Christianity Today

Mr. Warner commented: "The contraception question has nothing to do with religious freedom of individuals to practice their faith as they see fit. It has to do with desire of some religious organizations to discriminate against their employees and not provide benefits or choices that normal employees are entitled to." This is untrue. "Normal employees" have never been entitled to employer-funded contraception-- a novelty imposed by Obamacare. A government mandate that a person or organization pay for items that the payer finds sinful and abhorrent is an assault on religious freedom. Under Obamacare, individual Christians must pay for insurance coverage for abortion, contraception, transgender treatments, and for other "treatments" they find sinful and abhorrent, and that they will never use. This is pure tyrrany.

Mr. Warner wrote re: same sex marriage "if you don't believe in it, don't do it." Christians are concerned with children who are placed with same sex couples. Homosexual child sexual abuse far exceeds heterosexual. I have seen photos online of toddlers with "two dads." The affliction on that child's face was hauntingly sorrowful and despairing. Why, if, in the 60's, a marriage license was seen as a useless piece of paper, is marriage so sought after by homosexuals now? Why are they not satisfied with "civil unions"? Is marriage seen by some homosexuals as a stepping stone to legitimizing their access to children? Christian opposition to same sex "marriage" is not about a denial of "civil rights." It is about the safety of children, and that should be brought out. The public debate is silent on the safety of children from homosexual predators.

In response to this article my view is that the questions put to Mr. Rubio were tame and the answers provided very diplomatic. Mr. Rubio was not pushed, nor were the questions probing nor searching. He was allowed throughout to get away with superficial answers. There was nothing robust about the questioning and nothing forth-coming about the answers. Ms. Bailey appeared to be either limited or restrained from taking Mr. Rubio beyond certain areas of comfort and safety. As a result, for someone like me who does not know much about him, I remain at a lost when he speaks of “failures”, “faults” and “real mistakes" and imperfections. Ms. Bailey also failed to help by assuming that the “irregularities” and “financial slip-ups” he mentions are common knowledge. The interview appeared to move along mechanically and inexorably towards some designed course. At the end, I really do not know much about Rubio the potential Vice Presidential candidate, and precious little about his faith.

It was a little surrising that Mr. Rubio was not asked to clarify what he meant by his assertion that "the president has presided over such failed economic policies, he is deliberately looking to have a debate about anything other than the economy". He should have been asked to name a specific failed economic policy over which the president has presided. This statement is part of the political propaganda being put out in the media without factual support and it would have been interesting to know if Mr. Rubio even understood what economic policies are. As far as the second part of that statement, one can only conclude that it is meant for those who have not been following the political conversation taking place over the past years. If you were to make a search of the economic news, it would be difficult to excape the conclusion that the statement is highly inaccurate. If we were to look at the economic picture in Europe today, we should be glad for a strong central government.

The second "begging the question" question is the one linking contraception to the Obama administration as "hostile to religious freedom". The contraception question has nothing to do with the religious freedom of individuals to practice their faith as they see fit. It has to do with the desire of some religious organizations to discriminate against their employees and not provide benefits or choices that normal employees are entitled to. It is bizarre how the requirement that religious organizations treat their employees similarly to other organizations and allow them to exercise their free choice is being mislabelled as an assault on religious freedom. I always thought that evangelicals had outstanding training in analytical thinking but I am saddened to see how propaganda is spread so easily. On the issue of same sex marriage, one has said, if you don't believe in it, don't do it. Similarly contraception, if you don't believe in it, don't practice it.