But surely, Brown cannot be surprised about this: after all, nothing riles evangelicals like gays and gay marriage. As Jeff Lowder said on Twitter, “If only [evangelicals] thought gay sex caused global warming, then they might care about global warming.”
Rauser's MO is to impute his own viewpoint to evangelicals like Brown, then accuse Brown of hypocrisy for failing to act in consistency with his imputation. Many evangelicals don't believe global warming. Or they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. Or they may believe it, but think the threat is wildly exaggerated. Or believe nothing can be don't about it because developing countries like India and China are the main polluters, and they won't agree to cut back on carbon emissions. So the comparison is fallacious.
I am not criticizing Brown’s critique of Pete Buttigieg simpliciter but rather his censure of Buttigieg while supporting Trump. The issue is moral consistency.
i) But he never demonstrates that Brown is morally inconsistent. All he ever does is to impute moral inconsistency to Brown and like-minded evangelicals.
ii) It's not necessarily or even presumptively morally inconsistent to support Trump's reelection and oppose Buttigieg. That's because not all moral norms are equally normative. For instance, Christian can believe that lying is generally wrong, but also believe it's permissible or even obligatory to lie to save innocent lives. You can grant that some of Trump's behavior is immoral, but the policies of Buttigieg, if elected, will be far worse, so you support the reelection of Trump. There's nothing morally inconsistent about that.
This is the time where Brown should really consider some of Jesus’ other words on religious hypocrisy, as when he called hypocritical religious leaders whitewashed tombs, blind guides, vipers, and even children of the devil.
Again, he keeps making pejorative assertions without proving the point. Also, a person can be morally inconsistent without being hypocritical. To be hypocritical a person must be willfully morally inconsistent.
But let’s be clear on what a lie is: to lie, one must believe that-p and communicate to others that not-p with the intention that they come to believe that not-p. Thus, for me to be lying here, I must first believe that it is false that Brown falls over himself to excuse Trump’s gross immorality. But I don’t believe that is false. I believe it is true. So by definition, I am not lying. It’s a false charge.
Rauser's intent is to deceive his readers about Brown.
Thus, we see that Brown has falsely accused me, a fellow disciple, of lying.
Once more, he imputes his own viewpoint to Brown, as if it's a given that Brown regards him as a fellow disciple.
Even more troubling, what about Trump’s ongoing attempt to subvert the rule of law?
i) Notice how he chronically imputes his own viewpoint to Brown (and like-minded evangelicals), then accuses him of hypocrisy, as if Brown agrees with his viewpoint but makes excuses for Trump in spite of that. Yet Rauser hasn't documented that Brown shares his interpretation of Trump's actions regarding the rule of law.
ii) Moreover, even if you did think Trump sometimes bends or breaks the rule or law, Brown also believes the Democrat nominee, if elected, will be far more lawless.
iii) For that matter, there's nothing sacrosanct about the rule of law. Consider the Nuremberg laws or Jim Crow. I'm sure one of your concerns is that if Democrats control the executive and legislative branches (not to mention the judiciary), they will promulgate evil laws and regulations, or "reinterpret" the law to coerce evil.
If ever there were a case of straining gnats and swallowing camels, this is it.
Actually, Trump is the gnat compared to secular progressive camels in the Democrat party.
if that double-standard is not evidence of bigotry and homophobia, then what is?
But he caricatured Brown's opposition. As Brown details in his response to Rauser, his primary objection is to the punitive agenda of politicians like Buttigieg. It's about public policy, backed by the force of gov't. (Not to mention the alliance between Democrat politicians and Big Tech.)
Rauser titled his blogpost, Is Michael Brown a Bigoted Homophobe? You Decide.. Maybe someone should title a blog, Is Randal Rauser a Bigoted Christophobe/Christianophobe? You Decide.. I don't know what one would call a fear of the Bible would be. A bibliophobe would be one who fears books in general. But Rauser seems to be one who fears/rejects/opposes and has antipathy towards the Bible's full teaching.
ReplyDelete