Previous 21 - 30 Next
But, there it is: If the Catholic Church doesn't fall in line on that issue, the state will make it pay. There are consequences which are felt. Tangible consequences. Yet, if the state tells the Catholic Church that it can choose to perform gay marriages, and that those marriages will be valid in the eyes of the state, what tangible, negative consequences are felt by the Church? I'd say "none".
I feel like he's not talking about "religious freedom" at all. For example, he mentions gay marriage. There are people using their religion to justify telling others who can/can't be considered "married" in the eyes of the state. If Lance and Bruce, or if Monica and Tammy, want to get married, how are they taking away anyone's "religious freedom"? They're not. At all. How would two people of the same sex getting married make anyone else's religious life more/less "free"? It wouldn't. At all. Metaxas seems to imply that it would. He makes a good point when discussing birth control, the Catholic church, and the state's involvement. The Catholic Church shouldn't be forced to believe what the state wants it to believe, or pay.
It's hard to fault the idea of a flat percentage paid by everyone for federal income taxes. But the reality of implementing it will be very, very difficult. Right now, approximately 47% of earners in the U.S. pay no federal income taxes. If a flat tax is implemented, say at 10%, these people will be paying much, much more. Right now, the fed income tax rate for the "rich" is over 39%, paying 10% would be a huge drop. On paper, it would appear that the poor would be paying much more than they do, while the rich pay much less than they do. How will congress sell this idea? What would happen to the POTUS that allowed this idea to come to fruition?
I can't see myself ever voting Democrat, but it does suck that of these twenty, only six happened in my lifetime, and of those six, two were only achieved through war.
Percentages are key. But, according to Piers (and not refuted by Jones), there were 35 gun-related murders in the same year that there were over 11,000 in the U.S. If England has 19% of the population of the U.S., then, for things to be statistically equal, England should have approximately 2,090 gun-related murders for that same year. Even if Piers was wrong with the 35, and the actual number was 100, England's rate of gun-related murders is way, way lower. However, there are many arguments that Jones could've used to deflate the "England has fewer guns, therefore fewer gun-related murders, so the U.S. should have fewer guns if it wants fewer gun-related murders" argument. Unfortunately, Jones didn't use them. He went off, instead.
Why couldn't Jones answer a simple question? He has a good argument. There are plenty of statistics which would back him up. But, he looked like a raving fool by consistently ignoring an easy question.
Man, I agree with Jones.... but he's hardly the proper representative (despite his apparent, obvious intellect) for his cause. He winds up turning people off.
In response to:

Guns and Piers Morgan

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 2:03 AM
True, Lars795, but as Larry Elder points out, these studies reflect murders by guns per capita, not the total number of gun-related murders.
In response to:

Fellowship in the Woodlands

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 12:57 AM
Dr. Adams: Although I was raised in the Catholic church, I don't really consider myself a "christian." In fact, I don't really consider myself religious. But, I do enjoy reading your columns and, 9 times out of 10, respect your opinions and stances. Keep up the good work.
In response to:

Adams 2016

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 5:01 AM
I can think of more than a few that I'm totally on board with. For a couple, not so much.
In response to:

Food Bunk

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 4:08 AM
As pointed out, companies very often go well beyond what the government tells them to in order to keep their businesses profitable, by not harming their customers. So, yes.
Previous 21 - 30 Next