Monthly Archives: September 2013

The Moral Case for Obamacare violates the Medical Fallacy

About Obamacare–This whole, “it’s the law of the land position” is fallacious. I can tell you that in my personal encounters with individuals who support this egregious bill, this is an argument that they regularly use. “John, how could you be against it—it’s the law of the land—it can’t be stopped.”

You know there are other things that used to be the law of the land—yet the left would not for a minute consider them sacred cows, just because they are or were once “the law of the land.” One that comes to mind is Slavery. You know that the Supreme Court once upheld it? What about the Defense of Marriage Act? This used to be law too—and interestingly enough was brought into existence by a left-wing president. Speed limits are law, yet they change. I remember a road was once 30 miles per hour—now its 45mph. Then there is the assault on the 2nd Amendment. I know plenty of people who would reject my argument if I were to say, “How could you oppose the 2nd amendment, it’s the law of the land!?” How about laws against marijuana? It was once illegal too—but now, Colorado is known for more than snow skiing. There was also a time when women could not be Air Force pilots—not anymore. Finally, there was once a time when abortion was illegal—that was the law of the land. Yet—it didn’t stop the leftists in faculty lounges who wanted to remove the mistakes that lay in the wake of the debris of the sexual revolution—namely—the unwanted ‘parasites’ in the womb. They gladly opposed abortion prohibition laws.

Id also point out that when it is convenient, liberal presidents ignore “laws of the land” in the name of political expedience or for opportunistic reasons. How can they do that? DOMA was the “law of the land.” Obama didn’t enforce it. Where was the outcry from Harry Reid or the rest of the intellectual sciolists?

It is almost as if new progressive laws are virtuous, and any conservative law or objection to a law is viewed as intolerant or ignorant. Remember how GW Bush was called the “Decider” because he acted without the ‘support’ of the left when it came to Iraq? Well, those same dissenters chanted ‘death to Assad’ for Obama when he was going to become the Nobel Peace Prize holding war hawk seemingly overnight.

Rules apply to thee, but not to me.

Another major problem is an argument I heard yesterday. Without Obamacare, “upwards of 60% of women cannot get maternal care for them and their baby during the pregnancy and birth period.  If you oppose Obamacare, you are opposing healthcare for the unborn and for the mother.” REALLY? This is top drawer Platonian-warned sophistry.  What we see is a person who on one hand invokes moral absolutes in order to justify a woman’s ‘autonomy’ in order to adjudicate whether or not giving life to the child growing inside is ‘worthwhile’ or not—and why? Because if she wants the child, it is a baby, if she doesn’t, it’s a zygote. On the other hand—in this argument—the same moral absolute is invoked to make a moral case for Obamacare. “How dare you not give a pregnant mother and her baby (NOTICE BABY not ZYGOTE) health care at the tax payers’ expense.”

Consider this:

“He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist.
And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself.
He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.
A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.
A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.
He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt.
By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything…”

Quite so.

This entire debate can be summed up by something that Chesterton wrote about. He said essentially that though we may differ over whether or not abortion is virtuous, we all agree that they should be performed with sterilized instruments.

This is the essence of the medical mistake. G.K. Chesterton taught us that in medicine we all agree on what a well person is, but disagree on what sick is. In social and political theory however, we agree on what a malady looks like, but tear our eyes out over what a well-functioning society looks like.  The problem is, politicians and social critics continually use medical terminology to talk about social issues–“The health care situation in this country is sick.  It needs to be reformed.”  OR  “The country is sick–vote for my policies, and we can return it to health.”  This is a fallacy says Chesterton.  How can they talk about what ‘well’ is in absolute terms, if the idea of well is the most disputed issue in all of academia?  Only in medicine can this terminology be used.   It is a fact that a man may have pain in his leg and walk into a hospital, and due to medical necessity, come out with one leg less. Never will that man walk into a hospital and in a moment of creative rapture, walk out of the hospital, having being given one leg more.

To continue making the moral argument for Obamacare is essentially invoking the medical fallacy.  Let the people decide–not politicians.


DEFUND this nightmare.


Is Faith intellectually bankrupt?

“John, I’m  glad you are a Christian, and I wish I could believe what you do, but I can’t.  It just isn’t as easy for me as it is for you…”

Has anyone ever said something like this to you?  Chances are, if you have been a Christian for a while, and share your faith regularly, that you have heard this line of argumentation.  What they are really saying to you is this:  “John, I am happy for you that you are happy.  I see that you have found joy and that you have completeness in your life, and I do find that attractive.  But there is a problem.  The real reason  you are happy is because you are a Christian.  What I am trying to say is:  you are only happy because you believe in things that are not true or real.”

What do we call people who believe in things that are not there?—Answer:  Crazy and insane people.

So what they really mean to say to you is,

“John, you are actually insane.  But the main thing is that you are happy and insane.  I am happy that you are happy.  As a matter of fact, I am so desperate to be happy myself, that I too would embrace insanity just to join you, but I can’t do it.  I have thought about it, but I just can’t do it.”

Now, there are reasons people object to Christ, but in this specific case, their objection is due partially to a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Christian idea of ‘faith.’


“Faith is believing what you want to believe, yet cannot prove.”

Many people, including some professed Christians think that is a proper definition of the word faith.  Some even feel that this is a type of liberating ideal that allows them to believe whatever they wish, as long as they believe it to be true with firm sincerity.  Others are nauseated by this definition.  To them, embracing faith means to stop thinking, to suspend rational inquiry and reason.  In other words, the more faith, the less reason—the more reason, the less faith.  Simply put, living in faith is like living in the dark.

For both groups, the problem is the same. By starting with the wrong definition of faith, they have asked the wrong question, are dealing with the wrong problem, and so have ended up with the wrong answer. Faith is not wishful thinking. It is not about believing in things that do not exist. It neither makes all things believable nor meaning impossible.

What is a good definition of faith?  Faith, as has been taught throughout the ages has a three-fold meaning.  It is:

a) about believing certain things to be truth,

b) about trusting in the promises of God, and

c) about entering into the promises of God, receiving what they have to offer.


The one I want to address here is the idea that faith is a type of trust.

The author of Hebrews says that faith is the substance of thinks hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Several verses later faith is also defined as knowing that God exists and that God rewards those that seek Him.

I think the best translation of the Greek word “pistis,” which the Bible uses almost exclusively as the translation for faith, is the word ‘trust’ or ‘trustworthy.’


If I were to say, “I have faith in my wife,” I am actually making two statements.  The first is that she exists.  No matter how much you want her not to exist, she does.  Secondly, I am saying that my wife is trustworthy, and that I know she is faithful to me, and will carry out the duties of a faithful spouse.

This is the same use of the word faith that the author of Hebrews uses when talking about faith in God.  Faith is knowing that God is real and that you can trust Him.  How can you trust someone who isn’t there?  This is why faith is talked about as the substance of things hoped for and as the evidence of things not seen. Both words carry with them a sense of reality. Our hope is not wishful thinking as Feuerbach and Freud vociferously asserted.

It is worth noting also that—faith alone doesn’t make God real.  A proper understanding of faith is that, faith is the response to a real God who wants to be known to us:

“I am the Lord, and there is no other;
besides me there is no god.
I arm you, though you do not know me,
so that they may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is no one besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5-6).


Have you ever heard a revival preacher or evangelist when making an appeal to the congregation say, “I urge you now—believe in God, jump from the light into the darkness—let God turn off the lights!!”–?

NO—this is absurd.

We are called into the light.  The Gospel of Jesus isn’t one that asks you to be ignorant—in fact, one of the first commandments is to love God with your MIND…The Christian is called out to see things for the way they really are, and not in the way we simply wish they would be.  We trust in a God who has been revealed to us in the Son and the Spirit. We believe because God is real. I compare it with the secular philosophy of Martin Heidegger.  He talked about the inauthentic existence and the authentic one.  We as Christians when we recognize God as real, enter into authentic existence.  Jesus didn’t come to make bad people good, but rather to make dead men live.

We are bombarded with some heavy questions.  You must be honest in your commitment to know that which is true.  Is Jesus real?  Who did He claim to be?  Is he really alive today?  Faith is the response to knowing the answers to those questions—EVEN as Christ is calling you.  But don’t stop after the initial introductions! Just as you are able to put more trust in someone as you grow to know him, so faith increases as you grow in your relationship with Christ. There is a God who is real and true; there is a God who is near and longing to gather you nearer. The great joy of the Christian faith is found in the person who invites us to trust and believe.