This could be interpreted as an ad homonym attack on Craig and evangelicals. Look, Craig and the evangelicals endorsed the stupid guy! So, does that make Craig and the evangelicals stupid too? Just not a good argument. Quite elementary really. Plus, it seems a little too easy to bring up something that was said in 2000, which was before all of the events of the Bush administration happened.
It seems that Bush is always being blamed for the bad economy (I agree that Bush sucks!), but people may want to research Clinton's policy creating "subprime mortgages!" Interesting stuff! Both parties/sides are to blame.
According to a 2009 (not 2008) report, Bush is actually the 7th to last worst president (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f7tRP0-YfM&... He's indeed seems to be the most unpopular right now though.
Additionally, it appears that most voters have absolutely no clue about government, politicians, politics (anything) at all. Just check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 for example.
I agree that the gay marriage issue is moot and there are more important things to care about at his point.
It's also a little hard swallowing your point when you appeal to such "entertainers" as "comedian" "Jon" Stewart. Come on man. Do you want us to take you seriously or what?
I'd expect more from a guy who claims that he's going to show us all how to defeat William Lane Craig! If this is one of your examples then I'm not impressed, nor have that much hope in you.
I look forward to some real arguments!
Thanks, D
P.S. I never voted for Bush!
P.P.S. I do enjoy your website, even though I don't always agree with you.
Darius
· 9 months ago
I guess that either the comments don't get posted right away, or there's something wrong(?).
If you happen to screen the comments, my apologizes for submitting so many times.
The last time I submitted before this should be the correct one if you allow it up.
Thanks again, D
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Hmmm, I'm not sure why the last one didn't show up, Darius. I'll check my comments filter.
Anselm
· 9 months ago
I realize this is a rant and not an argument, but I see some factual problems:
1) how is going into Iraq an indication that Bush is immoral? Tony Blair, a man of the left, also enthusiastically backed the Iraq war, for some of the same humanitarian reasons that he backed the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. You can say the negative consequences of the Iraq war show that Bush had flawed judgment (of course, that would mean Blair and all of the Democrats in Congress who authorized the war--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden--also had flawed judgment) but it does not indicate a flawed "moral compass" (unless pacifism is the only acceptable foreign policy).
2) How exactly was it Bush who "got us" in this financial crisis? The crisis was triggered by mortgages given to uncreditworthy borrowers, a policy championed primarily by Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. You can say Bush did not oppose them vigorously enough, but their policies were the ones that "got us" into this situation.
3) On health care, let me get this straight--at the end of the Clinton adminstration, there was no universal health care and there was no Medicare prescription drug benefit. Bush did not give us universal health care, but did give us a Medicare prescription drug benefit--so the government was providing more health care after Bush than before Bush. And yet Bush is to be condemned for this?
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Anselm, thanks for your comment.
1) I'm claiming that the Iraq invasion was deeply immoral, but don't have time to defend that now. It has been defended thoroughly elsewhere, and I'm okay to agree to disagree.
2) Bush's negligence was only one of several major players in causing the financial crisis. Democrats were also involved.
3) When I looked, the numbers on national health looked worse after Bush than before - but I'm certainly no expert on this! But it's irrelevant, because...
My point wasn't really that voting for Bush was immoral. My point was that it's absurd for evangelicals to assert that something like gay marriage is a bigger moral issue than war, economics, or health care, and that this is a perfect example of how basing your morality on an ancient superstitious book really twists your moral code - even if you're a brilliant philosopher like Craig!
Anselm
· 9 months ago
I think your argument, even on the issue of gay marriage, is with the judgment of those evangelicals who agree with Craig, not their moral compass. If you truly believe, as they do, that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution of heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family, or that abortion causes the destruction of human persons, then it makes perfect sense why those issues would be at the top of their agenda. Of course, they may be completely wrong on the facts regarding the consequences of gay marriage and abortion (and other Christians, e.g., Greg Boyd, Jim Wallis--not to mention Barack Obama!--disagree with them). But your argument is with their understanding of the consequences of those issues for society--if they were factually correct regarding those consequences, then many secular liberals would agree with Craig on the priority of those issues.
All Comments
This could be interpreted as an ad homonym attack on Craig and evangelicals. Look, Craig and the evangelicals endorsed the stupid guy! So, does that make Craig and the evangelicals stupid too? Just not a good argument. Quite elementary really. Plus, it seems a little too easy to bring up something that was said in 2000, which was before all of the events of the Bush administration happened.
It seems that Bush is always being blamed for the bad economy (I agree that Bush sucks!), but people may want to research Clinton's policy creating "subprime mortgages!" Interesting stuff! Both parties/sides are to blame.
According to a 2009 (not 2008) report, Bush is actually the 7th to last worst president (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f7tRP0-YfM&... He's indeed seems to be the most unpopular right now though.
Additionally, it appears that most voters have absolutely no clue about government, politicians, politics (anything) at all. Just check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 for example.
I agree that the gay marriage issue is moot and there are more important things to care about at his point.
It's also a little hard swallowing your point when you appeal to such "entertainers" as "comedian" "Jon" Stewart. Come on man. Do you want us to take you seriously or what?
I'd expect more from a guy who claims that he's going to show us all how to defeat William Lane Craig! If this is one of your examples then I'm not impressed, nor have that much hope in you.
I look forward to some real arguments!
Thanks,
D
P.S. I never voted for Bush!
P.P.S. I do enjoy your website, even though I don't always agree with you.
If you happen to screen the comments, my apologizes for submitting so many times.
The last time I submitted before this should be the correct one if you allow it up.
Thanks again,
D
1) how is going into Iraq an indication that Bush is immoral? Tony Blair, a man of the left, also enthusiastically backed the Iraq war, for some of the same humanitarian reasons that he backed the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. You can say the negative consequences of the Iraq war show that Bush had flawed judgment (of course, that would mean Blair and all of the Democrats in Congress who authorized the war--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden--also had flawed judgment) but it does not indicate a flawed "moral compass" (unless pacifism is the only acceptable foreign policy).
2) How exactly was it Bush who "got us" in this financial crisis? The crisis was triggered by mortgages given to uncreditworthy borrowers, a policy championed primarily by Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. You can say Bush did not oppose them vigorously enough, but their policies were the ones that "got us" into this situation.
3) On health care, let me get this straight--at the end of the Clinton adminstration, there was no universal health care and there was no Medicare prescription drug benefit. Bush did not give us universal health care, but did give us a Medicare prescription drug benefit--so the government was providing more health care after Bush than before Bush. And yet Bush is to be condemned for this?
1) I'm claiming that the Iraq invasion was deeply immoral, but don't have time to defend that now. It has been defended thoroughly elsewhere, and I'm okay to agree to disagree.
2) Bush's negligence was only one of several major players in causing the financial crisis. Democrats were also involved.
3) When I looked, the numbers on national health looked worse after Bush than before - but I'm certainly no expert on this! But it's irrelevant, because...
My point wasn't really that voting for Bush was immoral. My point was that it's absurd for evangelicals to assert that something like gay marriage is a bigger moral issue than war, economics, or health care, and that this is a perfect example of how basing your morality on an ancient superstitious book really twists your moral code - even if you're a brilliant philosopher like Craig!