CADRE Comments

I personally believe that the Bible speaks very clearly against homosexuality in various chapters. I am aware that other Christians feel differently, but I don't think that any Christian would claim that my position is completely unwarranted based upon a reading of the text of the Bible in such places as Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. Thus, it seems that in the interest of freedom of religion, no one would disagree that I would (or should) be within my rights to be able to speak freely about what I (and many other people) interpret the Bible to read, right? Well, such is apparently not the case in Canada. According to an article entitled "North of border, gay marriage spurs social revolution" in the StarTribune, to speak out openly in Canada that the Bible calls homosexuality is a sin is punishable by law. Today, Canada is combing through its laws and institutions to remove evidence of heterosexist discrimination. Terms such as husband and wife are now forbidden across the s...

Rioting and mob violence has spread from the suburbs of Paris to within the city limits and along the Mediterranean coast. An eldery woman was doused with gasoline and set on fire. A nursey was burned down. A synagogue was attacked. Hundreds of cars are being burned every night. Motorcycle riding arsonists are dashing from site to site burning buildings. I keep hearing that these are immigrant populations who are rioting because of high unemploment and a lack of economic opportunities. But these are immigrant groups from third-world countries were the poverty is much worse and the oppression pervasive. Yet we seldom if ever hear of this kind of rioting in Algeria or other Muslim nations. So I am skeptical that this this is simply the result of a lack of economic opportunity. Especially when some of the rioters are referring to their largely Muslim neigborhoods as "occupited territories." Unfortunately, the U.S. press is not giving this much or in-depth coverage.

Though Earl Doherty has failed to make any impact in academic circles with his Jesus-Myth theory, there are still some who take the theory and Mr. Doherty seriously. I have done some writing responding to his theories, as have a few others. But the circle has been a rather small one. So it is refreshing to see another blogger taking a close look at Doherty’s arguments. Kevin Rosero, at his blog Rose and Rock , has been working on a series of posts responding to Mr. Doherty. In Jesus Recently Decased , Mr. Rosero argues that there is evidence in Paul’s letters that Jesus was a relatively recent historical figure. In Jesus Recently Deceased (Addendum) , Mr. Rosero continues arguing that Paul’s letters attest a recently historical Jesus. He points out something that I have commented on regarding Doherty’s methodology. Doherty likes to make broad, sweeping statements, such as there being “no indication” in the “entire corpus” of a historical Jesus. But he only does this after dis...

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting column on the inability of the pacifists in Christianity to recognize the horrors of the extremist movement in Islam. Let me make it clear at the outset: while I don't believe Islam to be a true, I do believe that the vast majority of the adherents of Islam do not follow the extremist ideas of the terrorists who set off bombs in crowded market places killing thousands of innocent people. Any attempt to claim that this post is about the majority of the mainline Islamic community is simply wrong. The article entitled "Peace Now -- Christian pacifists ignore the true ambitions of terrorists" by Joseph Loconte (Friday, November 4, 2005) notes that "England's House of Bishops released a report-- 'Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11' --that managed never to mention the horrific intentions of Osama bin Laden in the course of its 100 pages." I have read most of the report, and I di...

In the last entry , I concluded by making reference that love does not constitute as a mandatory requirement for bonified marriages before the government approves of it's validity. "I, nor the government and state, are not limiting who can be in love. No one determines who can couple up according to their affections. The objection based on love is an explicit fog claim about privacy, which turns out not true, but it's really an implicit claim about Social approval. By social approval, I mean the government passing law, which then ought to be recognized by the State, and therefore the people." This is where the crux of the my argument finds itself. Are homosexuals who are actively seeking legal documents by the government really grounding their objections as a matter of privacy ? Or do their leaves fall on another patch of grass, such as luxurious "Social Approval Boulevard?" The appeals before the state and federal courts, on behalf of same-sex marriage advo...

It finally happened. The radical secularists of the European Union have banned Christ. Henceforth, the EU mandates that "Jesus Christ" must be spelled "Jesus christ." "Christ" must be "christ." There can be no uppercase "C" used to spell the name/title "Christ." The rationale behind this is not obvious. I have seen commentators blaming political correctness, which seems likely. But, still, what is the justification? If it is treated as a name, as millions use the phrase, then "Jesus Christ" seems most appropriate. If treated as a title, as historians and many other do, then "Jesus Christ" still seems appropriate. Is there some grammatical usage of the name or title of a person that justifies a lowercase "c"? Not of which I am aware. Lest we think that only Christians are being picked on, the EU also decreed that "Judaism" as a race may use the uppercase "J", but dar...

Yesterday, I explained that when marriage is reduced to arbitrary reconstruction, it turns out that exclusivity can neither be used of same-sex proponents nor advocates of one man and one woman (OMOW). "Marriage" then becomes useless in meaning. But of course same-sex proponents do not argue the slipper-slope view. They recognize that marriage is something in particular and attributing it to other species or polygomy is an absurd line of reasoning. As I pointed out, the grounds to, at the same time, refute extending the matrimonial status to a father who loves his sister, while at the same time advocating same-sex marriage becomes self-refuting on their own merits. Before I talk about what it is that homosexuals are actually asking society to do in tomorrows installment, I want to address methods on public advocacy of traditional marriage. How do we effectively persuade our neighbors, strangers, friends, and culture at large in believing that marriage ought to be held betwe...

Is the definition of marriage arbitrary, or is it fixed? Does some sort of moralistic logic ground the historical and natural understanding of marriage? On the otherhand, is marriage an ever changing cultural revision? If "marriage" turns out to be nothing in particular and can justifiably be altered and redefined on the whim of the populus, what are we to make of current debates and amendments browsing through the courts? Even the marriage amendments being implemented through law saying marriage should be granted for same-sex couples is itself an argument for something in particular. Why not allow a successful business lady marry the 4 cats she houses? Are we to marry two parrots (implies male and female still) who mate for life receive governmental and societal approval? If not, why not? Who are we to restrict marriage for human-beings alone? Is this not "humanism" in a post-reconstructive manner? After all love and sexual desire make the core enterprise who deman...

Christian schools in Australia have defended their teaching of Intelligent Design in their science classrooms against the dogma of Darwinism. According to Christian schools hit back over origin of life by Linda Doherty, Education Editor, for the Sydney Morning Herald : Christian schools have defended their right to teach intelligent design in science classes to explain the origin of life, accusing skeptical scientists and teachers of "ideological conservatism". In the latest salvo over the theory emanating from the United States, Christian educators said no approach to science was "value-neutral" and that both Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and intelligent design "have their own strong ideological foundations". Intelligent design says that some forms of life are so complex they can be explained only by the actions of an "intelligent designer". Carolyn Kelshaw, chief executive officer of Christian parent-controlled schools, and Richard ...

David didn't have such a task. He only faced a Goliath who is believed to be no larger than 10 times bigger than he was at the time (using weight as the measure). The small city of Tijeras, New Mexico is being forced to take on an organization 1000 times larger than itself, and certainly with resources to match. Why? Because of a small cross on the City Logo. U.S. News and World Report editorial writer John Leo, in his essay entitled "Deviled Eggs" opines on the potential suit: The "tiny cross" people at the American Civil Liberties Union are at it again. These are the folks with extra-keen eyes and powerful magnifying glasses, who examine the official seals of towns and counties, looking for miniature crosses that ACLU lawyers like to trumpet as grave threats to separation of church and state. This time around, the folks with the magnifying glasses are leaning on the village of Tijeras, New Mexico, whose seal contains a Conquistador’s helmet and sword, a scrol...