Dennis Prager on Tolerance

The always worth reading Dennis Prager wrote a few days ago about the abuse of power in the name of tolerance. 

The key case that sparked his column is described in these words by Prager:

"Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

"The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony to which she religiously objected. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, people can go to prison for refusing to participate in an event to which they object."   (More)

Traditional Marriage, Children and the Economy

Interesting read at Mecatornet about the effect of the erosion of traditional marriage onr the economy.  Key paragraphs:

"A productive household does not simply happen when parents beget a child. The foundation for a productive household begins with marriage. Other arrangements cannot measure up, not for the child, not for the couple, not for society, and certainly not for the economy.

"Cohabitation does not take the place of marriage, and there are very strong indications that cohabitation may rival single parenthood as the largest generator of child poverty, while divorce is the cause of most women and children entering poverty in any given year. If marriage makes the world and economy go ’round, these newer family structures truncate productivity, and society begins to limp along."

Not exactly new news.  

News Flash: Legalized Gay Marriage Harms Society

One common argument made by proponets of gay marriage is the emotional appeal that no one will be hurt by legalized same-sex marriage and that those heterosexuals who wish to honor their marriages can still do so.  Apparently, in the UK, the argument has even been made that by opening up an official status of "married" to gay couples, marriage as an institution will be strengthened.   

That kind of argument has been forcefully answered by Dr. Patricia Morgan in her testimony before the House of Commons.  She argues, and support her view with statistics, that gay marriage will further erode the cultural commitment to the institution of marriage, and in fact, by decoupling marriage from the procreation and nurture of children, it will in fact harm society.

Her testimony is summarized at the Telegraph.
(More)

Justin Lee and the Queen James Bible

It is my strong belief that the reason there is so much controversy over homosexuality in the church and culture is not because belligerent and rather disgusting figures like Fred Phelps have suddenly started persecuting gays.  It is not as though homosexuality is something new and the church has never dealt with the issue in the last 20 centuries.  Nor do I believe the primary issue is a lack of compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, although certainly that common failure is worth noting.

The reason there is controversy is that a political movement has attempted to make homosexuality a civil rights issue and has aggressively and relentlessly forced that issue into public debate.

Conservatives have responded, of course, oftentimes inartfully.   And in true Alinskyite fashion, the reaction by conservatives has often been used by the political wing of the LGBT movement as a club to beat key targeted figures with, to use the emotion associated with perceived injustice as evidence of rampant injustice and sway the opinions of those who don't bother to think too deeply.

And of course the "sympathetic" figure always helps sell an idea.  (More)

Community Organizing for the Digital Age

Interesting article by Tony Lee at Breitbart analyzing How Obama Won.  The opening paragraph reads

"President Barack Obama sees America as a salad bowl, where multiculturalists are free to pick and choose identities and cultures instead of sharing a unifying one -- the classical melting pot concept. And Obama's successful 2012 campaign -- as sophisticated as it was when it came to micro-targeting voters -- reflected his broader view.

"Instead of running a campaign based on his record or a unifying and forward-looking vision for the next four years, Obama essentially ran multiple, micro-targeted campaigns aimed at specific racial groups, scaring them into believing Republicans would take away their rights and promising them legislation on pet issues in a second term. He used the same template with women voters. He essentially united his coalition by disuniting America, one racial and gender group at a time."  (More)

Children of "Unstable" Marriages

Ed Whelan of NRO has a three part article about the recent study of children of various alternative forms of marriage published by the academic journal Social Science Research.  The study has caused a fair amount of buzz on the web with opponents of gay marriage quoting it and supporters of gay marriage trashing it.  Interesting that there is a secondary conclusion that is suggested by the study.  (More)

Why I Am a Conservative - Health Care

My first thoughts about health care go back about 29 years when I went to a dentist in California for a toothache.   I had signed up for an HMO, which seemed like a great program.  Pay a small set fee and everything is covered!  Wonderful.  The dentist in question was part of that HMO plan and I could only go to a dentist "in plan".  After an X-ray revealed that I had swollen sinuses from a sinus infection that was causing the pain in the roots of my teeth I went to a regular doctor - in plan - and after an antibiotic I was good to go.  So I decided to take advantage of the plan and schedule a normal dental checkup.

I expected what I had always experienced - that I would sit down in a chair, a dentist would poke and prod at my teeth, they would take some X-rays and if necessary I would return to have a cavity filled - one visit or maybe two.  What happened opened my eyes to the realities of what is now a health care mess.  First I came in for the checkup.  Cha-ching!  (More)

Egalitarians, Complementarians, Patriarchalists and Misogynists - Oh My!

I'm not one who thinks that defining the role of women in the church is an "essential" on which the church stands or falls, but boy do folks get bent out of shape over it.  I've been in some pretty conservative churches over the years and I've never felt like this was a huge issue in the overall scope of things, because I never felt the difference between egalitarian and complementarian was all that great.

Recently  Rachel Held Evans called complementarianism patriarchy.  That seemed to me more than a little false.  Count on Tony Jones to up the ante. He referred to Russell Moore and John Piper as misogynists, haters of women. 

The reason for the consternation was apparently a statement by Moore that too many complementarians were living as practical egalitarians, which carried the suggestion to egalitarians that to be consistent, complementarians needed to "push women down" more.  I think Moore spoke poorly, but knowing what most complementarians think about "servant leadership" I tend to think the point is that Moore feels men often exercise no leadership at all, behave in a passive manner that serves no one. I do not think he was "pushing women down" as Tony Jones opined.  (More)

The Pragmatic Case

It usually does little good to argue about same-sex marriage as a public policy issue using Biblical  arguments, no matter how badly we wish to rebut some of the horrific exegesis that comes from progressive Christians who support this massive and unprecedented subversion of 3400 years of western civilization.

A case must be made that shows how changing the definition of marriage changes society at large in a negative way and why a government should care.  Here are a few thoughts.   (Read More)

Marriage - The Definition is the Issue

I’ll take a stab at the hot button topic of the day.  

Why is it that conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage in this enlightened post-modern age?

Let me begin by saying it is not that Conservative Christians are opposed to “love”.  I don’t think there is anything anyone would say against two people of the same gender having a certain affection for each other.  It is true that affections can sometimes be unhealthy – even simple friendships and heterosexual romances.  Still the issue isn’t “love” as in a “feeling” two people have for each other.

Christianity is a faith that exalts a set of high moral standards and then tells us that none of us can keep those standards.  It responds to this dilemma with grace – a deep, deep well of forgiveness.  The result is that the moral law of God which none of us keep perfectly ceases to be a source of condemnation, but remains a goal.  We are not always honest, but we strive for honesty.  We are not always faithful, but we strive for fidelity.   The moral standards affirmed in both the Old and New Testament are not a means of salvation but they remain ideals by which we examine ourselves and seek to be better people.  So – the issue is “what are our ideals?” (Read more)

Andy Stanley, Al Mohler and Scot McKnight

We have apparently come to the place where progressive Christians are open to roundly criticize conservatives who simply speak their mind and portray them as judgmental while being increasingly unwilling to speak against others who pass judgment with extreme prejudice.  

Al Mohler raised a question as one part of a discussion about the megachurch phenomena.  The heart of Mohler’s post was that a generation or two ago, it was suggested in “liberal” circles that Christianity needed to change in order to reach people.  But in a short time, those churches jettisoned essential elements of the faith.  While Mohler praised – yes praised – the conservative bent of many  megachurches and megachurch leaders, he said that the temptation would be strong to water down essential truths for the sake of outreach. 

In this context, he referred to a message by Andy Stanley - "When Gracie met Truthy".  Stanley used a sermon  illustration where two men, both having abandoned heterosexual marriage for a same-sex relationship were told they were disqualified from a service role on a “host team” because one was still married to his wife, not yet divorced.  Stanley did directly speak against adultery – since one of the men was still married, and tied that to disqualification from serving in that position.  But Stanley said not a word about the morality of the same-sex relationship itself and whether that might also disqualify someone from the same role.  His silence on the obvious hot-button issue implied to at least some that had both men been divorced while having this same-sex relationship, they could have stayed in their role.  

So adultery was a disqualification while an illicit gay relationship was seemingly not.     (Read more...)