Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 238 results found
Kenneth Samples has a post about “the Christian faith’s most dangerous idea” at Reasons to Believe:
I received an email objecting to one of Greg’s commentaries on tolerance. In the commentary, Greg explains that tolerance “involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.” In other words, only disagreement calls for toleration; otherwise, it’s simply agreement (or apathy). But not according to the email I received:
After refusing to bake a cake that said “support gay marriage,” a couple in Northern Ireland was convicted of political and sexual orientation discrimination. Now LGBT activist Peter Tatchell is publicly disagreeing with the court’s decision, saying, “Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion.”
In an article on Public Discourse, Roberta Green Ahmanson explains why our culture’s new understanding of human dignity “may well be the harbinger of a social transformation the likes of which we have not seen in the West for 1400 years”: Dignity apparently justifies abortion, transgenderism, the redefinition of marriage, and physician-assisted suicide.
Greg talked to John Stonestreet on yesterday’s podcast about the 21 Days of Prayer for Life booklet he co-authored with Scott Klusendorf, so I wanted to make it easy for everyone to find. It’s not just a prayer guide; it’s also a teaching tool. Here’s an explanation of its purpose from the introduction:
Stephen Nichols explains how our worldview affects our gratefulness and expression of thanks, and what this means for an increasingly-secular society: In his scientific study of gratitude, Emmons came to the realization that gratitude raises a singular and significant question: When we say thank you, to whom are we grateful?
It looks like the request described in Eugene Volokh's legal analysis and Ryan Anderson's article has been enacted:
On Saturday, I posted an explanation of Kim Davis’s legal situation by Eugene Volokh, wherein he says Davis was asking for “a cheap accommodation that…a state could quite easily provide.” This point is still being missed by many, so it’s worth another clarification. Ryan Anderson explains at the New York Times:
A common response to the Kim Davis situation (see yesterday’s post) is to say, “If you can’t do your job, you need to quit.” Perhaps that’s the way it should be in some cases, but it’s important to know that’s not what the law demands, apparently not even for public officials.
Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage, stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, was ordered by a federal judge to resume her duty, refused to comply, and now is in jail for contempt of court. (Take a moment to read Joe Carter’s explainer on this story to catch up.)