I'm going to assume you read Hamill's 90-some page paper before writing your article. In her paper she makes several mentions of gay marriage (which you raise as a non-sequiter) in the context that social conservatives tend to be political about issues that do not involve personal sacrifice – like the debates over same sex-marriage and abortion, but are recalcitrant when it comes to issues like taxes, which require personal sacrifice. In other words, her paper has little to do with same-sex marriage, which you make a central point of your criticism. It is about the validity and proper role of scripture in developing tax policy.

My point is this – if you do not accept that scripture is a valid basis for government policy, then your article should have been as critical of Hamill's position as that of the either the Family Council or the Minnesota Majority. If you do advocate use of scripture to determine government policy, which puts you in the same camp as Michele Bachmann (you just differ in scriptural interpretation), then better than the contrast with the Family Council and Minnesota Majority would have been to contrast Hamill with the work of the Acton Institute, a Catholic organization whose mission is integrating Judeo-Christian truths with free market principles.

As it is, you found research that you used like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support not for illumination. Instead of challenging your readers, you pandered to their prejudice. You wrote a piece worthy of the mainstream media. You should have higher aspirations.

  Luke 16:13 (NIV)

Personally, in a dispute like this, I'm going with what Jesus had to say.  Others, of course, might differ in their opinion – and they're welcome to follow whoever it is they want.  Mammon, God, they're both fine choices.  Whatever floats yer boat.

Just don't tell me you're going with one while you're really going with the other, please.  Thanks.

  Luke 16:13 (NIV)

Personally, in a dispute like this, I’m going with what Jesus had to say.  Others, of course, might differ in their opinion – and they’re welcome to follow whoever it is they want.  Mammon, God, they’re both fine choices.  Whatever floats yer boat.

Just don’t tell me you’re going with one while you’re really going with the other, please.  Thanks.

I’m going to assume you read Hamill’s 90-some page paper before writing your article. In her paper she makes several mentions of gay marriage (which you raise as a non-sequiter) in the context that social conservatives tend to be political about issues that do not involve personal sacrifice – like the debates over same sex-marriage and abortion, but are recalcitrant when it comes to issues like taxes, which require personal sacrifice. In other words, her paper has little to do with same-sex marriage, which you make a central point of your criticism. It is about the validity and proper role of scripture in developing tax policy.

My point is this – if you do not accept that scripture is a valid basis for government policy, then your article should have been as critical of Hamill’s position as that of the either the Family Council or the Minnesota Majority. If you do advocate use of scripture to determine government policy, which puts you in the same camp as Michele Bachmann (you just differ in scriptural interpretation), then better than the contrast with the Family Council and Minnesota Majority would have been to contrast Hamill with the work of the Acton Institute, a Catholic organization whose mission is integrating Judeo-Christian truths with free market principles.

As it is, you found research that you used like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support not for illumination. Instead of challenging your readers, you pandered to their prejudice. You wrote a piece worthy of the mainstream media. You should have higher aspirations.