James White vs Robert Price Update

If you're like me you're itching to find out how this debate went. The best we got so far is James White's discussion of it on his Dividing Line program here. During the show he mentioned a review from a Catholic that apparently he didn't like too much. That was here. One Matthew Bellasario attended and gives a slight edge to Price.

I have to once again give James White some credit. It seems as though he thoroughly immersed himself in Price's thought. He always does this, but it's a lot more than can be said of many of his opponents. This makes the debate all the more interesting to me. It's great to hear people actually try and deal with Price's views. It will be interesting to see how White contrasts with someone like Phil Fernandez, who has one line. "Most people disagree with you." Yeah, yeah. You got anything else? Price was so disgusted by the experience with Fernandez that he hinted he might be done with debates. So now he got to have an experience with White, who apparently tried to do a little better than that, and it would seem Price really enjoyed himself. Hopefully this will encourage Price to do more of this.

Also I have to give White credit for taking on a tough topic. Christians think the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but people like William Lane Craig and Mike Licona don't even attempt to try and defend this view. They list their "minimal facts" and steer clear of beliefs that they are committed to, but which they just don't have the guts to defend. This is a tough subject for White and a tough opponent in Price, so again I think credit is due.

Debate Announcement: Islamic Terrorism

I'm going to be debating an atheist friend, Norm Cohen, on the primary cause of Islamic terrorism. Is it US foreign policy or Islamic fundamentalism? I take the former view and Norm takes the latter. If you're in the Detroit area and are interested please join us. I run a secular bible study at meetup.com and I'm doing RSVP's via that website, so you'd have to register for my group. You can get the details here.

The First Ammendment Does Not Grant Free Speech

Or put another way, free speech is not what you think it is. Howard Zinn explains here. Long but interesting.

In sum legally the first amendment has been interpreted via the doctrine of "No Prior Restraint". You can't be prevented from saying something, but your words can be judged illegal after the fact. Note for example the passage of the "Alien and Sedition Act" just 7 years after the passage of the first amendment, which made it a crime to write or say anything that would bring in to "contempt or disrepute" the US government, Congress, the President, etc.

The courts have sustained this interpretation into the present day. People distributing leaflets opposing the Vietnam War were arrested, and those arrests were upheld by the courts. That was 1972. In 1986 the courts barred the PLO's UN observer from entering the US to participate in a debate saying it would harm the US policy of not recognizing the PLO.

I'm reminded of this for 2 reasons. First a hilarious Onion article which is a profanity laced Supreme Court ruling affirming free speech in a recent case. And Bob Dutko's frequent arguments regarding separation of church and state. For the Onion free speech is an obvious right. For Dutko the fact that Congress immediately made religious gestures after the passage of the first amendment is proof that they didn't intend separation of church and state the way atheists do.

I think Dutko and the Onion are partly right, but you need to keep in mind an important caveat. The Constitution is whatever those presently in power say it is.

Is Fred Phelps Right?

Everybody hates Fred Phelps. Christian and non. But to my mind the hostility directed towards Phelps is directed at the symptom, not the cause. His hatred of homosexuality is the symptom. The cause is his belief is that the Bible is true.

I caught Sean Hannity on the radio a few years ago and he had one of Phelps daughters. Hannity says "I never heard from my priest that we're supposed to be this hateful." Her reply was "That's because you pay your priest to lie to you about biblical teaching." She went on to innumerate the Bible's unambiguous attitude towards homosexuality. She was right that Sean pays his priest to lie to him and she was right that the bible expresses abhorrence towards homosexuality. Phelps actions simply reflect a Biblical attitude and Sean ignores the bible when it is politically convenient. Sean was struggling.

Homosexuality is an abomination in the bible, worthy of the death penalty. Shellfish is also an abomination, but I'm not sure that one is quite as important. "Well, that's just the OT." Well, so is the condemnation of incest, which is at Leviticus 28. It's not in the NT. Does this mean incest is not a problem any more?

The question we should be asking Fred Phelps is not why he is so hateful towards homosexuals. We know why he's this hateful. Because the Bible is also hateful on these points and Phelps believes the Bible. So the question we should be asking him is this. Why do you believe the Bible?

Arrested for Calling Homosexuality a Sin

As much as I disagree with Christians on various moral issues we all need to take a stand against this crap. Wouldn't it be amazing if secular groups and gay rights groups defended this man's right to express his opinion. Count me in.

Items Forbidden From Entering Gaza

Israel blocks plastic toys, chocolate, jam, fruit juice. As of March though shoes and clothes have been permitted. That's big of them. Here's the story.

Why Is It Always the Muslims?

With regards to the bomb placed in Times Square David Wood asks the question:

"Why, then, aren't we surprised to hear, over and over again, that terrorist attacks are almost always carried out by Muslims?"

He's absolutely right. It is always Muslims. But you must keep in mind that this is only true when we adhere to the conventional definition of terrorism. Terrorism is their violence against us. When we are violent towards them that's not terrorism. That's security or self defense or liberation. This is the reason, David, that it's always carried out by Muslims. By definition it has to be.

So take for instance the Israeli assault on Gaza that killed 1400. Self defense. Even though the pretexts have evaporated. Not terrorism because Israel does it with US support. Take Obama's drone attacks. All those dead civilians. No big deal because we're at war. Oxford Researh Bureau's death toll in Iraq was at 1.3 million two years ago. Pretty staggering. That's not terrorism. That's liberation.

When polls indicated Vietnam would vote the wrong way in a free election the response by Kennedy was to initiate a war that would leave about 4 million dead. When Nicaragua likewise voted the wrong way in a fair election 40,000 civilians were slaughtered during the Reagan years. They did it with US warplanes flying around identifying the Sandinista military so the Contras could avoid them and focus exclusively on defenseless civilians. Today perhaps the country with the worst human rights record in this hemisphere is Colombia. It's also the leading recipient of armaments from the US in this hemisphere. To be a union organizer is to take your life in your hands. Chemical warfare occurs even today against the poor peasant population. But then that's not terrorism because it's done by America.