1. Geerhardus Vos on the biblical concepts of "wisdom" and "folly":
The [Old Testament] idea of "folly" can be best understood from the antithesis it forms to "wisdom." Wisdom is not a theoretical or abstractly scientific apprehension of things, but such a practical immediate insight into their reality and manner of action as enables one to use them to advantage. Correspondingly, a fool is not one who is deficient in the power of logical thought, but one who lacks the natural discernment and tact required for success in life. Both wisdom and folly are teleological conceptions, and rest on the principle of adjustment to a higher law for some practical purpose.
(HT: Tribalogue)
2. Philosophy professor Edward Tingley on how agnostics and atheist are not true skeptics:
All of the people who say that they are "atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists," are patently unthinking people, since by virtue of turning skeptic, no one has ever done anything--employed any logic, gathered any evidence, found any way forward--to reach a conclusion about whether God exists. So these atheists have not reached a conclusion; they have made a commitment.
What the scientific skeptic ought to say is this: "Having examined the hard evidence, we declare that route to be exhausted. The only kind of evidence for God's existence that counts will have to be of some other kind--if there is any other kind."
That would be reasonable. And it would be a fine thing for a skeptic to doubt that there is any evidence besides the standard, demonstrable kind--and there are skeptics who do so. But all those who, just because they doubt it, run home with the question answered are frauds like their agnostic brethren if they still call themselves scientists.
3. Merlin Mann on priorties as indicators of character:
Where you put your time and attention says a lot about who you are. It says a lot about you as a human being. You have some idea in your head of all the stuff that is high priority to you. All the stuff that really matters. If I sat down and asked you what's really important to you - you would say 'oh my family and my church group and I'm a deacon.' But then I go and I look in your email box, newsfeeds and web browser... If I went and got all CSI on that, what would the last two weeks of your electronic life say about how it maps to the stuff that you claim is really important?
(HT: swissmiss)
4. Elizabeth Marquardt on "The New Alone":
Temple University's Adam Davey found that aging stepparents were only half as likely as biological parents to receive care from grown children. "Society does not yet have a clear set of expectations for stepchildren's responsibility," he observed.
You can say that again. All stepchildren and stepparents forge a relationship in their own way. Some become deeply attached, some are virtually strangers, many fall somewhere in between. Even when stepchildren and stepparents are close, the deep ambiguity of the relationship can make losing a stepparent to death or divorce a profoundly lonely experience for the child. A friend told me about a colleague who had recently nursed her beloved stepmother, a woman she had grown up with, during a long illness. Even as she mourned her stepmother's death, the woman was mystified and hurt by the lack of support she had received from many friends and co-workers, who'd wondered why she would go out of her way to provide long-term, hands-on care to someone who was "only" a stepmother.
(HT: Jennifer Roback Morse)
5. William L. Saunders, Jr. and Gerard V. Bradley explain why a Constitutional amendment is the only way to protect marriage in the United States:
Indeed, marriage is not simply a matter for the states, and has not been for more than a generation. The strongest statement that marriage is a matter of state law was made in an 1878 Supreme Court case called Pennoyer v. Neff. A state has an "absolute" right to decide the "conditions upon which the marriage relation shall be created." (Even in this case, the Court did not say the state has the right to decide what marriage is.) By 1971, the Supreme Court found (in Boddie v. Connecticut) the state's power to be much less "absolute": States controlled marriage "absent some specific federal constitutional or statutory provision."
6. Quote of the Week: "Apologies are like monsters: They're only real if you believe in them." - Justin Feinstein
7. Denzel Washington on his work as his ministry:
When I was about 20 years old, when I first started acting, I was sitting in my mother's beauty shop. And a woman just kept looking at me. I was looking in the mirror, and I saw her across the room. And she said, "Someone give me a piece of paper." And she wrote down a prophecy. She said that I would speak to millions of people, and I would travel the world and preach to millions of people. And I didn't know what she was talking about. But this was March 27th, 1975, 32 years ago now, almost 33 years ago.
So my work has been my ministry. In fact, I asked my pastor, years ago, "Do you think I should become a minister or a preacher? And he says, "Well, that's what you're doing already." And he felt, as I feel, that that's what she was talking about back then.
I've always understood why I've been blessed to be put in this situation. And I'm more than happy to take advantage of it and to preach, if you will, about what God has done in my life.
8. Top 10 Political Brawls of All Time (HT: The Presurfer)
9. Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable
A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup's 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That's an 11-point increase from seven years ago.
Mike McManus, co-founder of Marriage Savers, said two generations of high divorce rates have made divorce the norm in America.
"Since 1970, that's 42 million divorces, shattering the lives of 40 million children," he said. "We have the highest divorce rate in the world, and for 70 percent of Americans to say it's morally acceptable is really quite stunning."
10. Bjorn Lomborg on How to Think About the World's Problems
Research for the Copenhagen Consensus, in which Nobel laureate economists analyze new research about the costs and benefits of different solutions to world problems, shows that just $60 million spent on providing Vitamin A capsules and therapeutic Zinc supplements for under-2-year-olds would reach 80% of the infants in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with annual economic benefits (from lower mortality and improved health) of more than $1 billion. That means doing $17 worth of good for each dollar spent. Spending $1 billion on tuberculosis would avert an astonishing one million deaths, with annual benefits adding up to $30 billion. This gives $30 back on the dollar.
11. Graph of the Week
more graph humor and song chart memes
12. How to improve your photography with classical art
13. Séances & Science -- John Mark Reynolds uses the example of the Spiritualist movement of a century ago to warn those in the burgeoning Intelligent Design (ID) field of possible pitfalls:
The ID movement must not allow popular expressions of its positions to become divorced from more responsible ones. The Spiritualists left the public leadership of their movement to the cranks and charlatans. With the exception of the fairly responsible [Sir Arthur Conan] Doyle, none of the intellectual leaders of psychic research did much public speaking or writing. The job of "spreading the word" was more and more left to the cranks and charlatans who rushed to fill the void.
14. 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (HT: Open Culture)
15. From E.B. White's "Here is New York" (1948)
There are roughly three New Yorks. There is, first, the New York of the man or woman who was born here, who takes the city for granted and accepts its size and its turbulence as natural and inevitable. Second, there is the New York of the commuter -- the city that is devoured by locusts each day and spat out each night. Third, there is the New York of the person who was born somewhere else and came to New York in quest of something. [...] Commuters give the city its tidal restlessness; natives give it solidity and continuity; but the settlers give it passion.
(HT: swissmiss)
16. By Christopher Orlet on teaching the humanities:
At one time the purpose of a university education was to give future leaders an opportunity - before they shouldered the dull burdens of civic responsibility - to explore the purpose and value of life. By instilling a strong sense of history, of reason, of logic, of the best of what has been thought and said, a background in the Humanities would prepare a young scholar for whatever may lie ahead.
This, at least, had been the belief going back to Plato's Republic.
(HT: WORLD magazine)
17. The Best Baseball Pitch Ever
(HT: kottke.org)
18. Molecular gastronomist Herve This's 10 Elements of Basic Kitchen Knowledge (HT: kottke.org)
19. Saudi Woman Divorcing Husband for Sneaking a Peek to Look at Her Face
After 30 years of marriage, cynics might say most husbands and wives would have seen quite enough of each other, thank you very much. But not in the case of one Saudi Arabian man who managed to live with his wife for three decades without setting eyes on her face.
Not that he had much choice about it. His 50-year-old wife followed the tradition of her native village near the south-western city of Khamis Mushayt and kept her features veiled at all times.
Until one night last month, that is, when the husband was finally overcome by curiosity and tried to lift his wife's veil as she slept to take a look at her face. It was an error he is unlikely to be given a chance to repeat for his outraged wife woke up during his sneak peek and is now demanding a divorce.
(HT: Neatorama)
20. The Worst Cities in America
22. Help! We're Running Out Of Internet!
If you thought the World Wide Web was a limitless receptacle to the world's news, blogs and occasionally pointless musings, think again. The Internet could run out of web addresses by 2011, undermining the potential of businesses to use new services and applications, Karine Perset, the author of an alarming report on the future of the World Wide Web, warned Friday.
Perset, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, told Forbes.com that 85.0% of all remaining Internet addresses that could be used, were being used, and the rest could be taken within three years.
23.Timewaster of the Week: Budget Hero
24. Stephen H. Webb takes another look at Jack Kerouac's On the Road:
To many astute readers, the novel seems more like propaganda for the permissive society than a work of art. It is a deeply flawed novel, both stylistically and morally, but the sixties should not be given the last word on its meaning and significance. On the Road is a surprisingly melancholy book, and its originality renders every subsequent expression of youthful angst derivative and cheap. It is not an advertisement for the sixties version of personal freedom, but a warning against it.
25. LOLCat of the Week
more cat pictures
26. Agent Intellect on C. S. Lewis's Fiction for Adults
27. How to remove most of the seeds when cutting up a watermelon (HT: Neatorama)
28. Missing Matter Of Universe Found; Cosmic Web Discovered -- Although the universe contains billions of galaxies, only a small amount of its matter is locked up in these behemoths. Most of the universe's matter that was cooked up during and just after the Big Bang must be found elsewhere. Now, in an extensive search of the relatively recent, local universe, University of Colorado at Boulder astronomers said they have definitively found about half of the missing normal matter, called baryons, in the spaces between the galaxies. This important component of the universe is known as the intergalactic medium and it extends essentially throughout all of space, from just outside our Milky Way galaxy to the most distant regions of space observed by astronomers.
29. Body Image Is Stronger Predictor Of Health Than Obesity, Says Study -- In a study to examine the impact of desired body weight on the number of unhealthy days subjects report over one month, researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health found that the desire to weigh less was a more accurate predictor of physically and mentally unhealthy days, than body mass index (BMI). In addition, the desire to lose weight was more predictive of unhealthy days among Whites than among African-Americans or Hispanics, and among women than among men.
30. To Block The Carcinogens, Add A Touch Of Rosemary When Grilling Meats -- Rosemary, a member of the mint family and a popular seasoning on its own, also has benefits as a cancer prevention agent. Apply it to hamburgers and it can break up the potentially cancer-causing compounds that can form when the meat is cooked.
31. Smoking Is Addictive, But Quitting Is Contagious -- Over the last 30 years, the number of smokers in the U.S. has steadily decreased--a tribute to the efforts of public-health workers everywhere. And while this fact is unarguable, less obvious are the social and cultural forces that lead an individual to kick the habit. In fact, when someone crumbles that last empty pack of their favorite unfiltered brand and vows to never buy another, he might not realize that he is less like the heroic individual grasping his own boot straps and more like a single bird whose sudden left turn is just one speck in the larger flock.
32. Fasting may fend off jet lag:
Starving yourself before a long flight may help prevent jet lag, U.S. researchers said on Thursday. Normally, the body's natural circadian clock in the brain dictates when to wake, eat and sleep, all in response to light. But it seems a second clock takes over when food is scarce, and manipulating this clock might help travelers adjust to new time zones, they said.
"A period of fasting with no food at all for about 16 hours is enough to engage this new clock," said Dr. Clifford Saper of Harvard Medical School, whose study appears in the journal Science.
33. The Best Game Ever
(HT: Neatorama)
The only problem on #17 is that there is no way that was in the strike zone.
Well, Tingley gets my award for the most flowery prosed strawman argument that I've seen in awhile. He's said a whole lot without saying anything, and when he comes close to making a point, he knocks on the wrong door. Another wonderful feat of projection masquerading as a strange apologetic.
Tingley can pick up his award in the trashcan beside my house.
5. William L. Saunders, Jr. and Gerard V. Bradley explain why a Constitutional amendment is the only way to protect marriage in the United States:
The real reason is that the right has lost the argument, they know it, so they seek to freeze the debate now before they loose public opinion.
With the exception of the fairly responsible [Sir Arthur Conan] Doyle, none of the intellectual leaders of psychic research did much public speaking or writing. The job of "spreading the word" was more and more left to the cranks and charlatans who rushed to fill the void.
OK then what have the 'responsible' ID leaders been doing if the one's with the public microphone are the cranks and charlatans?
The real reason is that the right has lost the argument [on same-sex marriage], they know it, so they seek to freeze the debate now before they loose public opinion.
Winning the argument implies that your side has persuaded a majority to their view. If this were true, wouldn't you expect to see same-sex marriage proponents working to change the laws legislatively or by popular referendum, rather than by judicial fiat? I think a better case can be made that your side has lost the argument, but still retains enough political power to impose their will on an unwilling majority. Evidence of this is that whenever the people have an opportunity to vote to allow same-sex marriage, they vote against it; usually by substantial majorities.
On number 4: Over the past couple of decades marriage has changed from a foundation for starting a family to a vehicle for personal fulfillment; isn't this a result of that change? If Mom leaves Dad for her boss (or the reverse), is anybody really surprised that the kids don't develop a strong emotional connection to Daddy version 2.0? They may develop civil relations with Daddy 2.0 to maintain the connection to Mom, but if Mom leaves or dies, they aren't likely to still feel connected or at lease, as connected, even when the relationship was good.
Just a addendum to my comments on 4, I understand that sometimes marriages end due to the death of one of the partners, and in those cases, it is easier (though not always easy) to transfer affection to the step-parent and to create those bonds that are independent of the relationship to the parent, especially with young children.
1001 books to read before you die and the Bible isn't one of them?
Reee
Dik
You
Lussss
On number 4: Over the past couple of decades marriage has changed from a foundation for starting a family to a vehicle for personal fulfillment; isn't this a result of that change? If Mom leaves Dad for her boss (or the reverse), is anybody really surprised that the kids don't develop a strong emotional connection to Daddy version 2.0?
Actually, ucfengr, this is due to human nature which is a lot older than 'the past couple of decades'. I'm not going to address your hypothetical because, well, it's nonsense. First of all how often does the above happen in a world with such intense focus on sexual harassment? Second why should the children feel a connection to "Daddy version 2.0" when presumably the biological daddy is still alive.
There's a human drive towords one's own biological relations. This has always made stepfamilies problematic because human nature is to favor one's own biological relations over those who arrive just 'by marriage'. My mother-in-law saw it first hand when her father remarried after his wife died. Her stepmother fit the 'wicked stepmother' myth perfectly...'locking' herself in by having multiple children with him as soon as she could (thereby outnumbering her) & pushing her children into the front position and reducing her stepdaughter to more of an 'assistant mom/maid'. We have a few old family b&w movies where it is painfully clear how bad the family dynamics were. Her stepmother's kids appear in almost all the shots while she is maybe glimpsed once or twice by accident or seen only from the waist down as she is standing behind her half-sisters helping them stand up for the camera or moving them into position....and even though most of the movies are silent I'm sure her stepmother was saying "Patty, get out of the picture!"
She saw it again two generations later when her daughter-in-law exempted her own kids from any chores while making her stepson and stepdaughter do everything. My father-in-law, always a wit, started referring to his grandson as "Cinderfeller" to rub it in her face. Needless to say to this day she will deny showing any such favoritism and would have you believe her husband's first kids with other women are "just bad". Unfortunately this appears to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These are just two examples closest to home. I've seen plenty of other examples where blood ties trumped marriage ties even though everyone would admit "in theory" there should be no preference. I'm sure just about everyone else here has seen the same thing.
I'm not saying it is impossible to have healthy stepfamilies that love each other, but this is a real factor that one has to be on guard against. Unfortunately, when people are warned of this they tend to hear a personal attack on their character...."you're a selfish person who will favor your own blood first" instead of understanding it as a human trait we all share.
Winning the argument implies that your side has persuaded a majority to their view. If this were true, wouldn't you expect to see same-sex marriage proponents working to change the laws legislatively or by popular referendum, rather than by judicial fiat?
As someone who thinks about politics alot, you should know that winning public opinion is not about a simple one time 'yes-no' vote. Public opinion changes over time. The first cases of SSM were overturned with constitutional amendments that often passed with sizeable majorities. Then states like MA failed to muster the votes needed to amend this consitutions. CA actually twice had the legislature vote for SSM and Gov Arnold vetoed it.
On top of that, those opposed to SSM overplayed their hand and got too greedy. People voted to prohibit SSM only to turn around the next day and hear advocates telling them that meant they also voted to ban health benefits for domestic partners, void & prohibit civil unions and maybe even nullify private contracts if some court felt they 'simulated marriage'. The right might have won the debate if they didn't let themselves get carried away (yet again) by the usual jihad against gays.
Given this, it makes strategic sense to ditch everything that was said before about state's rights and tradition and go for a Constitutional amendment that would freeze the status quo in place and require a supermajority to overturn it in the future.
Boonton, if you wish to back up your assertions with some evidence, I will be happy to reconsider my position, but absent that, any response would be a waste of time.
Which assertions would you care to see backup for?
Which assertions would you care to see backup for?
The first time is always the hardest, so in the interest of making it easier on you, you pick.
BTW, what exactly is ucfengr's standard for providing proper backup to an assertion? If I'm not mistaken his backup to his assertion that the weaker bond people feel for stepfamily members is due to a modern notion of viewing marriage as a "vehicle for personal fulfillment" was a made up story about a woman who leaves her husband for her boss at work.
If I'm not mistaken his backup to his assertion that the weaker bond people feel for stepfamily members is due to a modern notion of viewing marriage as a "vehicle for personal fulfillment" was a made up story about a woman who leaves her husband for her boss at work.
You are mistaken.
I'm still waiting ucfengr. We talked about two very different topics, gay marriage and stepfamilies. Which specific assertions are you talking about or are you just up to your usual silliness?
I'm still waiting ucfengr.
I'm still busy.
We talked about two very different topics, gay marriage and stepfamilies. Which specific assertions are you talking about or are you just up to your usual silliness?
I said "you pick", but if that is too much of a challenge and since you completely missed the point of my "step-family" post, try "gay marriage".
Ok,
Backed up with the personal observations I cited of my family's history on #7. Easy, I'll give you another one:
This one's easy too. Your comment #4 provides no backup except your made up story.
I don't mind entertaining a serious request for back up but certain characters here are under the impression that a viable tactic in a discussion is to suddenly demand that the other side must footnote everything they say.
The only problem on #17 is that there is no way that was in the strike zone.
The other thing is that there's nothing new about that pitch. Well, maybe that the guy had the guts to try it in a real game is new... although I've got to think somebody somewhere has tried it. I never had the guts to try it in a game but we used to practice it all the time for fun (this was 25 years ago when I was in my mid-teens). My friend Sean could throw it a lot better than this guy's loop-de-loop. I actually did use it many times in the midst of some serious wiffle ball games :-)
Try that one Boonton. Explain how that assertion has any basis in factual evidence. Jihad? Is that how you seek to sway public opinion, guilt by association?
Boonton, you are wasting my, and your, time. If you actually bothered to read my comment #4, rather than reflexively disagreeing with it, you would find that there is nothing in your reply that invalidates my comment. I agree that the reason people don't feel the need to care for step-parents is because they don't feel as connected. The reason we are seeing more of this is because divorce is more common than it was 30-40 years ago. Part of the reason for that is because marriage has become a vehicle of self fulfillment, so if you are no longer feeling fulfilled in the marriage, you leave, and the kids take the hindmost. Then Mom and/or Dad get re-married (to the boss, or the neighbor, or the clerk at the Quicki-Mart, or whoever) and expect the kids to transfer their feelings of affection to the new "parental unit", but it doesn't always work. So when Dad or Mom dies or leave Mom/Dad ver. 2.0, there is no reason for the child to feel compelled to continue the relationship with Mom/Dad ver. 2.0 or 3.0, or for that matter, 4.0.
smmtheory
Try that one Boonton. Explain how that assertion has any basis in factual evidence. Jihad? Is that how you seek to sway public opinion, guilt by association?
I did. First they claimed they were simply protecting states who wanted to make their own marriage law and not be forced to accept some other rogue state's judicial (or presumably legislative) decision to recognize same sex marriage. Then people noticed the FMA didn't protect state's rights but overroad them. If the right had been modest and simply tried to enshrine the DOMA in the Constitution they might have done better, instead they got greedy.
Second, some states that did pass FMA type amendments to their Constitutions suddenly had right wingers 'discover' that not only did these amendments ban gay marriage but also banned anything that looked like a benefit of marriage...hence domestic partner benefits for workers, civil unions etc. were now suddenly out by judicial fiat. Several commentators have noted that you can even end up having courts be unable to enforce certain private contracts if you read the language of some of the anti-gay marriage ballots and amendments carefully. Suddenly what was being sold as simply coding traditional marriage into law turned out to be its own type of Trojan hoarse filled with as many right-wing judicial fiats as the right was supposedly fighting.
Now as for using the word jihad, that's not an assertion but a metaphor for describing the way many elements on the right seem to get loopy whenever the issue of gays comes up even to the point of irrational, over the top hysterical opposition. Which is a perfectly acceptable use of jihad in modern English. You may have heard others use things like this in political rhetoric, you know like 'feminazis'. "Guilt by association" would be attacking gay marriage critics by the company they keep.
ucfengr
I agree that the reason people don't feel the need to care for step-parents is because they don't feel as connected. The reason we are seeing more of this is because divorce is more common than it was 30-40 years ago. Part of the reason for that is because marriage has become a vehicle of self fulfillment, so if you are no longer feeling fulfilled in the marriage, you leave, and the kids take the hindmost.
I guess our disagreement isn't as sharp then. What you're essentially saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that since more divorces make more stepparents (actually marriage after divorce) you're going to get more people disconnected from their stepparents.
Then again so what? Think about it....if the divorce didn't happen then people would have never meet these new step-members of their family and instead of having a limited connection to them they would have no connection to them at all. Likewise since people are not getting stepparents because natural parents die then presumably they still have a connection with their biological parents going. All things being equal it seems the fellow with one devoted biological kid and one half-hearted stepkid is ahead of the fellow with one biological kid.
I don't think many parents really expect their kids to just transfer their feelings to "Daddy 2.0". In reality I think the same politics that causes parents to show biological kids favoritism also works in reverse. Parents expect their biological kids to remain secretly loyal to them.
Here's a hypothetical, imagine the Brady Bunch couple got a divorce. We both know Mike would take his boys with him and Carol the girls. Technically, though, if these two really expected the step-members to be as connected as biological members why would they break up along biological lines? Why not one parent take all of the kids or mix and match some of the boys and girls?
Of course no one likes to say this or even think they are capable of such shallowness. In thinking they are above such petty feelings they will imagine that their kids are good, the other kids are bad and the kids will likewise be inclined to have the same rationalizations about parents v stepparents.
I guess our disagreement isn't as sharp then.
Which you may have discerned if you actually read my post before responding to it.
I don't think many parents really expect their kids to just transfer their feelings to "Daddy 2.0".
I'm guessing you've never been through a divorce or had kids. My anecdotal experience (which is the only support you ever seem to cite) is the opposite.
I also notice you haven't provided any evidence (other than more assertions) to support your assertion about conservative overreach on same-sex marriage.
The whole sentence you attempted to explain is an assertion; as if excluding and defending the word jihad as a metaphor makes it any less an assertion you can't back up. If you didn't really intend to associate all SSM critics with the 'jihad' charge, you could have fooled me.
The whole sentence you attempted to explain is an assertion; as if excluding and defending the word jihad as a metaphor makes it any less an assertion you can't back up.
smm, the whole post was one big assertion. It was a veritable "no evidence" zone; though that could apply to any of Boonton's posts.
Second, some states that did pass FMA type amendments to their Constitutions suddenly had right wingers 'discover' that not only did these amendments ban gay marriage but also banned anything that looked like a benefit of marriage...hence domestic partner benefits for workers, civil unions etc. were now suddenly out by judicial fiat.
Here's the problem, you can't tell the difference between popular referendum, legislative action, and judicial fiat. Here's a clue, judges can't pass Constitutional amendments; depending on the state, they are enacted by some combination of legislative action and popular referendum. In other words, the elected legislators actually vote on the amendment, and then, again depending on the state, the public has a chance to vote on the amendment. Judges have no say until the amendment is actually made a part of the Constitution.
Oh come on, ucfengr. Sometimes Boonton gives evidence and even makes a good point. I confess that I rarely agree with him, and even when I agree with the "end" its usually because we got there by different means. Besides, he helps make life interesting around here. And no, I am not his sock-puppet. I have my own website and everything.
So there you go, Boonton. I just thought I'd address you because I felt like I was talking about you and you were sitting there in the same room, which you aren't, but comment sections feel that way to me. For the record, I don't agree with you about the DOMA gestapo, of which I am one. And in case we need clarity here, I'm using gestapo loosely and metaphorically and ironically. We aren't really a gestapo.
Oh come on, ucfengr. Sometimes Boonton gives evidence and even makes a good point.
Brad, are you familiar with the phrase "to damn with faint praise"?
Boonton I don't mind entertaining a serious request for back up but certain characters here are under the impression that a viable tactic in a discussion is to suddenly demand that the other side must footnote everything they say.
Boonton, you are one disingenuous asshole. What you are describing above is exactly what you do in almost every discussion you have here. And it IS simply a tactic with you. Simply a way to win an argument or to belittle or to make your pointy green ears tingle. You are not here to discuss anything, or to learn anything or to change anyone's mind. You are simply here to be a prick. I don't respect myself the morning after I engage in a discussion with you, but I can't help it.
Bradwilliams Oh come on, ucfengr. Sometimes Boonton gives evidence and even makes a good point. I confess that I rarely agree with him, and even when I agree with the "end" its usually because we got there by different means. Besides, he helps make life interesting around here.
Hey, Brad, there's this song by Dan Hicks and his Hot Licks that applies to Boonton: "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?"
And ditto to Ucfengr's point on damning with faint praise. Do you get it?
Besides, giving evidence and making a good point are simply coincidental with Boonton's expressed purpose: being a "prick in a bubble factory."
ucfengr
Which you may have discerned if you actually read my post before responding to it.
Fair point on that one.
I'm guessing you've never been through a divorce or had kids. My anecdotal experience (which is the only support you ever seem to cite) is the opposite.
I think you are only seeing the desire the parent has for a peaceful house where everyone more or less gets along. Deep down, I still think the parent expects their biological kids to remain 'on their side'. What happens when the blended family divorces? More often than not I suspect they split along biological lines.
In other words, the elected legislators actually vote on the amendment, and then, again depending on the state, the public has a chance to vote on the amendment. Judges have no say until the amendment is actually made a part of the Constitution.
And how does that contradict anything I wrote again? The fact is judges have to interpret laws, amendments, and passed referendums all the time and it's not a trivially easy job. When something like the FMA includes a vague phrase like "legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman" it is very fair to ask what this means and note that it can easily mean something much more than simply prohibiting states from having gay marriage.
It's also fair to ask if the right really was interested in protecting marriage and limiting judicial overreach why insist on such open ended language? Why not use very limited language that makes the intent clear?
Brad
And no, I am not his sock-puppet. I have my own website and everything.
Thanks for the nice words! I'm currently taking applications for the position of sock-puppet, executive sock-puppet and jr. sock-puppet. Feel free to apply, I have to warn you, though, most of the work will entail writing footnotes for ucfengr's benefit.
jd
Boonton, you are one disingenuous asshole. What you are describing above is exactly what you do in almost every discussion you have here. And it IS simply a tactic with you.
Readers here will notice that none of the usual characters even bothered to respond to my question about which assertions they wanted back up for. In a normal debate a request for backup should advance a discussion. If you want to discuss whether FMA type amendments can and sometimes do surprise voters with unintended consquences like banning domestic partner benefits or civil unions then it would be reasonable to demand some backup for that. If you want back up to support the assertion that the right often shoots itself in the foot by going off on a jihad against gays...well you're just being stupid and there's plenty of backup for that.
I do not try to win anything here by demanding someone footnote all their statements. I do sometimes demand backup when I think an assertion is more hot air than reality. For example, when someone once said here that the 'public square' was hostile to religious I demanded specifics.
It's also nice to see someone write a post bemoaning me for supposedly belitting people support his "assertions" with both childish name calling and profanity. You are indeed an asshole*, but hey at least you learned a new trick rather than harping on a 3 year old discussion on the US educational system and Bill Clinton's honesty.
* Backup for this assertion: Metaphor - a hole from which...well you know...comes out.
jd:
Quite the potty-mouth, eh?
Boonton:
This is a right-wing blog. I think the term "marriage justice" is a bit more useful than "same sex marriage."
'Cause we know if conservatives are fer anything, it's fer injustice.
Joe Carter:
More atheist bashing? And poor atheist bashing I might add.
Shorter "philosphy professor" ( really? Can I get one too?) Edward Tingley:
Yeah, it's true that there's no evidence for the existence of a deity and the supernatural; we've known that for centuries.
But atheists are still bad, because despite the fact that everyone knows there's no hope for any evidence, the atheists stop pretending there might be evidence.
That's not an argument, that's an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that.
It's not only irrational, but borderline insane to be going to the fridge to get some milk, only to find there's none, and then acting as though there might still be some milk in the fridge.
Mumon,
The problem with 'marriage justice' is that both sides will think you're talking about what they want. "Same sex marriage" will have to do as a term that gets specifically to what we are debating. I've been shortening that to "gay marriage"...some here have used SSM. Both uses save a bit of typing and help avoid the word 'sex' which I suspect makes a post more vulnerable to Joe's spam filter.
The fact is judges have to interpret laws, amendments, and passed referendums all the time and it's not a trivially easy job. When something like the FMA includes a vague phrase like "legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman" it is very fair to ask what this means and note that it can easily mean something much more than simply prohibiting states from having gay marriage.
The real fact is that you have yet to provide a single incidence of that actually happening. And, how is the phrase "legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman" vague? I am not a lawyer but it is pretty clear to me. Now as to how a judge will interpret something, that is another matter. Judges upheld McCain-Feingold despite the crystal clear language of the 1st amendment.
Try http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=scott_dodson page 234 (page 2 of the pdf)
The original FMA's 2nd sentence read:
Leave aside the bizaar notion that the US Constitution should instruct the states how to read their constitutions...not also for those flapping on about judicial fiat the above is actually a requirement for judicial lies. Even if a state constitution explicitly stated SSM the original FMA essentially ordered judges to pretend to read their state constitutions as if it didn't.
This language, though, was still somewhat limited in scope. While it prevented state courts from 'construing' their state constitutions in favor of SSM it did not forbid states from enacting it through their legislatures...
This was modified, though, to read:
Since the language changed the new sentence must mean something different from the first and while it is hardly clear exactly what it means it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it means more than the original. More than likely, IMO, it opens the doors for all types of judicial fiats not only against SSM but Civil Unions or even "assignable rights" (like making medical decisions, hospital visitation etc.) if they look like two people are trying to simulate a marriage.
For example, suppose two women draw up a series of contracts to simulate marriage as close as possible. When something happens, like one woman dies or becomes totally disabled, others step in to challenge. The woman would have to go to court and ask that the contracts be enforced as agreed. But in order for the courts to do this they have to find that their state legislatures have written into law provisions for the enforcement of contracts (easy). They also have to construe that their state constitution provides the legislature the right to make such laws....trouble since the FMA just banned that.
Even Ramesh Ponnuru over on NRO, at the end, admits how the courts would read the FMA is an open question (http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200402091407.asp) and proposed an alternative wording that would have been much clearer and more direct,
Also
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080507/NEWS06/80507064/1008/news06
An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
The wording of their amendment seems even less loophole ridden than the FMA:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(v0gf1d55nopb3t5552zlyv55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-Article-I-25&query=on I had a surprisingly hard time finding the MI Constitution)
CALL FOR BACKUP
And, how is the phrase "legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman" vague? I am not a lawyer but it is pretty clear to me.
Please provide back up as to what exactly this 'pretty clear' meaning is.
Now as to how a judge will interpret something, that is another matter. Judges upheld McCain-Feingold despite the crystal clear language of the 1st amendment.
Please provide back up to support your assertion that McCain-Feingold violates the 1st amendment.
I'm guessing you've never been through a divorce or had kids. My anecdotal experience (which is the only support you ever seem to cite) is the opposite.
Please provide back up, many judicial hearings are online now....give us a pdf of the divorcee decree.
Brad, are you familiar with the phrase "to damn with faint praise"?
Direct quotations should be backed up.
In other words, the elected legislators actually vote on the amendment, and then, again depending on the state, the public has a chance to vote on the amendment. Judges have no say until the amendment is actually made a part of the Constitution.
Back up please? No legal avenue to demand judicial review of a proposed amendment until after the ballot/vote? Sure?
The reason we are seeing more of this is because divorce is more common than it was 30-40 years ago. Part of the reason for that is because marriage has become a vehicle of self fulfillment, so if you are no longer feeling fulfilled in the marriage, you leave, and the kids take the hindmost.
Back up please? What evidence is there that divorce increases are based on people desiring more 'self fulfillment' as opposed to other factors such as people living longer, women being less economically dependent on men, etc.?
smm, the whole post was one big assertion. It was a veritable "no evidence" zone; though that could apply to any of Boonton's posts.
Playing the back up game can be quite fun. What's disturbing, though, is when you actually do it you see exactly who has the 'evidence free zone' here. The only evidence brought here is his personal ancedote on divorce, remarriage and kids.
Aside from the snarky demand for him to prove his divorce, all the backup requests could actually be pretty reasonable (well ok, the direct quote thing is snarky too). None of us could write much if we had to back up all of our assertions but most assertions don't need backup. When I write, for example, that the language of the FMA can be reasonably read by judges to outlaw things that voters may not expect like domestic partner benefits, civil unions etc. I don't really need to bring forth Gallop poles on what voters think the FMA is about & cite examples of legal authorities with differing opinions.
In contrast, though, when ucfengr asserts the language is "pretty clear" it feels like he should provide backup. Why is this? I don't doubt part of it is personal bias, it's human nature to feel like your opinions are right and the other guy's are wrong and to make the other guy prove his assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I think there's more to it than that.
I raised an assertion, that the FMA and similiar proposals can end up going beyond just outlawing gay marriage. Ucfengr raised the opposite assertion. So we have two competiting assertions; A and ~A.
If the rule was simply whoever asserts something first must back it up then you do nothing but create a game of childish demands for footnotes. Instead of making an argument you try to force the other guy to endlessly document anything they say no matter how trivial.
So maybe the rule should fall along the lines of what is a reasonable sounding assertion and what is not. A long time ago I made an assertion that conflicts with conventional wisdom; I asserted that as a whole the US educational system was actually pretty good. It's reasonable that making an offbeat assertion like that should be backed up with something more than just a person saying so. On the other hand, when an assertion fits with common sense it's more reasonable to ask the other guy to back up a counter assertion.
In the case of the FMA, it is reasonable that many who vigerously oppose gay marriage would also like to see civil unions, partner benefits etc. wiped away as well. Doing it through a constitutional amendment is a good tactic since it would require a supermajority to rewrite an amendment that passed. While that's not proof it's reasonable to argue that the FMA and its cousins tend to be written with a whole bunch of anti-gay fiats hidden inside. Therefore, it makes sense to demand that someone making the counter assertion; that the FMA is crystal clear...has no room for any reasonable judge to be fiating beyond simply outlawing gay marriage support their assertion more vigerously.
Hmmm... assertion used to express an opinion vs. assertion used to paint somebody (like President Bush or opponents of gay relationships being given the definition of marriage) or something in a bad light. Do you know the difference? It seems to me that the more natural dividing line should be that difference. 'Reasonable sounding' is just too relative a notion.
If this was high scholarship we could dispense with any such rule of thumb and insist that everything be 'backed up'. That would entail Joe posting maybe once a month instead of every day or so and these comment threads would go on for years.
Whether or not someone is painted in a 'bad light' is not relevant. If you honestly disagree with a reasonable assertion you should say so. If you honestly, for example, really feel there is no reasonable confusion over whether the FMA applies just to marriage or extends to other things then you should say so and back it up.
However just because a reasonable assertion paints someone in a 'bad light', that is not an argument against the assertion. Pretending George Bush walks the earth with a ray of light shining down from heaven on him may be a fine assumption if you're a paid flunky for him but is hardly a postulate we are all going to accept as a starting point.
Boonton, I finally plowed through your long response and I find nothing to support your original assertion about conservative overreach on "same-sex marriage" or that anything that has happened in Michigan is an unintended consequence.
More unsupported assertions by ucfengr. Will he ever learn?
Only an Ammendment can save man-woman marriage.
Boonton:
"The real reason is that the right has lost the argument, they know it, so they seek to freeze the debate now before they loose public opinion."
ucfengr:
Evidence of this is that whenever the people have an opportunity to vote to allow same-sex marriage, they vote against it; usually by substantial majorities.
The right has won the general argument against SSM, according to voting evidence. But not by a 2/3 majority in Congress, nor yet by enough states (3/4? 2/3?) to call for a Convention.
So, like the Touchstone article says, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will likely be challenged in court and, eventually, go to the Supreme Court.
Where, unless McCain is elected and another Scalia type conservative is appointed, the USSC is likely to strike down DOMA and install gay-marriage as a constitutional right.
Much like the legal abortion "amendment" known as Roe v Wade.
On the assertion of the right being too greedy, I think it's more accurate to say there wasn't clear consensus on civil unions. I'm strongly for the FMA, but also think civil unions are OK, and certainly want to protect any explicit contractural partnerships with respect to the contracting parties.
So some on the right, who oppose both civil unions and SSM, push for anti-civil union wordings. And I think the pro-SSM folk were sort of happy to support the more extreme folk, hoping to make it easier to defeat (and it seems it was).
But this is common among groups who agree on what to oppose -- SSM, or war in Iraq or Vietnam, or the Prime Minister of Israel -- but don't agree on an alternative. Thus, the opposed policy might not be replaced.
Still, when reading the FMA lines:
shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman
seems about as clear as can be that it forbids judicial rulings that the US or some State constitution does require some legal incidents of marriage.
It doesn't forbid a state amendment supporting gay marriage, and seems to allow it. However, the Michigan anti-SSM amendment does forbid conferring legal incidents.
Forbidding finding a constitutional requirement to confer benefits is pretty different than forbidding the conferring of those benefits.
But, in truth, the USSC can find anything they want and ignore the ninth all they want.
TomGrey
The right has won the general argument against SSM, according to voting evidence. But not by a 2/3 majority in Congress, nor yet by enough states (3/4? 2/3?) to call for a Convention.
This doesn't contradict the statement you quoted from me. A democratic system is fluid and while anti-SSM amendments passed in some states there's evidence that public opinion is changing. By using the past tense ("the right has won...") you are trying to create a myth that once an issue is voted on it is resolved forever.
While an amendment can technically be changed (like prohibition was), it does have the effect of trying to freeze the debate in time since it would take a supermajority to change an amendment...conversly the right would only need a minority to preserve an anti-SSM policy rather than holding a majority.
Where, unless McCain is elected and another Scalia type conservative is appointed, the USSC is likely to strike down DOMA and install gay-marriage as a constitutional right.
More assertions without backup I see! The best guide we have here is how the courts treated the laws against interracial marriage before they were struck down. Generally states were NOT required to recognize the marriages other states did. Even now this is still a factor since states have different laws regarding the min. age for marriage, whether or not cousins can marry etc.
On the assertion of the right being too greedy, I think it's more accurate to say there wasn't clear consensus on civil unions. I'm strongly for the FMA, but also think civil unions are OK, and certainly want to protect any explicit contractural partnerships with respect to the contracting parties.
If there isn't a clear consensus on civil unions then why try to ram one down our throats? This is in direct contradiction to what ucfengr has told us...that the FMA is crystal clear and has no unintended consquences. If that's the case why are you still trying to sell us the FMA?
seems about as clear as can be that it forbids judicial rulings that the US or some State constitution does require some legal incidents of marriage.
It doesn't forbid a state amendment supporting gay marriage, and seems to allow it. However, the Michigan anti-SSM amendment does forbid conferring legal incidents.
First off it does clearly forbid it. If a state passes an amendment to THEIR OWN Constitution saying "there shall be SSM" THEIR OWN courts cannot rule honestly about their own constitution. After all, that would be "construing" that their consitution permits SSM.
This gives lie to what your side has been asserting. If this was really about the "full faith" clause you could simply have the FMA define marriage on the Federal level and require no state to accept another state's marriage policy. If this was really about 'judicial fiat' you could simply say state courts could not construe their constitution to permit SSM unless it is specifically mentioned in their state constitutions or by laws their legislatures pass.
Of course this is probably the most historically ignorant thing to do....to have the Federal Constitution telling state courts how to read their own state constitutions. It turns the entire structure of the US gov't on its head....but hey conservatives really haven't cared about such things for at least twenty, thirty years, if ever.
AS for Michigan's amendment, did you bother to actually read it? It says nothing about domestic benefits for state employees and I doubt many of the voters were thinking about that when they voted for it.
But, in truth, the USSC can find anything they want and ignore the ninth all they want.
AS we have learned from ucfengr and smm's silliness, simply asserting something doesn't make it so. You guys can cry 'judicial fiat' all you want but here's a fact, most of the states that have court decisions legalizing SSM do so because their state constitutions have language that guarantees gender equality. This language was considered as an amendment to the US Constitution and REJECTED (see the ERA from the late 70's, early 80's) and one of the reasons it was rejected was because conservatives back then campaigned against it claiming it could be read endorsing SSM.
So voters were put on notice almost 30+ years ago that such language in a constitution may result in SSM. Voters, nonetheless, approved such language in many state constitutions and now the right cries 'judicial fiat'? Sorry guys, you can't keep changing the rules in the game and expect to be taken seriously.
Boonton,
In this particular instance, instead of engaging in a debate of the merits of a Federal Marriage Amendment, you started off engaging in character assault and now are attempting to debate the reasonableness of the character assassination you attempted. It is more worthwhile to challenge you to prove that your rhetoric is not the feces flinging that it appears to be.
I'm not even sure smm is bother to read what I wrote so I see no particular reason to read him...other than what he writes is usually short and stupid and quite easy to address.
If smm wants to contribute to the debate, he is welcome to do so. He could start by actually backing up some of his assertions. It's really pathetic that the biggest backup demanders here are the least likely to actually back up anything they themselves say. It's even more absurd that when backup is produced that contradicts their assertions they ignore it....very sad.
PS You have to have character in order to suffer from character assassination.
While reading blogs on the internet, I often come across favorite quotes for my files...after reading these posts on SSM, I think maybe someone might like to borrow this one...I will not say where I obtained it, only that somewhere it is written...
Everything you have argued in this debate with me was using Laws of Logic (although I think you used them poorly) or else it would be impossible for you to show that you’re right and I’m wrong.
More unsupported assertions by ucfengr.
Are you suggesting that I get other people to trudge through your tedious prose to validate my opinion that your sources don't support your positions? I'm sorry, but I really don't know anybody I dislike enough to subject to that.
It seems to me that #17 is probably a balk.
ucfengr
Are you suggesting that I get other people to trudge through your tedious prose to validate my opinion that your sources don't support your positions?
If you're so pressed for time then stop asking for backup. At this point you and smm have demonstrated yourselves to be nothing better than dishonest trolls.
ucfengr
Boonton, I finally plowed through your long response and I find nothing to support your original assertion about conservative overreach on "same-sex marriage" or that anything that has happened in Michigan is an unintended consequence.
Boonton
If you're so pressed for time then stop asking for backup. At this point you and smm have demonstrated yourselves to be nothing better than dishonest trolls.
Obviously, you lack even rudimentary reading skills Boonton. Ucfengr read your "backup" and found it lacking. You then accuse him of trolling. That's mighty funny from someone who applies Islamic terms to Christians in an attempt to create moral equivalence. Your behavior is often trollish.
If you're so pressed for time then stop asking for backup.
Perhaps you should read my posts before responding. I indicated that I did read your post; what I didn't want to do was burden anybody else with your tedious and uninformative ramblings.
At this point you and smm have demonstrated yourselves to be nothing better than dishonest trolls.
At this point you've demonstrated that you lack even basic reading comprehension. As you have conceded, this whole unpleasantness could have been avoided if you'd bothered to read my initial post before responding. So perhaps, before you resort to name calling, you should examine your own actions.
Tom & others may want to consult http://www.equalitygiving.org/Same-Sex-Marriage-California-Defense-of-Marriage-Act which has a good discussion on how the courts have used the "full faith and credit" clause...
Basically for purposes of judgements states have to recognize other state's judgements. Judgement meaning money here, not just any judgement in a legal case.
Beyond that states do not have to recognize marriages accross border. For example, if cousins legally marry in one state, then divorce and the court there gives a monetary judgement to one spouse the other spouse cannot escape paying by moving to a state that refuses to recognize their marriage. On the other hand if they remain married and move to state that doesn't recognize their marriage they cannot force the state to treat them as married for tax purposes, inheritance, or criminal cases (spousal immunity etc.).
These cases are NOT new but have been around a very long time and the law here is very well developed.
Dear friends,
There are dangerous distractions dividing christians and drawing them away from unifying and combining their voting power during a critical election year. Congregations are reporting devisions over 911 conspiracies and other popular contentions which frequently turn into disputes regarding the Iraq war and 911 within the house of prayer. I am writing to you because I have long forseen such negative trends growing within many believers becoming highly divisive and very dangerous.
There have been several honest investigations recently which have exposed 911 conspiracies as dangerous and miss-leading propaganda harmful to our country. Believability in such fabrications has a bewitching affect upon the minds of many christians as well as upon the minds of non christians. Such propaganda fuels a growing lack of trust for our American institutions and can turn believers against their own country or against their own ministers who refuse to support the conspiratorial spin. The negative affects I am warning about have much to do with the fact that many christians are currently being distracted away from an extremely important presidential election where leftists are contending to gain positions of power which could potentually turn our nation into an anti christian socialistic state.
Modern Leftists despise christians and are currently waging a political and media war against us. These people work tirelessly to silence the voices of faith in order to undermine christian influence and set up their left leaning Babylon. As christians are decieved into contending against Bush, Iraq, and confusion over 911 conspiracies they unknowingly assist true enemies by helping them ride easily into power without resistance. I was inspired with new understanding and seek to reveal an important message recorded in the Bible concerning 911 and the Iraq war.
Before you are tempted to write me off as another false teacher warned about in scripture, please check out my publication now marketed by a large christian organization called Salem. Please take a few minutes and witness the online video demonstrating a biblical message about 911 and the Iraq war in prophecy. I want you to see 911 evidence recorded in your Bible.
I want you to witness 911 scriptures which connect modern Iraq with "eagle's wings" (America's symbol of freedom) I am holding myself personally accountable if my readers fail to discover exactly what I am promising them concerning Iraq or 911.
You have both my e-mail and my phone number to do just that!
208-251-3519 www.eternaltruth.net
Any wise man tests before he talks". I appeal to your faith in the Bible knowing God has long known of our crisis today and inspired ancient prophets to record spiritual solutions for these very problems. Please go to eternaltruth.net/bpo911.html Paul Gregersen phone 208-251-3519
Our husbands in Iraq and our wounded vets need
to hear about this new Bible discovery.
Suppose it could be documented that this Bible
prophecy was verified to have been fulfilled in our
day predicting the war in Iraq?
Thousands of people are entering this web sight...
www.eternaltruth.net
Critics have sought to rip this biblical discovery a
part in order to disprove it.
Such attempts continue to fail as ambitious Bible
critics seek to expose it as another hoax.
Critics eventually fade as the people who see
value in this fulfilled prophecy are moved to
inform others of this possible miracle arriving in
our day!
Could God have revealed an actual Bible prophecy
supporting America going into Iraq? Everyone is
invited to prove or disprove this newly discovered
prophecy.
If you can demonstrate a way to disprove this claim
you may become a guest on Glenn Becks show or
Shaun Hannity. If you can bring a case forward
which supports this prophecy as being true you
may also become a guest.
This Bible discovery was mentioned on the Rush
Limbaugh show as millions heard of this web sight.
If you can find any evidence disputing this claim
or any evidence confirming it true, please contact
Shaun at...
"Media track" dogtrack88hotmail.com
Or contact Glenn Beck and make your case
to him on line. glennbeck.com You may contact
Rush Limbaugh if possible?
For additional information
concerning this matter contact
Ed Cook at ecdistibutions or
edmund@eternaltruth.net or 208 251 3519
You could receive national recognition for worthy evidence
if your information is convincing. Why?
If no one can dispute this biblical claim this discovery
can be submitted in the media as an actual fulfillment of
biblical prophecy. If not, you may be the one exposing as
a hoax.
The new President of the united states may be determined
by the condition of our economy and the war in Iraq.
What could a Bible prophecy depicting America as
the biblical eagle bringing freedom to Iraq have upon
this presidential election?
Could it perhaps reveal the presidential election from a new
spiritual perspective?
This biblical prophecy could unite our American resolve
for supporting the Iraq war and help our troops.
A subsidiary of Salem communications has already
declared this work to be a monumental discovery of
"biblical proportions" in their recent national press release.
To confirm this national press release go to the Salem
Xulon press release at- www.eternaltruth.net or enter
their Salem web sight.
There has been no theological criticism having any
teeth which has demonstrated convincing red flags
which cast doubt upon this claim. The Bible can be spun
by people who often take things out of proper context.
Today modern writers cleverly manufacture their own
evidences from the Bible and years later we then discover
such insights were false.
This means that the specific criteria for documenting
a fulfilled Bible prophecy is even more difficult to accomplish
than many secular discoveries which also require high
standards from sound research.
We need a consensus from several credible Christians
who can collaberate a consistency of legitamate insights
which identify key prophetic types and shadows clearly
identifying the cyclic nature of true prophecy within
Bible history.
Such an insight for understanding true Bible prophecy
should not require a degree in theology. We welcome
either.
We welcome the critics who aspire to prove this wrong.
No credable evidence has been presented showing
any confirmed manipulation of the biblical text nor its
context.
Watch the you tube video as it takes you through
specific Bible scriptures which reveal the
great modern eagle (America)l transforming Iraq
into a free nation in the end times..
Locate now..
"Bible prophecies of 9-11
www.eternaltruth.net
sincerely,
Bet Patterson
ecdistribution
.
.