The GREAT Debate!

I'm kind of excited . . .a classmate of mine is interested in having a religious debate. We've settled on having it over Christmas break, and it should be quite interesting. I'm going to let my classmate choose the topic. I think that is only fair since I have homecourt advantage AND a picture of Pope Benedict!

So Jeff. . .let the games begin . . .well, in about a week . ..

ARE WE SAFER?

Every morning when I walk in the front door of my oh-so-politically-correct law school, I am confronted by a seemingly innocuous sticker showing a gun with a Ghostbusters style red circle-with-a-slash. The message, of course, is that weapons are not allowed on the premises.




I understand the motivation for this type of thing. After all, there have been a frightening number of school shootings, from Columbine to the shooting of the Amish children . . .but I had wondered if letting crazy gun toting killers know that no one would be able to defend himself* if the crazy gun toting killers decided to have their next rampage in my school was the best idea.

My fears were all for not. Yesterday, I saw a gentleman sitting on one of the "smoking benches" with a sad expression on his face and a semi-automatic under his arm.

"What's wrong?" I asked, being the compassionate individual that I am.

He looked at me with soft brown eyes misted with unshed tears. "I wanted to shoot the whole %&*#$ place up. . ." he said, "but then I saw the sticker . . ."

For the purposes of full disclosure, the incident described above never happened.

I know, big shocker, since it never would happen.

But there is a ray of hope. Even if the sticker serves only as a deterrent to upstanding citizens from protecting themselves from the crazies, perhaps the angry feminists who loiter in the hallways will have their own deterrent effect.

* This use of "himself" as a universal pronoun could be enough to set the feminists after me!!!

Pro-choice fetus. . .

Richard Dawkins' Speech at RMWC

I watched Richard Dawkins' speech on his book "The God Delusion" on C-SPAN2 this evening. Well, okay, only parts of it . . .but there was one aspect that I found to be humorous, sad, and enlightening all in the same instant.

This gentleman (a noted atheist) claims that of course atheism has a moral code, and it arises from a recognition of how we would like to be treated, a sort of golden rule if you will.

Mr. Dawkins lamented the fact that there are no self-described atheists in office in the United States, but also speculated that there were quite a few "closeted" atheists, who lied to get into office because most of the darn Christian plebes in this country wouldn't vote for an atheist. And of course, he segued into a minnie rant about the horrible prejudice of Christians that force this condition on the poor atheist politicians.

This led me to wonder, would Mr. Dawkins vote for a Christian if he could choose instead to vote for an atheist? It seems to me that most people prefer those in power to actually agree with them. Since most people in the United States are still (believe it or not) Christian, it stands to reason that they would prefer to vote for Christians. Furthermore, is lying in order to gain power acceptable in the atheistic "morality"? Mr. Dawkins certainly had no condemnation for those atheist politicians who did so . . .Does this mean that Mr. Dawkins would like it if Christians lied in order to get power?

The answer is: No, of course not.

The further answer is: Can you really trust this type of moral code?