They say you shouldn’t talk about politics and religion, but I had occasion to go to two Thanksgiving dinners last week, and at both I was fortunate to have the opportunity to talk about politics and religion, if not with the whole party, then at least with a couple of the people there.  It went, as far as I am aware, very well:  Neither they nor I became unpleasant or unkind at any point; no one raised his voice or started interrupting or talking over anyone.  They were, in fact, perfectly enjoyable conversations, even though (if it doesn’t go without saying) we disagreed on the substantive underlying issues (I was talking with an atheist, a liberal, a Muslim, etc., about health care, etc.).

Read the rest of this entry »

The readings at church this morning were Jeremiah 1:4-10, Psalm 71:1-6, 1 Corinthians 13, and Luke 4:21-30.  The sermon focused on 1 Corinthians 13.  A few notes from the sermon:

  • “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
  • The hardest people to evangelize to are those who have been hurt by the church.  (It also may get harder as time goes on, as the wound festers and becomes even worse in the remembering.)  We have the power, through our actions, to drive people away from the church and God.  That’s terrifying.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »

She is pictured here with two of the children she helped rescue

Via Wintery Knight, the UK Daily Mail has a good-news story:

Read the rest of this entry »

I ran across this comment from Roxeanne de Luca, and thought it bore repeating:

Oh, heavens. Women wasting their waning child-bearing years on men who won’t commit to them is a rant in of itself. A society that does not condemn men who refuse to commit to women is another rant. A third rant is men who waste women’s time, so that the women they take to bed may never have the children they desperately want.

Read the rest of this entry »

Via Wintery Knight, another woman (observing women she has known personally) makes similar observations about feminism and the sexual revolution:

I’ve known many of these women — a great many — and it never ceases to confound me how smart women can be such ridiculous fools when it comes to choosing men.

Read the rest of this entry »

Fun with Feminism

April 24, 2012

Via Disrupt the Narrative, The Other McCain brings some levity to our sad situation:

If happiness is the problem, feminism is the solution.

Rush Limbaugh calls our attention to two oldies (this transcript from his show last week even includes the lyrics): “The Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites, Pre-Feminism Edition”.  The first one is Dusty Springfield’s “Wishin’ and Hopin’”, 1963:

Read the rest of this entry »

Via Five Feet of Fury and Instapundit, another blogger (who is definitely not a chastity advocate generally) suggests an interesting way in which even the culture of fornication may inadvertently be creating renewed pressure for women to be chaste (warning: language):

However, such changes don’t happen in a vaccuum. As the sexual marketplace changed, male behavior also changed. So, not only are there fewer men now deemed marriageable, but those fewer men face significent negative incentives to marry. As per the law of supply and demand, the “price” of a husband of even moderate socio-sexual rank has gone up due to the decline in the supply.

Read the rest of this entry »

Internet Anonymity

June 23, 2011

Does Internet anonymity bring out our dark side?

On the radio this morning I heard Lisa Hendey talk about participating in Internet discussions, such as in the comments section on blogs.

She suggested that people seem to feel more free to be a jerk when they know (or think) they have the cover of Internet anonymity.  Read the rest of this entry »

Lawyerly Love

October 21, 2010

"for and in consideration of Love and Affection"

. . . for and in consideration of 
       LOVE AND AFFECTION      ,
the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged . . . .

Even from a Non-Christian Perspective

“Should We Defend Marriage?”

I’m sympathetic to the libertarian argument (made by many, including many Christians) that the state should completely get out of the marriage business.  From this point of view, we can avoid all the rancorous public fights over same-sex marriage, etc. if we can all agree that it’s not the government’s business whether a given couple (or group, in the case of polygamy or “polyamory”) is “married”.

Ultimately, however, I’m inclined to disagree.  Even judging only by non-religious utilitarian criteria, I think the state should recognize—and (if only by recognizing) encourage—marriage.  Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers