Free Speech on the Defense
Merry Christmas Everyone.
Free speech is essential to a free society, where people have the right to utter opinions others might find offensive. We’ll devote much of the program to exposing the effort many groups are making to keep them from saying it at all.
First we’ll examine whether or not the change of regime in North Korea will have any effect on the thousands of Christians who are oppressed or in work camps in that country. Rev. Paul Estabrooks from Open Doors (www.opendoorsusa.org) has been in North Korea and written a book on the subject.
Then attorney Richard Thompson from the Thomas More Law Center (www.thomasmore.org) appears regarding a lawsuit where several Michigan Christian students were publicly humiliated and bullied by their public school teacher for opposing his pro-homosexual indoctrination about…of all things…bullying.
Free speech is under fire by people attempting to use the “blank-a-phobe” card to stop open debate on various subjects. They’re not making intelligent arguments, just attempting to prevent the other side from speaking. Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org) joins the program.
Finally, what role did religion play in the founding of the country? Professor Thomas Kidd from Baylor University returns to answer questions based on his new book, “Patrick Henry, First Among Patriots.”
John’s boralogue contrasts arguments by atheist apologists against the existence of God with the emphatic declaration of the Christmas message about God among us.
Fallacy of the Week – Naturalistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy _
the position that since something is a particular way,
it is morally acceptable for it to be that way.
Examples:
- “Might makes right. After all, it’s a jungle out there!”
- “All natural is more healthy.”
- “I can’t help it, It’s my nature.”
This fallacy really hangs on the ambiguous definition of what is normal, regular or natural. To further compound the problem, the assumption is that normal or natural is qualitatively better than otherwise. Arguments about the supposed supremacy of “more evolved” or advanced cultures has lead to a philosophical justification for the oppression or elimination of the “lesser” groups.
Advertisers use the premise that since their products or methods are “All natural”, that they are superior to “artificial” ones. What really defines natural and artificial? What is normal and why is it good or better?
You have to define the terms you’re working with: normal, natural, better, worse etc. Realize that in systems of dialectic consensus, that the terms and definitions are constantly changing within the confines of the group. They seek to use the size of the group to impose their definitions upon the rest. If you are “outside”, most likely your definitions are at odds with theirs.
Posts
