What is at stake in this election according to Sen. Obama? The reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

Social conservatives, please don’t sit out this election.

h/t: Theologica blog

I first have to give a shout-out to my fellow blogger ‘adamelijah’ for his outstanding blogpost on Irresponsibility destroys freedom. It’s a good read, very enlightening.

I read several articles yesterday on the impending auto loan crisis and shook my head in disappointment over some of the examples the writers used of people who couldn’t pay their auto loan payments because of the soaring gas prices and other excuses. Read the rest…

H/T: Ace of Spades

Homeschoolers around the nation have been riled up by a recent California Courts of Appeal decision. However, is it warranted? California Law provides parents three options for educating their children: Read the rest…

To read the background news that led to this debate, check out the discussion on F3 forums.

The embattled Rep. Kern was invited to a local Oklahoma debate show called Flashpoint to debate against an openly gay pastor, Rev. Scott Jones of the Cathedral of Hope in Oklahoma City.

Here are the youtube clips of the debate. I personally thought Rep. Kern did alright, but she could’ve been more tactful in communicating her view. Comparing the homosexual agenda with islamofascism is really a huge stretch and its not an effective point.

Part 1

Part 2

 Link to article

While answering a question about his Christian faith, Obama said he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and through God’s grace and mercy he could have “everlasting life,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press.

As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”

“[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known,” Obama said, according to the Times. “I’m sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subscribed to everything that I subscribe to.”

There is an obvious discrepancy between his first comment about Christ and the second comment about his mother. Obviously no one expects him to say that he thinks his mother went to hell, he doesn’t have to. God is the ultimate judge of all human beings and the standard by which he will judge is perfect and holy.

I’m not sure why he brought up his own mother in this subject but a question that comes up is that if he thinks his mother is in heaven because she was “the kindest, most decent, generous person” that he has ever known then why is he believing in Christ who died for his sins? Why not just be another kind, decent and generous person who believes in nothing?

A lot of politicians who claim to be Christians stumble on this question and it only exposes their lack of knowledge about Christian doctrine.

I have noticed the increase in frequency of news stories that prop up liberals in the evangelical movement who try to de-emphasize the ‘divisive’ issues surrounding morality and focus on issues that everyone agrees with: like poverty and AIDS in Africa.

Taking action in Africa is imperative and I believe the US government under Pres. Bush has made a huge commitment to Africa and we are making progress. I don’t think there is one sensible human being who doesn’t agree with helping Africa. As a conservative, I believe its more effective if private institutions led the effort rather than a government bureaucracy.

The talking point that many of the liberal evangelicals use is that if we work with our opponents on things that we agree, then it’s easier to get the things that we want: such as repealing Roe vs. Wade and passing a marriage amendment to the constitution, etc. Maybe they are forgetting the fact that the other side is just as passionate, if not more when it comes to ‘pro-choice’ and same-sex ‘marriage’. There will be a confrontation of ideas regardless of what we do together.

Should we broaden our focus? Sure. However, I believe evangelicals have always had a broad focus which included serving their community. Unfortunately, we never received much media coverage about it. The media is now showing interest in the supposed ‘maturation’ of evangelicalism and to show as proof they put up liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis and Rick Warren.

The question is why are some evangelicals shying away from being bold about their faith and morals? I would argue that they are giving into to the pressure from the media and the postmodern culture as a whole. When issues of faith and morality is discussed, there will be a diversity of ideas. Why can’t we be divisive but also civil on issues that we see as black and white? Isn’t civility the problem at hand and not the diversity of ideas?

As human beings, all of us feel the pressure to please others and to make a good name for ourselves. The question is at what cost?

If we take a look back at history, wasn’t the fight against slavery a divisive issue? After all, it was one of the many causes for the very bloody civil war. But no one would argue that being divisive over the evil practice of slavery wasn’t worth it. Maybe Americans could’ve been more ‘civil’ at the time but it was perfectly okay to be divisive.

Men like William Wilburforce and Martin Luther King stood resolute in moral clarity over the issue of slavery and civil rights and did it in a very civil and peaceful way. We need such men and women to do the same over the issues of Abortion and Sanctity of Marriage. Rather than calling our opponents names like ‘baby killers’ lets find ways to communicate in a way that truly reflects our pure intentions and goals.

If things go the way they are right now, we might end up seeing the exact same thing happen in the U.S in another two or three decades. Any redefinition of marriage and the lack of family friendly policies could exacerbate the problem.

Link to the article

Marriage rates in England and Wales have fallen to the lowest level on record, government figures published today have revealed.

The proportion of adults who chose to marry in 2006 fell to the lowest level since marriage rates were first calculated in 1862, according to provisional figures published by the Office for National Statistics.

In 2006, 22.8 men per 1,000 unmarried men aged 16 and over got married, down from 24.5 in 2005.

The marriage rate for women in 2006 was 20.5 per 1,000 unmarried women aged 16 and over, down from 21.9 in 2005.

In 2006, the number of marriages fell by 4%, compared with the previous year, to 236,980. This is the lowest annual number of marriages since 1895, when there were 228,204.

More than three-fifths (61%) of all marriages in 2006 were the first for both parties, while remarriages for both parties accounted for just under one fifth (18%).

First marriages have fallen by more than one third (37%) since 1981, while remarriages have fallen by a quarter.

The figures show that people are also waiting longer until they marry. The average age at which men married was 36.4 years in 2006, a rise of almost five years since 1991.

The average age at which women married in 2006 was 33.7, an increase of just over 4.5 years since 1991.

Final figures for 2005, published by the ONS today, show marriages fell by 9% from the previous year.

The largest fall occurred in London (29%) and the smallest in the north-east of England (3%).

Final figures for divorces in 2005 also showed a drop on the previous year. Divorce rates in England and Wales fell by 8% between 2004 and 2005, declining to 13.1 divorces per 1,000 married people.

Kathleen Kiernan, a professor of social policy and demography at the University of York, said the figures reflected the rise in the number of couples opting for “informal unions”.

Kiernan said marriage rates had declined across the developing world, with people choosing to cohabit for longer before they married.

“It’s not that people are not choosing to form partnerships,” she said. “People are spending longer cohabiting, but they do eventually marry.

“If you were to look at the proportion who do eventually marry, it’s likely that the decline would not be as striking.”

Jill Kirby, the director of the centre-right Centre for Policy Studies thinktank, blamed the declining marriage rate on the government, saying the welfare system and tax breaks penalised married couples.

“It’s obviously worrying that they [marriage numbers] have reached such a low ebb, but perhaps not surprising in view of the lack of government policy over the last 10 years encouraging marriage,” she said.

She also voiced concerns about the detrimental impact if marriage was “lost as the core institution of society”.

“A clear reason for concern is that research demonstrates how important marriage is to maintain stability for children,” she added.

“The break-up of cohabiting couples is much higher than married couples. Cohabitation is clearly not a satisfactory arrangement as far as children are concerned.”

I received this email from John McCain on Tuesday (3/11):

My Friends,

Last week, I was humbled to win the support of 1,191 delegates and officially become the presumptive nominee of our party. It was a great honor to also receive the endorsement of President Bush and visit the Republican National Committee to begin laying out our strategy for victory in November. We face a tough challenge, but I’m confident that together we will win.

Read the rest…

 I happened to come across a clip on the Today show this morning with a panel of experts explaining away why married couples commit adultery. Read the rest…

In the past week, two politicians - one democrat and one republican - came in the news regarding their comments on gay marriage. One supported it and the other came against it but both used the bible to justify their views. Read the rest…