Subscribe: Comments for
Preview: Comments for

Comments for

Last Build Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:37:08 +0000


Comment on Parkland by Clay

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:37:08 +0000


Comment on The Gospel Coalition has its #MeToo moment by Randall Scheil

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 21:59:05 +0000

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your comments and the link to the CT Interview with Rachel Denhollander. I must say it is disheartening to see the stance of Rachel's church toward sexually abused women and girls. Rachel is truly a hero for speaking up on behalf of the oppressed.

Comment on Positive Politics: Religious Liberty by Kim

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:29:55 +0000

Further - religious beliefs guide behavior... not just inside the church... in all of life. My Christian faith gives me cause to be honest, not to steal, to be kind, to care for the weak and poor... Those are expressed in all of my life, not just the time I spend in a church. Those beliefs guide business principles and how lawmakers view laws. To state that "The positive influence that Christianity can bring to this country must come from the church, not from the government " presumes that the influence of Christianity is ONLY coming from the church. Christianity's influence is in all of life. People who lead will lead in a particular way if they have particular views, as they will lead in a particular way without those views. If we had a vast sea of leaders who had the views of Harvey Weinstein what a mess things would be - because of his views on his capacity to take advantage of and pressure women, his willingness to pay for their silence and his desire to continue that practice as long as he wasn't being caught. If we instead had people in leadership/political offices/business heads who held to views that regarded people as valuable, important, and worthy of respect and protection, the outcomes of those situations would be necessarily much different. To protect the freedom of religious expression for businesses protects those businesses to be guided by their religious views and to care for their employees based on those religious views. It also protects those businesses from having to ABANDON their religious views and the expression of their religion in the public forum. Which is part of what makes American a wonderful nation. To steal those freedoms simply because you think "for-profit corporations should not receive all of these rights reserved for the people" would be not simply reducing freedom for business owners (who are in fact individuals) it would be preventing potential good for all.

Comment on Positive Politics: Religious Liberty by Kim

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:55:26 +0000

Also - you selected just a portion of the first amendment to the constitution. The remaining parts are critical - prohibiting the free exercise of religion is something the congress is NOT to be doing. As a business owner, I am entitled to exercise my religion FREELY. Congress can't tell me not to. So if I don't want to create for someone else, because my religious beliefs become involved, I have the freedom to say "I am sorry but I can't make this for you - I am sure there is some other person out there who would be happy to sell you that item/service". If Hobby Lobby does not want to provide abortions to their employees because of their religious beliefs - those employees can get access to those other ways (and there are many many ways for those employees to get contraceptions and abortions). That case wasn't about Hobby Lobby becoming richer because they weren't extending that to their employees. They simply have religious beliefs that prevent them from supporting the killing of unborn lives. Individuals are the makeup of companies. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Comment on Positive Politics: Religious Liberty by Kim

Fri, 02 Feb 2018 12:15:16 +0000

This is Marxist thinking: "While corporate entities are necessary for the economy, the pattern of extending the rights of persons to corporations has a weakening effect on our democracy. When corporate entities are entitled to free political speech (spending), the richest can quickly overwhelm the political messaging arena in ways that ensure they get richer. With the Hobby Lobby case, the court allowed for corporations to exercise the religious rights of their owners. As a basic principle I would suggest that for-profit corporations should not receive all of these rights reserved for the people." That is what Marxism has to do with this.

Comment on A few thoughts on Mark Driscoll’s Resignation by 4theGreatIAM

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:11:59 +0000

I find this quite interesting. I don't know the details, but the letter seems quite vague. Having listened and supported "Street Talk" on the radio back in mid- to late- 90's when hosted by Lief Moi and when Mark Driscoll was just beginning with Mars Hill Church. He was young then. In my discerning spirit I find it quite disturbing to read his less than confession in a letter. I was impressed to see that Lief made what appears to be a true attempt to reconcile with others in the church. Sadly, only God knows the heart of a man, but the we can know a true believer by their repentance. Words are just words. I was married to a wolf in sheep's clothing and was deceived by his facade of repentance for many years. True repentance will display true actions to reconcile with those we have offended.

Comment on Positive Politics: Religious Liberty by Chris

Sun, 28 Jan 2018 03:17:17 +0000

Um... huh? I’m not following your logic. What do communism and Marxism have to do with this? The challenge of a multicultural society is figuring out how freedom of religion works in concert with welcoming those of varied faiths. Your proposed scenario is interesting, if unrealistic. Christians should be at the forefront of showing love and tolerance.

Comment on Positive Politics: Religious Liberty by Kim

Sun, 28 Jan 2018 03:11:47 +0000

Freedom of religion only extends to my own personal doorstep? So communism and marxism are best? Especially when enforced by the government? We should all do what "someone" thinks is best, regardless of our own personal views, especially for a business we own? Therefore - A Catholic church should be allowed to compel a Muslim opera singer to perform Christian music in their church. Correct? Regardless of his/her own personal views? I found this article very helpful in thinking about this topic. It could inform your thoughts:

Comment on Positive Politics: Education by Kim

Sun, 28 Jan 2018 02:48:52 +0000

I think another thing to be considered is how adding almost unlimited access to government funding has changed the face of college. While the debt of college grads is out the roof, the cost of college itself has skyrocketed - not really because a better education is being had, but because colleges have become country club style centers where childhood is in nurtured along to perpetuity rather than being a place to rocket able minds into adulthood. You used to pay for a shared 4 walls, access to a bathing and toilet facility, a desk, a bookcase, and a bed, in addition to the cost of education itself. Now students pay for athletic centers, private workout rooms, racquetball courts, on campus activities, concerts, gourmet food selection, the highest tech high tech money can buy... you are no longer paying for an education - you are paying for an experience. Dorm rooms are posh and students are regarded as customers - who are there to get what they pay for - and that means passing classes just for showing up. Throwing more money at education doesn't necessarily always mean teachers will be paid better and students will get more out of the classroom.

Comment on Andrew Sullivan on the Gay Wedding Cake Case by Positive Politics: Religious Liberty –

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:46:11 +0000

[…] still on board with Andrew Sullivan’s summary statement from last month: if the Christians had been more Christian, or the liberals more liberal, we […]