We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Anti-Abortion Crusaders Incur Wrath of God?

No, it's just raining and snowing.

Last night's pro-life march in Sioux Falls was cancelled due to bad weather. Northern Plains Anglican, an eminently more reliable theologian than I, notes with what sounds like a chuckle that you probably shouldn't attribute the storm to any of the following:
  • Perhaps the marchers had a bad attitude, and were not going to represent God well.
  • Perhaps the marchers were in danger from abortion zealots or just plain crazy folks, and God wanted to protect them.
  • I suppose one can argue that demonic forces called out the storm to stop the march, although what that says about God gets interesting.
  • &c &c &c [Father Timothy Logan Fountain, "Another reason to refrain from putting a moral judgment on natural phenomena," Northern Plains Anglican, 2010.01.22]
For those of you still taking your Haiti cues from Pat Robertson, see also Matthew 5:45 (sun and rain, righteous and not).


  1. Steve Sibson1/23/2010 7:49 AM


    Here is another question you avoid answering:

    Do you believe God could not have caused the earthquake?

  2. Steve,

    He doesn't believe in god. Your question implicitly assumes he believes in god.

    Maybe try rewording into something without assumptions?

  3. Steve Sibson1/23/2010 3:20 PM


    Then he should stop mocking those who do believe in God. If he does not believe in God, they he has no right to weigh in on whether or not He could have started a earthquake. Every time Cory makes that mistake, I will ask the question.

    And since cory does not believe in God, the he also has rejected South daktoa state motto. And since Cory does not believe in God, then he has rejected the Natural Law foundation that this country's freedom is based on, which was stated in teh Declaration. Thomas Jefferson used the philosophy of John Locke, and this was Locke's position on atheists:

    " And in his Essay on Toleration, Locke specifically exempted the atheist from the civil protection of toleration:

    Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.
    Chas Sherman ed., (NY: Appleton-Century, 1937) pp. 212-13"

    So really Cory's position on anything is not relevant for true Americans or true South Dakotans. Anyway, I still try to tolerate Cory. Perhaps I shouldn't.

  4. Interesting. I'm am not a theist, so you should probably just assume anything I have to say is not relevant also.

    I suppose similarly, I should just ignore any type of logical argument you present because you are a theist?

  5. Steve Sibson1/23/2010 6:31 PM


    That is not what John Locke meant. Since law is based on God's Natural Law, debate needs to be by those who chose to adhere to that. Those who reject God should not be tolerated.

  6. Steve-

    Locke's position is basically that atheists are incapable of following any law because they don't have a fear of an afterlife where their actions would be judged.

    That has obviously been empirically dis proven. There are millions of atheists living in the US right now and they certainly aren't breaking the law in any greater proportion than theists. It appears that existing agreements between people without the fear of some punishment after death is enough to sustain our society.


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.