This is 's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following 's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Bil, What you don't mention is that David is a self described liberal. He supports traditional marriage time and time again. We may disagree on some specific policy points...but that's because HE IS A LIBERAL. That makes his research even more profound because when the research cited above mentions "marriage" it means "one man and one woman". The research does not include homosexual "married" couples...only heterosexual married couples. Therefore, the positive results cited in the study cannot be accurately attributed to same-sex couples. Folks can hypothocate all they want...but it's not based on the research. I find it increasingly annoying that you and your Leftist allies have to stoop to personal attacks and name calling. It shows that your arguments are weak. Apparently the folks of North Carolina agree. 61-39 is a big time win. Americans are sick of being slandered as "bigots" because we support marriage and religious liberty.
Bil! Old buddy, old pal! It's been too long! How's D.C. treating you?? First of all, I was really talking about marriage above, not attempts to redefine marriage. In most of the country marriage is still defined as one man/one woman and is defined as such within the work the Institute for American Values does. Secondly, The Institute does not advocate for gay marriage. You've got that one wrong my friend. David Blankenhorn is the President and is very much pro-traditional marriage. The same benefits listed in the social science research above have not been proven within the homosexual community. As a matter of fact, in the states and countries that have redefined marriage to include homosexual couples, very few self identified "GLBT" folks even take advantage of it. Let's face it many of your gay buddies would even marry their male lovers if given the opportunity? Very few. So, completely changing the definition of marriage legally seems like a big waste of time. Lol...last thing...NOM is a "hate group"? Because some radical leftist group like the Southern Poverty Law Center says so? They are a joke. Not persuasive can do better.
It's interesting that I am still getting comments on this post all these years later. My question has still not been answered. For those of you who have actually read Shane's writings and/or heard him speak (I have done both), please explain to me how Shane's call to move the U.S. away from a free market system would help those in poverty and not create more poverty? I think I know the answer. It would not. Shane is long on rhetoric and short on details. He likes to attack easy targets but does not present practical solutions.
Toggle Commented Mar 15, 2012 on Shane Claiborne is driving me crazy at Veritas Rex
Thank you Tony! Great Sermon! Keep up the good work!
Brian, I appreciate your thoughtful response. No need to apologize for the grammer issues...this is a's meant to be conversations on the fly. No points taken off for typos. :) I believe I understand your point about government benefits, but please help me make sure I understand your position. You only support redefining marriage to include homosexual couples as a new special group that can receive all the responsibilities and privileges of a government issued marriage certificate, but not other individuals or groups? If you consider the current definition "discrimination", then wouldn't you be discriminating against all the other individual sexual preferences that are out there? I ask because the law currently leaves a lot of folks out. You can't marry your sister or brother or mother or father or other close relative. You can't marry more than one person. Polygamists are excluded, and actually in Canada they are suing to redefine marriage further. Groups of people can't get married, as some groups in Massachusetts are now pushing for (4 men and 5 women for example). You can't marry yourself, as a woman in Germany did years ago. You can't marry an animal. You can't marry a child...NAMBLA would like to change that. Who are you to discriminate against all these sexual preferences? Where does it end? The answer, of course, is that marriage is not merely about a sexual preference. It is about the foundation of the family. Many of the governmental benefits of marriage are set up that way because someone has to stay at home and raise the next generation (few homosexuals will actually marry and even fewer will raise children). The state has an interest in that because marriage between a man and a woman produces lot's of positive benefits to society...I list many of those above. Same-sex "marriage" has not been proven to produce those same positive societal benefits. Just because you call a relationship "marriage" doesn't mean it will produce the same positive results. You just cheapen the institution as a whole.
Brian, You have conveniently misread my post as is true of most liberals like yourself who sound off here. I spent the majority of the post making arguments that you don't have to have a faith background to agree with. People of all faiths and some of none at all agree with Indiana's current definition of marriage for a whole host of reasons. In my post above, I end with a message to Hoosiers who share my faith. You are obviously not one of those, thus those arguments were clearly not meant for you. It was interesting in committee that backers of same-sex marriage gave religious arguments, not supporters of traditional marriage. The supporters of same-sex marriage even had a minister use a significant portion of their time in order to give a faith argument in favor of same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage supporters discussed the state's interest in marriage and other legal and public policy implications. We did not claim that our opponents were immoral or evil as proponents of same-sex marriage did, including this liberal "pastor" from the Unitarian Universalist Church. It's interesting that same-sex marriage supporters can talk about religion all they want when it suits them, but supporters of traditional marriage are somehow banned from responding in kind. Since you are obviously a supporter of same-sex marriage, how do you explain the fact that in states and nations where same-sex marriages or similar state recognitions are available, a small percentage of same-sex couples even take advantage of it? Since you say you are a married heterosexual, why get so fired up about something that most proponents won't even use?
I've been called worse I suppose. Stated like a true liberal, Craig. Well done. Pretend the other side said something and then rip them for the thing they never said. It's interesting that after all the bluster self identified "GLBT" activists have displayed in order to get "hate crimes" against homosexuals tracked, the actual cases of crimes against individuals because of an alternative sexual preference are miniscule. In fact, instances like the Matthew Shepard murder are twisted by self-identified "GLBT" activists to make it look like a "hate crime" when the victims sexual preferences had nothing to do with the crime. Pathetic.
Steve, This case has nothing to do with Eric's ability to express his faith publicly. The case brought by Eric through the ACLU banned his senior classmates (particularly, either the senior class Secretary or Treasurer) from giving a short prayer at the beginning of the graduation. I'm afraid you have things turned around. The ACLU is the one trying to silence people from expressing their faith, not the school or IFI. Historically the school would allow the senior class Secretary or Treasurer to lead the prayer. If that person would have been allowed to pray and chose to pray to Buddha or whatever else, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. The real issue hear is one student's preferences being allowed to overrule the will of a vast majority of students and the school because he is uncomfortable hearing a prayer. There are lots of students in public schools who are uncomfortable being taught that there is no God and that mankind evolved from a pile of cosmic goo. I don’t see the ACLU jumping in to defend these students based on the so called "absolute separation of church and state" (which is incompatible with the first Amendment). Feeding students Darwinist Macro-Evolution propoganda is far more of move towards government endorsement of religion (Secular Humanism) than allowing a student to pray at a graduation. These sorts of cases are really about the dominance of one worldview over another. Secular Humanism vs. a Judeo-Christian perspective. The ACLU didn't protect the 1st Amendment, they continued to chip away at it. Eric and the ACLU denied a student their freedom of religious expression guaranteed to them under the 1st Amendment. Come on with the twisting of Scripture. Jesus spoke out against religious leaders giving lengthy prayers in order to make themselves look good, rather than joining the community together in corporate prayer to truly communicate with God. I find it rather unsettling that you would compare a student who wants to pray at their graduation on behalf of their class and community to the Pharisees Jesus rebuked. Public prayer asking God to act in the lives of individuals and civilizations is seen throughout scripture and is a vital part of history. America’s own history cannot be separated from the many corporate prayers of Americans asking God to intervene on behalf of their countrymen.
Toggle Commented May 29, 2010 on Anti Christian Liberties Union at Veritas Rex
Don, Great idea. Allow Hamas to drive Isreal into the ocean. That's really pro-life. How about we save as many innocent lives as we can. That calls for allowing Isreal to defend herself from constant attack. P.S. Tofu is gross. :)
Toggle Commented May 4, 2010 on Charity v. Socialism at Veritas Rex
Dustin, To the government a person in need is just a number. To a true person of faith a person in need is a soul made in the image of God whom we are ordered by our Creator to help when we have the opportunity. The church (both the institutions and the individuals that make it up) is the best place to meet human needs. Scripture promises that we will always have the poor with us, but the church is given the task of meeting those needs. The government cannot meet spiritual needs. It does a very poor job of meeting the emotional, psychological and physical needs that are often intertwined with the spiritual needs. The government you wish to rely on so heavily is the same government that has made it so hard to distinguish between the truly needy and the thieves. Entitlement programs have created an increasing underclass that is dependant on government and has developed an attitude that it is acceptable to steal from the taxpayer rather than working for a living. Your success story is followed by thousands that cheat the system. Here is an interesting statistic for you from Barna research as well: "Two out of every three adults (67%) claimed to have had some type of intentional and significant personal interaction with a poor person in the past year. Such engagement was particularly common among evangelicals (83%) and people who regularly attend a house church (84%). It was least common among Mosaics - i.e., adults in the 18-22 age range - (just 57%), Asian Americans (56%) and homosexuals (51%)." An imperfect world will always be home to poverty, but the best way to combat it is not to reward theft. It is to develop relationships with people in need and help those who will accept it. Christ's church is doing this. Government squanders resources and incentivizes an entitlement mentality.
Toggle Commented May 4, 2010 on Charity v. Socialism at Veritas Rex
simonides, You obviously did not read the article. Tithing, as defined in the study, was not just giving to churches. It included all charities and non-profits. Here are the numbers from the article you didn't read: "Not surprisingly, some population groups were more likely than others to have given away at least ten percent of their income. Among the most generous segments were evangelicals (24% of whom tithed); conservatives (12%); people who had prayed, read the Bible and attended a church service during the past week (12%); charismatic or Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered Republicans (10%)." "Several groups also stood out as highly unlikely to tithe: people under the age of 25, atheists and agnostics, single adults who have never been married, liberals, and downscale adults. One percent or less of the people in each of those segments tithed in 2007." In fact, the major point of the article was that Christians tend to give the most, but even among Christians, giving to churches is down while giving to other non-profits is up. Futhermore, if you believe that tithing to a church goes only to take care of church members I suggest you change churches. There are loads of churches out there whose number 1 focus is people outside of their membership. Every church I have been involved with is focused first on meeting the needs of those who don't know Christ and then helping those who are members of their congregation grow. It's a constant process of connecting with people outside of the church family and helping them in new ways as they mature in their faith. This involves help with spiritual, physical, emotional, psychological and many other needs. It sounds to me like you either don't have any experience with a church family or perhaps you have had an experience with a bad one. I can assure you that there are many out there doing great things.
Toggle Commented May 4, 2010 on Charity v. Socialism at Veritas Rex
Ryan McCann is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 15, 2010
I would clarify the there is no such thing as sacred and secular. God is sovereign over all or over none.
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2009 on 10 Truths About Marriage at Veritas Rex
Thanks to my new editor, Craig The Skinner
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2009 on 10 Truths About Marriage at Veritas Rex
Craig Skinner of the Fort Wayne blog "Reverent & Free", Thank you for the personal attacks here and on your blog. I count myself in good company. Here is what Mr. Skinner had to say about Mike Pence: "He is an incredible f-head." (I obviously edited the actual curse word) Look at the company I keep in the long list of people Craig has verbally skinned alive (from now on I will refer to Craig as simply: The Skinner): Tony Dungy Dr. Dobson Christians Jesus Ronald Reagan U.S. Rep. Mark Souder (In one of his posts he asks why Congressman Souder wants to "kill the elderly.") Glenn Beck Dick Cheney George W. Bush Sarah Palin State Senator Dennis Kruse Craig Ladwig (VR blogger and ED of IN Policy Review) Pro-lifers Tea Party attendees town hall meeting atendees The list goes on and on. Thank you Craig. You may be an unhinged Left-wing radical, but you've made me a happy I am now firmly in the company of some great people (even Christ!). As you have experienced, this blog blocks comments that use the "f" word and if you attack other commenters personally your comments will be deleted. However, you may attack me until your heart is content (though I can guarantee you will never arrive at contentment by that path).
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2009 on Victory in Goshen at Veritas Rex
I think Don asked a good question that touches on the central point of the healthcare debate: Can you identify precisely how private insurance companies are value added to the health insurance process, especially in situations where there are to be no disqualifications for previous conditions? In most insurance/client relationships the benefit to the client is piece of mind due to giving another entity a large share of risk. When you pay an insurance company to ensure your house you don't expect them to buy your light bulbs or a new weed eater, you expect them to pay your expenses in the event of a catastrophe, like if your house burns down. However, in health insurance we expect our employer and the health insurance company to do much more for us. We should be ensuring against catastrophes, but instead we seem to believe that someone else should pay all our healthcare costs. Dustin seems to think the answer lies in shifting to: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I believe we need to get a more realistic picture of what we should expect from insurance companies. They are not our "healthcare fairy" as a wise past commenter mentioned, and neither is the government. They merely take on the risk of catastrophic illness from folks who aren't independently wealthy. By separating the employee from the insurance company, the patient from the provider and the payer from the consumer we inflate the cost of healthcare. We would have the same problems in other areas of insurance if government incentivized this sort of separation in those segments of the economy. The key question is: Will we allow a free people to give away some of their own healthcare risk for a fee (private health insurance) or will we force one group of citizens to pay for another group "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? As expensive as the first is because of misplaced government incentives (giving tax breaks to employers not employees for example) the second is even more expensive (especially on the working poor) through increased taxes, costs of goods and services and lowered quality of healthcare.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2009 on Hands Off My Healthcare Tour at Veritas Rex
Nanner, What about Indiana Equality? Did they have any business being in Goshen? The people of Goshen asked us to get involved, so we did. I make no apologies for that. The people I met in Goshen were very kind and welcoming...all without this ordinance on the books. Indiana Equality was the group trying to change your hometown. We just helped the residents of Goshen defend their town from groups like Indiana Equality. There was an important debate up in Goshen. Would the city government promote sexual preferences at the expense of religious liberty, public safety, and limited government? The answer was no. We did not change your hometown. Your hometown just has different values than you do.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2009 on Victory in Goshen at Veritas Rex
Such is life.
Toggle Commented Mar 5, 2009 on The Answer Is Not More Government at Veritas Rex
I hope all the gay activists that troll this blog constantly are getting paid. If not, I wish I had the kind of free time you guys have!
"I can't speak for all gays, but I can speak (I suspect) for most of us: We haven't any interest in promoting anything." If you really believe this, then you should have no problem with the Marriage Amendment. If your goal is not to promote the homosexual lifestyle through same-sex marriage - if you really are just interested in "living as free American citizens, as we are each of us entitled" - then you should have no problem with the definition of marriage (which is already in Indiana code) being elevated into the constitution. It will do you no harm...go in peace. I must also assume you oppose Indiana Equality's bills, HB 1250 and SB 91, since you are so anti-homosexual promotion through public policy. Those Hoosiers who identify themselves as homosexual have equal rights currently in Indiana and they will continue to have them after the Marriage Amendment is voted on and overwhelmingly passed by the citizens of Indiana.
Toggle Commented Jan 26, 2009 on Marriage Amendment FAQ at Veritas Rex
We have permission. Thanks for looking out for us Don.
Great post, Sue. I know exactly what you mean! :)
Toggle Commented May 13, 2008 on Let's party 'till November at Veritas Rex
Anon 10:41, Sue IS a woman. You can read her bio here: Your comments put your ignorance on display for all to see. No one has suggested that women stay in abusive relationships. There should be a commitment of both spouses to resolve conflict and reconcile, even when it's difficult. I believe "difficult" is the word Sue used.
Thanks for the analysis of what was NOT said on the show. :)
I think someone's voting record is an accurate picture for how they would govern and gives the best indication of the type of policies they would promote.