Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Wacky Wednesday--Prenuptial Agreements Are Good

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~A prenup is just a more honest acknowledgement that many marriages don’t last, and the parties should be protected if that happens.
~How else can you know this person is marrying you for the right reasons?
~If you aren’t in it for the money, why would it bother you to sign one?
~They introduce a sober sense of rationality into what is otherwise often a very irrational process. ~How can it possibly be fair for a woman to marry a wealthy man (or vice versa), live together for two years, and then get half of what took a lifetime to acquire?
~What about marriages involving heirs who have existing claims on the wealth of one parent?
~Pre-nups vastly simplify divorce proceedings, which is good for both parties involved if it ever comes to that.

Wacky Wednesday--Incest Should Be Legal

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~Can you name any serious non-Biblical reason they aren’t just as normal as any other consensual sexual relationship?
~The sex part already is, as a matter of fact. It’s only marriage that’s sometimes prohibited.

~Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.

~Jacob married his first cousins, Rachel and Leah.

~Cain and Seth married their sisters.

~FDR, Albert Einstein, Muhammed, Rudy Giuliani, and Charles Darwin all married close cousins.

~The genetic dangers are extremely small.

~You can’t control whom you love.

~Sex is private.

~What could be better than bringing such a close family relationship to the next level.

Links:
Incest (Wikipedia)
Incest and the sexual abuse of children (ClinicalSocialWork)
Mackenzie Phillips: I slept with my father (MSNBC)
The case against love in Germany (Practical Ethics News)
Consensual incest (Warning: Profanity) (Nadder!)
CousinCouples.com
AZ Law on incest
Incest in nature (Slate)
The love that dare not speak its surname (Slate)
Incest repellent? (Slate)
Forbidden love between siblings (ABC News)

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Theological Tuesday

~Multi-site church campuses versus church plants.
~Does God reward and punish people in this life?
~Should children be encouraged to study Evolution?
~The story of the widow’s mite.
~What place should the mysteriousness of God have?
~Are worship teams a good idea?
~Christian Basic 5: Hell

Monday, September 28, 2009

Ethics Class, Session 21: Criteria 58-63

Tonight we are going to try to get through the next set of criteria in the ethics syllabus. (You can get more information at http://andrewtallmanshowethics.blogspot.com.) This means we will be talking about:

58. Crisis, Fear, and Power

59. Rule of Law

60. Rights and Duties

61. Legal Plunder

62. Tradition and Democracy

In order to facilitate discussion amongst those of you either taking the class or wanting to discuss these ideas in more depth, I will be posting each of the criteria separately without much (if any) actual explanation simply so you can have your discussions on those particular ideas.

What’s Government Good For?

The other day, I read a very fascinating article at Findlaw by Neil Buchanan on the relationship of the market to the existence of the government. Without telling too much, he asserts that we should stop thinking we own anything and therefore stop complaining about the government taking too much of “our” money, since without courts and a law to punish theft, it’s not ours in the first place. Since some of his point has merit and some does not, I actually thought it would be worthwhile to talk about the ideas and see if we can’t figure out what government is actually good for and what it’s not good for. Tall order, I know. But remember, I’m still a na├»ve optimist.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Wacky Wednesday--Kids Shouldn’t Say The Pledge

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~They can’t really understand the pledge or why they might want not to say it at such a young age.

~Children have the right to not say the pledge, according to the Supreme Court.

~Only the elected officials of the government itself should be required to swear their loyalty to the country.

~Why are we pledging to a flag? Is that not idolatry?

~Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down and worship the golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar. How is this different?

~We should not pledge loyalty to anyone or anything lesser than God Himself.

~It’s wrong to compel children to espouse religion of any kind.

~The government is supposed to be neutral to religion.

~Is there no right of secession even if the government seriously strays from the Constitution?

~Did you know that the original pledge salute involved pointing your right hand toward the flag with the palm up and later the palm downward…just like the Nazis?

~From 1776 to 1861, no citizen recited a "pledge of allegiance" to the central government.

~The pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist, to promote socialism in the most socialistic institution -government schools.

~Isn’t it a bit creepy to have kids pledge to a government their eternal fidelity?

~Doesn’t it seem weird to force kids pledge their support for liberty?

Links:
Pledge of Allegiance (Wikipedia)

Driving Is Irrational

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~If I came to you and presented a new activity that kills one out of every 10,000 people who do it every year, and can kill your family as well, would you ever consider it?
~25% of people have been involved in an accident in the last 5 years.
~Over 40,000 people die in car crashes in the US each year.
~Over 2.5 million people are injured in car crashes.
~This is easily the most dangerous thing Americans do on a regular basis.
~If airplane travel were this risky, you’d never, ever go near a plane.
~The dangers of driving are not within your control to avoid, but largely come from other people on the road with you.
~How much money do you spend on driving?
~Are cars good for air quality?
~Dependence on foreign oil comes mostly from what pervasive American activity?
~Driving makes people morally worse in all sorts of ways.

Links:
Car accident statistics (EdgarSnyder.com)
Car crash statistics (Car-accidents.com)
Fatality Analysis Reporting System

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Presentation Wednesday 10:30 AM

Tomorrow at 10:30 AM, I will be leading a presentation/discussion on the topic of the Problem of Evil at The Heritage senior living complex located at 19303 N. New Tradition Road, Sun City West.

New Article

My most recent article: "An Open Letter to President Obama on Health Care" is now posted on the articles blog. You can read it and feel free to post your comments.

Theological Tuesday

~What does it mean to “Render unto Caesar?”
~Should children be encouraged to study Evolution?
~The story of the widow’s mite.
~What place should the mysteriousness of God have?
~Are worship teams a good idea?
~How should we handle unbiblical unions?

Monday, September 21, 2009

Ethics Class, Session 20: Criteria 55-58

Tonight we are going to try to get through the next set of criteria in the ethics syllabus. (You can get more information at http://andrewtallmanshowethics.blogspot.com.) This means we will be talking about:

55. Freedom and Morality
56. Self-Rule and Government
57. The Nature of Civil Government

In order to facilitate discussion amongst those of you either taking the class or wanting to discuss these ideas in more depth, I will be posting each of the criteria separately without much (if any) actual explanation simply so you can have your discussions on those particular ideas.

Other Than The United States...

Where would you live? If INS came to you and said you and your family were going to be deported tomorrow with all your possessions and money to go live in another country, which one would you choose? Does your answer change if you subsequently have the freedom to move to another country as you like? Would you go for security or for adventure? Does evangelism fit into your thinking? What about occupation?

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Current Events Thursday

Massachusetts flip-flops on Senate vacancies (WSJ)
Peaceful pro-lifer gunned down (Christian Post)
Memorial held for pro-life protester (NYT)
Obama gets it right in Somalia (Investor’s Bus. Daily)
Should gayness be changed? (Christianity Today)
The rights of gay employees (NYT)
60 Minutes softballs Obama on speech (CBS News)
Million maybe at Tea Party (Daily Mail)
Get real on health care (NYT)
Fact-checking the President on health insurance (WSJ)
Mexico’s hopeless drug war (WSJ)
Toy safety law hurts business (WSJ)
Why Hyundai is a hit (WSJ)
Obama and the space program (LA Times)
CA courts shut for a day a month (LA Times)
Walt Whitman’s answer to Joe Wilson (LA Times)
Joe Wilson’s a racist (Maureen Dowd)
New homes near Luke AFB? (AZ Republic)
Policy and sacrifice (Thomas Friedman)
The body count at home (NYT)
Muslims press NYC to close schools on holy days (WSJ)
Health reform and the Constitution (WSJ)
Gov’t health care vs. the elderly (WSJ)
NYC considers outdoor smoking ban (NYT)
Man credited with feeding a billion people dies (Christian Post)
The man who defused the “population bomb” (WSJ)
Teen denied US citizenship over Gardasil refusal (Christian Post)
Darwin film still lacking US distributor (Christian Post)
Acorn runs off the rails (WSJ)
Acorn live! (WSJ)
Solar support in US embarrassingly lacking (NYT)
House rebukes Joe Wilson (NYT)
Rapping Joe’s knuckles (Maureen Dowd)
Carter calls Obama opponents racists (Wash Post)
45% of doctors consider quitting under Obamacare (Investor’s Bus Daily)
1 million sold, no NYT/LAT review for Levin (CNS News)
If sports ruled the world (WSJ)
The stimulus didn’t work (WSJ)
Following trash on its journey (NYT)
Proposed Mormon temple causes dispute (AZ Republic)
Study: spanking bad (CNN)
CA lawmaker targets soda (Yahoo News)
Gays angry about liberation summit (Austr. Herald)
US shelves missile shield in Europe (WSJ)
Public option lite (WSJ)Is golf unethical? (NYT)

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Wacky Wednesday--Civility Is Overrated


Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

If you really hate someone, being decent is a form of lying.
Honesty is always better, even if it’s mean honesty.
You should be able to express yourself any way you want to. That’s what people have fought and died to protect in this country.
It’s less effective than being rude.
Humor and negative emotion are extremely powerful persuasive tools.
Negative ads get run in campaigns for a reason. Because negative emotion works.
Some people don’t deserve respect. To offer it to them is to legitimize them.
Some ideas don’t’ deserve respect. To treat them with it is to legitimize them.
Incivility at root is an attempt to make our opponents look bad, when they really are bad.
Democracy presumes the ability and willingness to hear everyone’s point of view.
Free speech presumes that anyone can communicate any idea in any way he is able. If he stutters, we should still listen. If he swears, well, some people swear a lot.
All this talk about being nice to one another is a distraction from the real issues which are what inspired all the rude talk in the first place.
Sometimes it takes rudeness to penetrate a closed mind. “Gosh why does everyone hate me and treat me so badly?”
“Be more civil” is what the Baptist leadership told MLK jr.
Civiltarians are more interested in losing well than winning badly.
Rudeness is a form of power, and we should use power for good purposes.
Polite protestors don’t get air time and genial guests don’t get invited on talk shows.
Civility is just another way of marginalizing those who aren’t skilled at the rules of etiquette.
Elijah was not particularly polite to the prophets of Baal, nor Jesus to the moneychangers or the Pharisees.
Links
Bible References: Gen 18:1-5, Gen 19:1-3, Gen 43:25-29, Gen 47:1-11, Lev 19:32, Ruth 2:4, Prov 15:1-2, Prov 16:24, Prov 29:5, Matt 9:20-22, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:43-45, Luke 11:1-13, Luke 14:8-11, Luke 18:1-8, Acts 27:3, Acts 28:1-2, Rom 12:9-21, 1 Cor 9:19-23, Eph 4:25-32, Phil 2:19-23, Philemon 8-21, James 1:26, James 3:1-12, 1 Peter 3:10
Polite Wikipedia
Gricean Maxim Wikipedia
Politeness Logos.uoregon.edu
A Manual of Etiquette Daisy Eyebright
36 Politeness Quotations Nonstopenglish.com
Teaching Children Politeness Ksks.essortment.com
Seduced By Civility Benjamin DeMott
Civility Book by Stephen L. Carter

Wacky Wednesday--We Shouldn't Ever Apologize

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

Apologizing often makes the other person feel superior and inflates their ego.
Apologizing makes you look bad and loses face.
Even if you were wrong this time, there must have been tons of other times when they were wrong and you were right but you didn’t get the credit you deserved.
If you don’t get credit most of the time for the good you do, why should you get blame for the bad you do occasionally.
People respect strength, and they need to perceive you as strong to follow your lead.
When you apologize, people take advantage of you.
People don’t forgive you anyhow. They say ridiculous things like, “Oh, it’s no big deal,” or, “That’s okay.”
We’re supposed to imitate Jesus, and He never apologized, right?
If people get used to the idea that you’re wrong some of the time, they’ll come to expect you to be wrong more often, and they’ll expect you to apologize more, too.
Most apologies are strategic anyhow, and not genuine. I’m sorry, but… or they contain some sort of a justification or miss the point.
Apologizing doesn’t change the situation or undo the bad thing that was done, so what’s the point?
When people know they can apologize for doing wrong, they are actually more willing to do it because they think they can just apologize if they get caught. Forgiveness is easier to get than permission, but if you take away forgiveness, you force people to seek permission.
It just imposes upon someone else the burden of feeling the need to forgive, which they may not want to do.
In fact, since forgiving is an even greater thing if the person hasn’t asked for it, apologizing diminishes the moral worth of the best forgiveness.
Love means never having to say you’re sorry.


Links
Bible References: Lev 5:1-13, Lev 16:20-22, Lev 26:38-42, Num 5:5-8, Num 13:25-14:45, 1 Sam 25:1-38, 2 Chron 6:12-42, 2 Chron 7:11-15 , Ezra 10:1-12, Psalm 32:5, Prov 28:13-14, Dan 9:1-19, Matt 3:1-12, Matt 6:6-15, Matt 18:21-35, Mark 1:1-5, Mark 11:24-26, Luke 11:1-4, Luke 17:1-10, Acts 19:11-20, 2 Cor 2:1-11, Eph 4:25-32, Col 3:12-13, James 5:16, 1 John 1:8-10

Serena and sexism (NYT)
Public tirades and our current civility (ABC News)

Serena finally apologizes (ABC News)
Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst (ABC News)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Dr. Michael Youssef interview

We will speak with Dr. Youssef in the second hour about his church, his ministry, and his new book, “You Want Me to Do What?: Get off Your Blessed Assurance and Do Something!”

Does God Speak Today? How Can I Hear Him?

I recently received an email from someone whose ex-spouse was doing some very strange things, claiming that God had instructed this person to do them. Since we just last night discussed the difference between Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory and also the question of properly hearing from God, I thought this would be a perfect time to ask these two questions. Some people say that God doesn’t communicate with us today outside of the Bible. They are called Cessationists, because they believe that the examples of such things in the Bible ended with the collection of the canon of Scripture. Others believe that God communicates now just as He always has through a variety of means including the Bible and many other things such as dreams, visions, audible voice, and verbal communication in our minds. Well, if these folks are correct, then how common is such communication? And how can a person know the difference between legitimate communication from God and that coming from other sources?

Four keys to hearing God's voice (Mark Virkler)

Monday, September 14, 2009

Ethics Class, Session 19: Criteria 51-54

Tonight we are going to try to get through the next set of criteria in the ethics syllabus. (You can get more information at http://andrewtallmanshowethics.blogspot.com.) This means we will be talking about:

51. Explain Divine Command Theory
52. Critique Divine Command Theory
53. Explain Natural Law Theory
54. Critique Natural Law Theory

In order to facilitate discussion amongst those of you either taking the class or wanting to discuss these ideas in more depth, I will be posting each of the criteria separately without much (if any) actual explanation simply so you can have your discussions on those particular ideas.

Grace Versus Wisdom

I was recently listening to a preacher explain the dangers of hanging around with bad people by analogy to carrying a snake around with you. You can’t be surprised when it bites you, that’s what snakes do. The implication is that we shouldn’t hang around with unreliable people because they’ll betray us. There is great truth in this wisdom principle. But if Jesus had really practiced it, He would have never left heaven to come get us. And when He was here, He clearly did not practice it, spending time both with sinners and with ungodly religious leaders of His day. So, the grace principle would seem to say, “spend time with the lost sinners of this world and put yourself at risk of being bitten by them out of love for them.” The more I thought about it, the more this pattern seemed to show up: 1. foolish behavior, 2. wise behavior, 3. gracious/divine behavior. So, I’d like to ask you what other examples of this progression we see, where acting as a Christian actually looks wrong from a wisdom perspective.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Various Current Events

Sex, lies, and abortion (Dinesh D’Souza)
Obama health care reform speech text (White House)
Obama school speech text (White House)
Pelosi: pay for Obamacare, trim Medicare (CNS News)
Will Obamacare cover illegal immigrants? (CNS News)
Rep. Joe Wilson apologizes for “You lie” comment (CNS News)
Obamacare Q+A with CO reps (Denver Post)
What Obama said and what he meant (Politico)
Reading the bill may not help (Politico)
Health care ills cost everyone (AZ Republic)
How to insure every American (WSJ)
Rare breach of protocol in outburst (NY Times)
Can capitalists learn to love socialized medicine? (Findlaw)
Czars should testify (The Hill)
7.0 quake leaves 28,000 homeless in Indonesia (Christian Post)
Indy tests school choice (WSJ)
Bible literacy law stumps schools (Houston Chronicle)
Border traffic down under new passport rules (USA Today)
Enticing classes swell enrollment (Boston Globe)
Barefoot running grows in popularity (Chicago Sun-Times)
More AZ drunk drivers could pay for jail costs (AZ Republic)
Chance for USSC to get it right on free speech (WSJ)
Elections for sale? (LA Times)
Free speech, take two (WSJ)
Teacher tenure must go (LA Times)
Christian girls, interrupted (WSJ)
Obama and the left (WSJ)
The racism of marijuana prohibition (LA Times)
Obama school controversy (Albert Mohler)
A real education outrage (WSJ)
Fewer people paying photo-tickets (AZ Republic)
AHCCCS ends this week for 10,000 parents (AZ Central)
The crisis, one year later (NY Times)
Soap star fired for objection to gay plot line (Fox News)
Martin criticizes capitol lease plan (AZ Republic)

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Wacky Wednesday--We Shouldn't Criticize President Obama

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~We’re supposed to be at peace with all our neighbors, pray for our leaders, and be in submission to the political authorities.
~When we criticize him so vehemently, we give the impression that we are invested in politics rather than in Christ
~Much, if not all, of the criticism of Obama is disrespectful and mean rather than being respectful of his authority and office.
~Whatever else you might believe about him, the Bible is clear that leaders are ordained by God. If God has given the Presidency to Barack Obama because God likes the direction he will take this country, who are you to oppose Him? If God has given the Presidency to Barack Obama because God hates this country’s immoralities and is punishing us, who are you to oppose Him? In short, the fact that he is the President proves that criticizing him is logically just by extension a way of criticizing God and putting yourself in opposition to His greater plan.
~If such a vast majority of Americans disagree with your assessment of Obama, humility means accepting the possibility that maybe you’re wrong.
~This is our process for selecting leaders. If you are going to gripe after the fact about everything some duly elected President does, that just shows you don’t really believe in the process you participate in.
~The only way to disabuse Americans seduced by liberalism is to let a full-blown version take over so they can see the disaster.
~Every point of Barack Obama’s plans that we oppose makes us look like the stereotype of conservatives liberals and moderates have as stingy, heartless people who love the rich and hate kids.
~Whenever we criticize him, if we’re white, we just get accused of being racists. Even if we aren’t, we don’t want to give people the impression that we are. Remember, politics isn’t about being right, but about seeming to be right, and if criticism of the first black President is only going to reinforce the notion that conservatives and Republicans are racists, then why would we want to do that?
~How did criticizing the political leader of his day work out for John the Baptist?
~When you criticize Barack Obama for being a bad Christian or not a Christian at all, you make it seem like anyone who disagrees with you is unacceptable because what you really want is a theocracy.
~Barack Obama is viewed by the rest of the world as the greatest thing America has done recently. When you oppose him, in their eyes, you seem like a barbarian who is resisting the best thing this country is currently doing.

Wacky Wednesday--Christians Shouldn’t Drink Alcohol


Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~It was Christians who were primarily responsible for the 18th Amendment illegalizing alcohol in the United States.
~Without alcohol, there wouldn’t be any DUI fatalities. How embarrassing for Christ if you are ever involved in one of those!
~How many people have to become alcoholics for you to realize the danger?
~Even if it isn’t a danger to you, drinking alcohol can so easily cause a weaker brother to stumble if he sees you doing it? Why would you care so little about him like that?
~The sort of alcohol available in the Bible was so weak compared to our modern versions that you can’t base your belief in the acceptability of drinking on minor things they did.
~There are so many passages warning about the dangers of drink that you’re foolish for testing them.
~Non-Christians expect Christians to not drink.
~We’re supposed to be in this world, but not of it?
~If you drink, you are supporting an industry that exists because of and profits from alcoholism.
~So many people abuse alcohol, that even if you don’t, you are part of the greater problem.
~Why is it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday before noon? Because alcohol consumption is incompatible with Christianity.
~How do you know when you take a first drink that you won’t take a second or a third or a tenth?
~Is alcohol THAT important to you that you can’t give it up?
~How much money that you aren’t giving to orphans and the poor do you spend on beer and wine?
~How can you love the Lord with ALL your mind when you’re clouding your judgment and slowing down your cognitive processes?
~We are supposed to be separate from this world so they can see the difference between Christ and their own way of life.
~Is pleasure really THAT important to you?
~When have you ever been around someone and thought, “Gee, what they really n need is to drink more alcohol!”?
~Do you want your kids around people who drink?

Links:
Con: Should Christians Drink? by Go Be Do Ministries
Con: Can Christians Drink Alcohol? by Lay Hands.com
Con: Should Christians Drink Wine Coolers? by John MacArthur
Con: Alcohol and Sin by Paul Smithson
Con: Is Drinking Alcohol a Sin? by CBN.com
Fence: Is It Sin to Drink Alcohol? by Got Questions.org
Fence: Is Drinking Alcohol a Sin? by Keyway.ca
Pro: Is It a Sin For a Christian to Drink Alcohol? by NTL World.com
Pro: Drinking Alcohol by ATrueChurch.info
Pro: Should Christians Drink Alcohol? by Banner of Truth.org
Pro: Is It a Sin to Drink Alcoholic Beverages? by John Plunkett
Pro: Is It a Sin to Drink Alcohol? by James McBride

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Calvinism and Arminianism

Today on the program, my good friend and Reformed pastor, John Samson, will be discussing soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. This will cover concepts like predestination, grace, whether salvation can be lost, and to what degree (if any) free will plays a role in our salvation.

Links:
Calvinism (Wikipedia)
Arminianism (Wikipedia)
John Calvin (Christianity Today)
Monergism.com
Calvinism
(Reformed.org)

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Wacky Wednesday--Obamacare Is A Good Idea

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~I am my brother’s keeper
~We owe it to our neighbors to help them not be sick
~People have a fundamental right to health care which flows from their right to life.
~We feed the starving, we clothe the naked, and we house the homeless. It makes no sense to deny penicillin and tonsillectomies to the sick.
~The fact that someone can’t pay should never be a barrier to them getting the health care they need.
~Think of all the things we do to produce good citizens in this country, such as provide government education.
~What good is it to have an education if you are sick?
~We are all in this together.
~It’s a disgrace that we are the only major industrialized nation on the planet to not offer health insurance to everyone.
~The cost of health care in America has wildly outpaced income.
~The private sector has no incentive to induce downward pressure on health care prices because it continues to make money as prices go up.
~The downside risks of getting a major illness or being born with a disease are massive to such a degree that no one would rationally take the gamble that he wouldn’t suffer them himself or in his family.
~The larger the participant pool, the more broadly diffused the risk is to any particular participant.
~You’ll be able to keep your current plan.

Wacky Wednesday--“Birthers” are right.

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution reads: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

~We are governed by the Constitution, not by public opinion.
~If Obama is qualified, why hasn’t he produced an original birth certificate?
~Theory 1: Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, but Kenya
~Theory 2: Even though born in Hawaii, he had dual citizenship
~Theory 3: Obama has dual citizenship himself from his father
~Theory 4: Anne Dunham wouldn’t grant him citizenship if born abroad
~Theory 5: Adoption by second father lost him US citizenship.

Links:
Obama’s citizenship theories (Wikipedia)
The truth about Obama’s birth cert. (FactCheck.org)
Culture of conspiracy: birthers (Politico)
Is Obama eligible? (Index) (WorldNet Daily)
What does natural born citizen mean? (WorldNet Daily)
America Must Know

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Theological Tuesday

~Does Christianity require us to support Obama’s health care plan?
~What does it mean to render unto Caesar and God?
~What should we make of Josh Hamilton’s lapse?