The latest from the Obama file, in his Memorial Day pandering he said, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today..."
Once again, he gets a pass from the moron media who fits into his back pocket.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Coming Great Divide - There is No Place to Hide
Today's blog post from Dr. Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY...a little more from this great theologian about the attack on democracy and decency thanks to the CA Supreme Court this past week. "Voters, we don't need not stinkin' voters"
When the California Supreme Court struck down that state's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman it announced a great social and moral revolution. Unless reversed by means of a constitutional amendment, this decision effectively redefined marriage and set a precedent that will reverberate across the nation.
At the same time, this moral revolution unleashed by the California court will also reveal a deep divide between churches and denominations. Issues of biblical authority have divided Christian (and Jewish) denominations and churches and have been the focus of intense debates and controversies.
One unavoidable outcome of the legalization of same-sex marriage is that the great divide between conservative and liberal churches and denominations will become glaringly evident in a way that has not been the case thus far. The singular question of whether churches perform and recognize same-sex "marriages" will tell a much larger story.
At least until this new phenomenon, churches and denominations across the board shared an understanding of marriage and a vocabulary that included words like "husband" and "wife." In the world before same-sex unions, that made sense. In a world without a shared understanding of marriage, even the vocabulary falls apart.
The Los Angeles Times offers an interesting look into the future in its May 19, 2008 edition. In the article, the paper reported on a cross-section of area churches, synagogues, and mosques.
From the article:
Pastor Gregory L. Waybright struggled from the pulpit Sunday to reconcile the laws of God with the laws of man. Though he wanted his church "to be a welcoming and loving house," he told worshipers at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena, the California Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize gay marriage in California "is a contradiction of what God's word says."
The 4-3 ruling, which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, has prompted conservative and liberal congregations alike to discuss whether gay and lesbian members will be allowed to wed in their churches, synagogues and temples."
These are the kinds of issues every religion has to grapple with," said James A. Donahue, president of the Graduate Theological Union, a Berkeley-based consortium of theological schools.
"How do you factor in the role of contemporary human rights, civil rights, the data about homosexuality" with "core traditions and beliefs?"
At Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasadena, the mood was celebratory Sunday, with Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" played at services in honor of the decision.
At Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood -- which offers "outreach to the gay, lesbian and bisexual community," according to its website -- Rabbi Denise L. Eger's e-mail box was filled almost instantly with requests from joyful congregants wanting to get married.
The polarity on biblical authority is glaringly apparent in this description of the coming reality in California -- unless, that is, voters amend the constitution.
As the paper explains:
In recent years, conflicts over homosexuality and the Bible have unsettled many denominations, especially such mainline Protestant churches as Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans and Episcopalians. Although the specifics vary, the controversies for all of these faith groups and for Conservative Judaism have revolved broadly around whether to provide official recognition to the unions of same-sex couples and whether to allow openly gay and lesbian clergy.
Thursday's court decision is expected to add fuel to the debate, with several denominations poised to again take up gay-related issues at their national conventions this year. William McKinney, president of the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley and a professor of American religion there, said the ruling was applauded on his campus, which is a multidenominational, theologically liberal Christian seminary. Yet he said he felt an element of trepidation as well."
We're celebrating it on the one hand," McKinney said, noting that San Francisco's 2004 decision allowing same-sex weddings had given many people, both gay and straight, new appreciation for the powerful symbolism of marriage." On the other hand, though, this sets us up for another round of the culture wars," he said. "As a straight, married man, I feel for my gay friends whose private life is once again going to be the subject of public debate."
The issue of biblical authority is central to this controversy, as is almost always the case. This becomes abundantly clear in an interesting statement from a rabbi:
For Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis, who heads the Conservative Jewish congregation at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, the court's decision has changed the way he will handle celebrating the unions of gay and lesbian couples at his synagogue. "I did not in the past. I will now," he said in an interview. "I was really waiting for this [decision]. . . . From my point of view, it's a very courageous thing and is part of the evolution of religious mores."
Schulweis has been a rabbi for more than half a century and has seen his religion evolve, he said, first allowing women into the full "ritual life of the community," then ordaining them as rabbis and cantors, and eventually embracing homosexuals." It's one of the most exciting parts of seeing religion as not static and inflexible but as sensitive to different times and different information and different knowledge," Schulweis said. "What in the world did people in the biblical time know about homosexuals?"
Take a close look at that question. When the rabbi asks, "What in the world did people in the Bible time know about homosexuals?," he clearly indicates that he sees the Bible as a human book that reveals no more then the attitudes and prejudices and limitations of its human authors. There is no acknowledgement at all that the Bible reveals what God would have us to know about homosexuality.
That, in the end, is the point. Is the Bible merely a human book? If so, then marriage can be anything we decide it should be. But, if the Bible is the Word of God, then we are bound by it. It's as simple as that.
As The Los Angeles Times makes clear, there is no place to hide.
When the California Supreme Court struck down that state's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman it announced a great social and moral revolution. Unless reversed by means of a constitutional amendment, this decision effectively redefined marriage and set a precedent that will reverberate across the nation.
At the same time, this moral revolution unleashed by the California court will also reveal a deep divide between churches and denominations. Issues of biblical authority have divided Christian (and Jewish) denominations and churches and have been the focus of intense debates and controversies.
One unavoidable outcome of the legalization of same-sex marriage is that the great divide between conservative and liberal churches and denominations will become glaringly evident in a way that has not been the case thus far. The singular question of whether churches perform and recognize same-sex "marriages" will tell a much larger story.
At least until this new phenomenon, churches and denominations across the board shared an understanding of marriage and a vocabulary that included words like "husband" and "wife." In the world before same-sex unions, that made sense. In a world without a shared understanding of marriage, even the vocabulary falls apart.
The Los Angeles Times offers an interesting look into the future in its May 19, 2008 edition. In the article, the paper reported on a cross-section of area churches, synagogues, and mosques.
From the article:
Pastor Gregory L. Waybright struggled from the pulpit Sunday to reconcile the laws of God with the laws of man. Though he wanted his church "to be a welcoming and loving house," he told worshipers at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena, the California Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize gay marriage in California "is a contradiction of what God's word says."
The 4-3 ruling, which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, has prompted conservative and liberal congregations alike to discuss whether gay and lesbian members will be allowed to wed in their churches, synagogues and temples."
These are the kinds of issues every religion has to grapple with," said James A. Donahue, president of the Graduate Theological Union, a Berkeley-based consortium of theological schools.
"How do you factor in the role of contemporary human rights, civil rights, the data about homosexuality" with "core traditions and beliefs?"
At Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church of Pasadena, the mood was celebratory Sunday, with Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" played at services in honor of the decision.
At Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood -- which offers "outreach to the gay, lesbian and bisexual community," according to its website -- Rabbi Denise L. Eger's e-mail box was filled almost instantly with requests from joyful congregants wanting to get married.
The polarity on biblical authority is glaringly apparent in this description of the coming reality in California -- unless, that is, voters amend the constitution.
As the paper explains:
In recent years, conflicts over homosexuality and the Bible have unsettled many denominations, especially such mainline Protestant churches as Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans and Episcopalians. Although the specifics vary, the controversies for all of these faith groups and for Conservative Judaism have revolved broadly around whether to provide official recognition to the unions of same-sex couples and whether to allow openly gay and lesbian clergy.
Thursday's court decision is expected to add fuel to the debate, with several denominations poised to again take up gay-related issues at their national conventions this year. William McKinney, president of the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley and a professor of American religion there, said the ruling was applauded on his campus, which is a multidenominational, theologically liberal Christian seminary. Yet he said he felt an element of trepidation as well."
We're celebrating it on the one hand," McKinney said, noting that San Francisco's 2004 decision allowing same-sex weddings had given many people, both gay and straight, new appreciation for the powerful symbolism of marriage." On the other hand, though, this sets us up for another round of the culture wars," he said. "As a straight, married man, I feel for my gay friends whose private life is once again going to be the subject of public debate."
The issue of biblical authority is central to this controversy, as is almost always the case. This becomes abundantly clear in an interesting statement from a rabbi:
For Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis, who heads the Conservative Jewish congregation at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, the court's decision has changed the way he will handle celebrating the unions of gay and lesbian couples at his synagogue. "I did not in the past. I will now," he said in an interview. "I was really waiting for this [decision]. . . . From my point of view, it's a very courageous thing and is part of the evolution of religious mores."
Schulweis has been a rabbi for more than half a century and has seen his religion evolve, he said, first allowing women into the full "ritual life of the community," then ordaining them as rabbis and cantors, and eventually embracing homosexuals." It's one of the most exciting parts of seeing religion as not static and inflexible but as sensitive to different times and different information and different knowledge," Schulweis said. "What in the world did people in the biblical time know about homosexuals?"
Take a close look at that question. When the rabbi asks, "What in the world did people in the Bible time know about homosexuals?," he clearly indicates that he sees the Bible as a human book that reveals no more then the attitudes and prejudices and limitations of its human authors. There is no acknowledgement at all that the Bible reveals what God would have us to know about homosexuality.
That, in the end, is the point. Is the Bible merely a human book? If so, then marriage can be anything we decide it should be. But, if the Bible is the Word of God, then we are bound by it. It's as simple as that.
As The Los Angeles Times makes clear, there is no place to hide.
Friday, May 16, 2008
California Supreme Court Redefines Marriage
I was in the library with my son earlier, and as he looked for books for himself i thumbed through this great little book about our own US Constitution. It reminded me of the good old days when every vote counted, everyone vote carried the same weight, and elections meant something. Since 2000, with Algore counting only the votes he thought were necessary to win and the debacle with the democrats this year...those days are long gone; but what has taken place in California with their state Supreme Court ruling against the will of the voters, it appears a new low has been reached. This was written today by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on his blog.
The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision striking down the state's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman throws open the door for a massive redefinition of human relationships. The people of California approved Proposition 22 by a huge margin in 2000, clearly stating their understanding of marriage and their desire to protect marriage from legal revision. By a one-vote margin, their state Supreme Court renounced the will of the people. The ruling is both revolutionary and radical. It sets the stage for a much broader reorganization of human society.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, pushed the argument for same-sex marriage far beyond where any court had taken it before. The decision identified marriage as a "fundamental right," thus opening the door for infinite challenges beyond same-sex marriage.
The court also declared sexual orientation to be a class protected by a "strict scrutiny" test of all legislation and regulation. In so doing, the California court became the first in the nation to apply this test on the basis of sexual orientation. This move also opens the door for much broader challenges to laws and regulations across the board.
Unless stayed by another court, the ruling takes effect in 30 days, when California authorities will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California voters will have another opportunity to protect marriage in November, when a proposed constitutional amendment will come before the electorate. The stakes now could not be higher.
The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision striking down the state's definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman throws open the door for a massive redefinition of human relationships. The people of California approved Proposition 22 by a huge margin in 2000, clearly stating their understanding of marriage and their desire to protect marriage from legal revision. By a one-vote margin, their state Supreme Court renounced the will of the people. The ruling is both revolutionary and radical. It sets the stage for a much broader reorganization of human society.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, pushed the argument for same-sex marriage far beyond where any court had taken it before. The decision identified marriage as a "fundamental right," thus opening the door for infinite challenges beyond same-sex marriage.
The court also declared sexual orientation to be a class protected by a "strict scrutiny" test of all legislation and regulation. In so doing, the California court became the first in the nation to apply this test on the basis of sexual orientation. This move also opens the door for much broader challenges to laws and regulations across the board.
Unless stayed by another court, the ruling takes effect in 30 days, when California authorities will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California voters will have another opportunity to protect marriage in November, when a proposed constitutional amendment will come before the electorate. The stakes now could not be higher.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
History and Geography check please
Well, i have to really wonder about the quality of an Ivy League education seeing how well Barack Hussein Obama has done with some of those freshman level course facts.
The most recent was the Freshman Senator from Illinois saying, "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go... Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to." OK, let's do the math here...57 apparently continental states plus 1, being Alaska AND Hawaii equals 50?!?!?! We still have fifty states in the United States of America, right? I haven't missed anything, have i?
I do realize that those on the left are going to sit back and say, "Oh, poor Obama; he's just so tired from all of the travel and politicing that he just misspoke from being tired." Yeah, OK...but let's face the facts, even though i know that is something liberals usually try to avoid; but if it was President George W. Bush saying this you will not hear the end of it from the Moron Media or the hatefilled liberal bloggers. And lets not forget Sen. John McCain who would have been crucified as being "senile" or for having a "senior moment." There of course is a word for this...hypocrisy.
A few days before though, as Barack Hussein Obama continues to find new ways to defend his doctrine of appeasment when he said, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." OK...that must have been some of the classes i missed during studies for my BA in history. I'm assuming that the Roosevelt he speaks of is FDR, the father of big government, who as i recall NEVER sat down in order to make peace with Hitler. And then Kennedy...yeah, don't recall him having any heart to hearts with Castro either. And of course Truman...mmm, yeah, didn't he get us into the Korean War? And i'm still kind of stuck on when he met for a round of negotiations with Kim Il-Sung leading up to 1950.
I guess it might be some of that new learning found in our public school systems that also allows for students to graduate without ever learning how to read.
The most recent was the Freshman Senator from Illinois saying, "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go... Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to." OK, let's do the math here...57 apparently continental states plus 1, being Alaska AND Hawaii equals 50?!?!?! We still have fifty states in the United States of America, right? I haven't missed anything, have i?
I do realize that those on the left are going to sit back and say, "Oh, poor Obama; he's just so tired from all of the travel and politicing that he just misspoke from being tired." Yeah, OK...but let's face the facts, even though i know that is something liberals usually try to avoid; but if it was President George W. Bush saying this you will not hear the end of it from the Moron Media or the hatefilled liberal bloggers. And lets not forget Sen. John McCain who would have been crucified as being "senile" or for having a "senior moment." There of course is a word for this...hypocrisy.
A few days before though, as Barack Hussein Obama continues to find new ways to defend his doctrine of appeasment when he said, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." OK...that must have been some of the classes i missed during studies for my BA in history. I'm assuming that the Roosevelt he speaks of is FDR, the father of big government, who as i recall NEVER sat down in order to make peace with Hitler. And then Kennedy...yeah, don't recall him having any heart to hearts with Castro either. And of course Truman...mmm, yeah, didn't he get us into the Korean War? And i'm still kind of stuck on when he met for a round of negotiations with Kim Il-Sung leading up to 1950.
I guess it might be some of that new learning found in our public school systems that also allows for students to graduate without ever learning how to read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
