Previous 11 - 20 Next
The idea that Christianity teaches that anything fun is inherently wrong is a silly and absurd slander put out by non-Christians. Christianity, like any rational world view, says that there is an appropriate time and place for everything. Yes, Christianity says that sex should only be done within a marriage. To say that is an "anti-sex" attitude is absurd. If I say that I don't think you should drive a truck through a kindergarten playground at 90 miles an hour, does that make me "anti-automobile"? If I say that you should plug the power cord of your computer into the power socket and the network plug into the network socket and not the other way around, does that make me "anti-technology"? No, that makes me a sane and reasonable person who understands that things are only safe, indeed may only work at all, when you do them right. We could rationally debate if the rules of Christian morality are indeed the best, but to say that any rules at all are inherently stifling your fun is ridiculous. If you think the Bible is anti-sex, read Song of Solomon. It's a whole book about how much fun sex is and can be.
So instead of "do and believe as John Hawkins says", your solution is, "do ad believe as I say". Duh. Anyone giving suggestions is, of necessity, going to imply that his suggestions are good ideas. Nowhere did Hawkins say "do this because I said so". He's saying we should do these things because they are objectively good. And while it's true that crime is down, I don't see how you can possibly say that deviance is down. I suppose you could have an unusual definition of deviance.
In response to:

A Wee Problem for the UK

mjohansen Wrote: Sep 12, 2014 1:42 PM
If Texas secedes, I think I'll move there.
Things that will obviously help to protect a woman from being raped: Giving more lectures in which people say that rape is bad. Wearing "I'm against rape" pins and t-shirts. Things that would obviously be useless in protecting women from being raped: Having more police on campus. Encouraging women not to get drunk and go home with strangers. Encouraging women to carry guns and know how to use them.
We solemnly pledge to obey the laws of our state, and of our nation, as long as they do not conflict with our personal whims.
Hey, things are definitely improving! A year ago the IRS only followed the law when it they felt like it. Now at least we're up to "whenever it's reasonably practical".
I have to disagree. If to commemorate the death of a Muslim team-mate the team had put a Muslim crescent on their helmets, I can't imagine that "not a single word would have been uttered". I'm absolutely sure that there would have been lots of words said: all sorts of fawning praise for how they were "celebrating diversity" and "fighting bigotry".
Or pass a law requiring Fox News to tell implausible lies as often as CBS, to keep things fair.
Solar power doesn't really work in any practical sense. Oh, it works in the laboratory, and in some specialized applications, but it's not really practical for normal, day-to-day use. But it would be really cool if it did. And this is the key to Democrat policies. It doesn't matter if something actually works. What matters is that we think it would be really cool if it did work, and maybe it will work someday, so let's make a law requiring people to use it. Because actually doing research and experimentation to find things that do work is hard and boring. Nowhere near as much fun as passing laws based on a really exciting episode of Star Trek.
Given all the subsidies out there, sure, I don't begrudge you taking advantage of one that you qualify for. But it's quite a leap from "I didn't write the tax laws but I will take full advantage of any tax break I can" to "how dare you attack a subsidy that benefits me". I've saved thousands on my kids' college education with the tuition tax credit. I think it's a stupid law, because I am getting a tax break to do something that primarily benefits me and my kids. Why should people who can't afford college have to pay higher taxes to subsidize my kids' college education? But I'll take it, precisely because there are a ton of other tax breaks that I'm paying for and can't take. Nevertheless, I think pretty much every break that I qualify for should be repealed and overall rates lowered. And every break I don't qualify should be repealed. I don't insist that breaks that benefit me must be repealed last. How about we do it all at once?
Democrats are the party of the future, of innovation and progress, while Republicans are the party of tradition and the status quo. For example, Republicans call for privatizing social security, while Democrats fight to keep it just like it is now. Republicans want to revamp the tax system into a flat tax or a national sales tax, while Democrats want to keep it pretty much the way it is now. Republicans want an economic system that allows obsolete companies to die and dynamic new companies to take their place, while the Democrats believe that any existing large corporation cannot be allowed to fail and should be propped up with subsidies if necessary. Republicans want alternatives to the existing public school system, like charter schools and home schools, while Democrats work to protect the existing system from any challenge. And so we see on point after point, the Republicans are stuck in the past while the Democrats are always looking for new ideas.
Previous 11 - 20 Next