recently set forth his plan for the achievement of a stable Middle East peace, and in it, he for instance called for Israel to return to the 1967 boundaries to use the language which the president employed. I know as a friend of Israel you have to have a strong opinion about that. [Read more...]

PHC’s Dr. Montgomery Wins Dublin Debate

This is a little old now but worth mentioning in light of the new atheist desperation for grounding morality in something other than thin air:

JWM: Take the humanist view, that all you need are human values. Well, if law and human rights are simply developed by human beings, in their own cultures, what do you we do with the Third Reich, where law and the concept of values is damnable, is racist? They sent Jews and other prisoners to gas ovens and the like. The only way you get proper human rights is to align them with inalienable rights. But ‘inalienable’ means ‘absolute.’ Since water doesn’t rise above its own level, you’re never going to get absolute values from a non-absolute source. You’ve got to have an absolute source. That means God Almighty. That means a God who has loved us and revealed Himself to us and told us what absolute values are.

PHC: Would they agree with that premise, that there are absolute values?

JWM: They’re caught, aren’t they? They can’t really well say that the Nazi regime is just another way of looking at things. On the other hand, there’s no way that they can arrive at absolute values from human opinion. So they’re stuck.

JWM is of course John Warrick Mongomery, a man with more degrees than I have fingers.

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery holds ten earned degrees, including three earned doctorates in History, Theology, and Law, is an ordained Lutheran minister and English barrister, and is admitted to practice as a lawyer before the Supreme Court of the United States. Author of more than fifty books in four languages, he has won leading religious liberties cases before the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France.

Professor Richard Weikart on Hitler, Nazis, and Darwin

UPDATE: Richard Weikart interview: Hitler’s Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy (21:45 min; MP3 link)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Description: On this episode of ID the Future, Logan Gage interviews historian Richard Weikart on his book, now out in paperback, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, and how Darwinism influenced and inspired much of Nazi ideology. Weikart’s provocative book, out tomorrow, argues that Hitler’s immorality was not the result of ignoring or rejecting ethics, but rather came from embracing a coherent — albeit pernicious — ethic of improving the human race through “evolutionary progress.” Directly inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution, this ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improved human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination. By embracing this particular brand of ethics, Hitler perpetrated much greater evil than he would have had he been merely opportunistic or amoral.

Richard WeikartFrom Uncommon Descent…

Richard Weikart, history professor at the University of California Stanislaus, has just published Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (Palgrave Macmillan April 2011).

In this book, Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic.

Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

Other resources:

  • Podcast with Richard Weikart on this book here.
  • Read inside Hitler’s Ethic here.

William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris Debate Audio

Audio available at Apologetics 315. See also:

Videos of the debate are here:

Other stuff:

Comments: I was hoping that Harris was going to offer a solid critique of Craig’s presentation. Unfortunately in his first rebuttal Harris just ranted about how religions are bad, and terrible things happen, and how “Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice”. Unfortunately Harris came across, imo at least, as a terrible theologian, and he offered no rebuttal of Craig’s arguments.

In the second rebuttal, Craig laid into Harris’ “red herrings” and said that Harris fundamentally does not understand Christianity. He told Harris that Christianity is not a fire insurance policy. We do not believe in God to escape hell. Craig continued to assert that atheism provides no moral foundation for morality.

In his final rebuttal Harris just just as pathetic. Very sad for me because I was hoping for so much more. Finally, here is the final quote used by Dr. Craig from the final page of a paper cited below  – a very powerful conclusion to the debate.

Dr. Leff’s difficulty is the same as Dr. Harris’.  He wants to find a foundation for moral values and duties, in this case for the law, that would be independent of human opinion. It would be objective and would be in the world and he can’t find one. He says any attempt to ground values in the world is open to the playground bully’s retort, “who says!”, and this is how his article concludes:

“All I can say is this. It looks as if we are all we have. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, that is something transcendant, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless,
napalming babies is bad,
starving the poor is wicked,
buying and selling each other is depraved,
there is in the world such a thing as evil.

[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.”

UNSPEAKABLE ETHICS, UNNATURAL LAW, The Duke Law Journal by Dr. Arthur Allen Leff

Source: www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law