That’s the question Colleen Carroll Campbell asks. in reference to the recent story about a Catholic school in Colorado that denied readmission to the child of a lesbian couple. As she put it:
Boulder’s vociferous gay-rights activists mobilized to protest the priest, the parish and the Archdiocese of Denver, brandishing signs outside the church that plaintively asked: “What would Jesus do?”
For the reporters breathlessly covering the story and many Catholics, the answer was obvious. Jesus would allow the children to stay in the school. He would tell the teachers not to worry about the conflict between their duty to teach Catholic doctrine on marriage and their desire to protect the feelings of students being raised by a couple that flouted that doctrine in a particularly obvious way. Read more…
The California Human Rights Amendment would define personhood to include everyone, “no matter how small.” The spiritual dynamo behind this amendment is pro-life hero, Rev. Walter Hoye. An African American pastor in Oakland, Rev. Hoye spent time in jail, because he violated the Oakland City Council’s draconian “clinic bubble law.” Rev. Hoye makes the connection between personhood, abortion and slavery better than anyone I know. Read it here.
My formal endorsement is on this page.
Go here to download your petitions.
San Diego County residents will have the chance to vote in better judges, meaning judges who will interpret the Constitution, rather than make up law as they go along. Visit Better Courts Now to find out how you can be involved. If you don’t live in San Diego County, forward this to someone who does! (You can find my video testimony on this page!)
Race and Abortion: a series of billboards in the Atlanta area call attention to the connection between abortion and race. I talk about those billboards in this interview on Issues Etc, on Lutheran Public Radio.
Sean Hannity reports that #100 on his list of wasted stimulus money” $219,000 on an academic study of female hook-up patterns at Syracuse University. Note that the professor/principle investigator explains that hooking up is a public health problem, or at the very least, correlated with public health problems. Why, then, do we not discourage hooking up, the way we discourage smoking and driving without seat belts? Instead of spending “stimulus money” to study a preventable public health problem, why not do something to actually prevent the preventable public health problem?
Remember yesterday’s post about Sex Week at Yale? Why aren’t the administrators at Yale taxed for their share of the public health costs they are creating? (This calls to mind a bigger problem: no one makes any money from people living chaste monogamous life-styles, whereas somebody makes money from each and every problem that flows from non-monogamous sex….)
My colleague Jamie Gruber found this and posted it over at the Ruth Youth blog.
People sometimes ask me why I founded the Ruth Institute. I always reply that young people who want lifelong married love need and deserve accurate information and adult support. People sometimes have a hard time believing me when I try to convey just how crazy campus life can be. But now, I don’t need to say anything. Yale University is proving my point for me. Yale (where I taught economics from 1980-85) sets aside the week surrounding Valentines Day to be Sex Week at Yale. Minneapolis Star Tribune Columnist Kathy Kersten tells us about it:
This being Yale, the week started with a veneer of academic respectability: Read more…
Ed Feser has a provocative article about scientism, which he defines this way: Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. His critique is that Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial.
Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, Read more…
Loading ...