An Open Letter to Dr. Charles Negy, Humanistic Bigot

In a recent article in the Charlotte Observer (found here), University of Central Florida professor Charles Negy explains a situation that occurred in his class between himself and some "religious bigots" who happened to be Christians.  In response to this interaction, he wrote an email that went viral on the internet and it can be found here.

While I agree with some of Dr. Negy's points, there is a fatal flaw in his logic which ends in a contradiction- as well as Humanistic Bigotry. I don't take this term lightly. I would never use the word bigot unless I deem it necessary, and this is one of those few instances.

First, I agree that these students were likely "out of line" and they had likely never questioned their religious upbrining. For this, I applaud Dr. Negy. The university is, in fact, a place where life's greatest questions should be considered and people with opposing beliefs should be respected and tolerated.   He writes in that email, "Critical thinkers are open to having their cherished beliefs challenged, and must learn how to “defend” their views based on evidence or logic, rather than simply 'pounding their chest' and merely proclaiming that their views are 'valid.'"  I can't agree more, but this is where my agreement with Dr. Negy abruptly ends.

His main tirade against these students read, "Students in my class who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion, as some of you did last class, portrayed precisely what religious bigotry is. Bigots—racial bigot or religious bigots—never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct." Well isn't that interesting. First, Dr. Negy challenges the fact that we actually believe that some of our religious beliefs are TRUE.  Isn't it possible, Dr. Negy, that some religious believers have actually considered their "prejudices and bigotry," and came out on the other side still believing in their religious beliefs?  As we'll read below, it's because of your own bigotry and assumptions that this is unfathomable.

Lastly, Dr. Negy wrote, "One characteristic of the critical, independent thinker is being able to recognize fantasy versus reality; to recognize the difference between personal beliefs which are nothing more than personal beliefs, versus views that are grounded in evidence, or which have no evidence." Here's the problem with this statement, it is the result of an unexplained presupposition and yes, even humanistic "prejudice and bigotry."  Here is his assumption: all religions are fantasy.  This is the prevailing view of cultural anthropologists, but they don't feel the need to explain or justify this claim. They just assume that religion is merely cultural and has no universal or absolute truth therein.  My point is this, Dr. Negy, why don't you follow your own standards? You've mocked Christians for their unproven assumptions, yet you have one of your own.  You are convinced that your beliefs are correct, but instead of justifying your humanistic approach, you assume it, then you are shocked when a few religious zealots assume their own presuppositions and publicly reject yours. Why not start your class with honesty and integrity, and openly state your belief in humanistic naturalism, then the students might not be so shocked when you claim that religion is merely a human invention or when you label those students, who firmly believe that religion is reality, "religious bigots."

Why I would never debate Richard Dawkins: The atheist “philosopher” cannot give us a reason why genocide is wrong. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of Richard Dawkins. He is an atheist. Most members of my church don’t know who he is either. He calls himself a philosopher, but other distinguished philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Antony Flew have called his work “jejune”, “sophomoric”, and even titled him a “secularist bigot.”  Perhaps we should just call him a “biologist.”

For years Dawkins has been running away from debating any credible Christian apologist or philosopher with reasons such as “I don’t debate 7 day creationists” and most recently *here* he says he won’t debate William Lane Craig because he supports genocide in the Bible.

Dawkins writes in his article, “But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.”

But here’s the problem with Mr. Dawkins, he has admitted that he can’t unequivocally state that genocide is wrong. In an interview with Larry Taunton he said, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”  Why couldn’t we just insert “the ancient near east Jews” instead of “Hitler?” But Dawkins reacts to Craig’s view of genocide as though the act is absolutely, morally reprehensible. He even uses this as his sole reason why he won’t debate the man. But if he can't justify why Hitler was wrong, how can he state that the Jews were wrong in the Old Testament?

            Well, would you share a platform and shake hands with a man who can’t even give evidence for why Hitler’s genocide of millions of Jews was absolutely immoral? I wouldn’t and I won’t. Sorry Richard, I’m diverting your emails to the spam folder and I’ve got my phone set to silent.  

Dean Hardy is the Head of the Bible Department at Charlotte Christian School in Charlotte, NC. He earned his B.A. in Religion from Palm Beach Atlantic University and his Masters in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He can be reached at http://www.YouthApologetics.com/contact.php

In Response to Charlotte Observer's “Police chaplains who quit give Christians black eye”

In Response to Charlotte Observer's “Police chaplains who quit give Christians black eye”
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/12/1830833/police-chaplains-who-quit-give.html

As a devoted follower of Christ, my eyes are not blackened, but they are wide open to the editor’s lack of knowledge for basic Christian principles as well as the true life of Jesus.

Jesus loved. There is no question about this assertion. He loved the common sinner; he loved the Samaritans who were a downtrodden race, he even gave women a higher sense of value, none of this can be argued. But to then transfer this to the concept that “all actions are permissible” and “we must accept everyone” is a fallacy of epic proportions. Jesus did not accept the sin of these individuals. He chastised the Pharisees for their pride, Zaccheus for his greed, and even told a lame man to “stop sinning.”

So why shouldn’t the chaplains stay? Well, unlike the editor’s conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin; there are very good reasons, philosophically and Biblically, that homosexuality is a sin. God’s Word specifically calls homosexuality immoral, most descriptively in Romans 1. So Mr. and Mrs. Editor, in whom should I trust?

In defense of the chaplains, God’s word gives specific instructions for the elders of the church. In both instances it mentions that the man must be blameless and loving toward his wife. It was obvious to the early church that homosexuality was a sin. I agree with your list of “other sins” such as cruelty and adultery, and I would hope that the chaplains would have also left their post if the Chief had appointed a chaplain who lived a continued lifestyle of committing these sins.

Dean Hardy is a Philosophy and Apologetics teacher, as well as the co-president of Stand Your Ground Ministries in Matthews, NC. He can be reached at www.youthapologetics.com

Why I am against graphic abortion demonstrations

Sorry, I witnesses an abortion demonstration this morning and had to post.


The use of graphic images during abortion protests is a controversial subject. Below I have stated my basic reasons for why I wouldn’t do this myself, and why I think that this is an ineffective, un-intellectual, non-compassionate, and hyper-confrontational way to state our opinion as Christians. Thus, I simply don’t think that graphic images should be used in pro-life protests.





Protesting using graphic images:

1. Neglects to consider its negative effects on the public:

a. On post-abortion women who are overridden with guilt. (In the same way we’d feel it was inappropriate to anti-war protest with images of dead soldiers because that would offend our honored veterans. Why do we think this wouldn’t negatively affect post-abortion women no matter what their view of abortion is now?)

b. On toddlers and young children. (It doesn’t seem that “for the sake of the cause” would justify the mental anguish of showing dead babies to kids. I think any Christian would chastize a capital murder opponent who proteted with a poster depicting a dead prisoner.)

2. Using this method usually results in anger, not reconsideration of one’s own position on abortion.

a. Ineffective: While getting guttural responses usually work on Christians, they seem ineffective on the secular world. (Christians seem to get it. I've seen my share of graphic abortion pictures and it has motivated me to speak out against abortion. But for the secular world “It’s gross therefore it’s immoral” simply doesn’t fly. Many young people think homosexuality is gross, but they think that homosexuals should be able to marry.)

b. Non-Compassionate: Many think this will tug on the public’s heartstrings, but a guttural response doesn’t do this: compassion does. The fact of the matter is that I (a fervent pro-lifer) don’t think about the actual baby in those pictures, I think of the horror. A suggested solution: use compassion, reason, and artistic talent to make your point. This will tug on the passerby’s heart AND head.

c. Confrontational: The public sees the graphic images as “confrontational,” this is why verbal sparring (or worse) usually takes place with these protestors and pro-abortionists. Does this inspire dialog and discussion over the issue or does it add to the stereotype that Christians are not sympathetic?



Just a start…any suggestions or additions or even critiques would be appreciated!