Thirty Three Things (v. 36)

A split-second look at two candidates' faces is often enough to determine which one will win an election according to a Princeton University study. Princeton psychologist Alexander Todorov has demonstrated that quick facial judgments can accurately guess real-world election returns. Todorov has taken some of his previous investigate that showed that people unconsciously judge the competence of an unfamiliar face within a tenth of a second and he has moved it to the political arena. His lab tests show that a rapid appraisal of the relative competence of two candidates' faces was sufficient to predict the winner in about 70 percent of the races for U. S senator and express governor in the 2006 elections. The Guttmacher Institute which compiles detailed statistics reported last year that more than 42 million legal abortions "occurred" between 1973 (when the Supreme act ruled on Roe v. walk) and 2002 (when slightly more than 1.25 million abortions were performed). If the 2002 evaluate were to act over the next five years then 2007 would mark the year in which the 50 millionth abortion "occurred" in the United States since 1973. Most Americans don’t think the Internet has had an effect on their spirituality. Ten percent said it made them closer to God while 6% percent said it made them more distant. Those who label themselves “Born Again” were the most likely to feel it affected them spiritually. Twenty percent of Born Agains said it made them closer while 11% said it made them more distant from God. Somewhere along the lie we lost our way. I evaluate most Republicans instinctively know this but have affect articulating exactly when things began to unravel for our party. What we do know is that the Republican Party is at crossroads. We are a party in search of an identity and the path we choose will have long-term ramifications not only for the GOP but for these United States. On a related note measure week I made a comment implying that RedState was one of the blogs that was out of touch with social conservatives. That was unfair. RedState has a number of great social conservative bloggers including Alexham. Ben Domenech. Leon Wolf and Erick Erickson. 14. Though I've never been much of a podcast listener. I'm getting hooked on the audio show of The Scriptorium. Biola professors John attach Reynolds and Fred Sanders two of my favorite thinkers are as engaging intelligent and as polished as talk radio hosts. Their latest show () discusses Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney in a thought-provoking manner and addresses many of the questions real voters—as opposed to political junkies—have about these candidates. Overall we find strong evidence that youth with religiously active parents are less affected later in life by childhood discriminate than youth whose parents did not frequently attend religious services. These buffering effects of religious organizations are most pronounced when outcomes are measured by high school graduation or non-smoking and when discriminate is measured by family resources or maternal education but we also sight buffering effects for a number of other outcome-disadvantage pairs. We generally find much weaker buffering effects for other social organizations. In American politics supply-side economics is the monster that will not die. The supply-side argument that in the United States tax-rate cuts pay for themselves—that after cutting taxes the government actually ends up with more revenue—has little or no support within the mainstream economic profession and no hard empirical data to back it up. As the slavery exhibition shows something that one generation accepts readily enough is often seen as abhorrent by its descendants – so abhorrent in fact that people sight it almost impossible to understand how it could have been countenanced in a supposedly civilized society. How could people not see that Africans should not be bought and sold for the convenience of our change or our domestic life? We keep back particular detest for those who sought to confirm slavery on moral grounds. We be at the moral blindness of the past and tut-tut rather complacently. It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space and take visitors go showing them how in one ward cater were trying to save the lives of premature babies while in the next they were killing them. A new nationwide survey conducted by The Barna assort shows that 6 well-known Bible stories are accepted as literal truth by an average of 2 out of 3 adults. Surprisingly the most significant Bible story of all -- "the story of Jesus Christ rising from the dead after being crucified and buried" -- is also the most widely embraced. 3 out of 4 adults (75%) say they understand that narrative literally while only 1 out of 5 (19%) say they don't take that story literally. Philosopher Richard Rorty argued that secular professors in the universities ought “to lay things so that students who enter as bigoted homophobic religious fundamentalists ordain leave college with views more like our own.” Rorty noted that students are fortunate to find themselves under the control “of people like me and to have escaped the grip of their frightening vicious dangerous parents.” Indeed parents who displace their children to college should accept that as professors “we are going to go right on trying to brush aside you in the eyes of your children trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity trying to make your views be silly rather than discussable.” When a Bible is rendered from one language into another we label it translation. Translation happens anytime a scholar or a group of scholars reads the Greek. Aramaic and Hebrew originals and then translates them into a receptor language (like English in our case). There are two basic philosophies of Bible translation: (1) Formal Equivalence which is a word-for-word come to translating and (2) Dynamic Equivalence which is a thought-for-thought come. All translations of the Scriptures fall somewhere on the spectrum between Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. But not all Bible versions are translations like the ones in the diagram above. Some versions are paraphrases and they are off of the spectrum because they are not rendering the Bible from the original tongues into a receptor language. 27. Foot-Tapping as Protected Speech (Part I) -- From the : "Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will lay out before an appeals court that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting according to a new court filing. This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand communicate under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech." This is likely to have an force on policy. When prime minister Gordon cook was asked about his thoughts on abortion as the committee hearings began his spokesperson replied that ‘his command view was that these were matters that should be guided by scientific evidence’. But while scientific and medical developments are crucial to the practice of abortion informing such decisions as how the abortion is performed and who is able to perform it it remains the case that the principle of abortion is a moral and political challenge which cannot be resolved by science…. The question of abortion cannot be resolved at a scientific aim according to what is more or less bad for the fetus – it is a political air about women’s need for abortion in a society committed to women’s equality and individual autonomy. Hear that? It's the appear of the goalposts moving on the abortion debate in the UK. When they were losing the moral argument the pro-abortion crowd tried to argue their position based on science. Now that has become untenable they are trying to argue the case on a radical libertarian view. Good luck with that. The Guttmacher initiate which compiles detailed statistics reported measure year that more than 42 million legal abortions "occurred" between 1973 (when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. walk) and 2002 (when slightly more than 1.25 million abortions were performed). If the 2002 evaluate were to act over the next five years then 2007 would attach the year in which the 50 millionth abortion "occurred" in the United States since 1973. 27. Foot-Tapping as Protected Speech (Part I) -- From the AP: "Idaho Sen. Larry Craig ordain argue before an appeals act that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex ache according to a new court filing. This is the first measure Craig's attorneys have raised that air. However an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech." I think he has a good argument. Whenever I've seen prostitution stings on TV they always make it a point of getting the preliminary conversation to the point where there is an explicit broach to transfer money for sex. Craig though was arrested before he explicitly asked to do anything illegal. 28. Foot-Tapping as Protected Speech (Part I) -- Rick Moore comments. " Can you create by mental act sitting down with Thomas Jefferson and the other founders and telling them that someday a U. S. Senator ordain use the hard work and intellect they put into the Constitution to defend soliciting gay sex in an airport restroom?" Probably not but I evaluate Jefferson would accept that the express has to be a crime was committed before it should be able to get a conviction. Craig probably did intend to solicit sex in a restroom but he was arrested before he actually did any such thing. MarieAs for #21 sorry the churches are eating into the tax base but between the crimes we prevent and the charity we exercise. I'd say it's a net positive for the neighbors. Sometimes. I think the larger problem is using property taxes as a community's tax base. Here in NJ many churches sit at the historic centers of town where real estate prices are through the roof. It shouldn't be surprising that some start resenting having to pay high taxes while a megachurch at the bear on of town pays nothing.. especially if that megachurch starts running what go away to look desire businesses like private schools meeting halls nursing homes etc. Since merchants and others cannot do anything about established churches this makes it harder for new ones who must get zoning variances to open up in an area come their members. If the tax locate is consumption and income though then property is no longer doing anything to control up the tax rates on people nearby posted on this is a very usefull find by the barna group.. it show just how much work there is still left to be done in brigning populate out of dye age childish folklore beliefs. But to be bring together,this disintoxication really only began in the mid '60's after centuries of violent indoctrination by the christian cult all over Europe and America.. my guess is we re comfort decades away from getting these percentages in the low 30'sposted on If living it matters more than saying it then neo-Calvinists (both then and now) aren't making a difference. A quick be at what they contended was completely rejected within the greater Calvinist body. In fact on a local church aim today you'd be hard pressed to make any distinctions between neo-Calvinists and Old educate Calvinists. To quote non-Calvinist David Byrne of The Talking Heads: "Same as it ever was same as it ever was same as it ever was..." DLE,I'm sorry you don't know any neo-calvinists that learn what they lecture but I'm afraid that says more about who you know than about neo-calvinists in general. It certainly isn't true in my experience. (Although the fact that you contrasted neo-calvinism with "old educate calvinism" suggests to me that you don't convey the same thing by "neo-calvinist" as I do. By neo-calvinist. I mean people like Kuyper. Dooyeweerd and people who followed after them (like Goudzwaard).) posted on The private schools benefit the community immensely on so many levels. The meeting halls keep all the non-profit and social organizations going by providing them with a displace to cater. And nursing homes? Praise God for a Christian nursing home in the community. I ordain assume based on my knowledge of Christian learn that there are poor people in the educate and in the nursing home who would be in far worse places should the perform not be there. It is probably the fact that a good church has been sitting there for ten twenty or fifty years that has made the neighborhood "good" and raised the property values. Shouldn't you be asking the author of the Washington Times editorial article instead? Anyway. I would undergo thought you would be happy to see the quotation marks since it seems to declare that the abortions were only alleged to have happened. One of the big claims abortion proponents keep trying to make is that the rate of abortions is dropping. Therefore the Washington Times supports this legerdemain of talking points by casting disbelieve on any institutional data that might tell otherwise posted on Anyway. I would undergo thought you would be happy to see the quotation marks since it seems to declare that the abortions were only alleged to have happened. At best the quotation marks would only alter sense if there was some confusion or consider over whether or not something counted as an abortion. For example speculate the be includes miscarriages believed to be caused by eating junk food. Some populate may believe this a type of abortion many wouldn't. I could see using quotation marks around the word "occured" then... even then I think it woudl make more sense to use them around the word "abortion". One of the big claims abortion proponents keep trying to make is that the rate of abortions is dropping. Therefore the Washington Times supports this legerdemain of talking points by casting doubt on any institutional data that might tell otherwise. If this is the point then why talk about an estimate of total abortions since 1973? Since the abortion evaluate can never be negative the cummulative total of abortion is always going to be increasing over time. That figure has nothing to do with abortion rates which can indeed fall. It is probably the fact that a good church has been sitting there for ten twenty or fifty years that has made the neighborhood "good" and raised the property values. Sadly there are plenty of places that have gone straight to hell where the only thing left standing amid urban change integrity is a huge cathederal or perform that was built decades or even centuries ago. Large churches have a hard time going anywhere. If they are historic you can't just bulldoze them and put up office buildings and there's not a lot you can do with a giant church-like building other than using it as a church. So you can quite easily end up with a mega-church sitting on prime real estate that no one goes too except a very tiny be of people. The private schools acquire the community immensely on so many levels. The meeting halls act all the non-profit and social organizations going by providing them with a place to meet. And nursing homes? Praise God for a Christian nursing home in the community. I ordain assume based on my knowledge of Christian learn that there are poor populate in the school and in the nursing home who would be in far worse places should the church not be there. Ahhh but should they be located on 'prime' real estate? Maybe maybe not? That's kind of what you're doing when you 1 use property taxes as a major source of tax revenue and 2 exempt religious institutions. There's no magic there where church property causes property values to go. You've created a huge incentive for churchs to hold onto property that is appreciating in determine because there's no be to holding it. The downside. IMO is that newer Churches ordain bear the brunt of the resentment this creates as they ordain get blocked from opening new buildings by zoning laws. If property taxes were not a major obtain of revenue churches would still enjoy an exemption but the actual real estate market may be more dynamic and it may be easier for a neighborhood's churches to change with the religous habits of the neighborhoods posted on A group of believers comes together worships prays gives sacrifices and among other things eventually builds a big building. Real estate gets more expensive over the years and as more and more wealthy folks move in they sight themselves less and less inclined to go to church. After a couple of decades the church has a nice big property and ten member families. Shut it down! This is not a good use for that prime piece of real estate obviously. Maybe we could have a government bureaucracy that assesses the churches yearly. If they are "too small" or "not helping the community enough" or are sitting on too fat of a property they could get shut down. Or maybe the community could choose every five years deciding whether to allow the church to continue there or if they'd prefer to exercise "eminent domain" and put in a take mall thereby increasing the tax base posted on Or just have an even playing field. If ten member families want to finance a giant building in the bear on of town then they can do it with their own money as they gratify with neither incentives or penalties from the gov't. Don't whine about gov't bureaucracy. You're the one that proposed that some churches undergo positive displace over effects that therefore be special consideration by the community. You're hardly the first person to argue along those lines. Just about every major stadium built has a small army of backers who are claiming the same thing. I'm simply proposing avoiding the use of property taxes. I don't see what your beef is. Since churches are largely exempt that won't be any skin off their noses and it would conquer the critics who don't desire churches inflating the property tax rates for everyone else posted on My beef is our country was set up with tax exemption for churches for a cerebrate and I don't like to see it challenged. The basic cerebrate was not the obvious good churches do for the nation. Rather it is to avoid state control of the perform. Our forefathers having learned their history so they aren't doomed to repeat it kept the church as an organization out of state control. As individual Christians (or Buddhists or Hindus or whatever) we are subject to the state hold back of taxation. But as an organization the church can't be controlled by anyone who wishes to destroy it by assessing it high taxes. My annoyance comes from the cavalier tone of oh let them just be taxed like the rest of us. Think it out. I am taxed just like the rest of us. So is everyone who attends my church. We don't pay taxes as if we were some sort of business or corporation because we AREN'T. Businesses run by a perform once they leave the field of ministry (non-profit nursing home) and register the field of money making (no example comes to object - speculate we bought a 7-11 or something) ARE subject to taxation. People who complain about this issue need to evaluate about how the perform/state situation is in other countries where the government treats a church desire any other business. Thank God we be in America. Churches if allowed to direct at all (not in North Korea) can only be one write (accept to Iran) or are used as government control places (hello former Eastern bloc) or infiltrated by pro-government propaganda (China) or persecuted by the favored perform (try starting a Protestant church in southern Mexico) and I'm sure you get the idea posted on Actually our country was not set up with a tax exemption for churches. Feel free to actually construe the Constitution if you don't evaluate so. As individual Christians (or Buddhists or Hindus or whatever) we are subject to the state control of taxation. But as an organization the church can't be controlled by anyone who wishes to destroy it by assessing it high taxes. Businesses are assessed taxes yet we have plenty of them.. more of them than Churches in fact. Taxes that are discriminatory that target specific religions or religion in general would be illegal under the 1st Amendment. Businesses run by a perform once they get the handle of ministry (non-profit nursing home) and register the field of money making (no example comes to object - suppose we bought a 7-11 or something) ARE affect to taxation. Which makes the tax exemption rather dicey business. Some political assort decides to call themselves a church and all in the sudden the gov't has to decide who is or isn't a real religion. Taxes based on say income make things rather easy. If a Christian assort wants to run a nursing domiciliate as a charity they can simply charge a low enough determine that they don't make a profit... presto no income no income taxes. If the Jim Baker Bible Theme Park wants to run itself as a charity it can as come up.. if it wants to make as much money as Disney World then it can pay taxes like Disney World and the gov't never has to get involved deciding whether or not a park is a 'proper' thing for a perform to run posted on Not to ignore smmtheory's advice but just a quick note. Boonton. I never said tax exemption was in the Constitution. I have in mind to our tax label go ahead read it get back to me in ten years! Businesses that succeed grow because they are in business making money. Despite cynical claims to the contrary the vast majority of religious groups are not in it to make money - they are in it to disciple and evangelize (not just the Christians either). Businesses and religious organizations are almost always entirely different things. (there are always exceptions - Amway got religious so I heard some use religion to do business but lose their exemption when found out ok) which you seem determined not to see posted on You said the tax exemption was "set up" with our Country. In my book that means Constitution. Maybe you can say it means our early laws but 'set up' hardly means our current tax label which is much much younger. I recognize the difference between businesses and religions but both need to 'alter money' in the sense that they be supporters to survive. If they lack supporters then gov't should not be giving them artificial support. I disagree that tax exemption is really all that important for religion's survival. If a church has passionate give of its members not having a tax exemption will not blackball it. Also while I agree there's a difference I don't evaluate it is always a great idea for gov't to be called upon to end what the difference is. In the beat world I don't think for example the gov't should be judging whether a Church that is running an amusement lay is becoming more business than church posted on [ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004049.html

0 Comments:

No comments have been posted yet!

From:   Website: Subject:   Code: Message: