Rachel Ford is a programmer, and since 8:00 to 5:00 doesn't provide enough opportunity to bask in screen glare, she writes in her spare time. She was raised a very fundamentalist Christian, but eventually "saw the light." Rachel's personal blog is Rachel's Hobbit Hole, where she discusses everything from Tolkien to state politics.
Apparently, when it comes to prioritizing fiscal responsibility or legislating conservative religious morality, the Republican party is less fiscally conservative than one might hope. Writing for Think Progress, Tara Culp-Ressler notes that states have introduced more than one hundred bills so far this year to further regulate abortion, with more coming every day. (And that number was as of last week.) Read more
File this under: “Yes, the Pope is still Catholic.” According to Pope Francis, childless people are selfish. Not, of course, the childless churchmen who make such proclamations. Presumably, they are to be commended for their selfless devotion to God. The Pope has in mind childless married couples. Because, you know, it is just wrong not to make a kid you don’t want. Read more
Pastor Dan Delzell has a special formula for determining which, of the many contenders, is the True Religion™, and he’s shared it on Christian Post. Pastor Delzell has suggested forty (very) leading questions, the answers to which, he believes, will show people the light. (Any guesses on which religion that is?) He uses a tone that seems to suggest a bit of impartiality — referring throughout his piece to the central figure of the True Religion™ as a “prophet,” for instance. However, the content of his questions make clear that they are anything but impartial. Just look at Question Six: Read more
Montana has officially run out of real problems to tackle. Or maybe Republican State Representative and Morality Police Chief David Moore just needs to take up a hobby to fill his spare time. You see, Representative Moore is so worried about indecency that he wants to strengthen existing indecent exposure laws by introducing a bill that would crack down on the horrors of shirtless men… and maybe even tackle the scourge of yoga pants-clad women. Read more
There are some versions of the Bible, like the King James, that mention unicorns. Many Christians — possibly fearing that the inclusion of unicorns might make a book that has a scheming serpent, magical fruit of knowledge, and a talking ass seem positively silly — will argue that this is just a mistranslation. Indeed, other translations like the New American Standard Bible and even the New King James Version refer to a “wild ox” instead of the “unicorn.” As a kid, I really liked that the KJV mentioned unicorns, because I liked unicorns. When my Mom pointed out that this was probably a mistranslation, I entertained the hope that it was not. If the Bible really meant to say unicorns, I reasoned at the time, they had to be real, because the Bible could not be wrong. Well, it turns out my childhood self wasn’t alone in that thinking. Answers in Genesis has an article up by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell that addresses the same pressing issue with pretty much the same line of reasoning. The title asks, “Unicorns in the Bible?” — but the question is quickly laid to rest by the byline: “To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.” Read more
