Join Ricochet or renew and get 1 yearof National Review/Digital as a bonus!
Pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church and School in Alexandria, VA. Blogging at Esgetology.
I asked her this morning after Matins and she said she hadn't gotten paid. Poor dear.
This is fantastic. It would work wonderfully (which is to say, not at all) in theological conversations too.
No, you can't believe that the murder of one human being by rifle "dwarfs" the murder of another by dismemberment. Not if you truly believe they're both human beings.
Doctor Bean: [redacted for Code of Conduct]
[Y]ou can believe that a fetus is fully human and still understand that the depravity of putting two rife rounds in a child's chest dwarfs the decision to have an abortion.
Great post, great point.
I'm not opposed to the basic idea of your proposal, but giving California or New York any say at all is folly, since they're not going to vote GOP anyway. And it's a fast track to losing the states that do vote for you.
Squishy Blue RINO: The GOP needs to dump the Iowa Caucuses once and for all.
Make Ohio, hell even California or New York, first out of the gate, that will ratchet down the worst of the pandering to Social Conservatives that initiates, and thus defines, the whole GOP primary process.
Wide Open Spaces is a great Dixie Chicks song, but it is a p___poor path to 270 electoral votes. · 0 minutes ago
But do you really think that laws and government can help an unwilling nation re-find its lost soul? Government seems the absolute last institution to fix that problem.
That question is both easy and difficult to answer for me. On the one hand, you are quite right - fixing the cultural problem is a job for families, schools, and churches. On the other hand, it's the job of government to protect the weak and vulnerable, and murdering the "inconvenient" child is madness, as is the homosexual lobby's complete reorientation of the meaning of human sexuality. I see no way to divorce the state from marriage, or the protection of human life.
We've already done that. The pro-life crowd looked the other way and pretended to believe Mitt when he said he was pro-life, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. We have pro-abortion legislators, but you'll find very few of those on the left.
Well said. Why is it so hard to find someone who can articulate that?
Todd:"and that no one should be forced to pay for a procedure they believe is infanticide"
I was terribly frustrated with how the Obama campaign got away with convincing some voters that allowing employers to simply opt of out paying for contraception was somehow equivalent to supporting an outright ban on contraception.
According to their logic, because my employer does not provide me with groceries, my employer is somehow denying me access to food.
Seriously, how did they get away with that?
So I agree, a good candidate should be able to communicate to voters that those who want to force taxpayers and employers to provide contraception and pay for abortions against their will are the ones who are being "anti-choice" and "intolerant". · in 1 minute
The social issues and the future of our society go hand in hand. If we look at abortion and homosexual "marriage," you're dealing with the foundations of human life. To abandon the social issues is to concede defeat not just politically, but as the human race. It's mass suicide. That's hyperbolic, but not by much.
As much as I want and need the economy to improve, what does it profit a society to gain the whole world and lose its soul?
If the Tea Party had taken over the GOP, Romney wouldn't have been the nominee.
Karen, you've made numerous sweeping generalizations on multiple threads that are simply not true, and that I find personally insulting. Since I have a close relationship with one of the editors here, I have no desire to file a CoC complaint. I removed my comment because I really don't want to inflame the matter and it was unwise and unkind of me, but what I perceive to be your hostility toward religious organizations in general (note katievs has also indicated she finds your remarks bigoted) is making this an unpleasant forum for me, and I should leave before I make things worse.
Karen,That's entirely inadequate. Please actually answer my questions, but stop making outrageous generalizations that you cannot support.
Unless I missed something, you don't knowit's a possible outcome. You suspect that it may be possibleif specific conditions exist. There is a world of difference in those two statements. · 2 minutes ago
That's a good point. But I don't know enough to really even make that judgment, since I'm at the mercy of scientists, who don't seem to be in complete agreement. Thus, my wife and I decided to steer clear of any possible danger – but this was before we came to a religious conclusion that contraception itself is not God's intention for human sexuality.
I emphasize religious in that I would never seek to outlaw contraception; whereas abortion, like any murder, should be illegal, on the same basis that any of us find murder abhorrent.
I was so glad to see this was not another reference to Limbaugh. He's ruined the name "Rush" for me!
In my book (and this drives my wife bananas), Rush is the greatest rock band ever, with Yes in a distant second. And the crazy thing is, I find Peart's lyrics captivating, even though I frequently disagree.
The Hold Your Fire album came out while I was in high school, and I felt Time Stand Still to be very poignant then, and it has only grown more so over the years.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I cannot say that the possibility that a drugdesignedto prevent ovulation might in rare instances allow ovulation but prevent implantation mortifies me.
There are many reasons why fertilization but not implantation might occur. If a contraceptive drug is not intendedto prevent implantation, and the likelihood of it allowing ovulation but not implantation is low enough (as may well be the case), then how would implantation failure due to this drug be morally different from any other purely accidental implantation failure? · 17 hours ago
In my mind, it's not accidental if I know that it's a possible outcome. Even though that's not the primary purpose, it nevertheless is a known possibility, and that risk is too much for me.
I fully acknowledge there's a possibility I haven't thought through this enough from every angle, or am mistaken in my logic. And that very bright Christian disagree with me. Thus, my reluctance to bind consciences. I feel I'm on safer ground when talking about one of the intended purposes of sex—procreation—and thus saying one should not ordinarily close the marital union off to that possibility.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In