Is Banning Same-sex Marriage Like Banning Interracial Marriage?
Here.
Let me be blunt: denying same-sex couples from marriage is not the same as denying interracial couples from it. Although anti-miscegenation laws were immoral, the same mistake is not happening today. And despite the rhetorical force of making the comparison, merely claiming it’s the same does not make it so.
Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage
From Albert Mohler: www.albertmohler.com/2012/05/10/evolutions-end-president-obama-calls-for-same-sex-marriage/
Is President Obama’s “evolution” on same sex marriage finally complete? His call for the legalization of same-sex marriage yesterday is an historic and tragic milestone. An incumbent President of the United States has now called for a transformation of civilization’s central institution. And yet, no observer of this President could be surprised. The arrival of this announcement was only a matter of time.
Should Homosexuals Be Able to Marry Whom They Love?
From Stand to Reason’s blog here.
Are we really depriving homosexuals the right to marry the person they love? Yes. But there’s nothing unusual about that. Nobody has the right to marry any person they love. Everyone has restrictions.
When you take an honest look at the marriage law, it turns out that there is nothing unfair about it. Homosexuals have the same rights and the same restrictions as heterosexuals. For example, there is no legal right granted to a heterosexual that does not apply in exactly the same way to every homosexual. Both can marry in any state. Both can marry someone of the opposite sex. Both can receive the benefits that come with legal marriage. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated alike.
There is also no legal restriction for homosexuals that does not also apply in exactly the same way to every heterosexual. Neither one can marry their sibling. Both are prohibited from marrying someone already married. They can’t marry a child. And neither has the freedom to marry someone of the same sex.
The marriage law applies equally to every person, whether they are homosexual or not. Everyone is treated the same.
Read more here at Stand to Reason’s blog.
Oh yeah, drink in the tolerance with Mark Driscoll
Gotta love this one from Wintery Knight from the Washington Post:
Hate crime: gay activists vandalize Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church
A satellite church affiliated with controversial Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll was vandalized early Tuesday (April 24) and a group calling itself the “Angry Queers” has reportedly taken responsibility.
Stained glass and other windows were broken at the Mars Hill Church, according to a post on the Facebook page of Pastor Tim Smith.
“Neighbors of the church reported seeing several young adults in black masks throwing large rocks into the windows,” a church news release said. “Police stated that a bank in the area was also vandalized in the same way and that they believe the vandalism was planned ahead of time, most likely by an activist group.”
On Tuesday, KPTV FOX 12 reported it had received an email from someone using the name “Angry Queers” and claiming responsibility.
Driscoll should not feel special — he is not the only one the intolerant tolerants are persecuting.
Debate: William Lane Craig versus Victor J. Stenger
H/T to Wintery Knight.
Oregon State University (2010)
Climate crackpots
Gotta laugh at this one on MSNBC. Here we go:
‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far.” The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”
Ok, so he got it wrong while helping the sheep to dance in unison, but thats ok because he’s gonna get the third part of a trilogy out of it. And who would not want another book if the covers are anything to go by.
It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
Plainly we should trust scientists, except when we shouldn’t, and this is a case of shouldn’t. And now we should simply forgive and forget that billions of dollars have been inappropriately stolen by climate crackpots and their wooly mates.
In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.
But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious — but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.
It’s cute to be funny, and of course another book with such a riveting title would be irresistible, but what will we do in the end? It is easy to lose the trust of a culture, but it is much much harder to regain that trust. Oh the dilemma of the young person growing up, whether to be a scientist or a politician.
Charles W. “Chuck” Colson entered the presence of the Lord
From Summit Ministries
On Saturday, April 21, 2012, our friend and colleague Charles W. “Chuck” Colson entered the presence of the Lord.
We honor Chuck’s legacy of equipping Christians to understand and live the biblical worldview. When a faithful leader like Chuck passes, others must rise up to continue his good work. Summit’s hope is that Christians everywhere will take up the mantle Chuck Colson has left us.
Summit President Dr. Jeff Myers had this to say of Chuck:
“We at Summit Ministries honor Charles Colson for the life he lived and the legacy he leaves behind. We thank God for raising up such a gifted, humble, and steadfast follower of Christ. Chuck devoted the second half of his life to ministering to the least of these — prisoners and their families. We’re grateful for Chuck’s faithful friendship to Summit Ministries. We intend to honor his legacy by redoubling our efforts to train the rising generation to follow in his footsteps. We offer our condolences to his wife and family, along with the team of professionals at his numerous organizations. Our prayers for them are for the peace of God that surpasses all understanding. And we rejoice that Chuck is finally looking upon the face of his Savior, whom he served so well.”
Summit founder and President Emeritus Dr. David Noebel said:
“Chuck Colson’s testimony and work has had an incalculable impact on the U.S. and the world. I am grateful for his influence and his belief that training fellow Christians to live out the biblical worldview is imperative. He has long been a faithful friend to Summit Ministries. We thank God for Charles Colson. May God comfort his family as they mourn his loss.”
For more information on the life and work of Chuck Colson, visit chuckcolson.org.
For a special commentary on Chuck Colson by Summit speaker John Stonestreet, go to www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/19240.
The Post-Christian Condition — Anders Breivik and the Limitations of Justice
Al Mohler writes:
Breivik has celebrated his murderous actions in court, calling his massacre the most “spectacular” event in recent European history. Having admitted to the killings, Breivik told the court, “I would do it again.”
He may have an opportunity to do so. Norwegian law allows Breivik to be imprisoned for only 21 years, even if found guilty of all 77 killings. Officials in Norway have attempted to assure their fellow citizens that Breivik is unlikely to be released, but the law allows criminals to be held in captivity after their sentence only on psychological grounds that represent a threat, and Breivik has been found sufficiently sane to stand trial.
How can this be? What sane nation would allow for a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison for premeditated murder — much less the calculated killing of 77 people?
Pure. Demonic. Evil.
Great book, great price
$2.99 USD on Kindle. I have read about 50% of True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism
The book has an accompanying website here.
After Birth Abortion
MandM hit the nail on the head here. The secular worldview leads inevitably to the dilemma described below.
“Oh, it will never happen…”
Really? Where have we heard that one before, then one or two years later…
Minerva and Giubilini propose a morally outrageous conclusion that it is permissible for women to kill their newborn infants for any of the reasons by which society currently permits abortion – which in reality is almost any reason at all. This is obscene. Yet the argument flows logically and quite naturally from the claims upon which the philosophical case for legal abortion has been based. These assumptions are taken for granted going by New Zealand’s current stance. New Zealand faces a dilemma; if it accepts these assumptions then it must logically accept child-killing. If this is unacceptable then those assumptions are mistaken and legal abortion needs to be rethought. Burying ones head in the sand and chanting “keep your rosaries off my ovaries”, or putting sappy uninformed sound bites out into public debate does not cut it. (Emphasis added.)
Each additional year of education, odds of attending religious services increased by 15%
From here (H/T to here).
Hardly a Christian friendly article, but interesting nevertheless.
‘PROTESTANT ETHIC’ 2.0: THE NEW WAYS RELIGION IS DRIVING ECONOMIC OUTPERFORMANCE
A few snippets:
No surprises here. The USA is trending in the same direction as its forerunners, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
I guess this will be a surprise to the ‘Brights’ like Dawkins and his other ‘Religion for Dummies’ mates. No surprise in my circles however.
How does the New Atheism fit into this? From the above observations, I think we can understand at least two facets of the current New Atheist secularist shrill.
First is possible underpopulation of New Atheists as the new world order shakes out. A reasonable fear for the New Atheists secularists is that their highly evolved selves are not passing on their genes in competitive numbers. Thus instead of genes, they attempt to force their memes onto the rest of us by preaching, and by making converts and disciples through the university, media, and book publishing arenas.
The second is overpopulation of religious people. As populations continue to grow toward the theoretical 9 billion asymptote, religious people are not going away. What better way to halt religious growth than to decrease religious breeding using the guise of Earth overpopulation. FWIW, I’m partly with the secularists on the second point given the Biblical mandate to look after the planet; I just don’t share their panic of overpopulation or their global warming hysteria, I mean climate change hysteria, scare tactics. Given the intellectual bankruptcy
of the New Atheists, there may not be too many Brights left in years to come anyway.
Interestingly, Africa is not mentioned at all in the article.