Reliably supporting a cause is not the same thing as being consistent. Case in point: Old reliable Richard Dawkins, who has been writing for years about how meaningless everything is, but who can’t keep his own claims straight.
I am not one of those (actually there are very few) who believe that natural selection does not explain anything. Yet this godlike properties attributed to this mechanism are more than a little bit difficult to credit.
What exactly would you say are our rights, and where would you say they come from?
For several months each year I live in a high-government dependency, high-drug addiction, high-family disorder region of Appalachia.
Yes, there are jobs. At present the unemployment rate here is only a little higher than what economists call full employment. Just like everyplace, lots of folk work hard to make a living and raise their kids, God bless them.
The only excuse for broadcasting how one thinks about the upcoming election is that plenty of other people are probably having the same difficulties. If this sort of disclosure bears no interest for you, try again next week.
I don’t get it about protection of conscience for medical workers. Why would anyone think doctors should be allowed to refuse to give medical care to people with whose beliefs they disagree?
Query from a pastor:
When most American Christians think of politics, they think of promoting their favored candidates for office. I think of politics in the broader, more ancient sense, as promoting the common good. In this sense, I, as a pastor, can talk all day about politics without ever mentioning candidates.
I am writing a thesis on the politics of virtues, and I know you have written about this. But where?
Says one internet news outlet, “Since his election in 2013, conservatives have sharply criticized Francis, saying he has left many faithful confused by pronouncements that the Church should be more welcoming to homosexuals and divorced Catholics.”