Wednesday’s Religion News Roundup: Shaming the Divorced * Guns and Gays * Faith and Footwear

Print More
Hester Prynne at the stocks, via Wikipedia. Yes, an adultress not a divorcee, but best I could manage...

Hester Prynne at the stocks, via Wikipedia. Yes, an adultress not a divorcee, but best I could manage...

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

Forget the gays: Shame the divorced for ruining marriage. A pro-life student group at Johns Hopkins is denied club status because it would make students think about stuff. And North Carolina may get an official religion. Guess which one.

  • Pingback: Wednesday’s Religion News Roundup: Shaming the Divorced * Guns and Gays * Faith and Footwear - Religion News Service | THINKING PRESBYTERIAN |

  • Kevan Scott

    A few comments: 1. Even as a staunch Progressive I support the J. H. students wanting to have a pro-life group. This is college not high school and I also believe in freedom so as long as they’re not about hurting others or in any way being destructive then I say let them do it. 2. It seems as if some in the South want to do everything in their power to secede. What SC legislators are wanting to do by having a “official” religion is very unconstititional and they darn well know it. More grandstanding by politicians to show how “Christian” they are. Of course if you or I happen to not be Christian then too bad for by God were going to force our religion down your throat one way or another. Finally, the documentary The Bible” and The Walking Dead is not so strange. for the doc itself was the walking dead of docs with all it’s inaccuracies and portraying Satan to look like Obama and black was just plain offensive to myself and others. But those hyper-religious types have hated Obama from day 1 and the only clear reason is that he is black. Some prejudices will just never die speaking of the walking dead.

  • Jon Cleland Host

    Reporting should include relevant details. For instance, the Bible series only did well among senior citizens. Of the 12 million Bible viewers, only 3.5 million – under a third- were under 50. Compare that to the Walking Dead, where the vast majority (8.1 million) were under 50. Is it news that there is little interest in the Bible among parents and young adults today, and that most of the interest in the Bible is confined to senior citizens? I don’t think that’s all that surprising or important – unless you run a nursing home, I guess.

  • Gerry Price

    Gee, isn’t it funny that North Carolina and Tennessee pols are more than happy to promote Christianity. Funny how the Tennesseans run screaming when they found state law would benefit one of the other religions of The Book.

  • Old Dude

    Liberals have destroyed marriage. It was already terminal anyway. Feminism was big factor (that’s liberal right?) in killing marriage. But the gay-marriage thing did it in. It is merely a paid fee form at the county recorder’s office now. It has no meaning (but divorce lawyers can still take every penny you own and hang on like a leech). So let the gays marry and let the lawyers have them. Being “legally” married now is oxymoron (since the “law” just rendered it a religious rite.). End of marriage

  • This is one of the best Roundups, thought-provoking and well written.

  • Mick Lee

    Well, maybe….just maybe…perhaps. Not promising anything right now…mind you…but this could be a place to start talking.
    Oh, no. Waiting a minute! We can begin talking once we have one stipulation in place: that is, with the adaptation of gay marriage, you promise me it is this point and no further. No more tinkering with the law to allow even more innovations in marriage. Where’s the dotted line we can sign? Whose hand do we shake?
    Failing that, maybe we could agree on a quite different stipulation in its place. The subsequent fallout from the “liberalization” of divorce and new bells and whistles in heterosexual relations has been a crippling disaster for many if not most children. If we agree to gay marriage, can we promise each other that no additional children will be harmed above the current crop we rack up each year already? One could say that it can’t possibly get any worse and, short of throwing them all into a war zone, I’d be inclined to agree. But do we know that?
    It would be great if with the adoption of gay marriage the numbers of suffering children would decrease. But just for giggles, let’s ask ourselves a question. Let’s says we knew—heaven only knows how—but if we knew that more children would end up suffering in misery, would justice still demand that marriage for gays go forward anyway?