text:
Skip to comments.Green Baggins, 2K, Westminster-West, gay marriage, and Calvinist politics
Posted on 03/22/2012 7:58:02 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
If you're a Free Republic participant, I already know you're a political conservative. If you're a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, or United Reformed Churches, and if you don't know what "two kingdoms" theology is, you need to read this post.
What follows is the CO-URC version of posts I made today on the United Reformed and Orthodox Presbyterian listserves run by Christian Observer magazine. It responds to this thread on the Green Baggins blog owned by Rev. Lane Keister: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/review-of-_the-escondido-theology_-general-considerations/#comments
You can find the OPC and URC versions of my posts here:
Brothers, what is being taught by some professors at Weatminster Theological Seminary in California simply is not in accord with our Reformed theological tradition of political engagement, and it isn't even in accord with the old (and now largely discredited) Southern Presbyterian "spirituality of the church" doctrine. As I say below, it comes very close to raising the white flag of surrender in the face of Satan's advances in society.
I do not believe R2K theology is heresy, and thus it's probably not something pastors should be prosecuted in the courts of the courts of the church for advocating.
However, if you are a Calvinist and you are politically conservative, you need to be aware of this movement. You need to ask your pastor what he believes about it. If you're an elder in your church and your pastor is not preaching on the major cultural problems confronting America today, you need to take him aside and find out why, especially if your pastor is a younger man or a Westminster-West graduate. If he's honestly unaware of the issues, you need to get him good solid Reformed material on political action (pretty much anything by Marvin Olasky is a good idea), and perhaps buy him a gift subscription to World Magazine.
If not stopped, the Two Kingdoms view will devastate the ability of Reformed Chriatians to respond to cultural wickedness, will capitulate in the face of the efforts of liberals to impose evil on the church, and will cause pastors to "hold their fire" when they need to be leading full-speed-ahead charges in their own congregations to prevent their members from developing seriously unbiblical or socialistic worldviews taught by secular college professors and schoolteachers -- and by too many Christian colleges and high schools.
Worst of all, when churches stop preaching against things like legalization of gay marriage, they often stop preaching against sinful behavior inside the church.
We need to stop the 2K movement, and stop it now before it causes more damage to the Reformed faith. It's embarrassing to have to say the Roman Catholics are doing a better job of standing up to President Obama's unconstitutional abortion pill mandates than too many Protestants, and that is only the tip of the iceberg if we don't make sure our pastors are leading the fight rather than waving white flags.
Many of us here (on the United Reformed listserve) remember the controversy over the Heidelblog, the now-deleted blog run by a URC professor at Westminster-West where a number of people, including our own CO-URC participant and URC elder Mark Van Der Molen, spent a lot of time arguing against two-kingdoms views. He and others tried to get me involved in publicly criticizing the Heidelblog, and I participated to some extent, but at that point I thought the 2K movement was a minor and larely irrelevant discussion which wasn't worth a lot of attention.
I no longer believe that. I've become convinced that the 2K movement is not only a minor annoyance but also a significant distraction from the Christian calling to fight evil and wickedness in the world, and in some cases it's even worse than that -- there are professedly conservative Reformed people seriously arguing that the Christian church should not speak out against gay marriage.
Over on Rev. Lane Keister's "Green Baggins" blog, a discussion has been taking place recently that is at least as problematic as the old Heidelblog. It involves a number of people who are well-known in the URC community, and a number of URC people including Elder Van Der Molen and Steve Zrimec, a former deacon at Calvin CRC in Grand Rapids who has recently joined the URC and has a long history of advocating radical two-kingdoms views on the internet.
Rev. Keister has closed comments on that section of his blog, which I didn't see until yesterday. The debate started out as a review of Dr. Frame's recent book on Westminster-West. That is not a subject that particularly interests me, and I didn't realize until yesterday that the discussion had morphed into a very detailed discussion of the issues involving the "Two Kingdoms" theology.
The discussion is here, and I'd strongly encourage people to read it: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/review-of-_the-escondido-theology_-general-considerations/#comments
There's a lot of good stuff to help understand the issues with the "Two Kingdoms" view, especially that being advocated by some (not all) professors at Westminster-West. As is always the case with any internet discussion whose posts exceed 500 items, there's problems, too.
My concern is not Frame's book but rather the comments on the blog.
This whole "two kingdoms" discussion frequently confuses two very different issues: the role of the church as institute and the role of Christian citizens. If all 2K people want is for Christians to speak as individuals rather than through the institutional church except in cases extraordinary, I have no serious objection.
The problem is that I'm reading comments like this from the pastor of Faith PCA in Cheraw, S.C.: "I do think that all language of cultural transformations tends to lead to either social gospel or thenomy/Christian reconstruction. In either case, it often leads to the exaltation of politics to kingdom-level interest, which I think is a form of idolatry, whether one's politics are liberal or conservative." (Jason Van Bemmel, March 2, 2012 at 9:55pm)
Again, from OPC elder Dr. Daryl Hart: "2k critics are guilty of a theology of glory. 2k affirms a theology of the cross." (March 3, 2012 at 8:14 am)
Still another: "If you're amil, cultural transformation as the expansion of Christ's kingdom is, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, a misguided waste of kingdom resources and priorities. Actually, at worst, it is idolatry and spiritual unfaithfulness to Christ and His true kingdom, which He Himself said was not of this world and thus that His followers should not take up arms and fight for it. (Jason Van Bemmel, #158, March 6, 2012 at 8:35 am)
To accuse people of idolatry, advocating a "theology of glory," a "misguided waste of kingdom resources and priorities" or "spiritual unfaithfulness" is very serious and requires a serious response.
Jeff Cagle, a ruling elder at Mt. Airy (Md.) PCA, is entirely correct when he worries "that the "anti-transformationalist" net will sweep up more than just fish." (#115, March 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm)
Jed Paschall, who dropped out of Moody Bible Institute and now waits tables while being a member of Christ PCA in Temecula, Calif. and prolifically blogging on the "two kingdoms" position, summarized the situation correctly, though coming to the wrong conclusion: "The 2k position is not meant to downplay the importance of the politics of this world, rather it seeks to maintain the spiritual and other-worldly call of the church. I realize that there is much controversy surrounding this issue, but 2kers are not calling on Christian's as citizens to abdicate their responsibilities as such, or to withdraw their duty to neighborly love which does entail some concern for this world, we simply are asking the church to take her calling as the church seriously. Maybe the 2k position seems like an over-correction to many..." (#339: March 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm).
That's not too bad, but just a few comments later (#343, March 12, 2012 at 5:52pm) Jed Paschall makes the astounding argument that while churches may correctly bar pastors from performing gay marriages and bar such ceremonies from being performed inside the church buildings, it would be wrong for the church to say " Furthermore, we call upon the state to maintain the biblical, creational norms regarding marriage, by banning all possibilities of gay marriages, etc, etc." He goes on to say, "I would say that the church qua church has overstepped itself, because they now are seeking to exercise power in the civil realm by enacting or endorsing policy. I do not believe that this lies within the charter of the Church given by Christ in the Great Commission. Now if an individual believer, speaking as a citizen were to petition the state in this manner, I would argue that he is fully within his freedoms to do so."
Again, Jed Paschall wrote: "If the church is issuing these kinds of statements in order to sway the vote one way or the other or pressure legislative change, they are in effect overstepping the constraints of their call of gospel proclamation and disciple making." (#361: March 13, 2012 at 3:56 am)
I do not see how this can be regarded as anything other than an abdication of responsibility by the church. If calling members to oppose gay marriages is not a legitimate "case extraordinary" in the modern American political context where the church can and must speak out against evil, I don't know what is.
Unfortunately, that's not clear to others. The poster "Sean" (#347, March 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm) wrote with regard to Rev. Jason Stellman of Exile PCA in Woodinville, Wash., whose church is in a state that recently legalized gay marriage: "utter waste of credibility and misuse of office it would be for Jason or any other minister/s of the gospel to sacrifice/marginalize the redemptive office and ministerial function of the church to be just another of a few million salvos in the so-called culture war."
The stakes on this are high, and not only in one direction. Not only is the civil magistrate under the Escondido version of the two kingdoms doctrine free to be latitudinarian, he is also free to be wildly extreme in his punishments. As "Tom" said: "The fact is that under Escondido-style two kingdoms (ES2K) the state is left to make any law and any punishment it wishes. It is free to execute murderers, adulterers, child molesters, or habitual jaywalkers. It is free to cut off the offending hand of a thief. Or tatoo an "A" on the forehead of a wayward spouse. The ES2K magistrate can jail practicing homosexuals or grant them a marriage certificate. And you can forget about anything having to do with blasphemy, heresy, or Sabbath-keeping. There is nothing in the ephemeral "natural law" of ES2K to instruct the magistrate which laws are God-pleasing orwhich punishments are just. There is no natural law version of lex talionis. Obviously the magistrate under a ES2K system is far more arbitrary, ruthless, and fearsome (in a negative sense, not a Romans 13 sense) than anything the most militant theonomist could ever envision." (#358: March 12, 2012 at 11:42pm)
As another poster said with regard to "ZRim," otherwise known as Steve Zrimec, a former deacon of Calvin CRC in Grand Rapids and prolific internet supporter of the Two Kingdoms doctrine who recently joined the United Reformed Churches, " no wonder Escondido 2K is not well-regarded, and must be treated and seen as an aberrant, defective form of the historic 2K position." (Truth Unites... and Divides, #373: March 13, 2012 at 9:43 am)
ZRim, now a URC member, asks this: "Do we all need to be reminded that no-fault divorce is unbiblical, that fornication will not be tolerated? Or is there no similar concern for those things because they don't exactly inhabit the public mind?" (March 13, 2012 at 11:13 am)
Such a statement is simply shocking to me. Look at the percentages of young people and even older people in our churches involved in immorality. If our churches are not preaching on such matters, it is our own fault.
Quite frankly, if churches are not preaching on the major sins of American culture, they aren't doing their jobs.
Brethren, the stakes in these matters are serious. We can say all we want about pastors not being professional politicians and not being the best-equipped people to make political pronouncements. I might very well agree with that in many cases.
But the culture wars are real, they're deadly serious, and if we're not going to fight back we can't assume the devil is going to stop fighting just because we try to raise the white flag.
Darrell Todd Maurina, Member Gospel of Grace ARP, Springfield, Mo.
Call a spade a spade...r2k is heresy.
The point I'm making here is that those who ignore the culture wars, including gay marriage, are not going to be spared. They're in for a most unpleasant surprise. Even if they don't want to fight in this culture war, the war will be coming to them, whether they like or or not......and soon!
Since I attend a PCA church, I figured I'd read the post and linked website to see what the issues are. It's like walking into a cafeteria at the end of a food fight and trying to figure out what the original argument was about.
Traditions of men expanding to overfill the entire creation; obliverating everything He says and does:
You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men." Matthew 5:12-14
Let's be fair: that's an inherent problem of theology. Theologians write a lot and they're writing about complicated things. As Reformed Christians we're used to our preachers caring about doctrine in detail and that's not bad. We're not broad evangelicals who subscribe to a brief two-page statement of faith; we're Calvinists who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, Three Forms of Unity, or one of several other very detailed doctrinal standards with literally thousands of Scripture proof texts.
Also, "Two Kingdoms" advocates are all over the map on many issues. Some of them are probably more or less okay.
Others of them... well... let's let these quotes speak for themselves:
"In response to the question posed in #275, Pastor Stellman says that a pastor preaching on the sin of abortion and praying in pastoral prayers for the legality of abortion to be overturned wouldnt turn any heads or cause any concerns at all. Such ministerial activity falls within Escondido 2K boundaries"
OK, I can live with that though those aren't the words I would have used. I'm a little hesitant to say I like it given the context (see the following links for examples) but it's not too bad.
However, read this item by Jed Paschall and I think it frames the problem clearly. He's actually arguing that the church should not take a stand against legalization of gay marriage. However, read this item by Jed Paschall and I think it frames the problem clearly. He's actually arguing that the church should not take a stand against the legalization of gay marriage.
If that isn't one of the "cases extraordinary" envisioned by the confessions, I can't imagine what else could be.
If by speaking against gay marriage you mean, for example:
We, ministers of the Church of ________ assert that the Scriptures clearly affirm that homosexuality is a sin. Moreover, we also assert that the Scriptures clearly affirm that marriage is to be shared between a man and a woman. Therefore, we affirm, in line with Biblical teaching that gay marriage is a sinful distortion of the biblical intent for human marriage and sexuality. As such, our congregations will neither condone nor perform gay marriages within our membership or clergy.
Then, yes, I would say that this an important clarification of the churchs stance on a pressing cultural issues.
However, if we were to add to this example:
Furthermore, we call upon the state to maintain the biblical, creational norms regarding marriage, by banning all possibilities of gay marriages, etc, etc.
I would say that the church qua church has overstepped itself, because they now are seeking to exercise power in the civil realm by enacting or endorsing policy. I do not believe that this lies within the charter of the Church given by Christ in the Great Commission. Now if an individual believer, speaking as a citizen were to petition the state in this manner, I would argue that he is fully within his freedoms to do so.
Read my post #6 on this thread, which has direct reference to the mess in the Church of Scotland. While Roman Catholics are fighting against gay marriage in England, the Church of Scotland (which has its own internal homosexual problem) is avoiding speaking out.
Rev. Jason Stellman, a PCA minister in Washington state who is a former missionary in Europe and is a prominent "two kingdoms" advocate, was asked what he thinks about whether the Church of Scotland (and by extension other Reformed bodies in Britain) have the right to speak up.
His answer was interesting, and not too bad.
The more radical "two kingdoms" people continued, however, to say the church ought not to be talking about gay marriages since it's a political rather than a religious question.
That is simply not biblical or Reformed.
At best, it's an overreaction to the craziness of twentieth-century liberalism in which the assemblies of the church wasted tremendous amounts of time fighting over whether to endorse liberal political goals, and (in the South) a sincere desire to follow the old Southern Presbyterian tradition of avoiding political statements on things like slavery. I believe the Southern Presbyterians were dead wrong on that — slavery was a moral issue and the slaveholders were wrong — but I can at least respect people who are following what they believe is an "Old School" theological conservative viewpoint.
At worst, this refusal to take a stand on "political questions" it's nothing but an attempt to carve out room in the church for liberal political positions.
(And no, none of you are on any kind of formal ping list; I'm simply sending this to people who I've noticed commenting on Calvinist postings and may be interested in the Reformed faith.)
When things have gotten to the point that there are "Two Kingdoms" advocates who profess to be conservative Calvinists but are seriously arguing that the church ought not to take a stand on gay marriage because it is a "political issue," it's time for conservative Reformed laymen (and especially elders) to stand up and say, "Enough is enough!"
I have a long history with the URC and Westminster-West — up to and including being accepted for admission to the seminary many years ago and then deciding not to go for personal reasons totally unrelated to this "Two Kingdoms" issue. I have great respect for the seminary's founders, several of whom I know personally. I'm particularly pained because some of these "Two Kingdoms" advocates are deserving of real credit for many years of work done in the church to fight liberalism and heresy.
However, these views on politics being advocated by some of the Westminster-West professors (not all) are not just wrong but dangerous. They are harming the reputation of the seminary as well as causing problems in the church, and they need to be fought against now.
The stakes are simply too great to let politically uniformed pastors muddle things up for our churches. They may mean well, but they're causing major problems at a time when we need to be unified to fight against the culture wars that threaten to destroy what is left of biblical Christianity in America.
We are commanded to spread the Gospel. That alone will change hearts, not passing laws.
We certainly don't disagree that the gospel alone changes hearts, but it's a matter of both-and, not either-or. Surely we should preach the gospel to liberals and pray that God converts them, but we also need to stop them from imposing their evil wickedness on society through congress, the courts, and lower legislative bodies.
2 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:06:24 AM by crghill: "Call a spade a spade...r2k is heresy."
I can't agree, crghill. Take a look at the posts by guitarplayer1953 and gamecock. This is part of why I won't call R2K heresy — it's close enough to the old Southern Presbyterian "spirituality of the church" view that even some people here on Free Republic, who can be assumed to be right-wing politically active conservatives, are saying things which John Calvin and John Knox likely would have regarded either as anabaptist or as tending toward anabaptism.
Calvin and Knox believed in imposing not just general Christian principles but explicitly Reformed principles through civil law. I'm not advocating that for a long list of reasons, but there are issues where there can be no compromise between crystal-clear Christian values and the values of secular liberalism, and it's those issues on which I believe Christians must fight in modern America.
12 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:03:45 PM by guitarplayer1953: "Yes that is true and that is why Ben F. said you can not legislate morality."
Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian by any evangelical definition of that word. The idea that government can't legislate morality is totally false: government will **ALWAYS** be legislating someone's version of morality. The only question is **WHOSE** version.
Leftist liberals typically value personal choice over all else, and therefore advocate things such as homosexual marriage and women's "rights" to choose to abort their babies. They may call it "human rights" or "values" rather than morality, but there's no difference between liberals passing laws in accord with their values and conservatives passing laws in accord with our values.
Christians can't get around these issues. Either our government will say women have a right to kill their babies, or our government will say babies have a right to life and should be protected. Same for gay marriage. There is no middle ground. Christians have to either follow the anabaptists and say Christians have no need to be concerned about government (in which case, posting on Free Republic is quite inconsistent) or we have to fight against wickedness in our courts and legislatures and congress.
9 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:28:57 PM by guitarplayer1953: "One question did Christ ever speak out against Rome (government)? No He spoke out against the religious leadership."
Jesus was not a Roman citizen and had no right under Roman law to speak out against the government. Paul, who was a Roman citizen, could and did demand his rights under the law.
Look at this, for example:
Romans 16:35-39: 35 When it was daylight, the magistrates sent their officers to the jailer with the order: Release those men. 36 The jailer told Paul, The magistrates have ordered that you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace. 37 But Paul said to the officers: They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out. 38 The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed. 39 They came to appease them and escorted them from the prison, requesting them to leave the city.
The fact that we participate on Free Republic is proof that we want to change our government's seriously wrongheaded views and want to stop liberals from legislating their version of morality.
It's time we speak up and stop letting liberals run our government, and to the extent that they've wrongly taught our ministers that Christians can't speak up, we need to convince our ministers that the Bible not only allows but arguably requires Christian citizens to try to stop evil in the world around them.
I don't have a problem with saying that the church isn't typically the best organization to speak out officially and formally. Individual Christians are usually better equipped to do that than the church as institute. However, the leftists aren't satisfied with emasculating the church and want to stop all Christians, not just institutional churches, from speaking out against evil, and unfortunately, they're being aided and abetted by some people advocating R2K views inside some Reformed churches.
But it's also true that bad laws do change hearts, and in the wrong way.
It's also true that there's such a thing as objective moral truth (also called "natural law"), and civil laws ought to correspond to that objective moral truth unless there's a very, very good reason not to in specific cases. (For example, because the government is sufficiently corrupt that it can't be trusted with the additional power.)
Why? Well, for one thing, correspondence to objective truth ("reality") is the definition of sanity. Laws permitting, e.g., abortion are literally insane, and it's insane not to oppose them.
Don't forget the "community effects". Laws that permit (or worse, encourage) bad things mean that you and your family have to live in a society where those bad things are tolerated. Straight from scripture: "Bad company corrupts good morals." Well, a society that legislates bad things is "bad company".
Finally, God judges nations as well as individuals. Much of the Old Testament was written to tell that story.
Being crucified as a political rebel wasn't his mission. Jesus was a member of a subjugated people in a state which was effectively a more-or-less benevolent (and utterly pagan) dictatorship.
Is that the kind of America you want your grandchildren to inherit?
Infiltrate and destroy from within.
Read your bible the last days will be as the days of Noah, the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket and that is the way the plan is, all of creation groans for the day of the new heavens and the new earth.
As a conservative, I certainly affirm what the First Amendment says, namely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I am in no way an advocate of official state-sanctioned established churches with government-paid clergy, and I don't want to have civil rulers prohibit members of Catholic parishes, Unitarian churches, or Jewish synagogues from exercising their faith — though precisely that was happening in parts of colonial America.
I strongly suspect that won't answer your question, so let's clarify my answer with the original intent of the founders.
John Adams wrote that "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Seems pretty good to me.
Let's take a look at the views of another Founding Father who, in addition to being the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was a governor of Virginia, then one of the most powerful states. Perhaps especially important for this purpose, Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, probably the most "liberal" of the colonial documents on that subject apart from the two historically tolerant colonies of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.
Jefferson had certain views about homosexuality. He was the head of a committee which wrote this law: "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half diameter at the least."
I think I might argue that Jefferson's penalty for homosexuality could perhaps be modified to be a bit less harsh, and I think I might argue, contra Adams, that an atheist can be a good citizen of America, but Jefferson and Adams give pretty clear indicators of how the Founding Fathers would have applied their views of religious freedom to our current discussions in modern America.
In this regard, I ought to add that Jefferson was a Deist and Adams was a Unitarian. These were two of the most religiously liberal Founding Fathers.
If castrating homosexuals and saying atheists can't be good Americans is included in the proper "original intent" definition of religious freedom, I think it's pretty obvious that modern Americans use the words "religious freedom" very differently from what the Founders meant.
I've given you facts which show pretty clearly that America today has greatly changed from what the Founders intended. You may think that change is good, and to some extent I may agree with you. What you can't do is argue that my views are something out of line with the Founders — except that they might consider me to be too liberal in my views of what should be tolerated.
OK I nominate this for the 'most unusual FR headline in the last 90 days' award.
There's a difference between what Congress has the power to do and what Congress should do.
Given the views of the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the Statute for Virginia on Religious Freedom, it looks like the original intent of the Constitution would have allowed Congress not only to prohibit polygamy but actually to castrate all the polygamists in the federal territory of Utah.
I certainly don't advocate such things in a modern political context, and I probably wouldn't advocate them in the context of 1800s Utah, either. However, I have read books at the time of the debates over what to do with Utah arguing that Mormonism needed to be dealt with as a criminal rather than a religious matter, and I believe the federal government had the constitutional right to prohibit polygamy.
Was that a good idea in late 1800s America? Maybe yes, maybe no. In a modern political context, I've got better things to do with my time than try to prosecute breakaway non-LDS Mormon sectarian groups. Gay marriage is the pressing issue today, not plural marriage.
I do believe marriage should be limited to one man and one woman for secular, moral, and religious reasons. I believe the history of the First Amendment gives me the ability to demand far more than that, but as a matter of practical politics, I'll leave the issue there and not try to argue for prosecution of polygamists and homosexuals unless there are other crimes involved.
I trust you will recognize the allusion involved in my statement that while under the Constitution many things are lawful, not all things are helpful.
When I say that, I hope it's clear that I'm taking a position which is far more "liberal" than that of the most liberal Founding Fathers of the United States. For my position today to be considered a right-wing Christian viewpoint shows mostly how far America has fallen.
However, this information is widely available elsewhere on the internet. Some gay rights organizations cite this as an example of what might be called the "bad old days." On the other side, conservative organizations have cited this precedent to point out that not only was gay marriage unthinkable to the Founding Fathers, laws existed forbidding gay sex acts and imposing severe criminal penalties. Jefferson's role is particularly significant because he was a good example of a liberal among the Founding Fathers.
In fairness to Jefferson's defenders, it does need to be pointed out that while Jefferson's revised law made castration the maximum penalty for homosexual acts, but that was less severe than the death penalty that existed before him. I guess modern liberals could say Jefferson was moving in their idea of the "correct" direction.
Bottom line: There is no way to get anything remotely resembling modern liberal concepts of religious freedom by reading the Founding Fathers. Yes, they wanted an end to tax-supported churches and clergy. Yes, some of them wanted to allow Deists and Unitarians to have full civil rights. But even the Deists and Unitarians had a view of state-enforced civic morality that is stricter than what Jerry Falwell or the Christian Coalition would advocate today.
I think it would be fair to say that as a general rule, the New England colonies were much stricter in their actual enforcement of moral codes, while in the South, the Episcopalians took more of a "live-and-let-live" approach. What I showed you in Virginia was much less strict than the civil law codes of colonial New England. The only colony which had religious freedom in any form recognizable to modern America would be Rhode Island, which was explicitly founded to advocate religious toleration and unlike Quakers in Pennsylvania, who also advocated religious toleration, Rhode Island didn't have a dominant unofficial church from the start.
Each of the colonies was different. Each had different origins, each had different developments over the century and a half prior to the American Revolution, and church-state relations ranged from Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire, where even **AFTER** the ratification of the Constitution the states continued to maintain official state-established churches until the last was disestablished in the 1830s, to Pennsylvania and Rhode Island where religious freedom was a key principle of the founders.
Things were not always what modern people might expect. In Dutch-ruled New Amsterdam (now New York), Jews were allowed to build a synagogue when Catholics were not allowed to build churches. That makes no sense until one realizes that Jews had full freedom to practice their religion in the Netherlands and often had good relations with Calvinist theologians who even let them use printing presses to print Jewish books, but Catholics were viewed as a political threat in the Netherlands based on a long history of Hapsburg Catholic efforts to exterminate Protestants before the Netherlands became independent. (Also, Oliver Cromwell was a strong supporter of letting Jews live in England based on theological reasons and a shared respect for the Old Testament.)
Understanding this wide diversity helps understand why the federal Constitution was designed to bar establishment of religion by **CONGRESS,** not by the states. Maryland Catholics, Virginian, Carolinian, and Georgian Episcopalians, New England Puritans, the Dutch Reformed in New York, and the Quakers of Pennsylvania may not have agreed on much, but they all agreed that the federal government had no business telling states what they should do about religious matters.
The problem was that by the late 1700s, none of those states was unified internally in religious matters.
Even before the American Revolution, Ulster (Scots-Irish) and Scottish Presbyterians as well as German Reformed and German Lutherans were well on their way toward overthrowing the Quaker consensus in Pennsylvania. In New England, the rising power of Unitarianism was taking control of the wealthy east coast churches and had captured Harvard College long before the "official" break with orthodoxy which came a generation after the Revolution. The Dutch Reformed had once run New York City and still controlled its social and commercial life in the late 1700s, but the English conquest had put English and Scottish leaders in key government leadership positions of New York and New Jersey. Farther south, backwoods Presbyterians had become a minority influence even in the late 1600s and early 1700s, but as the Revolutionary War broke out, Presbyterians proved incapable of supplying enough ministers and the Anglican clergy were viewed as being pro-British, Methodists (who at that time still considered themselves Episcopalians) swarmed into vacant pulpits and Baptists started churches in places which had no church at all.
The Second Great Awakening made the situation even more convoluted, with Campbellites, Baptists, and other groups with no history of participating in the establishment rising to prominence throughout the South. As Methodism detached itself from Episcopalianism, it started to aggressively plant churches throughout both the North and South, taking people away from older churches regarded as "dead" and starting new churches on the frontiers where the older denominations were not doing their jobs.
I don't know of any major political or religious leader who, by the 1840s, seriously argued that there should be state establishment of any particular denomination. That would have been impossible in the new states, and virtually impossible even in the older states. Massachusetts was the last state to give up its established church, and that was not out of anti-religious motives but rather because the conservatives in rural Massachusetts, after winning the battles against Unitarians to drive them out of Congregationalism, realized that having an official state church was doing nothing to help conservatives and only helped the Unitarians in the wealthy east coast churches.
What most of these various denominations shared was a common commitment to the basics of what we might today understand as evangelical Christianity. Even the Unitarians and Deists had a strong view of morality, and the Roman Catholic minority, while distrusted by nearly all Protestants, was certainly strict in the 1800s.
If we're going to understand religious freedom as freedom to practice religion without state interference, that's okay with me. I'm not interested in telling people they can't go to a church I don't like.
On the other hand, it is simply not true that religious freedom means freedom from morality. I showed you a few posts ago how even radical liberals like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams held views that would be ultraconservative today.
I hope that's of some help in showing that lots of secular liberal American education about religious freedom simply cannot be backed up with historical facts.
It is important to remember that while this theology is being advocated by key professors at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and it's giving the seminary a bad name, Dr. W. Robert Godfrey (the seminary president) is not in agreement with these things. Many of us who are longtime fans of Westminster-West need to pray for the seminary to get rid of this theology, which is being advocated by a fairly small minority but is causing real problems.
If we want to know how bad this "R2K" (Radical Two Kingdoms) theology, sometimes known as the "Escondido theology," can get, read these posts where an Orthodox Presbyterian minister is actually saying it's okay for OPC members to vote for abortion and that it's okay for church members to advocate eliminating laws against sex with animals (bestiality).
Where is this stuff coming from? Certainly not out of the Bible or the Reformed confessions.
Darrell Todd Maurina
My post (the following text) is here:
The post being referenced is on the Puritan Board, here:
I believe that our own CO-URC Elder Mark Van Der Molen's interaction with OPC pastor Rev. Todd Bordow, pastor of Rio Rancho OPC in New Mexico, is instructive. Those who don't understand the dangers of the "Escondido theology" or "R2K" or "Es2K" position need to read this.
Van Der Molen asked this: "If we assume the church member's intent is not to divide the church, but rather to pass laws in the civil sphere to sanction homosexual marriage and abort as many babies as women may see fit, the session could not step in under the R2k 'liberty' principle?"
Bordow responded with this: "If a member confessed with the Bible that homosexual behavior and lust is sinful, and himself did not practice such things, but decided to vote to allow homosexuals thr right to marry, we would not discipline him. These are always opportunities to teach if necessary, but we wouldn't have the Bible's authority to cast them out of the kingdom for such political views. In reality it is none of our business as clergy to know the voting practices of our members ( I know one could come up with some extreme or absurd example where this might not be true - fine - it is generally true)."
There's something really wrong when I have to commend the Roman Catholic Church for warning Catholic pro-abortion politicians not to take communion, while conservative Presbyterians are saying that's not a proper subject for church discipline.
Most of the time pastors will not know how their members voted in the voting booth. But when a church member stands up and publicly advocates gay marriage or baby-killing, it is no longer a secret sin but a public sin.
Churches need to deal with public sins, even if (arguably especially if) they are sins by people in public positions where they can do a lot of damage.
Things got worse later in the debate between Rev. Bordow and Elder Van Der Molen. Not only is consenting homosexual sodomy a matter of indifference to Rev. Bordow and shouldn't be subject to civil penalties, even the kitties, doggies, and cows and pigs aren't safe:
"Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state's role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don't want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That's allowed. That is the distinction. Another example - beastiality is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I'm content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions, that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world."
Guys, this isn't blurry at all. I don't care how much you want to distinguish between natural law and revealed law — no way in the world can anyone argue that sex with dogs, cats, cows, pigs and goats is something which the civil magistrates have no natural law to tell them it's wrong.
Why are we even discussing this in conservative and confessional Reformed circles where our ministers and members can be presumed to believe the Bible? Aren't some things so obviously wrong that even most unbelievers today still understand they need to be prohibited and punished? Granted, back when I was a reporter in New Mexico and attending an OPC a few hours away from Rev. Bordow, I was writing newspaper articles about a court case of a woman accused of creating pornographic photos of her daughter having sex with dogs. In a generation unless something changes, we may have a whole industry in America with people paying for sex with dogs and babies — all the more reason why we as Christians need to speak up now while we still have a chance to win the political fight.
I think R. Martin Snyder said it best over on the Puritan Board: "Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here."
Darrell Todd Maurina
Gospel of Grace ARP, Springfield, Mo.
Those of you who are Roman Catholic may want to note how I commend your church for taking a stance on politicians advocating obviously anti-Christian public policy: "There's something really wrong when I have to commend the Roman Catholic Church for warning Catholic pro-abortion politicians not to take communion, while conservative Presbyterians are saying that's not a proper subject for church discipline."
As a Calvinist I believe in total depravity, and we've got our own problems in conservative Reformed circles.
Believe it or not, there are now conservative Reformed ministers saying it's okay for church members to vote in favor of abortion and even for bestiality. Apparently not only babies but also the kitties, doggies, cows, goats and pigs aren't safe!
Some of this is due to an unbiblical view by some that Christians shouldn't be involved in explicitly Christian political activism. If all they mean is individual Christians rather than the church as institute should be involved in politics, fine. Typically pastors don't have the skill sets to be involved in politics anyway. But to say there is no Christian position on the key issues in modern politics and that we ought not to participate in the the culture war is not just wrong but dangerous.
Bottom line: We need to be spending our time fighting Satan's agenda wherever it shows up, and given how bad things have gotten in the United States, those who actively discourage Christians from fighting the culture wars are doing something very dangerous and must be stopped. Our freedoms as Christians are under assault, we're fighting rear-guard actions to protect what is left of our freedom, and America in a generation may be unrecognizable if the liberals win this war.
It is actually a worldwide phenomena, these days, depravity and ethical degradation, if not spiritual blindness. Those who are conservative, but not comfortable with the concept of universal truths or moral absolutes, will find themselves uncomfortable with some social conservative candidates for office, such as for President and what-not.
My apologies for the delayed response.
The short answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment has been used by the courts to apply rights enumerated in the federal constitution to the states regardless of what the state constitutions might say. Just as elections have consequences, wars have consequences, and those of us who affirm original intent of the Constitution cannot deny that the post-Civil War federal constitution, as amended, gives considerably less latitude to the states than was the case pre-1861.
That is entirely legitimate with regard to slavery, with regard to civil rights and citizenship for blacks, and related matters. The Constitution probably did have to be amended to undo the 1857 Dred Scott decision, and it's much better to make major changes by the formal process of a constitutional amendment than to have shifting majorities on the Supreme Court make such changes based on political considerations rather than the expressed written decisions of Congress and state legislatures.
The longer answer — and this is the crux of the problem — is that the Fourteenth Amendment, whose clear original intent was to bar racial discrimination, has been grossly expanded beyond any conceivable intent of all but the most radical and extreme leftist politicians in the 1860s and 1870s.
While it's true that American religious life included more radical elements in the 1860s and 1870s than it did in the era of the Founding Fathers, and open atheism as well as cultic religion and spiritualist movements with seances were in existence (think Abraham Lincoln's wife, for example) I cannot remotely imagine most Unitarians or Transcendentalists in 1870 wanting to bar religious symbols from public places or remove them from state and city emblems.
Even the Blaine Amendments of the anti-Catholic era of the late 1800s, which were intended to prevent tax dollars from being used for promotion of "sectarian" doctrines in public schools in areas where Roman Catholics were the majority, didn't anticipate that a certain type of lowest-common-denominator Christianity would not be taught in the public schools. The consensus conservative, moderate, and liberal political position in the late 1800s and much of the early 1900s was that religion and morality were essential to a well-ordered society, so while it might not be a good idea to talk too much about the Trinity in a New England public school or about consubstantiation in a public school in heavily Lutheran area of the midwest, religion and morality certainly **WERE** being taught in the public schools so long as it was not "sectarian," i.e., promoting one denomination over against another.
One needs to look to the role of John Dewey and radical movements of the early 1900s to find any hint of the anti-religious positions which have now become common in jurisprudence. I do not believe that can even remotely be defended with a strict constructionist view of the federal constitution.
Not everything that happened in the late 1800s and early 1900s was necessarily bad — for example, I don't have a problem with the courts extending the long-term allowance of draft exemptions for religiously motivated pacifist Quakers and Mennonites (which date back to the Founding Fathers) to atheists and agnostics who have a philosophical objection to war comparable to religiously based pacifism. I think a very good case can be made that legal tolerance for explicit atheism and irreligion is quite compatible with the Founders' obvious original intent to allow toleration for Deism, Unitarianism, and other liberal religious systems.
My problem is not that atheism is being tolerated — I have no desire to force people to be church members or profess a faith they do not possess — but rather that the courts are ruling that not only "sectarian" religion but also basic morality must be excised from public actions and discourse.
Nobody can credibly argue that even the most liberal of the Founding Fathers intended that. Not only men like Witherspoon (a Presbyterian minister, president of what is now Princeton, and a right-wing Calvinist by modern standards) but also Unitarians like Adams, and even "freethinkers" like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed that. The founders were far from unified on their religious beliefs, but they believed morality was essential to maintaining a free republic. They were right, and to pretend that morality does not typically have a religious basis is to ignore virtually all of human history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Member Since: 04/06/09Send richard123 a Message Give richard123 a Gift Add richard123 as a Friend
successful pleasant kind great friend caring FRIENDLY thoughtful competitive confident
You can complete this milestone by accruing more than 50 reputation points in the last 7 days
You can reach this milestone by completing the quiz "Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?"
You can reach this milestone by completing the quiz "Do You Know US Gov't History?"
You can reach this milestone by completing the quiz "Federal Matchmaker: Which Department Is Right for You?"
You can reach this milestone by starting a group that is one of the top 100 most active groups.
You can reach this milestone by inviting at least 5 friends who join the site.
You can reach this milestone by being one of the first 1,000 members to gain a star.
You can reach this milestone by becoming a site moderator.
You can reach this milestone by becoming one of the top 100 users on the Reputation Leaderboard.
richard123: Profile Photos
richard123: Friends
- Account Removed
- Account Removed
- fishingguy
- rokaw2000
- cajun_in_japan
- henryf760
richard123: Albums
richard123: Groups
- The Prayer Room
- Old TV Shows
- Cowboy Fans
- US Army
- Christmas
- New Mexico Military Institute alumni
- Eagle Scouts
- Gun Enthusiasts
- Poetry
- Poems Qutoes
- Music for Fun
- College Past Present and Future
- Comedy
- Moms
- International Humanitarian work
- Horse Enthusiasts
- Our cars
- Health Issues
- Resume Workshop
- Searching for Jobs
- USA Safety Network working together for a safer place to live
- Fathers Day
- Mothers Day
- Veterans for Christ
- The Future for the Children of America
- MOTIVATION Where do you get yours
- Federal Recruiters
- Memorial Wall
- Sunshine
- Time Machine
- Recipe Swapping
- American Community Survey
- Stress Relief
- Scoobys Job Corner
- Health Care your throughts
- Your most funnyest joke you heard
- I am on facebook too
- Mopar Fans
- cold war veterans
richard123: Quiz Results
How Do You React to Stress in the Workplace [PhD Certified] taken almost 8 years ago
You are Responsive
How Secure Is Your Job? taken almost 8 years ago
You're Safe and Sound
Could You Get a Scholarship? taken almost 8 years ago
Average Chance at Scholarships
How Would You Get Fired? taken almost 8 years ago
You'd get fired for Being Lazy
Should I Be: A Biologist / Scientist? taken almost 8 years ago
Science is not a great fit.
richard123: Gifts
This e-Gift is free for all GovCentral users to give to one another.
This e-Gift is free for all GovCentral users to give to one another.
richard white
- Location:
- El Cajon, CA
- Gender:
- Male
- Service:
- Other
- Status:
- Other
- Relationship Status:
- Married
richard123: Activity
"Still need to find a job.Resumes posted on Monster and linkedin"
"Hopefully will find a better more meaningful line of work soon."
"I officiallly voluntarily quit my job today due to Harassment from Mgmt."
"Very well written and is factual"
"Happy Mothers Day to all Moms, Grandmas, GodMothers, and those acting as Moms."
richard123: References
- Hobbies:
- where do I start
- Favorite Movies:
- coyote ugly,broken bridges
- Favorite TV Shows:
- everwood,party of five
- Favorite Music:
- all types
Comment Wall
Add richard123 as a friend to write on their Comment Wall.
Account Removed
over 7 years ago
you're welcome and thanks for adding and tagging me!!
over 7 years ago
1976 comments
thanks, same to you dad.
Account Removed
almost 8 years ago
You have yourself many cheerful moments on this Father's Day.
almost 8 years ago
9160 comments
Richard you to and my good luck come right in front of you
Yeah...Chicago is great, but I can really do without the harsh winters. Yes, I grew up in Chicago, but, that does not make me an expert (nor accustomed) to the winters. Personally, I waould rather be in the south-their summers are no different than Chicago's (at least, that is how I feel).
almost 8 years ago
2 comments
Hi Richard, I hope you had a great holiday weekend also. Mine is a little more crazy than normal. I'm preparing to retire from the Air Force after 26 years and things have to be done.
Yeah...it was ok. The weather turned out better than I though it would (I am in Chicago-wait 2 seconds and the weather will change again). How was yours? And, did you barbecue?
Thank you for the request to be friends. Sorry, I did not respond sooner....mi nieta, she occupies alot of my daytime hours.
You have a great family! Those pictures are very nicely framed and had great backgrounds.
almost 8 years ago
152 comments
Hi Richard, Thanks. I hope you too have a great weekend and holiday! See you around.
almost 8 years ago
18 comments
Thanks for the friend request, its nice to meet you.
almost 8 years ago
1926 comments
Very well deserved! Have a happy Memorial Weekend Richard, my husband has mentioned he enjoys visiting with you on here as well
almost 8 years ago
2038 comments
Thanks Richard Hope you have a great holiday also.
Account Removed
almost 8 years ago
Thanks, I feel honored. Cheers to our brothers and sisters far from home.
You have a great Memorial Day!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A lightweight option for mild overpronators looking to run fast, the Newton Distance U offers moderate cushioning and a semi-firm ride.
Pick up the pace in the light and supportive Newton Distance U 2012. The responsive forefoot lugs are great for running fast and the low heel-to-toe drop encourages a more forward footstrike. The Newton Distance U is best suited for runners with over-pronation who seek a shoe for tempo runs, intervals and racing.
Model Number:
Weight: 6.8 oz (size 8)
Stack Height: Heel (26mm), Forefoot (22mm); measurement includes forefoot lugs.
Available Widths: B=Medium
How It Fits (based on width B)
The Distance U is a moderate feature, minimum support shoe designed for daily training and racing.
Be the first to write a review for this product!Write a Review


text:
Puma EvoSPEED Star Indoor Soccer Sneaker - Mens
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 270253
Speed from the streets to the field and lace-up a pair of these lightweight Puma® EvoSPEED Star Soccer indoor sneakers. You will make an impact on your game as well as your style with its awesome color-ways.
- Lightweight microfiber upper
- Fabric lining
- Lightly padded collar and tongue
- SpeedCELL technology to enhance speed
- Solid side formstripe logo
- IdCell EVA midsole for superior cushioning
- Non-marking gum-rubber outsole
- DuoFlex flex grooves on outsole for exceptional flexibility
- Imported
By: Tedex
Location: Baltimore
July 19, 2013
Sporty look
"very colorful and sporty design. A fun shoe if you like bright colors. The design is also sharp and i like the PUMA tag, lol.Very light and confortable."
By: Willie1
June 22, 2013
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
I have some tree decorating dilemmas and would appreciate an advice.
Some of my ornaments are matched, and some are unique. To explain, the matched ones are mostly colored balls (of diferent sizes), and the unique ones are really all diferent in shapes, colors and sizes.
What can I do to unify the look and to avoid having a messy looking tree? I don't mind having many colors (I actually plan on that), but I wouldn't like to go over the top and have people experience sensory overload when they see it.


text:
Restricted Get Going Flat
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 286431
This smart and stylish flat from Restricted will get you going. The vogue d'orsay styling and sensible flat make this perfect for work or for play!
- Faux leather d'orsay upper
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
- View more Women's Restricted Shoes
By: STLMOmma
Location: STL
November 16, 2013
"These shoes are super cute. My daughter got a pair, in black, from the store...but was going down a size - so she decided to wait on getting the Cognac color. She has narrow heels, and her usual 8.5 felt like, after breaking in, the heels might slip around on her. So, she took a chance and went down to an 8 in these. She is still in the breaking in phase, so there have been some blisters...but she does feel like there is some stretch happening, so she had me go ahead and order the Cognac in an 8, too. They're super cute with jeans and a sweater. She's very happy with the purchase."
By: shoegirl146
Location: Washington, DC
September 09, 2013
Good, not great
"The shoe itself is very comfortable and great for wearing all day - but they came a little scuffed right out of the box. I live in a city and need shoes for walking the mile to and from work each day, so they get destroyed rather quickly and I didn't care that these were already a little roughed up - particularly given the price - but I could certainly understand other customers being very frustrated by it."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
ASHBURN, Va. -- Small wonder why Robert Griffin III was hop skipping across the Redskins Park parking lot into their practice bubble prior to Friday's practice:
On the key day for the Redskins rookie quarterback to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he was capable of eluding Cleveland Browns pass rushers Sunday, Griffin looked like his vintage self on one rollout throw.
CONTROVERSY: ESPN personality suspended for RGIII comments
COLUMN: Comments on RGIII miss the point ... again
That seemed to answer the biggest question about his steady progression following Sunday's Grade 1 sprain of the lateral collateral ligament inside his right knee suffered late in an overtime win against Baltimore.
Griffin had more bounce in his step on shuffle drills and showed good lower-body explosion on all warm-up drills. Most significantly, he was up on his toes and on balance throwing a corner fade pass to receiver Santana Moss, showing no signs of limitation.
Griffin indicated this week that if there is no setback or risk of re-injury, he will be out there for his teammates.
Still, it's fair to wonder if the Redskins coaching staff even will make a determination for sure until Sunday warm-ups at Cleveland Browns Stadium field based on something offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan said Thursday.
"I'll wait to see how he's moving on Sunday before I decide because I haven't made any final decisions yet,'' Shanahan said. "He's not going full speed out there so you never really know how healthy he is until he's going full speed.''
PHOTOS: Best of Robert Griffin III


text:
Check items to add to the cart or select all
Compatible HP Q7551A 51A Toner Cartridge for M3027 mfp M3035 mfp P3005 P3005d P3005dn
Regular Price: $69.99
Special Price: $29.99
Type: Compatible
Part No.: Q7551X (51X), Also replaces Q7551A (51A)
Category: Toner Cartridge
No. of pages: Up to 13,000 pages at 5% Coverage Learn more...
Our replacement cartridge includes new parts such as Chips, Drum, PCR, Doctor Blade, Magnetic Roller and Wiper blade to be defect free.
100% satisfaction guarantee on all compatible cartridges
(not 30 days or 90 days, 1 full year guaranteed)
|HP LaserJet M3027 mfp, M3027x mfp, M3035 mfp, M3035xs mfp, P3005, P3005d, P3005dn, P3005n, P3005x
You have no items in your shopping cart.


text:
Don't miss a story. Like us on Facebook. Like Dallas News' Facebook Page
Staff writers Kira Witkin and Talia Richman report:
Like most of the country, Dallas is divided on Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul.
The 5-4 decision essentially makes it mandatory for Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, which the five justices interpret as a tax.
Some patients at Dallas hospitals and their families are convinced that the decision will ultimately harm their health because they'll have to pay the tax and still find a way to pay for prescription drugs.
Among them was Rhonda Taylor, who was at Parkland Memorial Hospital this morning for her monthly arthritis infusion. She is worried her medical bills will increase because her care is funded through a Parkland program.
"Everyone can't afford health insurance," said Taylor, 53. "I'm probably going to have to cut in half all the medications I need."
What bothers Ruth Brasch, a breast cancer patient from Rowlett who visited Baylor University Medical Center this morning, is that those who are employed will have to foot the bill for those who aren't under the plan.
"Obamacare stinks," said Brasch, a 71-year-old who uses Medicare. "It mandates that everyone needs to buy insurance, but if they don't have jobs, people with insurance will end up subsidizing the cost for those who can't afford it."
John Knutson of North Dallas, another cancer patient visiting Baylor, praised the decision and said he hopes the sometimes-derisive term used for the legislation sticks.
"I used to think the phrase 'Obamacare' was a poor term," the 72-year-old said. "But now, I think it's perfect – he deserves recognition for what he has achieved with this policy. Obamacare is not a degrading term."
Other critics are simply averse to the decision because they are "not for anything that is going to force you to do anything against your will," said Charles Rash, a 45-year-old with no health insurance.
Maryann White, 49, of Rockwall said the high court's rationale that the law institutes a new tax rather than a fee was misguided.
"The court's decision seems like it focuses on the semantics of the word tax versus fine," she said. "It oversimplifies what could turn out to be a historically altering event.
"It will take a huge toll on people in an already financially disabled nation."
It seems that the issue even has families divided. David Coleman, 36, was taking his mother, Paula to the eye clinic at Parkland. The mother, 58, was disappointed while the son thought it was the right thing to do.
"Why should the government control everybody that needs health care?" she said. "I just don't think it's going to help everybody. I live on a very fixed income and I can't afford to spend that money on insurance."
David disagreed, saying the government has the responsibility to help the uninsured receive affordable health care.
"Everybody deserves a chance," he said.
A homeless woman who went to Parkland for physical therapy agreed, calling the overhaul a step in the right direction.
Vera Jackson, 48, said she comes to Parkland once a month for problems related to her diabetes and hopes to get relief through better care after the decision.
"It'll help me," she said. "It will be a blessing to lots of us -- we're out here struggling."


text:
Due to vendor restrictions this product does not qualify for this offer.
World's Largest Aftermarket Motorcycle Parts and Accessories Superstore!
Input the part number and quantity to add a part directly to your cart.
Due to vendor restrictions this product does not qualify for this offer.
Continue Shopping
Checking availability...
Our customer service has the answer.
J&P Part: 714-856
DOT Approved: Yes
Gender: Men's, Women's
Manufacturer Part Number: 73-82214X
Product Color: Flat Black
Sold in Units: Each
great helmet for the price also very comfortable and the shipping was fast as always
Very classic
Great product!
Cool Looks but the only bad thing is that the inner fabric cover keeps on detaching whenever taking the helmet off...
Comfy, nice looking helmet. I would give it 5 stars if it didn't sit as high on my head, however i am sure the amount of padding is there for standard safety.
Helmet looks great comes with a nice helmet cover/bag. Fits great. The only problem is the liner keeps coming out when I take the helmet off. The velcro does not keep it in.
Helmet was great just didn't fit right
good fit and has dot sticker on it
Absolutely satisfied! Fits perfectly and looks great.
Well it's DOT so you can only expect so much. But it's a nice helmet.
Sits very high on head
Shipped the same day as ordered, the helmet was just as described and I'm very happy with it. The only thing that seems a little cheap is the D rings, other than that the quality is there. I have a large head 24 3/4" but I ordered the 3x and it fits very well. Overall a good buy.
Very nice helmet! Good quality! I exchanged it with a different helmet!
Great fit but it sits way up high on your head with a windshield on it is ok but in the wind it is doppy and catches a lot of turbulence.
This helmet looks great. It is DOT approved, hence why it does indeed sit a little high on your head. Looks better from the profile . Good value. I love it.
These helmets are not bad. I had to add velcro to the liner, because everytime i would remove the helmet the liner would come out. I have had mine over a year, and i now need a new one. I wear mine as much as most people wear hats.
The helmet is very comfortable, DOT certified and looks cool.
Was everything that I was looking for in a German Style helmet. Did feel a little tight compared to other larges. Exchanged for a larger size which was quick and easy.
Great fit
I thought I was buying a half helmet this thing is huge
Too big. Returned
Tried it on at the shop. It's DOT so it has a bunch of padding inside to give you that mushroom head look.
Looks great. Fits great. Speedy shipping.
Very cool , sizes run a little small from what I'm used to.
sits pretty high on the head but great product for the price
Fits great, looks great, DOT approved. All around win-win.
Really love this helmet! Fit was excellent right out of the box, and it is just the look I was going for, especially after adding a couple of decals to make it my own. Shipment tracking was also excellent, and even though it occurred during your transition to the Kentucky warehouse location, your service staff was prompt and courteous to explain the short delay. Count me a satisfied customer who will be coming back to J&P!
Mushroom helmet not low profile don't order.
Very nice helmet. Very high quality at a reasonable price.
very nice helmet for the money
Love the helmet. Will wear all the time!
Love it. Couldn't find what I wanted until I looked in your catalog. Awesome
I've had a couple of other German style helmets and they always sat high on my head. This one is GREAT though as I ordered one size larger than I usually do and it fits great and is extremely comfortable and appears to be very well made.
Email A Friend
Call Us 24/7 1-800-318-4823


text:
Mysterious 16th-Century Sext Discovered in Copy of Chaucer
A visiting professor at West Virginia University has discovered a 16th-century erotic poem—written by a Catholic noblewoman to the condemned Protestant tutor of Edward VI—hidden inside an edition of works by Chaucer, leading to fevered speculation, in your head, over who will star in the movie. (Carey Mulligan, maybe? Emily Blunt?)
It's actually a pretty awesome story: Florida State University Professor Elaine Treharne was giving a lecture at WVU when she visited the university's rare book collection. She "happened to open a 1561 edition of works by Geoffrey Chaucer" and saw a "Latin poem pasted in the back of the book." (Since iPhones were not in wide usage in the 16th century, educated people would "sext" each other by writing elaborate Latin verse.) Here it is:
To Anthony Cooke
The goodbye I tried to speak but could not utter with my tongue
By my eyes I delivered back to yours.
That sad love that haunts the countenance in parting
Contained the voice that I concealed from display,
Just as Penelope, when her husband Ulysses was present,
Was speechless—the reason is that sweet love of a gaze.
Then afterwards Ovid sends greeting muses to the absent,
Just as to you, distant, I have sent my small note.
I hope then that silent Dacre will not be scorned by you
For the mind has suffered and held fast in faithfulness to you.
Believe that among servants there is not any more faithful:
As Plancus Plotinus thus will Dacre be to you.
I remain your servant Plancus, more faithful than any;
To this servant Dacre, you remain sweet Coke.
Epigram written by Martial, 'Of the girdle'
Long enough am I now; but if your shape should swell under its grateful burden, then shall I become to you a narrow girdle.
(Do you get that last bit? It's about sex. Seeeexxxxxx.)
The poem was written by Elizabeth Dacre, née Leybourne, a Catholic noblewoman, probably sometime after 1555, when she married her first husband Thomas Dacre at age 18 or 19. Its recipient, the tutor of King Edward VI (and possibly also Elizabeth's tutor), would have been significantly older than Elizabeth—and in exile, after a short stay in the Tower of London in 1553 under Mary I
Queen of Scots.
Not much more than that is known: Did the two have an affair? Did Dacre ever send the poem? Did she love Cooke, or was the poem simply an "academic exercise"? Treharne thinks Dacre's feelings were genuine: "I actually do really genuinely believe that she was really in love with her tutor," she told the WVU communications department. "It has that level of intimacy and playfulness about it. At the very least it's cheeky, and it's much more likely to be an indicator of a very, very personal and illicit—totally illicit—relationship."
In any event, we're very excited for it to be turned into one of those movies where a modern-day love story about a professor who discovers a poem parallels a period romance between a Protestant and Catholic and it's all very tasteful with swelling strings and then someone gets nominated for a "best supporting actress" Oscar. And remember: only 500 years from now, robo-professors will be visiting the "Rare Phones" room of their cyber-universities and discovering your lost erotic poems, so you may want to kick it up a notch from "girl i want 2 b all up in u rite now where u at" accompanying a picture of your anantomy.


text:
27 year old treated with filler to improve the bags underneath her eyes
180 of 814
Was this photo helpful? {{ voteCount + ' other' + (voteCountOthers == 1 ? '' : 's') }} found this helpful
Patient stated she has had bags underneath her eyes since she was a child. She did not have good cheekbones and large bags underneath her eyes. Restylane was used to create stronger cheeks and used to camouflage her under eye bags.
By uploading this photo, Jonathan Kulbersh, MD has agreed with RealSelf.com policy that they've secured proper patient consent.


text:
A Rockstar Campaign, Beckham Comes to NYC, Plus More!
Your style news update...
Sky Ferreira, singer-songwriter, model and actress, is the new face of Maison Kitsuné's Spring/Summer 2014 collection, announced on the heels of the debut of her album, Night Time, My Time. More specifically, she is fronting the brand's "New Wave" collection. "We are thrilled to work with Sky this season," says Gildas Loaëc, co-founder of Maison Kitsuné. "We tend to stray from the conventional and lead with bold creativity, which Sky embodies perfectly."
-Victoria Beckham is opening an office in New York. Her company plans to open its first office outside of London in Chelsea, and will be in business in January. [Fashionista]
-Karl Lagerfeld flew his cat, Choupette, and her personal maid to New York Tuesday night as he attended MoMA's tribute to Tilda Swinton Tuesday night. [Vanity Fair]
-The cover of WSJ. Magazine's November Innovators issue features supermodel Gisele Bündchen posing between the sequin-jacketed, French duo Daft Punk. Last night at the third annual WSJ. Magazine Innovator Awards, Bündchen's wore a daring, plunge-neck dress designed by Atelier Versace. [E!Online]
-Could Beyonce's diet help you drop unwanted weight? Inspired by the power performer's HBO documentary, Life Is But a Dream, this author documented a ten day diet regime and lost 10 pounds. [NYMag]


text:
Skechers Equalizer Lightweight Running Shoe - Mens
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 295711
You'll never want to wear anything else on your feet while running again! The men's Skechers Equalizer lightweight running shoe has a Skech-Knit breathable mesh upper and Cool Touch Memory Foam footbed for a crazy comfortable underfoot feel.
- Skech-Knit breathable mesh and synthetic upper
- Lace-up closure
- Heel pull tab for easy on/off
- Padded collar and tongue for comfort
- Soft fabric lining
- Cool Touch Memory Foam footbed provides great underfoot cushioning and helps keep feet cool
- Flex Sole provides lightweight cushioning and shock absorption
- Flex grooves allow for enhanced flexibility and a smoother stride
- Imported
- View more Skechers
Tell us what you think!
Everyone has an opinion. Here's your chance to share yours! Be the first to write a review of this product and help your fellow shoppers pick the best of the best.


text:
Style # 215384
AVAILABILITY: Unavailable for immediate shipment.
Instantly update your after-hours closet with this bebe bodycon dress in an all-eyes-on-me print. Made from a super-soft and lightweight fabric. Give it a dose of edge in a leather jacket and a pair of studded sandals.
- 92% nylon, 8% spandex
- Center back to hem: 30" (76 cm)
- Hand wash
- Made in USA with imported materials
- Model is 5'9" and is wearing a US size S
Rated 0 out of 5
0-0 of 0


text:
- Description
This level entry full face helmet has been developed to high specifications for an exceptional value. The K3 features fully removable washable inner lining for easy to clean which keeps the insides of the helmet sanitized with Dry Comfort fabric and fresh with everyday use. Front and rear ventilation system that keeps you cool and a quick visor release mechanism that can be used to replace your visor in seconds.
- Additional Information
Additional Information
SKU agv-k3-rossi-continents Main Colour Blue Finish Gloss Manufacturer AGV Product Group Full Face Helmets
- Reviews


text:
Carter's Campeon Boys Infant & Toddler Light-up Sneaker
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 252807
He'll be set, ready and willing to go in these adorable and fun Campeon sneakers from Carter's.
- Faux leather and mesh upper
- velcro closures for secure fit
- Padded collar
- Synthetic sole
- Lighted technology
- Imported
- Online Exclusive!
Tell us what you think!
Everyone has an opinion. Here's your chance to share yours! Be the first to write a review of this product and help your fellow shoppers pick the best of the best.


text:
Don't just take our word for it, see what people are saying on Trip Advisor:
'"BEST HOLIDAY EVER!" (Siam Elegance Hotel)'
Reviewed: 14 July 2014
'"The best hotel we have ever stayed at!!!" (Siam Elegance Hotel)'
Reviewed: 06 July 2014
'"We had a thoroughly enjoyable time" (Suhan Hotel)'
Reviewed: 25 June 2014
Venture beyond the shimmering seas, golden sands and hearty cuisine to discover the secrets of Turkey's intriguing past...
We're offering you a 7-night Turkey holiday including 4* accommodation, flights, transfers and tours from just £159pp!
If you're desperate to book a luxurious holiday this year but would rather not be confined to the coastline or sunbed, today's deal is your calling! You'll begin your Turkish tour in the coastal town of Antalya before venturing beyond the mountain peaks and minarets to the geological wonderland of the Cappadocia region. Famed for its sweeping moonscape scenery and enchanting 'fairy chimneys', Cappadocia is spell-binding from every angle. During your tour, you'll be comfortably accommodated in 4* accommodation and will travel on a fully air-conditioned coach, with various excursions and the services of a friendly, experienced tour guide included.
Your full holiday itinerary is as follows:
Day 1: London - Antalya
Flight from London to Antalya. Your guide will wait at Antalya Airport and transfer you to the 5* Siam Elegance hotel where you'll enjoy luxurious amenities including an outdoor pool and slides.
Day 2: Antalya - Konya - Cappadocia
Hop aboard your air-conditioned tour bus for a scenic drive through the plains of Anatolia towards Konya, birthplace of the 'whirling dervishes', whose hypnotic dance is still performed today. You'll learn more about the city's fascinating history at the Mevlâna Museum before heading onwards to Cappadocia, where you'll be comfortably accommodated at the ornate Suhan hotel for the next five nights.
Day 3: Cappadocia - Göreme
Back on the road, you'll visit volcanic crater lake Nar Gölü, hiking along the rim of the majestic formation before heading to the underground city of Derinkuyu. You'll then explore the chimney rocks of Göreme with the possibility of an evening hike in Çavuşin.
Day 4: Cappadocia - Ihlara Valley
After a short drive to Ilhara, you'll walk through the valley for which the region is famous, visiting the cave churches that still stand from the Byzantine era. That afternoon, you can take a short hike to the Monastery of Yüksek Kilise and up to the village of Güzelyurt, where the sculpted facades of past homes remain carved into the rocks against an immense volcanic backdrop.
Day 5: Cappadocia - Red Valley
Your next stop is the aptly named Red Valley, where rippling red formations are intricately eroded by layers of white rock. You'll explore the valley's cave churches before reaching the abandoned cave village of Zelve, once home to one of the largest communities in the region, stopping to visit a renowned carpet-weaving centre.
Day 6: Cappadocia - Zeminderesi
After a morning spent admiring the Zeminderesi valley's rare mushroom-like rocks, you'll visit the Göreme Open Air Museum, a Byzantine settlement and UNESCO World Heritage Site where chapels and churches are still found lurking in its echoic interior.
Day 7: Cappadocia - Antalya
After breakfast you'll return to Antalya for the final night of your stay. You'll travel via the town of Sultanhani, famous for its carpet repairmen and caravanserai, before heading back to the Siam Elegance hotel.
Day 8: Antalya - London
You'll be transfered to Antalya Airport for your flight back to London.
This holiday is financially protected by the ATOL scheme. For more information about financial protection and the ATOL Certificate, click here.
The deal can also entitle you to a Wowcher Wallet Credit. Click here for more info.


text:
New Balance 1 NewSKY Recycled Sneaker
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 246212
New Balance® is putting recycled plastic bottles to the test with these newSKY 01 sneakers. A lightweight minimalist shoe that is super green, fashion-forward and completely unique to other shoes of its caliber. This sneaker is sure to be a hit and you can certainly say you "reduce, reuse and recycle".
- Upper material is 95% recycled PET (all newSKY shoes incorporates an average of 8 PET plastic bottles into the upper materials)
- Recycled content and natural content upper
- Reduced waste design
- Imported
- View more Women's New Balance Shoes
- Online Exclusive!
By: veganlovesshoes
Location: Chicago
April 01, 2013
a great minimalist shoe.
"New balance created these as light weight or minimalist running shoes. In that context these shoes are perfect, the width was snug, but comfortable on my wide feet, and the length was accurate. And I love that they are made out of recycled material.As a minimalist shoe, there is not a lot of padding, but I still felt they were comfortable enough."
By: jsp1220
Location: illinois
June 12, 2012
New Balance
"I actually won these shows from a school's raffle, and it is very comfortable. The recycled material feels secure, but i just don't like the fact that it's so narrow on my feet, so my toes rubbed against each other causing blisters. But if you have narrow feet, these would be perfect. I gave them to my mom and she loves it and fits her better."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Community Information Database
You are browsing the Subject Heading Pollution Control which contains 2 record(s)
Page 1 of 1
- Ecology Action of Santa Cruz
Provides nonprofit environmental consultancy, education, and technical assistance relating to waste reduction, pollution prevention, energy efficiency, climate change and transportation. ELIGIBILIT... [Full Record] [Add to Personal List]
- Surfrider Foundation, Santa Cruz Chapter
The Surfrider Foundation is a nonprofit environmental organization with an international network that boasts over 250,000 supporters and 100 chapters worldwide. Our Santa Cruz chapter was founded i... [Full Record] [Add to Personal List]
Page 1 of 1


text:
© 2012 American City Business Journals. All rights resereved. Use of this Site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 3/14/12) and Privacy Policy (updated 3/14/12).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of American City Business Journals.
Forums: Admins | Moderators
Lacrosse news straight to your inbox.
Monday July 23rd, 2012 4:59pm
Box score
NEWTON, Mass. - The No. 13 Boston College (2-1) lacrosse squad earned a hard-fought, 12-10 victory against Hostra (1-2), in the Eagles' home opener on Saturday afternoon.
Junior Brooke Blue and freshman Mikaela Rix led the offensive effort for BC with three goals apiece in the win. Rix now has a team-best 10 goals on the season. Graduate student Kristin Igoe added two goals of her own in the outing, while seniors Sam Taylor and Brittany Wilton, sophomore Kate McCarthy and freshman Covie Stanwick tallied one goal each.
The Eagles played aggressively, recording 15 draw controls compared to Hofstra's nine, in addition to tallying 18 ground balls compared to 10 for the Pride. BC caused six turnovers in the game.
Boston College struck first in the form of Taylor to take a 1-0 lead less than two minutes into the game, however, the Pride quickly retaliated to knot the game at one aside. McCarthy scored with an assist from sophomore Moira Barry and Stanwick followed with a goal of her own to put the Eagles up 3-1 with just under 23 minutes left in the first half.
Over the course of the next 12 minutes, the teams traded goals, scoring two aside, making it a 5-3 game with BC on top at the 11 minute mark. With 8:21 left in the first, Emily von Hollen scored for the Pride to cut the BC lead to just one goal, but the Eagles used a strong defensive effort in the final minutes of the half to head to the locker room up, 5-4.
Igoe scored her sixth goal of the season less than one minute into the second half to extend the BC lead. April Iannetta found the back of the net for Hofstra, but the Eagles quickly retaliated with consecutive goals from Wilton and Blue to take an 8-5 advantage. Iannetta tallied her second of the game just seconds later, but Rix scored an unassisted goal with just over 16 minutes left in the game to regain a three-goal buffer for BC.
After Hofstra scored back-to-back goals, Igoe and Rix capitalized on free-position opportunities, and Blue completed her hat trick to make it a 12-8 game with just over seven minutes to play. The Pride continued to attack, scoring the last two goals of the game, but BC was able to hang on to take the 12-10 victory.


text:
Qupid Trench-89 Platform Pump
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 280697
Flaunt your feminine style with the Trench-89 platform pump from Qupid. With an oversized lace bow accent, this darling Mary Jane will add a pop of stylish color to your favorite ensemble.
- Faux suede upper
- Instep strap with adjustable buckle
- Side lace bow accent
- Round toe
- 1" hidden platform, 4¼" covered heel
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
- View more Women's Qupid Shoes
By: TMS2x2
Location: Philadelphia
August 06, 2013
Just like the picture
"I purchased the pink shoes and they look just like the picture. They will look great with jeans and a pink sweater!"
By: NYLove36
Location: New York
August 06, 2013
Such a Fun Little Shoe!
"I did have to return this shoe to order a half size larger, but now that it fits I love these little statement shoes! They're adorable, and really dress up an outfit. I'll admit these are not shoes that are incredibly comfortable, but they didn't leave my feet aching or blistered either. I love pairing them with a black pin skirt and simple black shirt for a fun pop of color at work!"
By: tjin
Location: Denver
August 05, 2013
It's way too small
"This shoe is so small, I always wear 5.5 or 6. However, I read the review first, so I ordered 6.5. When I got the shoes, it's not big enough. So I need to return it."
By: UPSisSantaClaus
Location: North Pole
July 30, 2013
Fabulous Shoes!
"I bought these shoes in yellow, and they are super cute, as well as comfy! The yellow is very stunning and it's almost a neon color. The lace bow is also a very nice accent."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
JoAnn Arnold, former resident of Emery County is hosting a book signing for her newest book Miracles for Michael, on June 26. JoAnn will be at the pharmacy/public health building, 25 West Main, in Castle Dale, to sign copies of her latest work.
JoAnn, while living in Orangeville, was asked by the Emery County Community Theatre to write a play centering around World War II and to coincide with the Smithsonian Institute's exhibit commemorating the victory in that war. JoAnn's play Rosie the Riveter, and a special edition article about the play were featured in the Smithsonian.
During her years living in Orangeville raising her family, she helped organize the Emery County Community Theatre and served as chairperson of that organization for 15 years. She served in many capacities during her tenure with the Theatre including, acting, singing, writing and directing.
JoAnn will be available for the signing from 10 a.m.-4 p.m.


text:
Bacco Bucci Bennett Oxford
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 215394
A combination of hand finished materials and unrivaled quality make up the Bacco Bucci brand. The Bennett oxford is proof that this highly respected company delivers on its promises by providing style and class to complete your look.
- Leather upper
- Split moccasin style toe
- Cushioned leather insole for all day comfort
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
By: RonC
November 09, 2012
By: danyele02
Location: Texarkana, TX
October 25, 2012
Great shoes for my husband
"He loves them for daily wear, and they are very comfortable to him!"
By: Techart
Location: Irvine
June 04, 2012
Very comfy
"Style and comfort are almost perfect as Oxford shoes.Discounted price is more comfy except one point.Althought full leather linings are all over the inside, the leather does not have a function of the breathing air in and out. I wish this shoe had a special leather treatments when they made just like other top brand name shoes. I believe shoe specialists and dress shoe lovers might understand what I am trying to describe. Overall, excellent pcs."
By: James1252
Location: Cincinnati
May 04, 2012
Awsome shoe - Bacco Bucci Bennett Oxford
"I am breaking in a pair of black Oxfords and they are excellent. Also the price is 50% less when I searched other websites.Very shiney finish that will always appear freshly polished. Has full leather lining which I like vs cheaper material that won't breath."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Kinzie Van >> See More Amateurs
Galleries in Full HD!
Galleries in Full HD!
Most girls pay to get a body like Kinzie Van, but all Kinzie has to do to look fabulous is roll out of bed in the morning. Kinzie could be the poster-child for all natural beauty. Don't waste anymore time, hit the members area now to see what all the fuss is about!...
Get this complete pictorial in stunning resolution & HD video! View Full Gallery!


text:
Forest Service Encourages Youth to Play Outdoors
Pacific Southwest Regional Forester Randy Moore believes that every child should have the opportunity to go camping, take a hike and explore nature. And with the stroke of a pen, he signed in late September a proclamation endorsing the California Children's Outdoor Bill of Rights as a group of children gathered to watch.
Moore wanted to publicly show the Pacific Southwest Region's support for the statewide initiative, which was created to encourage children to experience outdoor activities and promote active, healthy lifestyles.
"You all represent the future," said Moore to the children huddled around his desk. "It is important for us to have you learn about the outdoors, and we want you to enjoy being outdoors." Read more »


text:
Diba Pilot Tall Boot
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 226859
The Diba Pilot is versatile and looks great on everyone! This casual boot is perfect for a night out on the town!
- Slouched faux leather upper
- Buckle detail
- Round toe
- 14" shaft height, pull on
- 15" calf circumference
- 2½" block heel
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
- View more Women's Diba Shoes
By: NYashley
Location: new york, ny
December 12, 2013
Great Boots!
"I love these boots! I wear them all the time! They are pretty versatile and can be worn to work (business casual) or around town. I have a fairly large foot/calf and usually have a hard time sliding in and out of boots with no zipper but had no problem at all with these. My only complaint is that if you do a lot of walking the heel is made of a particle/wood material so make sure to get the rubber cap on the heel repaired if it starts to wear down because once you go through that the heel will wear very quickly.If you're looking for a durable, cute, and unique black boot buy these right now!! you'll get compliments all the time!"
By: JessINtheCity
Location: Ontario, Canada
November 20, 2013
Favorite Pair of boots ....EVER
"I loved these boots so much I bought them in black and brown. They go with everything and are incredibly comfortable and walkable for long periods of time. Legs look fantastic in them - I've worn them with skinny jeans ( tucked in), with dresses and skirts. I do not have very thin legs and these still fit nicely - they stretch a bit over time and get even easier to put on as well. So ladies with the thicker calves, maybe try this one out.Thank you DSW!"
By: Jessie27
Location: Brooklyn, NY
October 04, 2013
Love these boots!!
"They are the perfect height and a great color. Pretty comfortable for those of us that rarely wear heels. Great with both jeans and skirts/dresses. Highly recommend."
By: SarahJay
Location: VA
October 02, 2013
"These boots are awesome incredibly cute and pretty comfortable for heels! They are also synthetic, which means no animals are used to make these! Perfect!"
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
D&G lightens mid-winter mood with their lighter-than-air spring 2011 campaign, featuring a plethora of fun plaids and florals with great denim accents. The ladies frolic in tailored denim jackets paired with adorable rompers and extra wide-leg jeans. A denim apron is a questionable accent over a ruffled summer dress, but one thing's for sure—those big pockets are great for toting cellphones and sunglasses! The boys get in on the action too with white wash men's jeans in a cuffed casual cut, perfect for warm weather frivolity.
See the full editorial here.
—Michelle Christina Larsen
Tags: cuffed jeans, D&G, menswear denim, spring 2011 campaign, utility pockets, white wash, wide leg jeans


text:
Sore Throat or Strep?
Fall weather is finally here across most of the country and with the new season, and school back in session, the first fall colds have hit. I am already seeing a lot of runny noses and coughs, many of which are in the toddler and preschool set who still haven't learned to cover their mouths when coughing (don't worry, not yet age appropriate behavior, it takes some time to learn).
With the common cold, or upper respiratory infection it is also not uncommon to have a sore throat. Many parents worry that every sore throat is strep throat which is a bacterial infection. A new article in the journal Clinical Infectious Disease published guidelines for doctors to help determine when it is appropriate to test for strep throat and use antibiotics when strep is confirmed.
Studies have shown that up to 70% of patients who complained of a sore throat received antibiotics which are not necessary when the sore throat is due to a viral upper respiratory infection. Strep throat is most common in children, where it accounts for between 20-30% of sore throats (and only 5-15% of adult sore throats). Strep is less common in children under the age of 3 years, and is most common during the elementary school years.
Most viral upper respiratory infections cause runny nose, coughs, sore throat, hoarse voices and the symptoms develop over several days. In the case of strep, there is usually a rapid onset with a fever and cough and runny nose are not present. The child typically has very swollen and tender nodes in their neck as well.
If a child is suspected of having strep throat a quick throat swab should be taken and a rapid strep test should be performed. These tests are performed in almost every doctors office. If the swab is negative for strep it may be sent for overnight culture as well. Even the most seasoned doctor is not always correct in assuming a beefy red throat is strep. If strep is confirmed an antibiotic, typically Amoxicillin is prescribed (unless the child is penicillin allergic).
Antibiotic overuse for viral sore throats can lead to more drug resistance which continues to be a problem across the country. With few new antibiotics in the pediatric pharmaceutical pipeline, it is important that doctors screen for strep only when the symptoms and physical exam point towards a bacterial cause for the sore throat. It will be important to educate the parent and child as well, as not every sore throat requires a throat swab, and popsicles and Slurpees may soothe a sore throat and taste better than an unnecessary antibiotic.
Latest News
Texoma's Home Page
KFDX 3 Weather
KFDX 3 Sports
TexomasHomepage.com,Follow @texomashomepage
KFDX 3 WeatherFollow @kfdx3wx


text:
Riley Print Logo T-Shirt
Out of stock
Only 0 left in stock
We've taken our bestselling logo and reworked this in our new 'Riley' print design. The graphic has been designed exclusively for this collection.
— Crew neck t-shirt
— Crafted from pure cotton
— Graphic designed and developed in house
— Cut in a slim fit
— Model is 6'1" and wears a size medium
Composition — 100% Cotton
Machine washable


text:
Avs bury Oilers, Phantom Hemsky goal makes appearance
November 23 2007 02:10PM
Too bad that the Oil didn't pull it out last night. We would love to say more about the game, but unfortunately we spent our time watching Calgary play Chicago on Sportsnet, while listening to Rod Phillips' play-by-play.
It was weird to have the two on at the same time while we played poker in my buddies garage. Everytime the Oilers scored we would look to the TV, only to be shocked to see nothing happening on screen that matched old "Uncle Rod's" calling of the game. It's been years since we listened to a game on CHED, and it sounds to us like Phillips still has "it," entertaining hundreds of truckers with play-by-play action as they drive in sweet, sweet oranges from Florida.
We also committed the cardinal sin later in the night of mistaking a replay for the live action. "Hemsky scoooooooooooores!" Phillips screamed. "YES!" We stood and pumped our fists wildly, much to the delight of the other drunken poker mates who declared "that it was only a replay."
After the game was over our buddy Mr-I-went-to-the-game-suckers arrived, rubbing our noses in his tales, as we basked in his hockey beer glow. He also laid his ticket out on the table as if to prove that, indeed, he'd been to the game, while us peons sat and listened to it on the radio like common CB operators. Please note his ticket above, which we stuck to our fridge as proof that we are all as glorious as our game attending friend.
Much like the Oilers game, poker was a loss too.
0-2 on the night.