June 29, 2005
Live Free or Die!
{Tip o' the hat to James at the
PCCBoard Forums.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
09:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That is a priceless story. And I think the only thing that would convince me to go to New Hampshire for a vacation. Hee.
Posted by: songstress7 at June 30, 2005 02:51 AM (ie93s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2005
Flag Burning: Desecration?
I posed this question over at the PCCBoard forums, but I wanted to ask it of all of you, my faithful readers (reader? Anyone?):
Why do we call it flag desecration? What is sacred about the flag? Or should I say the Flag?
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
09:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Using the word desecrate implies that the flag is sacred, since desecrate means to violate the sacredness of the object. And calling the flag sacred implies that it is holy, an object of worship. So using the word desecrate is inaccurate, misleading, or at best hyperbole.
So I agree that we shouldn't overstate the burning of flags. People are allowed to make foolish statements. And it is foolish to be too offended by a fool.
Posted by: Jim Clark at July 01, 2005 03:41 PM (ArCd6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 03, 2005
Been There, Done That
Last year, I wrote about a
resolution that was sent before the Southern Baptist Convention that advocated the
withdrawl of all children of SBC church members from public schools.
This year, they're doing it again.
The Arnold-Scarbrough Resolution: (a) applauds Christians working in the government schools as missionaries, (b) calls on churches to warn their members of the devastating effects of sending their children to a totally secular institution for their education, (c) calls on churches to become aggressive and pro-active in starting Christian schools and in supporting homeschooling.
I still think it's a bad idea.
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
09:26 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I'm a Southern Baptist pastor whose wife is registrar at one of our two local high schools. The athletic director of the other high school, as well as many other public school educators, are active members of our church. We are able to have a positive impact in the public schools, truly "salt and light," because we are involved, not isolated.
Our music minister's wife homeschools their children, and does a great job. I'm all for that if people feel it is best for their children. But the idea that all Christians should be called to withdraw from the public schools is a backing off of our evangelistic calling.
Posted by: Bob at June 04, 2005 08:53 PM (XRjNc)
2
Thanks for your comments, pastor!
We fought a resolution like this this past year at the Kentucky Convention (there was so little support for it that it died in committee), and I was hoping that we'd get on with more important business at the Convention this summer, but I guess people want to fight the old battles rather than fighting the new ones.
Posted by: Warren at June 04, 2005 10:46 PM (a64K1)
3
I'm also a Southern Baptist pastor. I agree with your take and had hoped we seen the last of such a resolution. I'm glad you brought it up and let people know that all Souther Baptists don't think that way.
Thanks!
Posted by: Tommy Ham at June 05, 2005 12:27 AM (LJbki)
4
Now there are TWO Southern Baptist pastors who agree with me. And I always thought it was hard for Southern Baptists to agree on ANYTHING (lol -- just kidding, guys). Wish I was headed to the convention this year, but I have to actually work this summer, or I won't be taking Systematic III with Dr. Moore in the fall (via the Internet, not live, unfortunately).
Posted by: Warren at June 06, 2005 11:28 PM (a64K1)
5
I appreciate the comments about the resolution. But wondering, where does it call for the educators to leave? I believe it is asking Southern Baptist parents to question what their children are being taught and also questioning whether or not children are spiritually prepared to be "salt & light".
Posted by: Suzanne at June 07, 2005 12:23 AM (cYlkM)
6
Thanks for your comment, Suzanne.
They aren't asking for educators to leave -- they are questioning the ability of those educators to effect real change by giving up on public education. They are also questioning the church's ability to prepare kids for school, and parent's ability to effect change in schools. I think a much better strategy is to be supportive of parents' decsisions no matter what -- and provide a ministry for kids who are in public education, rather than throwing our hands in the air and saying "we're done with this."
I don't even want to think what will happen to public education if "they" don't have to worry about what the Christian parents will say about what they're doing.
Posted by: Warren at June 07, 2005 12:41 PM (a64K1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush and Abortion: The Truth Comes Out
Hat-tip to Christianity Today on this one -- let's see if anyone else picks it up.
"Abortions have increased during the Bush administration." How often have we been told that? Howard Dean said so. John Kerry said so during the campaign. Sojourners magazine reported it. And, though I've heard some people who were shocked, and some who didn't WANT to believe it, I haven't heard much refuting it.
Until now.
Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.
This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.
What motivation could people have had to spread this kind of story? Obviously, to break the evangelical block that was supporting Bush. MY question is why didn't anyone check into the allegations?
We have a "Christian blogosphere" that includes some talented people. Did we all miss this? Were we so invloved in damage control, making excuses for the President, that we took it for granted that the data was accurate? I admit, I was disturbed by this "fact" -- though I questioned how the President was going to do something about a "private decision between a woman and her doctor." Abortion is still legal. It is OUR responsibility to make sure that it doesn't have to happen.
Our responsibility NOW is to make sure, whenever someone spouts the "abortion has increased under Bush" line, that they learn the truth. Keep the link above handy -- they have background data there as well. Now that we have the facts, it's time to start letting people know about it.
{UPDATE: Jonathan Bunch over at In the Agora posted this two days ago. Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost made mention of this in yesterday's outtakes.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
08:32 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 06, 2005 06:42 AM (Ihkjb)
2
I guess you've got HTML disabled or something funny like that, so let me try again. Here is my original post in November:
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2004/11/bush_and_suppos.html
Here is my more recent one:
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/05/fact-checking_a.html
The links to the other stuff are in those posts.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 06, 2005 06:45 AM (Ihkjb)
3
I fixed the HTML thing, Jeremy -- I thought it was already set that way.
I can understand me missing the story on World, because I don't read that one that much, but I'm not sure how I missed the one on your blog -- I've got it in my RSS subscriptions. Must have missed it -- thanks for the links.
Posted by: Warren at June 06, 2005 11:49 AM (a64K1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
27kb generated in CPU 0.0337, elapsed 0.1534 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.1315 seconds, 163 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.