Philosophos: Onto a whole new topic. Is the death penalty permissible?
Nomodiphas: It is used in the Bible so that seems to be an obvious yes. Why do you ask that?
Philosophos: In the extremity of my youth I used not to think so. I was seduced by the teachings of the pacifists—men like Tolstoy and Gandhi. I took Christ’s Sermon on the Mount literally and thought that all violence was wrong. Now I have come to a different conclusion. I believe that based on Scripture it is plainly not unjust for a government to put certain criminals to death. God told the Israelites to do this in the Old Testament era and God clearly would not command an unjust action. Further, in circumstances where lifetime incarceration is not a viable option (such as in the Israelite wilderness wanderings of the Old Testament), it seems to me that a just society absolutely must use the death penalty. But, we are no longer in those circumstances. So, perhaps, other alternatives should be examined. Though it is in no way unjust, I don't really have a strong sense one way or the other on using the death penalty in our age.
Nomodiphas: In regards to the death penalty I really don't have a strong opinion either. Lifetime incarceration is more or less the same thing; it in effect takes a person's life from them. One thing I have noticed is the swiftness with which justice was administered in the Law of Moses. True there is a system of 'appeals' if the case is too hard for a judge. But in cases where guilt is obvious the people are instructed to execute punishment immediately. That is one thing unmistakably lacking from our death penalty and I think waiting 20 to 30 years to enact a punishment takes away from its effectiveness.
A pro to imprisonment is that people have a longer time to repent and find the truth. However a con to lifetime imprisonment would be that prisoners may put off coming to terms with their mortality, as many do, because there is no immediate end to their life in sight. Contrast this with a quickly administered death penalty. Since death is imminent and comes closely after a crime a person may be more overwhelmed with conviction and repent. Though they lose their life their soul may be saved.
A final thing to consider is justice to the victim. Some cases are so heinous that it is hard to imagine the killer living for decades with good food, TV and entertainment, fellowship with other inmates, books etc.—after depriving one or maybe a number of people of their lives in a terrorizing and torturing fashion. (But that problem could lie more in the prison system than in a need for the death penalty).
The main objection to the death penalty seems to be that people executed are more likely to be poor and of minority status. I think there is truth to this. The amount of money a person has determines what type of lawyer they will have access to, and to some degree, the level of justice that they will receive. This however is not a problem with the death penalty, but a problem with our justice system that, I believe, needs to be reformed regardless of the status of the death penalty.
There are my general thoughts on that. The more I think about it, the more I would be in favor of the death penalty if it was done correctly (administered equally across races and classes and done swiftly without millions of dollars and decades spent on appeals—I think it is an indictment against our system that many of people on death row die of natural causes).
Philosophos: Your thoughts look reasonable to me with one exception. I have never seen any real evidence that the death penalty is NOT administered equally across races and classes. I have only seen so-called evidence—statistics showing a disproportionate number of minorities or relatively-low-income folk (I don't use the term "poor" for any American) convicted and sentenced. But it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of heinous crimes are committed by members of these groups, so I don't see how this type of statistic proves unequal treatment under the law. On the contrary, equal treatment demands this very result.
And another thing: crimes that are based on neediness (or perceived neediness), such as theft, are not capital crimes. So neediness (or perceived neediness) does not directly drive someone to commit a capital crime. I think it does have an effect, but only indirectly. It tempts one toward a culture with twisted valuations of freedom, violence, success, entitlement, victimization, etc. This twisted culture, I think, is the basis of most capital crimes. And this is the reason why we see a statistical connection between minority/low-income groups and conviction of capital crimes.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Environment/Global Warming
Nomodiphas: What do you make of the current debate over global warming? What should our government do to prevent global warming, or at the very least mitigate its imminent disastrous effects?
Philosophos: I am very skeptical about this whole global warming ‘crisis.’
Nomodiphas: How can you say that? Isn’t the evidence indisputable that the earth is growing warmer?
Philosophos: The earth may well be growing warmer, but I doubt that humans are the cause of it and even if we are, I doubt that the effects will be as dramatic as the forecasted effects.
Nomodiphas: But, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
Philosophos: Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?
Nomodiphas: So if global warming is not caused by humans and it is not this pending threat, what is going on?
Philosophos: I was reading something by Reid Bryson the other day. Now this man is known as the father of scientific climatology. He was a professor at a very liberal university and the head chair of a very liberal environmental group—he is far from being in the pocket of oil companies and big business as radicals claim all those who doubt global warming are. Bryson believes that global warming is ‘a bunch of hooey.’ He says he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it. He says there is no question that the earth has been warming. "However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time."
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer. It is true that humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he says of our concern on human activity. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence." Bryson argues that just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in a democracy, maybe."
So why do we constantly hear talk of global warming? "There is a lot of money to be made in this," Bryson claims. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of graduate students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'" As far as how reporters get their facts, often times they will call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson explains. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'" The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years.
In conclusions Bryson remarks that "there is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts." The only evidence of man-made warming in our state is around cities for the last 100 years. There has been slight change around cities, but that was true and detectable in the 1930’s. Other areas show no warming. Cities are hotter not because of carbon dioxide, but because of concentrated cars, pavement, and home heating.
As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on global warming. Caribou live near the artic circle. They flourish in the hardest, coldest climates. Yet Julius Caesar wrote that France was filled with Caribou while he was campaigning there. What does that mean? The climate is always changing! It does so naturally. Is it warming now? Maybe. Do we have anything to do with it? Probably not, but even if we do, most agree there is little we can do to change things. And even if we could change things, we shouldn’t.
All life contains both risk and cost. Do you know how many people die every year in car accidents? Millions, it is the most common form of death. We could prevent all these deaths by instituting a world wide two mile an hour speed limit. But you don’t hear anyone calling for that. Why not? Because the cost in time and economic hurt brought about by this change would lead to far more death and harm than the current situation. The same is true for global warming. Radicals argue that since global warming may bring death there is a moral imperative to do all we can to stop it. But radically limiting development would be an economic catastrophe and would lead to far greater harm than doing nothing at all.
Nomodiphas: That was really interesting what you said about professor Bryson. Profit mixed with science and education; the wrong end for a field once again corrupts a field. I can understand that. I can see how you need to have some huge problem in order to attain research grants to solve that problem.
As for the scientific claims, I am no scientist and I have not seen the data myself, however I do doubt that things are as cut and dried as global warming activists propone them to be. Our whole media seems to revolve around fear inducement. You need to be extreme in order to get people’s attention and sell your news. ‘The climate is naturally changing and humans may have to make minor adjustments to their lives’ does not sell papers like a headline that reads: ‘millions will die, global warming catastrophe is imminent.’
I think there is an alarming lack of research occurring here. Reporters go into something with a story and mind, needing only to find someone to back up the claim. Those that prophesy doom and gloom get attention. In order to get attention and grant money one needs to continue with this game. When one wants to hear something many will be quick to say it so long as it brings them attention and money.
Regarding the environment in general, should there be any environmental laws?
Philosophos: Before I answer that I would like to mention that I do think people should be good stewards of resources. It is wise not to over-fish, over-graze, pollute, etc. I think however, most of these choices are to be made at the individual level. The reason the Bible does not allow the government to punish an individual for unwise stewardship, I believe, is primarily because there are natural consequences. If you over-fish your pond or over-graze your field, it will lose value and you will only hurt yourself. The problem is with the commons. There the tendency is to take what one can get. There is no incentive to be a good steward for someone else may take it all before you can use it or pass it on. That is why the state should encourage more property to be privately owned—private owners tend to be the best stewards of land.
However not all land can be privately owned and the state can make laws to ensure that people respect these common areas. But as far as private land goes, we have a right to use our land as we wish so long as it does not harm others (for example, I can’t build a factory that puts chemicals in a stream that kill my neighbor’s cows or crops). The right to life limits the right to property. Pollution limiting laws are in this way justified. As for recycling and things of that nature, they are choices left to the individual. The government may not interfere and tell people how they are to use or dispose of their property.
I want to switch gears here and talk about the main reason I am skeptical of global warming. The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus recently said this about global warming: "What is at risk is not the climate but freedom. I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
Nomodiphas: Are you implying that you think there are people who are promulgating fraudulent claims and wrongfully stoking fear over a natural process in order to take or gain power?
Philosophos: I am not implying it; I am accusing them of it. What is tyranny?
Nomodiphas: It is the wrongful rule of one.
Philosophos: And how does this come about?
Nomodiphas: It comes about when there is a crisis and we have a need for a decisive individual to rule and lead us out of the crisis. We disregard our laws and procedures because the crisis necessitates fast action.
Philosophos: What is one to do if they want to circumvent the laws and rule over the people as a tyrant and there is no crisis?
Nomodiphas: I don’t know.
Philosophos: They create a crisis to justify their take over. I believe that this is at the heart of the global warming ‘crisis.’ It is an invented crisis which has the sole aim of taking liberty from the people. You can see that now already. Those that want more evidence of global warming are put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. There are calls to make sacrifices and create limits on consumption of use, but allowances for those that have the money to buy ‘carbon credits.’ Sacrifices have to be made, but not by those in power, they are far too important for that! “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others.” If Al Gore is so worried about global warming why doesn’t he move out of his 10,000 square foot house and start riding a bus instead of flying around in his private jet? That is unthinkable! Those are the things the common man it told to do, but Al Gore is far too important to be bound by those rules. After all, didn’t Napoleon teach us that great men are not subject to the restrictions of the masses?
Philosophos: I am very skeptical about this whole global warming ‘crisis.’
Nomodiphas: How can you say that? Isn’t the evidence indisputable that the earth is growing warmer?
Philosophos: The earth may well be growing warmer, but I doubt that humans are the cause of it and even if we are, I doubt that the effects will be as dramatic as the forecasted effects.
Nomodiphas: But, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
Philosophos: Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?
Nomodiphas: So if global warming is not caused by humans and it is not this pending threat, what is going on?
Philosophos: I was reading something by Reid Bryson the other day. Now this man is known as the father of scientific climatology. He was a professor at a very liberal university and the head chair of a very liberal environmental group—he is far from being in the pocket of oil companies and big business as radicals claim all those who doubt global warming are. Bryson believes that global warming is ‘a bunch of hooey.’ He says he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it. He says there is no question that the earth has been warming. "However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time."
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer. It is true that humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he says of our concern on human activity. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence." Bryson argues that just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in a democracy, maybe."
So why do we constantly hear talk of global warming? "There is a lot of money to be made in this," Bryson claims. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of graduate students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'" As far as how reporters get their facts, often times they will call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson explains. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'" The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years.
In conclusions Bryson remarks that "there is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts." The only evidence of man-made warming in our state is around cities for the last 100 years. There has been slight change around cities, but that was true and detectable in the 1930’s. Other areas show no warming. Cities are hotter not because of carbon dioxide, but because of concentrated cars, pavement, and home heating.
As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on global warming. Caribou live near the artic circle. They flourish in the hardest, coldest climates. Yet Julius Caesar wrote that France was filled with Caribou while he was campaigning there. What does that mean? The climate is always changing! It does so naturally. Is it warming now? Maybe. Do we have anything to do with it? Probably not, but even if we do, most agree there is little we can do to change things. And even if we could change things, we shouldn’t.
All life contains both risk and cost. Do you know how many people die every year in car accidents? Millions, it is the most common form of death. We could prevent all these deaths by instituting a world wide two mile an hour speed limit. But you don’t hear anyone calling for that. Why not? Because the cost in time and economic hurt brought about by this change would lead to far more death and harm than the current situation. The same is true for global warming. Radicals argue that since global warming may bring death there is a moral imperative to do all we can to stop it. But radically limiting development would be an economic catastrophe and would lead to far greater harm than doing nothing at all.
Nomodiphas: That was really interesting what you said about professor Bryson. Profit mixed with science and education; the wrong end for a field once again corrupts a field. I can understand that. I can see how you need to have some huge problem in order to attain research grants to solve that problem.
As for the scientific claims, I am no scientist and I have not seen the data myself, however I do doubt that things are as cut and dried as global warming activists propone them to be. Our whole media seems to revolve around fear inducement. You need to be extreme in order to get people’s attention and sell your news. ‘The climate is naturally changing and humans may have to make minor adjustments to their lives’ does not sell papers like a headline that reads: ‘millions will die, global warming catastrophe is imminent.’
I think there is an alarming lack of research occurring here. Reporters go into something with a story and mind, needing only to find someone to back up the claim. Those that prophesy doom and gloom get attention. In order to get attention and grant money one needs to continue with this game. When one wants to hear something many will be quick to say it so long as it brings them attention and money.
Regarding the environment in general, should there be any environmental laws?
Philosophos: Before I answer that I would like to mention that I do think people should be good stewards of resources. It is wise not to over-fish, over-graze, pollute, etc. I think however, most of these choices are to be made at the individual level. The reason the Bible does not allow the government to punish an individual for unwise stewardship, I believe, is primarily because there are natural consequences. If you over-fish your pond or over-graze your field, it will lose value and you will only hurt yourself. The problem is with the commons. There the tendency is to take what one can get. There is no incentive to be a good steward for someone else may take it all before you can use it or pass it on. That is why the state should encourage more property to be privately owned—private owners tend to be the best stewards of land.
However not all land can be privately owned and the state can make laws to ensure that people respect these common areas. But as far as private land goes, we have a right to use our land as we wish so long as it does not harm others (for example, I can’t build a factory that puts chemicals in a stream that kill my neighbor’s cows or crops). The right to life limits the right to property. Pollution limiting laws are in this way justified. As for recycling and things of that nature, they are choices left to the individual. The government may not interfere and tell people how they are to use or dispose of their property.
I want to switch gears here and talk about the main reason I am skeptical of global warming. The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus recently said this about global warming: "What is at risk is not the climate but freedom. I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
Nomodiphas: Are you implying that you think there are people who are promulgating fraudulent claims and wrongfully stoking fear over a natural process in order to take or gain power?
Philosophos: I am not implying it; I am accusing them of it. What is tyranny?
Nomodiphas: It is the wrongful rule of one.
Philosophos: And how does this come about?
Nomodiphas: It comes about when there is a crisis and we have a need for a decisive individual to rule and lead us out of the crisis. We disregard our laws and procedures because the crisis necessitates fast action.
Philosophos: What is one to do if they want to circumvent the laws and rule over the people as a tyrant and there is no crisis?
Nomodiphas: I don’t know.
Philosophos: They create a crisis to justify their take over. I believe that this is at the heart of the global warming ‘crisis.’ It is an invented crisis which has the sole aim of taking liberty from the people. You can see that now already. Those that want more evidence of global warming are put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. There are calls to make sacrifices and create limits on consumption of use, but allowances for those that have the money to buy ‘carbon credits.’ Sacrifices have to be made, but not by those in power, they are far too important for that! “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others.” If Al Gore is so worried about global warming why doesn’t he move out of his 10,000 square foot house and start riding a bus instead of flying around in his private jet? That is unthinkable! Those are the things the common man it told to do, but Al Gore is far too important to be bound by those rules. After all, didn’t Napoleon teach us that great men are not subject to the restrictions of the masses?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
AIDS
Nomodiphas: I have a question. How should the governments of the world respond to the current AIDS epidemic?
Philosophos: Epidemic? First off, I wouldn’t call it that. It is true that many people around the world are calling for the world’s governments to get involved and ‘solve’ the AIDS problem. I am of the opinion that governments of the world are doing too much, rather than not enough to stem the spread of and cure this disease. In my opinion the government should ensure that innocent people do not contract the disease (by inspecting blood used in transfusions and protecting people from rape) and no more.
AIDS is a natural consequence of disobeying God’s revealed commands in the area of sexuality. The vast majority of people who contract AIDS do so because they engage in sex outside of marriage. They leave behind orphans and widows and bring suffering and hardship to their communities. In one sense this is a good thing. We have been living for far too long in the mistaken belief that we can operate outside of God’s boundaries without any consequences. AIDS is a stark reminder that there are consequences to our disobedience of God. I for one would rather experience God’s temporal punishment for my sins on this earth, be made aware of my transgressions, and have an opportunity to repent rather than live comfortably in my sin and only be reminded of the wrongness of my actions after my death. I believe that in this way AIDS is a testimony to God’s mercy.
Nomodiphas: A testimony to God’s mercy, aren’t you exaggerating?
Philosophos: Not at all. Think of it like this. You have a tumor in your arm that you are unaware of. If you do nothing about that tumor it will spread and kill you. You slip on some ice and sprain your arm. You are in a lot of pain, so you go to the doctor. While at the doctor’s office, the doctor discovers your tumor. The pain of the sprained arm would be minor compared to the damage the tumor would do if it was left undiscovered. If you could somehow know that God had allowed you to fall on the ice, would you not call this an act of mercy? For even though it produced temporary pain it brought knowledge of and allowed you to fix a much more serious problem.
The same is true of AIDS. AIDS manifests physically the hurt, death, and destruction that illicit sex always brings. The destruction of sexual sin (since the advent of birth control) is usually hidden and only contained in the emotional and spiritual realm. AIDS has changed that. It is a stark reminder of the consequences of sin. AIDS is a physical manifestation of the consequences of sin that is all too often invisible to us. It is a wake up call; a call to repent. It is a sign to those that contract it that the lifestyle they are living is wrong (a life without God and outside of God’s boundaries) and if left unchecked this lifestyle bring death to them and devastation to their families and communities. And in that it is an act of God’s mercy. It reminds us of the consequences of sin that are all too often hidden and forgotten by us.
As Christ said, it is better that a man lose an eye or a hand and enter the kingdom of God than to enter Hell whole and healthy, for what good is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet forfeit his soul? In the same way it is better for a man to be infected with AIDS and find Christ than to live happy and healthy in ignorance to the Truth.
All that being said we should not sit on hands and watch others suffer, rather we should take advantage of the destruction and hardship that AIDS brings and use it as an opportunity to serve others and spread God’s mercy. AIDS provides for the church an opportunity to give mercy to those in great need of it. We must remember that we are no better than those with AIDS. We too have sinned and thereby deserve death. But God did not leave us as we were with the eternal consequences of our sins; rather He provided a way that we may be saved. In the same way the church should not be smug and tell people they deserve what they got, but should instead be quick to offer mercy to those in need of it.
Returning briefly to the role of the government, AIDS is a self induced hardship. Those with it have no right to help, so the government should not be involved in helping them, for mercy is not within the realm of the government’s duties. Mercy is the duty of the church and the church need not spend anymore time reminding those with AIDS that they deserve it. Christians must be merciful just as God has been and continues to be merciful to them.
Philosophos: Epidemic? First off, I wouldn’t call it that. It is true that many people around the world are calling for the world’s governments to get involved and ‘solve’ the AIDS problem. I am of the opinion that governments of the world are doing too much, rather than not enough to stem the spread of and cure this disease. In my opinion the government should ensure that innocent people do not contract the disease (by inspecting blood used in transfusions and protecting people from rape) and no more.
AIDS is a natural consequence of disobeying God’s revealed commands in the area of sexuality. The vast majority of people who contract AIDS do so because they engage in sex outside of marriage. They leave behind orphans and widows and bring suffering and hardship to their communities. In one sense this is a good thing. We have been living for far too long in the mistaken belief that we can operate outside of God’s boundaries without any consequences. AIDS is a stark reminder that there are consequences to our disobedience of God. I for one would rather experience God’s temporal punishment for my sins on this earth, be made aware of my transgressions, and have an opportunity to repent rather than live comfortably in my sin and only be reminded of the wrongness of my actions after my death. I believe that in this way AIDS is a testimony to God’s mercy.
Nomodiphas: A testimony to God’s mercy, aren’t you exaggerating?
Philosophos: Not at all. Think of it like this. You have a tumor in your arm that you are unaware of. If you do nothing about that tumor it will spread and kill you. You slip on some ice and sprain your arm. You are in a lot of pain, so you go to the doctor. While at the doctor’s office, the doctor discovers your tumor. The pain of the sprained arm would be minor compared to the damage the tumor would do if it was left undiscovered. If you could somehow know that God had allowed you to fall on the ice, would you not call this an act of mercy? For even though it produced temporary pain it brought knowledge of and allowed you to fix a much more serious problem.
The same is true of AIDS. AIDS manifests physically the hurt, death, and destruction that illicit sex always brings. The destruction of sexual sin (since the advent of birth control) is usually hidden and only contained in the emotional and spiritual realm. AIDS has changed that. It is a stark reminder of the consequences of sin. AIDS is a physical manifestation of the consequences of sin that is all too often invisible to us. It is a wake up call; a call to repent. It is a sign to those that contract it that the lifestyle they are living is wrong (a life without God and outside of God’s boundaries) and if left unchecked this lifestyle bring death to them and devastation to their families and communities. And in that it is an act of God’s mercy. It reminds us of the consequences of sin that are all too often hidden and forgotten by us.
As Christ said, it is better that a man lose an eye or a hand and enter the kingdom of God than to enter Hell whole and healthy, for what good is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet forfeit his soul? In the same way it is better for a man to be infected with AIDS and find Christ than to live happy and healthy in ignorance to the Truth.
All that being said we should not sit on hands and watch others suffer, rather we should take advantage of the destruction and hardship that AIDS brings and use it as an opportunity to serve others and spread God’s mercy. AIDS provides for the church an opportunity to give mercy to those in great need of it. We must remember that we are no better than those with AIDS. We too have sinned and thereby deserve death. But God did not leave us as we were with the eternal consequences of our sins; rather He provided a way that we may be saved. In the same way the church should not be smug and tell people they deserve what they got, but should instead be quick to offer mercy to those in need of it.
Returning briefly to the role of the government, AIDS is a self induced hardship. Those with it have no right to help, so the government should not be involved in helping them, for mercy is not within the realm of the government’s duties. Mercy is the duty of the church and the church need not spend anymore time reminding those with AIDS that they deserve it. Christians must be merciful just as God has been and continues to be merciful to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
