Marriage used to be viewed as a covenant - a contract - between partners who publicly stated their pledge to remain married and faithful to each other "until death do us part". The law followed to enforce that contract. Now we speak the words with n\o intention of being held to them and no expectation that society will disparage our honor - let alone legally enforce our contracts. I believe the end of the view of marriage as a contract has been seminal to the current view that I should not be held responsible to fulfill ANY pledge I make - be it loan terms, business contracts, relational responsibilities, work expectations, etc.

The Jewish leaders who brought the woman to Jesus also forgot to bring something else - the man. The law (Leviticus 20:10) states, "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." Jesus' response to the woman is just as much a rebuke of the "leaders" who perverted the law and allowed the man to escape punishment. Leviticus 20 lists a range of sexual sins outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage. Jesus does not change the law, but expresses this greater law, "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23).

If Progressives have "a communitarian vision that sees universal participation in tax-funded social services as inherently good", then shouldn't universal participation in the tax system also be part of their vision? If these programs are not "entitlements", then they should be benefits that are only available to those who paid in the "premiums" that fund the program. The key point is the charade that we all "pay in" to these programs and receive an "equal" benefit. I'm sure the elderly person whose only income is Social Security doesn't see it as "fair" when someone else receives a 6-figure pension AND a relatively pitiful Social Security check. I'm all for forcing Government and our representatives in it to be TRUTHFUL.

1. Your comment has nothing to do with the column - or anything else contemporary. 2. It is no longer the early 1900's. Let's talk about current day policies. 3. It was the DEMOCRATS that put Jim Crow laws into effect and fought to maintain them through the early 1960's. Republican passed laws following the Civil War to enforce the rights of ex-slaves and prevent efforts to maintain a permanent servant class int he South. The Democrats NOW are continuing policies to maintain a permanent servant class of racial minorities and unmarried women by making them dependent on the Government. 4. No Republicans are advocating ANY form of return to Jim Crow or other race-based laws. Most promote a program of equal liberty and rule of law.

That does not mean that INDIVIDUALS cannot have standards that they want to uphold in their candidates - just that there cannot be an OFFICIAL qualification one must pass in order to become a candidate. Progressives and atheists are trying to make a "religious test" that no religious person can be qualified for a public position (see Shawn Mitchell' 11/26/12 column - http://townhall.com/columnists/shawnmitchell/2012/11/26/lefts_newest_inquisition_deny_your_god_or_be_deemed_unfit). The furor over Richard Mourdock's religiously orthodox statements about rape and God's will is a case-in-point. The Left will only accept religious values that support liberal positions. All others are "crazy","fanatic" and "extreme".

I'm personally against murder, but who am I to enforce my beliefs on someone else. Torture is wrong for me, but i can't prevent you from using it if you want to. I personally wouldn't use "date rape" drugs, but if that helps you out, go for it! When will this idiot argument die? Why don't you castigate Democrats for making their killing of unborn children THE MOST IMPORTANT position in their political platform? Who is extreme here - those who recognize the moral imperative of protecting the life of the innocent, or those who believe killing the innocent for convenience is the preferred life outcome? if you're against a rape and incest exception, make the case for preserving the life of the innocent and punishing the guilty.

PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ON TOPIC . . . That said, Bush encouraged us to "Go Shopping" because our economy suffered a loss of over a trillion dollars in an instant. The country needed to continue on, not hunker down. It helped keep the impact of the attack less than it might have been. Compare that to Jimmy Carter's "Wear a Sweater" and Obama's "Get used to having less".

This morning, a caller to Greg Garrison's radio talk show in Indianapolis asked, regarding a baby conceived during rape, "If a baby can be killed because they are a burden, an embarrassment, or a reminder of shame from rape, is it that much more of a leap for a family to say that a daughter is a reminder, an embarrassment, or a shame and execute her, as is done by some under Sharia?" Mourdock didn't go on in his comments to say that the rapist, not the baby should be subject to capital punishment. The Pro-Life position must emphasize that aborting the child of rape is capital punishment applied to the innocent, not the guilty. If society should decide that anyone should die for these offenses, it should be the perpetrator, not victim.

We're. It talking about government funded anything here. The student organizations are self-funded and only seek the same accommodation other groups have. Tax exemption of religious organIzations is NOT "taxpayer funding" or support, but a true separation issue between government and religion - the State should not put its hand in the collection plate of the church. Freedom of association is a basic right and government anti-discrimination acts are a violation of it in every case. A private group has the inviolable right to establish its criteria for association and cannot justly be forced to accept anyone - to do so is a violation of conscience and the assertion of privilege over right.

How many times did we hear during the Bush 43 administration that he should be tortured, killed, considered the lowest form of life, etc. by "progressives"? Didn't they say that Christians should have no voice, that they are knuckle-dragging neanderthal who need to be "enlightened" or die, or that they weren't fit to be parents? Didn't they say that California's Prop 8 was an affront to the Constitution because it promoted a "religious" viewpoint, but who think that the Davis-Bacon Act is an inviolable right, even though its authors and supported expressed blatantly racist reasons for the law when it was passed? When do Progressives have to start playing by their own rules? Isn't that what Saint Alinsky taught us?