Menino: Looks like I can’t ban Chick-fil-A from Boston after all

posted at 4:06 pm on July 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

The guy’s a moron. End of story.

“I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.

The mayor added: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”

The Herald first reported last week that Menino warned “it will be very difficult” for Chick-fil-A to obtain licenses for a restaurant in Boston…

“I sent (the landlord) a letter, but that’s all. There’s no pressure by me to allow this place to be rented,” he said.

The mayor of Boston sends a letter to a property owner warning him that the city would frown upon him leasing to Chick-fil-A, but “there’s no pressure.” Question for First Amendment litigators: How much state interference is required before Chick-fil-A might have an action against the city? Refusing to grant the company a zoning permit for its stance on gay marriage is a no-brainer but informally leaning on landlords not to do business with it is trickier. Maybe Mumbles isn’t as dumb as I thought.

At the Standard, Mark Hemingway says it’s time for Obama to have a Sistah Souljah moment by defending Chick-fil-A:

–Defending the Chick-fil-A CEO’s right to express his religious beliefs without his business suffering legal consequences would blunt some of the criticism he’s been getting from Catholics and evangelicals who are hopping mad over Obamacare’s birth control and abortion mandates.

–He can defend Cathy without making his sudden same-sex marriage flip-flop seem even more disingenuous. All he has to say is, “You don’t have to agree with Chick-fil-A’s marriage views. You can speak out against them and refuse to patronize their restaurants. But it’s not right to penalize them legally for their beliefs.” Even a lot of staunch liberals would likely recognize the value of respecting the owners of Chick-fil-A’s right to expression if the president forced them to set aside the hysteria for a moment.

–By coming out in support of Chick-fil-A, Obama could gently criticize Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Alderman for persecuting Chick-fil-A. That way, he can distance himself from the sleazy Chicago machine politics of his early career that many people still associate him with.

Jonah Goldberg concedes that it’d be the right thing to do but argues that Obama wouldn’t benefit politically from doing it. Most of his base seems okay with the idea of Democratic mayors strong-arming Chick-fil-A for the cause, after all, no matter how awful and ominous a precedent that might set. Why would O do something to irritate them when he’s spent the past three months pandering to them relentlessly to try to boost turnout in the fall? It’s a fair point, but don’t underestimate Obama’s newfound anxiety about damage from negative campaigning being done to his image as the Unicorn Prince. Those two ads he released a few days ago were all about restoring the luster of the shiny, happy Hopenchange brand. If he steps up for Chick-fil-A, it’s a small but maybe significant boost for his likability among independents, and likability’s probably his biggest asset right now. Besides, even some of the lefty commentariat has tut-tutted Menino and Emanuel for going too far. O’s got cover from liberal opinion leaders; his base will forgive him in the name of electability. In fact, Obama would be doing them a favor by refocusing the debate: Until yesterday, when Rahm and that dopey alderman weighed in, this was chiefly a story about boycotting the company, not denying it its First Amendment rights. Obama can put that back on track.

Via Mediaite, here’s the “View” crew also siding with Chick-fil-A. Exit question: Why can’t “Chicago values” tolerate a chicken restaurant whose owners oppose gay marriage when, for centuries, it’s tolerated churches and mosques (and related charities) whose leaders oppose it? What’s the difference? Churches have a free exercise right to their beliefs but business owners who attend those churches don’t?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sorry, meant to type that it didn’t take long…and to read the comments too.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Why can’t “Chicago values” tolerate a chicken restaurant whose owners oppose gay marriage when, for centuries, it’s tolerated churches and mosques (and related charities) whose leaders oppose it?

Don’t kid yourself. Their turn is coming. Believe it.

kbTexan on July 26, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Not mosks, the progs won’t dare take on islam. Christianity, yes.

slickwillie2001 on July 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Some great Menino audio

swenocha on July 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM

ROFL. Oh man,….. *wiping eyes and holding sides*,.. that is too precious. Guys, click on that link. It explains so much. Ahhhhhh,..thank you!

a capella on July 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Secondly, who in their right mind watches that tripe on that show. Thirdly what on earth is that retro Mammie talking about?

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM

The mayors of Boston, NYC and Chicago are a great example of the mind of the Left and the kind of officials they like to elect.

(Not to mention Obama, but this is a thread on mayors).

INC on July 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM

And one other thing. Why is anyone shocked that the owner of Chick-Fil-A opposes gay marriage? The entire chain closes their restaurants every Sunday. You think maybe dude is a religious guy?

Doughboy on July 26, 2012 at 4:28 PM

What’s so hypocritical about Menino is that MA still has some Blue Laws.

While Massachusetts law bars many types of businesses from opening on Sundays, most retail establishments can open without a permit on Sundays. However, you would be well-served to check the provisions of the law if you have any questions. A business that is not covered by one of the exemptions may apply to the police chief in the city or town where that business is located for a one day permit to work on Sunday. M.G.L. Chapter 136, § 7.

Since 1994, most retailers may open before 12:00 p.m. on Sundays, except for those engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. Please note that the AGO enforces the Sunday premium pay requirements, the Commonwealth’s Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC”) regulates when such business may open.

There are special provisions that apply to certain retail establishments who choose to operate on Sundays, which require payment of premium pay and prohibit employers from requiring employees to work on Sundays.

Del Dolemonte on July 26, 2012 at 5:07 PM

slickwillie2001 on July 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

After they’ve silenced all the Christians it will be amusing to see them discover how tolerant Islam is of their chosen lifestyle.

kbTexan on July 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Exit question: Why can’t “Chicago values” tolerate a chicken restaurant whose owners oppose gay marriage when, for centuries, it’s tolerated churches and mosques (and related charities) whose leaders oppose it? What’s the difference? Churches have a free exercise right to their beliefs but business owners who attend those churches don’t?

The Left wants to make churches into ghettos that wall in Christian beliefs. That’s why they go on and on about religion should be a “private” matter and not a “public” matter.

Everyone’s belief structure determines their acts and words all the time. There is no false dichotomy between private and public.

INC on July 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I know that I am being trifling but what the heck is Ms. Goldberg wearing?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Someone told me that Chick-fil-a was “anti gay” because they gave money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which is an “anti-gay” organization.

Really.

ButterflyDragon on July 26, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Maybe, it’s Butterfly McQueen Day on The View.

“I don’t know nothing ’bout birthin’ no baby.”

kingsjester on July 26, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Some great Menino audio

swenocha on July 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM

ROFL. Oh man,….. *wiping eyes and holding sides*,.. that is too precious. Guys, click on that link. It explains so much. Ahhhhhh,..thank you!

a capella on July 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHutvqFLp0

Axe on July 26, 2012 at 5:13 PM

ButterflyDragon on July 26, 2012 at 5:12 PM

From what I understand they haven’t donated to anything anti-gay, just pro-traditional values. I don’t think there is a difference to Liberals.

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I know that I am being trifling but what the heck is Ms. Goldberg wearing?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM

It’s got to be some kind of retro Mammie look. That’s all I can figure. Not flattering at all. Not that it would be possible anyway.

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM

a capella on July 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM

They don’t call him MUMBLES for nuttin’, eh ?
Holy cr*p !!

pambi on July 26, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Question for First Amendment litigators: How much state interference is required before Chick-fil-A might have an action against the city?

Congress shall make no law …

Dante on July 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Everyone’s belief structure determines their acts and words all the time. There is no false dichotomy between private and public.

INC on July 26, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Yes, though to make persuasive arguments beyond a particular belief structures you have to rely on reasoning that transcends divine revelation or axioms.

dedalus on July 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Sales at Chick-fli-a are up nearly 20%. Good work leftists. Though I’m sure that was unintentional. I thank you all the same. Lol!

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Some great Menino audio

swenocha on July 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Do the news stations run translation on the screen when he gives speeches?

Until they got so much flak about “racism” and “classism,” the BBC and other networks used to translate some of their interviews with people from North London. Now, you just see it occasionally when the interviewee is from Wales…but, you can sort of understand with Wales because, well, Welsh is a different language and Welsh-English (think Franglish) is based upon it…unlike, say, English based on English spoken several miles away…

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I’m going to stop and just be glad that all the ladies took the common sense approach. Is CFA publicly traded, I wonder if there is still some movement up on their stock if so?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM

likability’s probably his biggest asset right now

I don’t get the likeability thing with Obama. I just don’t see how he’s at all likeable, what with his arrogance and condescension and America-bashing. To me he seems like a hateful, arrogant, foolish little man. What is there to like about the guy?

WarEagle01 on July 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I don’t get the likeability thing with Obama. I just don’t see how he’s at all likeable, what with his arrogance and condescension and America-bashing. To me he seems like a hateful, arrogant, foolish little man. What is there to like about the guy?

WarEagle01 on July 26, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Yep. He’s just a nasty and stupid piece of work. If he was white he’d be a nobody, probably a car salesman.

slickwillie2001 on July 26, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Consider the national conversation about Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay marriage officially over: Antoine Dodson has spoken.

The openly homosexual Huntsville, Ala. resident behind the viral 2010 rap single, “Bed Intruder Song” (commonly referred to as “Hide Yo Kids, Hide Yo Wife”), says he does not care about the fast-food giant’s stance on gay marriage, and simply cares about their tasty chicken sandwiches and waffle fries — especially if they are hot.

“I dont care about one person’s opinion or how they feel. That’s the way they feel, that’s fine,” Dodson said in a YouTube address, while drinking from a Chick-fil-A cup.

“Chick-fil-A makes good meals and I eat there, you know what I’m saying, quite frequently, so no one is going to stop me from eating there. If I want to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich — guess what? — I’m going to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich.”

“So it really doesn’t matter what a person thinks. People say a lot of crazy things,” Dodson opined. “But anyway, it just comes down to it: If I want a Chick-fil-A sandwich, I’m going to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/26/consider-the-national-conversation-about-chick-fil-a-over-video/

When you’ve lost Antoine…

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 5:44 PM

No, Mumbles, that’s you lawyers explaining – slowly, using small words – that you are not a king. Just an idiot.

mojo on July 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I think Chick Fil A ought to come out with a “Chicago Values” Special Meal…..

a stolen chicken sandwich with a bullet hole through the center of it….

ted c on July 26, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Don’t forget to grab your official Chik-fil-A merchandise! It’s a fun way to piss off pissy libs!

http://shopchick-fil-a.com

Pork-Chop on July 26, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yes, though to make persuasive arguments beyond a particular belief structures you have to rely on reasoning that transcends divine revelation or axioms.

dedalus on July 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

This is a collection of six posts I did on apologetics. Although not entirely, the first three are more along the line of thoughts for Christians in understanding the world in which we live, the last three, beginning with Eyewitnesses, goes into my reasons for belief.

One of my pastors used to say that God has morally underwritten His universe. I would not say that reason transcends belief structures, but that reason comes from a transcendent God who is a God of reason.

INC on July 26, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Don’t forget to grab your official CHICK-fil-A merchandise! It’s a fun way to piss off pissy libs!

http://shopchick-fil-a.com

Pork-Chop on July 26, 2012 at 5:54 PM

dedalus on July 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM

You might be interested in looking at a book by R. C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith, in which he discusses the four basic epistemological premises.

INC on July 26, 2012 at 5:54 PM

What Chick-Fil-A should do now is run ads stating they were trying to create jobs in Boston, but sorry, mayor of Boston has poisoned that idea beyond repair and they regretfully will be looking for a new location just outside of Boston.

Take the jobs and taxes out of Boston, the only way to teach these morons.

riddick on July 26, 2012 at 5:55 PM

What’s the difference? Churches have a free exercise right to their beliefs but business owners who attend those churches don’t?

That would be perfectly in line with lefty ‘thought’.

AUINSC on July 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I’m going to stop and just be glad that all the ladies took the common sense approach. Is CFA publicly traded, I wonder if there is still some movement up on their stock if so?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM

It all started in 1946, when Truett Cathy opened his first restaurant, The Dwarf Grill, in Hapeville, Georgia. Credited with inventing Chick-fil-A’s boneless breast of chicken sandwich, Mr. Cathy founded Chick-fil-A, Inc. in the early 1960s and pioneered the establishment of restaurants in shopping malls with the opening of the first Chick-fil-A Restaurant at a mall in suburban Atlanta in 1967. Since then, Chick-fil-A has steadily grown to become the second largest quick-service chicken restaurant chain in the United States, with over 1,615 locations in 39 states and Washington, D.C. In 2011, annual sales were over $4.1 billion. Chick-fil-A is still privately held and family owned.

With 44 consecutive years of positive sales growth, Chick-fil-A has set itself apart by pioneering innovations and delicious products—including the ever-popular Chick-fil-A® Chicken Sandwich.

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/Highlights-Fact-Sheets

Axe on July 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM

DOJ official refuses to promise that DOJ will NEVER advance an anti-blasphemy law

A stunning exchange took place today when Assistant AG Tom Perez of the DOJ Civil Rights Division refused to commit to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution that it would never advance a law criminalizing the right to criticize any religion.

The non-commital answer by Perez was in response to a question asked by Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ): “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

Here’s the exchange:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/26/doj-official-refuses-to-promise-that-doj-will-never-advance-an-anti-blasphemy-law/

Three guesses as to the religion and the first 2 don’t count.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Axe on July 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Helps in understanding my position on all this?

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Can’t read the comments. Just in case no one broke this news.

Dodson comes out for Chick Fil A

I need to go auto tune this before someone else beats me to it.

BoxHead1 on July 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM

At the Standard, Mark Hemingway says it’s time for Obama to have a Sistah Souljah moment by defending Chick-fil-A:

Oh the so-precious liberal crystallizations that they think are meaningful to everybody. “Swift-boating” means absolutely nothing to be either.

Axeman on July 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Oh here it is, I’m supposed to think it brave that Bill Clinton wanted to condemn with Sister Souljah that her people should take a week to kill white people, to relieve the monotony of black-on-black crime.

I think it’s remarkable that they saw that as singular on the Dem side. Of course, this tends to translate to conservatives needing to call out somebody for shaking Pat Buchanan’s hand or who visited Rick Perry’s ranch without dynamite.

Axeman on July 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I really don’t think this is hurting CFA at all. We went to one today at 3:00 in the afternoon. It looked like a lunch rush. THere was a drive thru line wrapped around the building and inside was full…

melle1228 on July 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I made it a point to go to Chick-fil-A for lunch today. The place was jam packed and the drive through line circled the building! I had no idea that many people were homo-phobes. ;)

conservativecaveman on July 26, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Yes, the man is a moron. And more precisely, a douche bag.

minnesoter on July 26, 2012 at 7:17 PM

i watched some videos on ‘mumbles’…this guy can barely talk..boston is a joke to elect someone like him

his greatest ‘hits’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9KkdG2R_7k&feature=player_embedded

sadsushi on July 26, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Oh, and I love Chick-Fil-A. Great product, super-clean restaurants, and nice folks.

minnesoter on July 26, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Oh the so-precious liberal crystallizations that they think are meaningful to everybody. “Swift-boating” means absolutely nothing to be either.

Axeman on July 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Swiftboating – A liberal term for being held accountable by people who know the truth.

conservativecaveman on July 26, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Menino: Looks like I can’t ban Chick-fil-A from Boston after all

Translation: City lawyers asked the commie bastard exactly what he thought he was doing.

Happy Nomad on July 26, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Oh, and I love Chick-Fil-A. Great product, super-clean restaurants, and nice folks.

minnesoter on July 26, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Best in the industry IMO. I’ve never gone into a CFA where I was not impressed with the customer service or quality of the food.

Happy Nomad on July 26, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I really don’t think this is hurting CFA at all.

melle1228 on July 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Certainly not with their core clientele.

Rahm Immanuel or Menino have probably never been in a CFA. Too pedestrian for snarky elitist commies. Plus CFA is the epitome of the American dream which, of course, is something that neither commie mayor believes in. The Cathy family didn’t build that business!

Happy Nomad on July 26, 2012 at 8:02 PM

“I make mistakes all the time”… Heh, that sounds an awful lot like : those voters are way dumber than I!

socalcon on July 26, 2012 at 8:27 PM

$22 dollar CFA purchase yesterday, $18 today.

That’s nearly as much as my contribution to Cruz in Texas!

socalcon on July 26, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Rahm Emmanuel says that Chicago doesn’t the same values as a Christian who doesn’t support gay marriage but does share the same values as Louis Farrakahn who thinks that the white man is the devil and should be killed. That removes all doubt that Emmanuel is definitely a liberal, no doubt about it.

volsense on July 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Are we SURE this dope isn’t related to Bawney Fwank?

Oh, sorry. Awe we SHUWE dis dope isn’t welated to Bawney Fwank?

Dunedainn on July 26, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I live less than seven miles from Boston but work in the Prudential Tower, Chick Fil A should try to get space there, there is nothing worth eating at the food court there. Chick Fil A is the only food court food I will eat at a mall, it’s great and service is also great.

There is a reason they call him Mumbles, no one understands what he’s trying to say. It’s time fort he people of Boston to remove this man, he’s been mayor far too long to think he can stop a company from doing business in Boston.

I might have to drive to one of the malls in the suburbs because I have not been to Chick Fil A in years. I remembered just how much I enjoyed their food when this controversy started.

carolt2 on July 27, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Why do they keep moving into these inner city crapholes and ignore Minnesota!

MNHawk on July 27, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Pray and He shall deliver

OK, other side of the TC from me but it’s a start. :-)

MNHawk on July 27, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Are we SURE this dope isn’t related to Bawney Fwank?

Oh, sorry. Awe we SHUWE dis dope isn’t welated to Bawney Fwank?

Dunedainn on July 26, 2012 at 10:26 PM

No related, but close. Oh, so very, very close…

swinia sutki on July 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM

No = Not. And this after two big cups of coffee, sheesh!

swinia sutki on July 27, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Nice chicken sammich you got there. Hate to see something happen to it………….

-BacaDog

==========

Good one.

JackM on July 27, 2012 at 9:13 AM

This is a collection of six posts I did on apologetics. Although not entirely, the first three are more along the line of thoughts for Christians in understanding the world in which we live, the last three, beginning with Eyewitnesses, goes into my reasons for belief.

One of my pastors used to say that God has morally underwritten His universe. I would not say that reason transcends belief structures, but that reason comes from a transcendent God who is a God of reason.

INC on July 26, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading your writing. In your arguments against post-modernism you might consider the differences between relativism and social construction. Often the term relativism is taken colloquially to mean that all subjective statements are equally true–few people would seriously defend that view.

Thinkers like Schaeffer, Lewis and Sproul tend to be making a teleological argument against social construction. As you point out it can come down to an epistemological question of how we know what we know.

dedalus on July 27, 2012 at 12:05 PM

It’s got to be some kind of retro Mammie look. That’s all I can figure. Not flattering at all. Not that it would be possible anyway.

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Now that’s you’ve gone with it twice…what exactly is a ‘retro Mammie’?

verbaluce on July 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM

“Chicago values”… Remember, “Chicago” means “stinking onion”.

So, “stinking onion values” sounds about right.

DrDeano on July 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM

OK, other side of the TC from me but it’s a start. :-)

MNHawk on July 27, 2012 at 7:44 AM

I’m smack in between both those sites! Too bad I don’t eat chicken, but I hear their waffle fries are delish!

Unlike what I suspect a good number of people haven’t done, I sought out and read Mr. Cathay’s statement. He’s not saying he’s against gay marriage, he simply stated what he believes is, to him, the definition of marriage. All of you who have your knickers in a twist over this, please show me where he explicitly states “I am against gay marriage” in his statement.

Today is an off day for me. I have plenty of time. Sits back and picks up her knitting

Ygritte on July 27, 2012 at 2:56 PM

dedalus on July 27, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I apologize for getting back so late. I’ve been doing some reading and thinking since I saw your comment, and I’m considering doing another post on truth.

When Schaeffer, Lewis (it’s been quite a while since I read Lewis), and Sproul go the teleological route, I think it’s because it follows the Bible’s template, i.e., Psalm 19 and Romans 1.

Schaeffer died in 1984, and Lewis even earlier in 1963, and I would conjecture that both, especially Schaeffer would have although I think both of them would have met the need of the age with the appropriate argument.

In Schaeffer’s introduction to his book Escape From Reason (1968), he said something that’s similar to the quote I used from The God Who Is There on my blog.

Every generation of Christians has this problem of learning how to speak meaningfully to its own age. It cannot be solved without an understanding of the changing existential situation which it faces. If we are to communicate the Christian faith effectively, therefore, we must know and understand the thought forms of our own generation. These will differ slightly from place to place, and more so from nation to nation.

That was his mindset, and I think he is right. I was a math ed major, and so my approach to truth has always been one of thesis—antithesis, “truth is truth for all”! At the moment I grapple with wrapping my head around postmodernism, not only to try to have a basic understanding of how it is viewed by its advocates in sociology and philosophy, but how it has filtered down and affected everyday thinking of people who have never heard of the term. I have to understand their perspective on life, and get into their head so to speak. I include Christians in that group because it’s seeping into the church.

INC on July 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Sproul’s book, Defending Your Faith, that I mentioned above, is copyrighted 2003. He thinks, “the best starting point for apologetics is with the existence of God,” and he has a major focus on epistemology. This is a brief summary quote a little less than halfway through the book on page 69 (his emphasis is italicized, mine is in bold):

Virtually every attack against theism involves a rejection of one or more of the four basic necessary principles for human knowledge: 1) the law of noncontradiction, 2) the law of causality, 3) the basic reliability of sense perception, 4) the adequacy of human language to communicate. All four of these principles are assumed throughout the Bible. They are also assumed in the scientific method. They are all necessary instruments for knowledge—indeed for all science.

All denials of these basic principles are forced and temporary. People deny them only when they have a vested interest in their denial. But these denials do not last long. They cannot last long, for these principles are necessary for surviving as living creatures.

INC on July 30, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Andreas J. Kostenberger has a lengthy article online, ““What Is Truth?” Pilate’s Question in Its Johannine and Larger Biblical Context.” It’s ~30 page pdf.

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/27-What-Is-Truth.pdf

He only briefly mentions postmodernism on the second to the last page in his last point, “Jesus’ Roman trial speaks to the relationship between power and truth,” but he does take the motif of truth and power and runs with it to the end.

The entire article is interesting reading, especially in conjunction with a discussion on postmodernism, because of the question posed by Pilate, and because, as Kostenberger states, and I agree, truth is a major theme of John. The gospel of John slices through postmodernism.

INC on July 30, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Kostenberger writes (emphasis added):

The term “truth” had currency in Greek philosophy, Roman thought, and the Hebrew Bible (including its many uses in the lxx). In Greek philosophy, one of the senses of alētheia involved an accurate perspective on reality. Romans similarly spoke of veritas as a factual representation of events. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “truth” (’emeth, ’emunah) primarily conveyed the notion of God’s faithfulness. This faithfulness had been revealed throughout the history of Israel and, according to John, found supreme expression in the life, ministry, and substitutionary death of Jesus (1:14; 14:6)…

In John’s Gospel, where the importance of “truth” is underscored by 48 instances of the alēth-word group in comparison with a combined total of 10 in the Synoptics, the notion of truth is inextricably related to God, and to Jesus’ relationship with God. Is Jesus the Son of God, or is he guilty of blasphemy (cf. esp. Matt 26:59–66; Mark 14:55–64; Luke 22:66–71)? Jesus claims he is the Son of God, and the fourth evangelist’s purpose for writing his Gospel is tied up with demonstrating the veracity of Jesus’ claim (20:30–31). The Jewish leaders, on the other hand, consider Jesus a blasphemer (5:18; 8:59; 10:33–36; 19:7).

In John, then, truth is first and foremost a theological, and perhaps even more accurately, a Christological concept. Rather than merely connoting correspondence with reality, as in Greek philosophy, or factual accuracy, as in Roman thought, truth, for John, while also being propositional, is at the heart a personal, relational concept that has its roots and origin in none other than God himself. As the psalmist (Ps 31:5) and the prophet (Isa 65:16) call God “the God of truth,” so John’s Gospel proclaims that God is truth, and that therefore his Word is truth. Jesus, then, is the truth, because he is sent from God and has come to reveal the Father and to carry out his salvation- historical purposes. For this reason the only way for us to know the truth is to know God through Jesus Christ (8:31; 14:6; 17:3).

John is the one who recorded these words from Jesus to Philip:

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.
~John 14:6b

INC on July 30, 2012 at 1:36 AM

That’s all for now. I have a lot more I need to read and think through.

INC on July 30, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2