Which Christian Theologian Are You? “We reject the false doctrine that the church could have permission to hand over the form of its message and of its order to whatever it itself might wish or to the vicissitudes of the prevailing ideological and political convictions of the day.” You are Karl Barth! You like your…

“The basic right not to be treated as a thing is the minimal condition for membership in the moral community. This is the one right we all agree is inalienable; you can get greater protection, but if you are going to be a member of the moral community–if you are not going to be a…

Here’s a nifty little article at Tech Central Station arguing that we’ll inevitably see a cinematic remake of The Lord of the Rings:   Star Wars could be remade, but the story could only be retold — not re-imagined. Cinematically, there is nothing more to the Star Wars world beyond what George Lucas has chosen…

Josh Claybourn has a “Christian libertarian” take on the apparently now-deceased Federal Marriage Amendment: At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin. It allows Christians to transform the culture through the church and the family. This transformation is no business of the…

Bill Vallicella at Maverick Philosopher posts an excerpt from the 1942 George Orwell essay “Pacifism and the War” (link via Bill at Bill’s Comments) in which Orwell accuses the pacifists of his day of being “objectively pro-fascist.” Orwell writes: Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of…

Bill of Bill’s Comments has also graciously linked to this humble site. I’m hoping to put together the beginnings of a blogroll sometime this week, of which Bill and Keith will be charter members.

to Keith Burgess-Jackson for kindly mentioning this site at his blog Anal Philosopher. He offers an eclectic mix of, among other things, animal rights, philosophy, and conservative politics. He also runs two other “boutique” blogs: Animal Ethics and The Ethics of War (which are exactly what they sound like). Good reads all.

“I propose that voting, like cheering at a football game or sending a get-well card, should be understood as primarily an expressive rather than an instrumental activity. One votes for Alfred E. Neuman rather than Pat Paulsen as an act of expressing support for Neuman rather than as a deliberate attempt to raise the likelihood…

Occasionally I will suggest to friends and acquaintances (from somewhat puckish motives I have to admit) that they shouldn’t vote, or at the very least that it doesn’t matter whether they vote or not, or who they vote for, especially in large (national or state-wide) elections. My reasoning is fairly simple: whether you vote or…