Yearly Archives: 2011

Review of How Should we then live? By Bryan Elliff (“Schaeffer Sundays” Part 2)

August 14, 2011 – 3:26 pm

(“Schaeffer Sundays” Part 2)

Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Elliff family and I found this review on Bryan Elliff’s blog.

A Review of “How Should We Then Live?” by Francis A. Schaeffer

October 15, 2008 — bryanelliff

Francis A. Schaeffer died in 1984. He wrote over twenty books during his career, mainly concerning the Christian worldview and its relationship to society and its place in the philosophical sphere. These include The Christian Manifesto, The God Who is There, Escape from Reason, and He is There and He is Not Silent. Educated at Westminster Theological Seminary, he came to have a major influence on the religious community in the West through his writing, speaking, and ministry at L’Abri in Switzerland.

How Should We Then Live? is a history of Western thought and culture. It begins with ancient Rome and traces the flow of Western philosophy and society through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Modern Era, and into the twentieth century. The study is made for a specific purpose. It is not meant to be a “complete chronological history of Western culture” (Author’s Note). Rather, it is made “in hope that light may be shed upon the major characteristics of our age and that solutions may be found to the myriad of problems which face us as we look toward the end of the twentieth century” (Author’s Note). In other words, the object of the book is to draw upon the past in order to better understand the present and better face the future.

____________

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

 

______________

What can be learned from the past? Schaeffer loosely draws out three ideas through his exposition of Western history. First, the tendency of Western culture is to move toward humanism. Humanism is a way of looking at the world that begins from what Schaeffer calls “particulars”–the individual entities that make up the universe (the opposite of “universals” or “absolutes”). The most important particulars are individual human beings. Humanism posits that an autonomous human, with his senses and reason, can come to a true understanding of what surrounds him with no need for outside revelation. While there are notable exceptions (such as the Reformation), Schaeffer shows that the tendency of the West is always to move back to humanism in some form. He speaks of the religious humanism of the Middle Ages, the more unashamed secular humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and the despairing humanism of the twentieth century.

Second, Schaeffer demonstrates from history that a culture cannot function well on a humanistic base. The problem is that man, starting completely from himself with no outside revelation, can never “arrive at universals or absolutes which give meaning to existence and morals” (55). Schaeffer maintains that, without absolutes, there is no foundation, no unity, and no significance for individual man and for society. Man becomes nothing more than a machine in a cause-and-effect universe and the form of society becomes arbitrary. Though a culture may start out well and optimistically on humanistic base, it will–as we have seen in the twentieth century–inevitably end up in despair, meaninglessness, and deterioration. Only when there is a Christian worldview in the cultural consensus, Schaeffer shows while pointing to the Reformation, does culture function well.

Third, Schaeffer argues that if humanism is allowed to take its course, the result in Western society will the manipulation of an elite, authoritarian government. “As the Christian consensus dies [leaving no absolutes and no base on which the society can function], there are not many sociological alternatives” (223). Schaeffer lists three: “hedonism” (223), “the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote” (223), and “an elite filling the vacuum left by the loss of the Christian consensus” (224). Hedonism only leads to chaos (what happens when two hedonists meet on a narrow bridge?) and the 51 percent vote is a completely arbitrary absolute which the society will eventually reject. The only option left is the control of a manipulative elite that hands down arbitrary absolutes to the society. “An elite, an authoritarianism as such, will gradually force form on society so that it will not go on to chaos. And most people will accept it” (245). “Humanism has lead to its natural conclusion” (225).

 

Schaeffer ends his book with a call to Christians to stand up against the inevitable direction of the culture. “To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it” (257). The title of the book is taken from Ezekiel 33:1-11, in which God called Ezekiel to be a watchman for the house of Israel and speak out against the societal problems of his day. “Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?” (258).

It has been shown what the purpose of the author is in this book. Now the question is whether the author fulfills that purpose. Schaeffer does achieve his goal, but only partially. The main section of the book, concerned with the history of the West and with looking at the problems of the future, is convincing. He does a masterful job of taking the breadth of Western history, tracing its flow, and pointing out the path that it will take in years to come. Looking at Western society thirty years later, the solidity of his logic is clear because much of what he predicted is coming true. He is also to be commended for presenting his positions in memorable and fresh ways.

However, the last section of the book leaves something to be desired. Schaeffer fails to be entirely convincing when he calls the Christian minority to fight against cultural trends. His argument for this is based on an unsupported presupposition–that Christians are obligated to affect the functioning of culture and government. This concept does not seem to have much scriptural warrant, and Schaeffer certainly does not feel the need to give any. The New Testament writers taught that a believer’s relationship to government should be one of quiet submission and that his or her relationship with the culture should consist of preaching the gospel. While there are notable exceptions to this rule (Christians should be concerned about the relief of injustice and poverty, for instance, but this is not what Schaeffer is referring to), Christians are never exhorted to exert their energy in surface cultural reformation. Instead, they are exhorted to work for the salvation of souls. Ironically, Schaeffer seems to be setting up an arbitrary absolute.

How Should We Then Live? deserves thoughtful reading. It is masterful in its breadth and originality and helpful in its major purpose-expositing Western thought and viewing the future in its light. However, not everything Schaeffer says regarding the Christian’s role in society should be accepted without careful consideration.

Bryan Elliff Copyright 2008

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

David Boaz of Cato Institute: “Is Obama worse than Carter and Bush?

August 14, 2011 – 10:14 am

 

 

Is Obama Worse Than Carter and Bush?

Posted by David Boaz

Conservatives have become so furious with President Obama that they forget just how bad some of his predecessors were. One Jeffrey Kuhner, whose over-the-top op-eds in the Washington Times belie the sober and judicious conservatism you might expect from the president of the “Edmund Burke Institute,” writes most recently:

A possible Great Depression haunts the land. Primarily one man is to blame: President Obama.

Mr. Obama has racked up more than $4 trillion in debt.

Yes, he has. And that’s almost as much as the $5 trillion in debt rung up by his predecessor, George W. Bush. True, on an annual basis Obama is leaving Bush in the dust. But acceleration has been the name of the game: In 190 years, 39 presidents racked up a trillion dollars in debt. The next three presidents ran the debt up to about $5.73 trillion. Then Bush 43 almost doubled the total public debt, to $10.7 trillion, in eight years. And now the 44th president has added almost $4 trillion in two years and seven months.  (Here’s an online video depicting each president’s debt accumulation as driving speed.) So Obama is winning the debt war, but it’s not like he caused the debt crisis or the unemployment crisis all by himself.

And then, trying to prove that Obama is even worse than Jimmy Carter — even worse than Jimmy Carter! — Kuhner makes this curious claim:

Most importantly, Mr. Carter had respect for the dignity and integrity of the presidency. He never trashed his opponents the way Mr. Obama does.

Really? Maybe Mr. Kuhner is too young to remember Carter, and didn’t bother to check his claim, or maybe he just got carried away. But I can remember October 1980, when President Carter repeatedly said that the election of Ronald Reagan would be “a catastrophe” that would mean an America

separated, black from white, Jew from Christian, North from South, rural from urban.

Liberal columnist Anthony Lewis asked in the New York Times, “Has there ever been a campaign as vacuous, as negative, as whiny? Probably so — somewhere back in the mists of the American Presidency. But it would take a good deal of research to come up with anything like Jimmy Carter’s performance in the campaign of 1980.” The venerable Hugh Sidey wrote in Time magazine, “The wrath that escapes Carter’s lips about racism and hatred when he prays and poses as the epitome of Christian charity leads even his supporters to protest his meanness.”

Obama is a big spender who portrays himself as a “beyond left and right” above-the-fray president trying to work with everyone while demonizing his opponents. But let’s not forget the meanness of Jimmy Carter and the spendthrift record of George W. Bush in seeking to establish Obama’s uniqueness.

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Do you believe Obama’s promise to cut spending?

August 14, 2011 – 7:36 am

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

Did you notice in President Obama’s speech on July 31, 2011 that he said cuts would be made in a 10 yr period but because of our sensitive economy we would spared in the near future? Will cuts ever come or is the government addicted to spending too much?

Reagan’s Error

 

In making his case for tax increases last night, President Obama described past deals in which Democrats promised spending cuts in return for tax increases, and said:
The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this: “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach.
Well, yes, those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan (in August of 1982) in reference to TEFRA—the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act—which congressional Democrats promised would involve a ratio of $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases (which they said would consist only of closing loopholes). TEFRA passed later that year, and the tax increases certainly happened but, as Reagan later put it in his autobiography, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”
 
TEFRA was one of Reagan’s great regrets about his time in the White House, and should serve as a warning to Republicans contemplating similar grand bargains. Obama’s reference to it only highlights the fact that he tried to pull off something much like TEFRA. Luckily, he appears to have failed.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices”

August 14, 2011 – 12:18 am

E P I S O D E 1 0

Francis Schaeffer- How Should We Then Live? -10- Final Choices

Joseph Rozak·

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

_________________

FINAL CHOICES

I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option

One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes.

A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes.

B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Theobald.

C. Daniel Bell’s prophecy of technocratic elite.

D. Bell’s warning of cultural contradiction: no absolute ethic to accompany absolute power.

II. Nature of the New Authoritarianism

A. Do not think of the model of Hitler and Stalin.

B. Probably a manipulative, authoritarian elite.

III. Possible Forms of Manipulation

A. Review from Episode Six: Koestler—chemical agents; Krantz—birth control in world’s drinking supply; Clark—political leaders should take anti-aggression pills; Lee—psychological tests for public officials; Skinner—reinforcers to modify behavior.

B. Genetic condition: Francis Crick.

1. He advocates:

a) That some group of people is to decide who should be the parents of the next generation and who should be born.

b) That some group of people should determine what kind of people they want in the future and will set out genetically to make them.

2. Once Man is no longer seen as made in God’s image, there is no reason not to “tinker” with Man genetically.

C. The mass media.

1. TV conditions by selective editing. Illustration: simulated riot filmed in San Jose.

2. No collusion needed if views of elite and newsmakers coincide. Media not monolithic, but total control not needed to achieve manipulation.

IV Authoritarianism in Government. Illustration: United States

A. The dilemma of people who speak out for civil liberties but are also committed to the government’s having a responsibility to solve every problem.

B. Christian freedoms without Christian base produce chaos.

C. In the United States an authoritarian, manipulating government could come from the administrative (executive) side, the legislature, or from the courts functioning on variable, sociological law.

 

V. Threat of Authoritarianism

A. Leftist or Rightist authoritarianism are only two roads to the same end.

B. With the loss of Christian consensus, no reason for young or old committed to apathy not to give in if promised personal peace and affluence.

C. Roman bridge simile: humanist values collapse under pressure.

D. Some overwhelming pressures which progressively tend to prepare modern people to accept a manipulative, authoritarian government:

1. Economic breakdown.

a) Spiral of inflation leads to economic recession.

b) Fear of economic breakdown swamps concern for liberty.

2. Random violence and political terrorism. Fear can be so great than any compromise is worth security.

3. Threat of War between the West and expansionist Communist Block. Fear of war opens the way for many to accept authoritarianism as lesser evil.

4. World food shortage and change in world distribution of wealth and goods.

a) Threat of lower living standards alters basic attitudes.

b) Authoritarianism more likely to be accepted in a descending spiral of prosperity and a country’s place of power.

E. As in the days of Caesar Augustus (Episode One), authoritarianism is most easily accepted if it is brought in while seeming to keep the outward forms of constitutionality.

 

VI. Two Alternatives to Chaos:

Either authoritarianism—or society’s affirming once again the original source of freedom, God’s revelation in the Bible, and His revelation through Christ.

A. Reconsidering the second alternative.

1. Nonpragmatic nature of biblical Christianity.

a) Christianity not a superior utilitarianism to mend society; Christianity is truth that gives a unity to all of knowledge and all of life.

b) Stems from the infinite-personal God who exists and who was the Maker of the heavens and the earth.

c) The acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord, living under the absolutes which the Bible gives.

d) Christians have a responsibility to influence society across its whole spectrum and the entire spectrum of life.

e) Christians can influence consensus without being a majority.

2. The message of Paul to the Greek and Roman world applied.

a) Classical-humanist answers insufficient.

b) World is guilty of suppressing God’s truth and living accordingly. The universe and its form and the mannishness of Man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail.

c) Biblical Christianity is a message that people can return to God on the basis of Christ’s work alone, but it also gives the base for form and freedom in society.

d) It is this which can give us a hope for the future.

e) It is either this or an imposed order.

B. A reminder about presuppositions.

1. People act out their thoughts, whether they know it or not.

2. All depends on the world view one accepts and lives upon.

Questions

1. The theory of human biological manipulation, granted its premises, is entirely consistent. Outline these premises and the way in which various programs of manipulation are derived from them.

2. In a world moving steadily towards authoritarian regimes, does the relative slowness of Western democracies to lose their freedoms increase or decrease the likelihood of the West’s political survival? Give reasons.

3. Can you think of ways in which you and your church’s attitudes to society betray the utilitarian approach to the world? Does this approach reflect ignorance about the Truth and guilt about our failure to live it? What is the alternative approach and what does it reflect?

Key Events and Persons

Paul’s speech in Athens: c. A.D. 53

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: c. A.D. 60

J.K. Galbraith: 1908-

Francis Crick: 1916-

Daniel Bell: 1919-

The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: 1973

Robert Theobald: 1929-

Further Study

As an exercise, you might find it valuable to collect clippings which deal with the subjects discussed and see what attitudes are betrayed by the authors. To pool such clippings in a group for the purpose of joint examination would be very illuminating.

Daniel Boorstin, The Image (1961).

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (1965).

Francis Crick, Of Molecules and Men (1967).

Francis Crick, Origins of the Genetic Code (1968).

Gordon R. Taylor, The Biological Time-Bomb (1969).

Daniel Bell, The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society (1973).

E.M.B. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (1970).

Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City (1969).

Nevil Shute, On the Beach (1952).

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Communism: A Legacy of Terror (1975).

Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (1965.)

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

SOCCER SATURDAY: W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher top ten soccer videos (Part 4)

August 13, 2011 – 10:42 am

I thought about this one to be number one but I changed my mind.

George Best- ‘The Best Tribute’!

George Best

_______________________________

Wilson’s 1st pick is both

Young Lionel Messi – Rare Clips HD

shows rare clips of the best player ever, Messi!!!

Lionel Messi 2011 – This is my life story

I love this video!!!

___________________________

Here are some of the videos that Everette considered as his number one:

Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) crazy goal vs North Korea (Korea DPR) 7-0 FUNNY

HOWEVER , MY FINAL CHOICE IS:

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 10)

August 13, 2011 – 7:57 am

 

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Tipton Calls for Common Sense, Balanced Approach to the Debt Ceiling

 
 
 

 

 “The American people can’t call their banks and arbitrarily raise their spending limits; they have to cut back and tighten their budgets to live within their means, and they expect Washington to play by the same rules.”—Rep. Scott Tipton

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Stressing that Washington needs to start spending within its means like American families and businesses, Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-R) called for a common sense, balanced approach to the debt ceiling and spending problem.

“This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue.  It is my hope that we can come together to reach a solution that embraces the common sense principles of living within our means and acting responsibly,” Tipton said.  “We have an opportunity to cut, cap and balance, and chart a sustainable course in this country, rather than just cut and run.  This is the balanced approach that the president has been asking for.”

The Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011 seeks to cut $111 billion in spending in FY2012 and $5.8 trillion over ten years, cap federal spending to under 20% of GDP by 2017, and pass a balanced budget amendment for passage by the states.  Tipton plans to vote in favor of the Act later today.

Click here to see Tipton’s House floor speech on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.

Click here to see Tipton’s House floor speech on the debt ceiling.

“Forty-nine of our fifty states have some form of a balanced budget requirement.  The President’s comment that a balanced budget is unrealistic for the federal government is out of touch,” Tipton said.  “American families and small businesses balance their budgets every day; the states do it every day; it’s time that Washington does the same. With unemployment above 8 percent for 29 consecutive months, American families know all too well what it’s like to face a real debt ceiling.  The American people can’t call their banks and arbitrarily raise their limits; they have to cut back and tighten their budgets to live within their means, and they expect Washington to play by the same rules.”

While House Republicans have passed a budget, and put forward solutions to curb Washington’s runaway spending and prevent Medicare and Social Security from going bankrupt, the President and Senate Democrats have yet to propose any plan.

“We are still waiting to see a plan from the President, and the silence has been deafening,” Tipton said.  “The President cannot continue to punt on this issue.  The time to act is now, and that’s what Republicans are doing by passing this plan to Cut, Cap, and Balance.”

What business owners are saying about the debt ceiling in the Third District:

“I’ve operated a small business for 25 years– meeting payrolls, keeping a balanced budget and never taking on more debt than we were able to payoff quickly.  It’s time Washington politicians take off their political hats, start thinking like business owners and start living within their means.  The American people and the business community want to see fundamental changes in the way Washington does business.  That means standing on principle to cut spending and putting a stop to our country’s unsustainable debt before raising the debt ceiling.”—Tom Abbott, Owner, Montrose Ford-Nissan

“If Washington can raise the debt ceiling every time they decide to spend beyond their ability to pay, then what is the point?  In my business, I can’t call the bank and tell them that I need more money if I decided to spend beyond my ability to pay.  It should be no different for Washington. Washington needs to get serious and find a solution that fixes the root of the spending problem and pay down our debt before it’s too late to reverse the course.”—Doug Simons, Owner, Enstrom Candies, Grand Junction.

“It’s time we draw a line in the sand.  We cannot continue to live off of future promises from Washington that fade away with every new spending increase.  We don’t need more lip-service from Washington promising to fix things eventually, we need them to act now and get spending under control now.  Our children’s future is at stake.”—Dean Matthews, Independent Electrical Contractor, Cortez

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”

August 13, 2011 – 12:15 am

E P I S O D E 9

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min

T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce

I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought

II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism

Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed Values

A. General acceptance of selfish values (personal peace and affluence) accompanied rejection of Christian consensus.

1. Personal peace means: I want to be left alone, and I don’t care what happens to the man across the street or across the world. I want my own life-style to be undisturbed regardless of what it will mean — even to my own children and grandchildren.

2. Affluence means things, things, things, always more things — and success is seen as an abundance of things.

B. Students wish to escape meaninglessness of much of adult society.

1. Watershed was Berkeley in 1964.

2. Drug Taking as an ideology: “turning on” the world.

3. Free Speech Movement on Sproul Plaza.

a) At first neither Left nor Right.

b) Soon became the New Left.

(1) Followed Marcuse.

(2) Paris riots.

4. Student analysis of problem was right, but solution wrong.

5. Woodstock, Altamont, and the end of innocence.

6. Drug taking survives the death of ideology but as an escape.

7. Demise of New Left: radical bombings.

8. Apathy supreme. The young accept values of the older generation: their own idea of personal peace and affluence, even though adopting a different life-style.

 

C. Marxism and Maoism as pseudo-ideals.

1. Vogue for idealistic communism which is another form of leap into the area of non-reason.

2. Solzhenitsyn: violence and expediency as norms of communism.

3. Communist repression in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

4. Communism has neither philosophic nor historic base for freedom. There is no base for “Communism with a human face.”

5. Utopian Marxism steals its talk of human dignity from Christianity.

6. But when it comes to power, the desire of majority has no meaning.

7. Two streams of communism.

a) Those who hold it as an idealistic leap.

b) Old-line communists who hold orthodox communist ideology and bureaucratic structure as it exists in Russia.

8. Many in West might accept communism if it seemed to give peace and affluence.

 

III. Legal and Political Results of Attempted Human Autonomy

A. Relativistic law.

1. Base for nonarbitrary law gone; only inertia allows a few principles to survive.

2. Holmes and sociological (variable) law.

3. Sociological law comes from failure of natural law (see evolution of existential from rationalistic theology).

4. Courts are now generating law.

5. Medical, legal, and historical arbitrariness of Supreme Court ruling on abortion and current abortion practice.

B. Sociological law opens door to racism, abrogation of freedoms,  euthanasia, and so on.

IV. Social Alternatives After Death of Christian Consensus

A. Hedonism? But might is right when pleasures conflict.

B. Without external absolute, majority vote is absolute. But this justifies a Hitler.

V. Conclusion

A. If there is no absolute by which to judge society, then society is absolute.

B. Humanist thinking—making the individual and mankind the center of all things (autonomous) — has led to death in our culture and in our political life.

Note: Social alternatives after the death of Christian consensus are continued in Episode Ten.

Questions

1. What was the basic cause of campus unrest in the sixties? What has happened to the campus scene since, and why?

2. What elements — in the life and thought of the communist and noncommunist world alike — suggest a possible base for world agreement?

3. “To prophesy doom about Western society is premature. We are, like all others who have lived in times of great change, too close to the details to see the broader picture. One thing we do know:

Society has always gone on, and the most wonderful epochs have followed the greatest depressions. To suggest that our day is the exception says more about our headache than it does about our head.” Debate.

4. As Dr. Schaeffer shows, many apparently isolated events and options gain new meaning when seen in the context of the whole. How far does your own involvement in business, law, financing, and so on reveal an acquiescence to current values?

Key Events and Persons

Oliver Wendell Holmes: 1841-1935

Herbert Marcuse: 1898-1979

Alexander Solzhenitsyn: 1917-

Hungarian Revolution: 1956

Free Speech Movement: 1964

Czechoslovakian repression: 1968

Woodstock and Altamont: 1969

Radical bombings: 1970

Supreme Court abortion ruling: 1973

Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago: 1973-74

Further Study

Keeping one’s eyes and ears open is the most useful study project: the prevalence of pornographic films and books, more and more suggestive advertising and TV shows, and signs of arbitrary absolutes.

The following books will repay careful reading, and Solzhenitsyn, though long and horrifying, should not be skipped.

Os Guinness, The Dust of Death (1973).

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: Parts I-II (1973), Parts III-IV (1974).

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Obamacare going down?

August 12, 2011 – 10:28 pm

It is a great day if Obamacare ends up going down through the courts. Is there anyway in the world if the Founding Fathers were on the court that Obamacare would have any chance at all to become law. 

In Obamacare Case, Constitution Is Victor

Posted by Ilya Shapiro

Today is a great day for liberty.  By striking down the individual mandate, the Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that the Constitution places limits on the federal government’s power.  Congress can do a great many things under modern constitutional jurisprudence, but, as the court concludes, “what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.”  Indeed, just because Congress can regulate the health insurance industry does not mean it can also require people to buy that industry’s products.

One of the striking things about today’s ruling is that, for the first time in one of these cases, a Democrat-appointed judge, Frank Hull, has ruled against the government.  Just as the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton made waves by being the first Republican appointee to rule in the government’s favor, today’s 300-page ruling shows that the constitutional issues raised by the healthcare reform—and especially the individual mandate—are complex, serious, and non-ideological.

Supporters of limited constitutional government need to temper their celebrations—just as they wisely tempered their sorrows after the last ruling—because we must all now realize that this will not end until the Supreme Court rules.  Nevertheless, today’s decision gives hope to those who believe that there are some things beyond the government’s reach and that the judiciary cannot abdicate its duty to hold Congress’s feet to the constitutional fire.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Healthcare | Comments (0)

Arkansas Times Bloggers: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” (Part 2)

August 12, 2011 – 2:13 pm

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (10 of 14)

Christianity vs. Secular Humanism – Norman Geisler vs. Paul Kurtz

Published on Oct 6, 2013

Date: 1986
Location: The John Ankerberg Show

Christian debater: Norman L. Geisler
Atheist/secular humanist debater: Paul Kurtz

For Norm Geisler: http://www.normgeisler.com/

______________________

Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)

Published on Jun 6, 2012

Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.

_____________________

Paul Kurtz pictured above.

August 11, 2011 on the Arkansas Times Blog many nonbelievers ranted about the requirement that an atheist group had to put down a $15,000 deposit in order to advertise the phrase “Are you good without God? Millions are.”

I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names.

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (11 of 14) (to motivate people to be good without God)

One of the Arkansas Times bloggers that used the username  mountaingirl noted on August 12, 2011:

Recently I read “Divinity of Doubt, The God Question” by famed author and successful prosecutor and trial lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi.

It is very thought provoking and addresses some of the issues mentioned here.

Gary DeMar in the article, “Vincent Bugliosi: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury of God,” observed:

In the Epilogue to Outrage, Bugliosi bears his soul and the struggle he has had with justifying God’s goodness with the presence of evil in the world and God’s “inaction” in the trial in allowing a murderer to go free:

When tragedies like the murders of Nicole and Ron occur, they get one to thinking about the notion of God. Nicole was only thirty-five, Ron just twenty-five, both outgoing, friendly, well-liked young people who had a zest for life. How does God, if there is a God, permit such a horrendous and terrible act to occur, along with countless other unspeakable atrocities committed by man against his fellow man throughout history? And how could God–all-good and all-just, according to Christian theology—permit the person who murdered Ron and Nicole to go free, holding up a Bible in his hand at that? When Judge Ito’s clerk, Deidre Robertson, read the jury’s not-guilty verdict, Nicole’s mother whispered, “God, where are you?”[8]

I have an article below that really does a great job responding to that.

Answers the problem of evil and a good God… puts the issue squarely in the lap of the skeptic asking the question (where it belongs).

_________________________________________

In his article “A Conversation with an Atheist,” Rick Wade notes:

The problem of evil is a significant moral issue in the atheist’s arsenal. We talk about a God of goodness, but what we see around us is suffering, and a lot of it apparently unjustifiable. Stephanie said, “Disbelief in a personal, loving God as an explanation of the way the world works is reasonable–especially when one considers natural disasters that can’t be blamed on free will and sin.”{17}

One response to the problem of evil is that God sees our freedom to choose as a higher value than protecting people from harm; this is the freewill defense. Stephanie said, however, that natural disasters can’t be blamed on free will and sin. What about this? Is it true that natural disasters can’t be blamed on sin? I replied that they did come into existence because of sin (Genesis 3). We’re told in Romans 8 that creation will one day “be set free from its slavery to corruption,” that it “groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” The Fall caused the problem, and, in the consummation of the ages, the problem will be fixed.

Second, I noted that on a naturalistic basis, it’s hard to even know what evil is. But the reality of God explains it. As theologian Henri Blocher said,

The sense of evil requires the God of the Bible. In a novel by Joseph Heller, “While rejecting belief in God, the characters in the story find themselves compelled to postulate his existence in order to have an adequate object for their moral indignation.” . . . When you raise this standard objection against God, to whom do you say it, other than this God? Without this God who is sovereign and good, what is the rationale of our complaints? Can we even tell what is evil? Perhaps the late John Lennon understood: “God is a concept by which we measure our pain,” he sang. Might we be coming to the point where the sense of evil is a proof of the existence of God?{18}

So,… if there is no God, there really is no problem of evil. Does the atheist ever find herself shaking her fist at the sky after some catastrophe and demanding an explanation? If there is no God, no one is listening.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 8)

August 12, 2011 – 8:59 am

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday.

Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth:

Knowing Freedom

By Andrew Koehlinger

John Maynard Keynes famously quipped, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Free-market economist Milton Friedman, however, actually did manage to capture the minds not only of practical men, but of politicians and even other intellectuals. He understood that the world would change if people understood the meaning of freedom.

Historic social and political movements began with powerful ideas. For instance, the rise of the Roman Empire predicated itself on the idea of Roman citizenship and a sense of personal duty, and America’s founding relied on a distinct knowledge of personal liberty and its implied negative rights. Pivotal events, such as shifts of culture or the rise of a new state, occur in response to the outcomes of various conflicts in an ongoing war of ideas.

Milton Friedman joined this intellectual struggle knowing that education provides the best weapon. Most importantly, he believed education was a personal undertaking. This perception led to his recognition that most current “education” was actually compulsory schooling or training. The government mandated that children attend taxpayer-funded schools where little to no actual education ever occurred. His solution: school vouchers, which enabled parents to choose where they think their children will be best educated, whether it be public schools, private schools, charter schools or even home schools. Vouchers redirect taxpayer dollars from bureaucrats to the families who need them, coupling education and choice to make the greatest impact.

Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” and a subsequent television series highlight the tenets behind the power of ideas and an education’s role in shaping those ideas. Free markets result from a combination of individual choice and scarcity of information. They offer great benefits, but require individuals to trade with each other in order to obtain them. These types of exchanges only result when individuals possess freedom of choice. This idea undergirded America’s economy until progressive promotion of increased centralization eroded individual choice and increased government meddling in the economy. Thanks to their efforts, a large portion of Americans now hold the institution of federal government responsible for their every need, from the cradle to the grave.

Ultimately, Friedman recognized education’s foundational role in changing society’s institutions. Sustainable political change must be preceded by sustainable social change, which can only result from education. The battle of ideas starts in our schools. Friedman knew ideas like individual choice and freedom had lost significant ground there, but he also recognized that the ground could be regained by letting people choose how they want to educate themselves. He, like economist F.A Harper, knew that “men who know freedom will find ways to be free.”

_____

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)