History
- Member for
- 25 weeks 16 hours
Get E-Mail Updates
17
Top Stories This Week
- A North Carolina Christian’s Response to Pastor Charles L. Worley
by Andrew Simpson 05-23-2012 - 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - A 'Bizarre and Peculiar' Ruling
by E.J. Dionne Jr. 06-01-2012 - What is the Chief Political Concern of the Bible?
by Tim Suttle 05-24-2012 - The Problem with Certitude
by Gary L. Tandy 05-25-2012 - Dear Pastor Charles Worley: We Condemn Your Words of Hatred and Cruelty. REPENT!
by Eugene Cho 05-23-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - Jennifer Grant Asks 'What is an Evangelical?'
by Jennifer Grant 05-23-2012
by Karen Sue Smith 01-01-2012
Fifty years after Vatican II, will a new generation of lay Catholics lead prophetic change in the church and in the world?
by David Cortright 05-01-2010
... and make us all more secure. A pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament.
by David Cortright 08-01-2006
Official rhetoric has helped fuel an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran. Do recent negotiations mark a change in direction, or just a temporary detour from the highway to military attack?
Comments
Are you saying that you really don't believe that Obama intentionally instigated the discussion in hopes of changing the topic away from unemployment, foreclosures, gas prices, inflation, the deficit and the needs of the poor?
Please see Hazel's post yesterday evening:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/13/Obamas%20War%20On%20Women%20Backfires
Santorum won both Alabama and Mississippi and more noteably, he won with the majority of women backing him. Why? Is it because women are standing up to say that jobs, the prices of gas and the deficit are more important than having someone else to be forced to pay for their contraception? Or are they standing up to say to the President, "we've had enough of your War on Women"?
I don't know but I'd welcome thoughts from others smarter than me.
Catholic hospitals are an extension of the Catholic church. The arguement that they serve Catholics and non-Catholocs alike and so theirfore should not be treated the same as a "church" is just absurd.
Catholics consider the "morning after" pill to be about abortion. I think Catholics have a right to determine what is contraception and what is abortion according to their faith.
No one has suggested that access to contraception be limited. The discussion is whether the government has the right to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceeption and abortions.
Where did you get the idea that anyone was discussing limiting access?
Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a dumb twat and a cunt. Neither the president nor Valerie has been willing to condemn Bill for his comments. Bill has donated $1 million to a Super PAC acting on the presidents behalf. Do you think the president should return the money.
The fact is, liberals are quick to make personal attacks or enter into name calling when they don't like what others have to say. And it is true of Sojourners as well. How many times have we heard Valerie or others say or imply that the Tea Party is racist?
Rush's stooped to the level that we have come to expect from liberal politicians, comedians and bloggers. We should expect more from conservatives.
Rush's satire was funny when he first did it but it was inappropriate. He stooped to the level of his liberal critiques and we expect so much more from him.
But he has apologized so let's move on.
Agreed
Not sure what you found "intolerant" in Piper's tweet. There is nothing wrong with calling out churches that approve of sinful behaviour. That is not the same as being intolerant to the actual sinner.
Once we let a few live poorer, slower, smaller by choice the Tea Party will argue that poorer, slower, smaller is better for all and the pillars for government care for the 50% will erode.
That is why Valerie and Joshua push back so vigerously on our abiding by 50% of Americans living poorer, slower, and smaller than the other 50%.
You have the right to work for that burger joint or not and you have the right to be immunized. But if the owner of the joint doesn’t believe in immunizations, either for religious reasons or reasons of profit, the government doesn’t have the right to force him to provide free immunizations for every woman that works for him. And if he doesn’t approve of coffee he shouldn’t be forced to purchase free coffee for every employee.
Why can't you purchase your own immunization?
Can't be sure. I'm confident that Kansas is not being satirical in his comment and really believes it is all about free conception for recreational sex.
Why should we pay for your contraception? Should we also pay for your dinner and movie as well when you go out?
Don't disagree that Jesus was talking about more than wealth and also talking about power and contacts.
At least we can agree the verse doesn't justify the proposed tax policy.
The Bible says that "to whom much is given much is required". This relates to how God calls the individual to relate directly to the poor it is not intended to be the basis for government forced redistribution of wealth. We don't see any support for Obama's tax policy in Scripture and plenty of references that speak against it.
But the reality is that "taxing the rich" is a political plan to rally the voters as it is not a practical solution to pay for all the increased spending. And referencing the Bible is just what Jim Wallis would call politizing scripture for personal gain.
And Evangelical is someone who answers "yes" the following:
- believing that absolute moral truth exists
- the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
- Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works
- Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today
Well said!
I think you will find Christians quick to forgive both the one who repents of adultery and the one who turns away from the liberal worldview.
Barna defines a "Biblical Worldview" as someone who answers yes to the following questions:
- believing that absolute moral truth exists
- the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
- Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works
- Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today
10% of self-described conservatives have such a veiw
0.5% of self-described liberals have such a view
A much higher percentage of Evangelicals have such a view than Catholics or mainline protestants, explaining why Evangelicals vote as fiscal conservatives as well and not just as social conservatives.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/131-a-biblical-worldview-has-a-radical-effect-on-a-persons-life
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years
Many, Evangelicals are committed to the Tea Party because of the Biblical basis of fiscal responsibility, smaller government (individual liberty) and a level playing field as it relates to taxes.
The idea that Evangelicals vote Republican only because of family values does not square with what I know of Evangelicals, conservatives or individuals who have a "Biblical Worldview".
Great discussion! I've noticed this blog is all about afluent liberals bilittling those of us that have chosen simple lifestyles, single-income families or to just earn less.
maggiezee, in some cases wealth is being transferred from all of us to the rich through cheating. But we have laws against that. The 2008 crisis was caused by activity on wallstreet that many of us would classify as criminal. But Obama still refuses to prosecute while at the same time he continues to take billions in campaign donations from those same wallstreet fat cats.
But the Waltons aren't cheating anyone. They are paying market wages. If their employees believe they are being paid less than market wages they would leave and find other jobs. There is nothing wrong with businesses being as efficient as possible and paying the wage that they believe is optimal to keep costs low but still keep the best talent.
This is America! We don't force employers to pay more than market wages just because we don't think that wage is "fair". The market and the employees will determine what is fair.
Certainly, many Tea Party followers look at America and realize that as Americans we have all experienced a level of priviledge that the rest of the world wishes that they could experience. And to the extent that we have been losing that priviledge, those folks want to return to it.
But the rest of us just remember life just a few years ago when the jobless rate was lower, our national debt was lower and the political dialog was just a little bit less corrosive. I am here to tell you that if the Republican candidate campaigns on the theme that we are all priviledged and we must go back in time to regain some of that priviledge - he will win by a land slide because working class whites are ready to believe that they can once again experience more priviledge than they currently do.
The problem is that there are still more in our country that want to believe they can live the priviledge life than currently believe that they are currently being redeemed from the life of the victim.