Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Edina Presbyterian Church joins group which disagrees with PCUSA's position on homosexual behavior.

Christ Presbyterian Church in Edina, with its 5,000 members, is joining and leading a group called the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.
Presbyterians not happy with the denomination's move last year to allow for openly gay and lesbian clergy to serve in the church have formed a new religious body, led by an Edina pastor.

The Rev. John Crosby, pastor of the 5,000-member Christ Presbyterian Church in Edina, will serve as president of the small breakaway movement to be called the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, according to the Presbyterian News Service.

"This is an uncertain time," said Crosby, the news service reported. "We are not angry, we are determined ... we are not 'after' or 'against' them -- we all need time, space and grace. ... We want to flesh out the options and then let God lead so we have the sense that we're all working together."

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) officially began allowing the ordination of openly gay and lesbian candidates on July 10.

In May, a majority of the denomination's 173 local presbyteries voted to remove language from its constitution stating clergy must be "living in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."

The Twin Cities presbytery cast the deciding vote. There are at least 75,000 Presbyterians in Minnesota.

More than 2,000 Presbyterians gathered in Orlando last week "to provide support for congregations discontent with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and to officially launch the new church body," according to the Christian Post. "Attendees are weighing whether to join the ECO or remain a faithful witness in the PC(USA)."

The Presbyterian Church, based in Louisville, Ky., is among several mainline Protestant groups, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ, that have liberalized their policies toward gay clergy in recent years.
They join a long list of large mainline, denominational churches leaving the Episcopal, Lutheran (ELCA), and Presbyterian (PCUPSA)denominational groups after they began ordaining individuals engaged in homosexual behavior. These denominations, jettisoning two millennium of tradition and teaching, will continue to hemorrhage in numbers and relevancy.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Strib wants to throw religious freedoms/ rights of conscience out the window regarding health care and contraception.

The Star Tribune editors think the Obama Administration's decision to require all health plans pay for contraceptives is great even if it means trampling on religious freedoms and rights of conscience.
The Obama administration has reached a sensible but controversial decision on health insurance coverage for contraceptives. In general, an employer's religious beliefs should not dictate the type of drugs or medical procedures covered by their employees' health insurance plans.
Hmm, I presume this also means they shouldn't be able to say no to abortion funding and coverage?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced that it will stand firm on requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charities to provide coverage for prescription birth control to their covered employees. Under federal health reform, birth control is now part of the preventive services provided at no charge by insurers.

The decision puts the administration at loggerheads with the powerful U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops, noting their institution's long stance against prescription birth control, sought a broader religious exemption from this policy.

Houses of worship are not required to provide birth control in their health coverages, nor should they be. But the Obama administration rebuffed the bishops by declining to exempt religiously affiliated organizations whose primary mission isn't worship.

Critics, such as New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, blasted the decision as an attack on religious freedom. Yet another constitutional challenge to the federal health reform law is likely -- the last thing this embattled law needs.

The Obama administration nevertheless made the right decision. Birth control access is critical for women and children's health, ensuring that kids are born to parents ready for this responsibility. Lost in all the heated rhetoric over this milestone public health measure are several important points.

Critical children's health? I think a very strong case can be made that bombarding kid's with condom promotion has done everything but promote the health of children. The condom mindset and along sexual license has ushered in an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease, abortion, and out of wedlock births.

This policy does not require anyone to use birth control. In addition, courts have already rejected claims by Catholic organizations that requiring contraceptive coverage in employee health plans violates their religious freedom.
Issue isn't forcing people to use birth control but forcing people to subsidize it.
...Religious freedom is one of this nation's most cherished values. The Obama administration's birth control ruling carefully balanced respect for this tradition with concern for equity and public health.
There is no balancing of religious freedom. No, you will pay for this is the order of the day.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Want to eliminate the education achievement gap? The answer is simple: faith and family.

I sat in on early childhood education hearing. Their ultimate goal is getting kids ready for school and reducing achievement gap. The answer ultimately doesn't reside in new or more government programs. (In fact, they often times make matters worse.)

Here's
a study pointing to family and faith as the answer.

Here's the result of Professor Jeynes' study:


One of the most notable findings that emerges from this study is that using the NELS dataset, when African American and Latino children who are religious and come from intact families are compared with white students, the achievement gap disappears.
Note he says, "the achievement gap disappears." Isn't reduced. It disappears. That gets to the heart of the matter.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Who really cares for the less fortunate. Big government liberals or generous small government conservatives?

There's a lot made over the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns. It shows not only his taxable income but also his charitable giving. It's interesting seeing what the various presidential candidates and incumbents have done with their money.
So what were the headlines? He raked in about $42 million in 2010 and 2011. His effective tax rate was just below 14 percent, lower than that for many American taxpayers. He paid $6.2 million to the taxman and donated a staggering $7 million to charity, including $4.1 million to the Mormon church.

OK, so Mormons are supposed to tithe 10 percent of their income. But it's to Romney's immense credit that he promised to do this in his youth and followed through with that - to the tune of scores of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars throughout his life.

In fact, in those two years, he paid 16 percent of his income to charity, compared to, er, 2.6 percent by Newt Gingrich.

And what about President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the run-up to their 2008 campaign?

USA Today broke it down here. In 2007, the Obamas gave more than $240,000 to charity, about 5.7 percent of their income. The Bidens gave an average of $369 to charity a year for the decade before he moved to the Naval Observatory - about 0.3 percent of their income. Back in 1997, then veep Al Gore and his then wife Tipper gave $353.

Since becoming veep, Biden hasn't become much more generous. In 2010, he gave $5,350, about 1.4 percent of income. That same year, Romney gave some $3 million. The national average is about three percent.
What's interesting is how much they give to charity. Romney's gifts to charity in 2010 and 2011 were 13.73% and 14.11% respectively.

President Obama made $1.2 million from 2000 to 2004. He gave $10,772 to charity during that time period. Less than 1%. In 2005 and 2006, he earned $2.6 million over the two years. His charitable gifts were $137,622 or less than 5%.

Gingrich gave 2.6% over 2010 and 2011.

Biden gave 1.4% in 2010.

I realize the liberal litmus test for caring for others is how much one is willing to spend other people's money on the less fortunate and poor. But wouldn't a better indicator be what one does with one's own money?

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Minnesota Court of Appeals reverses District Court decision upholding state marriage law.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a Hennepin County District Court judge's decision throwing out a lawsuit changing Minnesota's marriage law.

The need for the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment isn't a theoritical issue. Here's a
news story on the decision.