Fearless Philosophy Blog Post of the Month (April 2005)
In April’s selection for Fearless Philosophy Blog Post of the Month, I cast my net even wider to bloggers both on and off my blogroll. I started with 13 posts from 11 different bloggers. In the last week of April, I thought I had my three selections chosen until I read what I determined would be the #1 and #2 post (for those of you who are new to my site and this award, here is the criteria). With no further adieu, here are the results for April 2005…
Third Place goes to The Cranky Liberal’s post Just-Us Sunday on his blog The Cranky Liberal Pages. Cranky echoes my concerns about the Christian Right’s attempt to tell Christians that anyone who objects to certain judicial nominations who are Christians, is somehow anti-Christian etc. Cranky explains:
“It’s not about having people “of faith” in office - it’s about getting rid of judiciary independence. Listen to his [Dr. James Dobson's] criticism carefully - unelected and unaccountable. That attacks at the very nature of why the judiciary is so effective (this is the same reason The Fed Chief is independent of political interference). The Founders recognized this when they designed the Constitution so that a judge could do his job impartially. Without that protection, there would be no way for them to rule on the Constitutionality of an issue without fear of a reprisal. How could they defend minority rights if they were suddenly held “accountable” to the tyranny of the majority?”
Second Place goes to Gary Borque of Both Worlds. Those of you who read FPFM often probably know Gary for his many debates he’s had with yours’ truly. I always enjoy debating him on various issues. Gary wrote this post in response to a critique on one of his other posts dealing with ‘a right to not live in poverty.’ Gary titled his post What Are Genuine Rights? Here is his answer to his rhetorical question:
“Only individuals have rights. There are actually no such things as group rights. Thus gay rights, women’s rights and even Christian rights do not exist. Only the rights of the individual exist, and they are the same for all of us. These are sometimes called “hard rights.”
Some great points Gary! He goes on to say:
“For example, a right to freedom of speech requires only that others don’t hinder you from speaking, it doesn’t require they give you a forum. Freedom of religion means others shouldn’t hinder you from worshiping the way you like, it doesn’t mean they must build you a church. A right to bears arms means you can own a gun, it doesn’t mean someone is obligated to buy you one.”
Finally, he answers this notion of ‘a right to not live in poverty’:
“This brings us back to our reader’s claim to a right to be free from poverty. Right violations must be corrected. So if there is a right to be free from poverty then society must make such victims whole by, essentially, giving them money and/or property. So a right to be free from poverty essentially means a right to the money and property of others. Otherwise, how can people be made whole when this “right” is violated? There is no other way.”
And the Winner is…
The Fearless Philosophy Blog Post of the Month of April goes to Icarus Goodman’s post A Letter to Christians on his blog The Flights Of Icarus Goodman. This post is precisely what I think of when I’m looking for a fearless post. Icarus pulls no punches and asks all the hard questions regarding religion generally and Christianity vs. Islam specifically. Icarus was hoping to get a response from Christians and respond they did. So far this post has generated an amazing 35 comments in response for daring to ask the questions so many people are afraid to ask. Here is just one example:
“Now from some preliminary research I have conducted, I learned that your knowledge of "God" and his ways comes from a collection of books called the Bible. This Bible you claim to be the word of god, as it was revealed to men who then wrote it down for the rest of us. Please answer me this, Why do you believe this? Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God?”
I must warn you, this post is not for the easily offended. His questions seem to be genuine to me, however. If you are in the mood for a thought provoking theological discussion whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Agnostic, or whatever you’re belief system, you are in for a treat. There are some great (and not so great) responses to his questions as well.
Once again, congradulations to all of April’s winners!
Past Winners:
March 2005
Third Place goes to The Cranky Liberal’s post Just-Us Sunday on his blog The Cranky Liberal Pages. Cranky echoes my concerns about the Christian Right’s attempt to tell Christians that anyone who objects to certain judicial nominations who are Christians, is somehow anti-Christian etc. Cranky explains:
“It’s not about having people “of faith” in office - it’s about getting rid of judiciary independence. Listen to his [Dr. James Dobson's] criticism carefully - unelected and unaccountable. That attacks at the very nature of why the judiciary is so effective (this is the same reason The Fed Chief is independent of political interference). The Founders recognized this when they designed the Constitution so that a judge could do his job impartially. Without that protection, there would be no way for them to rule on the Constitutionality of an issue without fear of a reprisal. How could they defend minority rights if they were suddenly held “accountable” to the tyranny of the majority?”
Second Place goes to Gary Borque of Both Worlds. Those of you who read FPFM often probably know Gary for his many debates he’s had with yours’ truly. I always enjoy debating him on various issues. Gary wrote this post in response to a critique on one of his other posts dealing with ‘a right to not live in poverty.’ Gary titled his post What Are Genuine Rights? Here is his answer to his rhetorical question:
“Only individuals have rights. There are actually no such things as group rights. Thus gay rights, women’s rights and even Christian rights do not exist. Only the rights of the individual exist, and they are the same for all of us. These are sometimes called “hard rights.”
Some great points Gary! He goes on to say:
“For example, a right to freedom of speech requires only that others don’t hinder you from speaking, it doesn’t require they give you a forum. Freedom of religion means others shouldn’t hinder you from worshiping the way you like, it doesn’t mean they must build you a church. A right to bears arms means you can own a gun, it doesn’t mean someone is obligated to buy you one.”
Finally, he answers this notion of ‘a right to not live in poverty’:
“This brings us back to our reader’s claim to a right to be free from poverty. Right violations must be corrected. So if there is a right to be free from poverty then society must make such victims whole by, essentially, giving them money and/or property. So a right to be free from poverty essentially means a right to the money and property of others. Otherwise, how can people be made whole when this “right” is violated? There is no other way.”
And the Winner is…
The Fearless Philosophy Blog Post of the Month of April goes to Icarus Goodman’s post A Letter to Christians on his blog The Flights Of Icarus Goodman. This post is precisely what I think of when I’m looking for a fearless post. Icarus pulls no punches and asks all the hard questions regarding religion generally and Christianity vs. Islam specifically. Icarus was hoping to get a response from Christians and respond they did. So far this post has generated an amazing 35 comments in response for daring to ask the questions so many people are afraid to ask. Here is just one example:
“Now from some preliminary research I have conducted, I learned that your knowledge of "God" and his ways comes from a collection of books called the Bible. This Bible you claim to be the word of god, as it was revealed to men who then wrote it down for the rest of us. Please answer me this, Why do you believe this? Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God?”
I must warn you, this post is not for the easily offended. His questions seem to be genuine to me, however. If you are in the mood for a thought provoking theological discussion whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Agnostic, or whatever you’re belief system, you are in for a treat. There are some great (and not so great) responses to his questions as well.
Once again, congradulations to all of April’s winners!
Past Winners:
March 2005
posted by Stephen Littau at 1:07 PM
1 Comments:
i agree with icarus that there are some pretty deep roots in the respective corners. having said that, however, what i enjoyed most about the dialogue was that the corners were, for the most part, respective.
successful? heck yeah. it was an open post with attention given to the responses, thoughtful and otherwise, that were generated. icarus did a good job of facilitating the discussion that was generated by his letter, and i know that i found it challenging but rewarding to articulate, in some cases for the first time, things that have been part of me forever. after all, i don't think that a dialogue like this is meant to serve as a recruitment instrument. its sociocultural benefit is in getting people talking and listening rather than presuming.
i think that the 'progress' in this case was to have so many different voices present in a dialogue that should matter to all of us, but sadly doesn't take place nearly often enough because people have trouble with basic ethnocentricity issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home