Ancient Faith Radio Goes Live! Starts this Sunday Evening (April 22)

Fr. Hans Jacobse, a frequent contributor to Monomakhos will be the guest along with Dr. John Mark Reynolds for the premiere program on “Atheism.” Fr. Hans says that a program like this is long overdue and he has high hopes for it. Topics will be timely, guests will be knowledgeable, and hopefully the audience will call in with informed questions or challenges.

Ancient Faith Radio announces the launch of the first ever Orthodox live call-in show,

Ancient Faith Today, this Sunday, April 22, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern

Chesterton, IN —Ancient Faith Radio is pleased to announce the broadcast of a live call-in show. Ancient Faith Today, hosted by Kevin Allen, is what Ancient Faith Radio and Orthodox Internet radio have been missing — a live interactive conversation program. Now that void has been filled! Ancient Faith Today streams live, with call-ins from around the world, twice a month on Sunday nights at 5:00pm Pacific/7:00pm Central/8:00pm Eastern on Ancient Faith Radio Talk.

“I am looking forward to exploring how through conversation with informed guests and listeners on Ancient Faith Today the timeless wisdom and worldview of the Orthodox Christian Tradition may inform our moral, social, cultural and political thinking on issues of our day” says host Kevin Allen.

Topics cover all of life through the lens of Scripture and the teaching and canonical tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church. Ancient Faith Today’s host Kevin Allen talks with knowledgeable guests about social issues, global events, politics as they affect matters of faith (from a non-partisan perspective), war and peace, aging, death and life, church affairs, inter-faith affairs, current events, journeys to faith and Orthodoxy, theology and apologetics, cults, atheism, the paranormal, the New Age movement and Eastern religion. More than just “talk radio”, Ancient Faith Today is Orthodox Christianity’s platform for illumining and informative conversation about subjects that matter, with people who care.

Bobby Maddex, Operation Manager for Ancient Faith Radio says “As far as we know, Ancient Faith Today is the first ever live Orthodox call-in show, and we couldn’t be more excited about its launch. Kevin Allen is a first-rate interviewer, and the guests he has selected for these initial shows are top-drawer as well. I really hope that our listeners take advantage of this opportunity to directly experience the manner in which our ancient Christian faith speaks to the topics of today.”

Kevin Allen was the host of Ancient Faith Radio’s popular award-winning program “The Illumined Heart.” Kevin draws upon his unique faith background to host this fascinating, engaging and spiritually constructive program with guests you should know! “Live, call-in Catholic and Evangelical radio have existed for decades but not in Orthodox media. Ancient Faith Today changes that. It is the debut of something that can be very powerful in providing a voice and platform for the Orthodox Church about subjects that matter” says Allen.

About GShep


  1. Great line-up for the show. Hmmmmm……. I may indeed call in with a challenging question for this distinguished panel.

    I for one hope this turns into an Orthodox version of Firing Line. If this show does not shun controversy and is willing to go deep into questions then it will succeed.

    • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

      Our thoughts are that a Firing Line approach, while not in format necessarily but certainly in spirit, would be great. We need more exchange and refinement of ideas in Orthodoxy on the burning yet unsettled questions in the culture.

      In our background work, especially in choosing topics, we did not seek out controversy but relevance, with relevance defined as the questions people are asking. And in engaging the questions, you might just end up with a better definition and understanding of the question since many of them are complex with no easy answers. One thing you will not see is a retreat into abstraction as a way of avoiding engagement with the questions, or assertions of the supremacy of Orthodoxy as a way of dismissing them.

      We’ve chosen speakers who are knowledgeable in their areas and active in the public square. Many of the names you will recognize. There is no uniformity of opinion on all topics of course (a good and necessary thing, IMO), but each speaker will be able to hold their own. None of them are slouches. All of them are on the traditionalist end in faith and morals.

      We’ve got a few more ideas in the hopper that will be announced as time goes on. If you have a specific topic you would like to see discussed, shoot me an email and I will submit it to look over.

      • Geo Michalopulos says

        Fr, hopefully this won’t degenerate into the Happy Talk we have had too much of in the past, esp on OCN. I am sure that you and Kevin, et al, will be resolute men who will not shy from tackling the big issues of the day, and if need be, criticizing the hierarchy.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          I don’t foresee any happy talk or happy clappy.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            Fr Hans says,

            “I don’t foresee any happy talk or happy clappy..”

            I believe him.

            He will be resisting the tide, however.

            Orthodox support for President Obama and his assistants seems to be holding steady, in general. Over the past four years, it has been a source of considerable disedification.

            • Jane Rachel says

              Father Patrick wrote: “Orthodox support for …” [insert name of any particular politician at any particular point in time here]..

              Question: What’s wrong with Orthodox supporting politicians?

              Answer: Absolutely nothing. Orthodox can support any politician they like.

              Question: What’s wrong with Orthodoxy supporting politicians?

              Answer: Everything. Orthodoxy cannot support politicians. It is an impossible concept.

              • Michael Bauman says

                Jane Rachel, we are not really free to support any politician we want and remain true to the the teaching of the Church. It is getting more and more difficult to support any of them.

                Fr. Patrick as he notes below was specifically referring to Pres. Obama whose agenda is praticularly problematic unless you simply don’t care about abortion (to name only one policy that flies in the face of the teaching of the Church).

                To support statist policitians of any persuasion is to support our own persecution (ultimately) since all statism eventually becomes worship of the state and no other faith is allowed.

                • Jane Rachel says

                  I didn’t say “any politician we want” as if we who might not support a politician you support are going to willy nilly follow any old politician like the stupid people we are, though it’s happened many times that Orthodox have followed horrible politicians. I said any politician we like. I am saying Orthodox adults are free to support the politician that they choose to support. I thought we were free to decide who we want to support like any other people living in this country. Aren’t we?Apparently not. You sound like Baptists. I just read a guy say this on a Facebook discussion:

                  Jeremy, I am indeed Protestant, but more than slightly Calvinistic, as I am a five pointer. In addition to that I am Puritanistic, Presbyterian, and consequently do believe in penal substitution when it comes to Christ’s work, and would assert most firmly via Scripture that anyone who doesn’t believe this last is not a Christian, no matter what he says, as this is the heart of all.

                  Further, I would have you recognize that you have just given way to contradictions, that is, you have just tacitly asserted that mutually exclusive and contradictory opinions, as the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants on such subjects as the worship of Mary and other Saints, the infallibility of the Pope, etc., can both be correct at the same time in the same way. This is to make God contradict himself, which is impossible; consequently, they can’t both be right. Note: That is not to say that all Roman Catholics are damned, nor that all Protestants are saved, for these issues may or may not be damning, whereas the issue of the atonement would be, all I mean to say is that you are asserting impossibilities, for, not only does plain reason deny what you say, but the Bible itself plainly does.

                  It’s not the content I’m posting, it’s the attitude. It’s not the politics I’m talking about, it’s the attitude.
                  Do you get to decide who other Orthodox should support? Ahem.Well, you guys are absolute. There’s no discussion to be had. That’s why I didn’t take much time writing a comment.

                  It’s the attitude that there is no discussion. The Platonic Form. It’s scary. This would drive me away faster than anything. I’m glad the Church didn’t teach me what you are pushing. I want to tell my friend who is asking questions about Chrisitianity about Orthodoxy, but I would never direct her here. The fighting she might be able to understand. The human side of it. She might be able to get past the corruption of the leaders she might read about here. But this attitude thing… would turn her off immediately. She wants Truth. You may say what you believe is true, but if you cap that “t” and make it Truth, you are stepping out of bounds. You can’t mix the two and make them one. There are George’s opinions and he posts them, and there are discussions about that. There are posts about Orthodoxy and there is discussion about that. But you cannot mix the two. Orthodoxy is beyond the UNIVERSE.

                  • Patrick Henry Reardon says

                    Jane Rachel proclaims, “I am saying Orthodox adults are free to support the politician that they choose to support. I thought we were free to decide who we want to support like any other people living in this country. Aren’t we? Apparently not.”

                    Several years ago, just before a Presidential election, I wrote in my parish bulletin, “Vote for a pro-choice candidate, if you wish. Just be ready to explain yourself at the Throne of Judgment.”

                    • Daniel E. Fall says

                      If the God you speak of will condemn me to hell because I voted for Obama, it sounds like you are an advocate of anti-theism, or maybe maltheism that drives atheism!

                      In fact, this is the way people become anti-theist! It isn’t that they don’t want to believe in a higher power, they just would rather not imagine one that will condemn them to eternal burning on the basis of one poor decision on earth. Ironically, this was Christ’s main message which seems to have been missed somewhere in the statement.

                      It is much simpler to reject your entire thesis and the God you proclaim.

                      Well, you’d say, speaking in such terms that voting for a candidate that accepts the law of the land as written may result in eternal damnation is my duty as a priest or cleric or bishop…

                      blah, blah, blah

                      Driving people from Christ is the result of such statements..

                      When did Christ suggest eternal damnation was the way to bring people to his church? I missed that Gospel reading in my absences from Liturgy.

                      It is so simple to become atheist; just listen to 12 Christian clerics for a few days, add in a Scientologist, and 3 imams and who would want to stay onboard?

                    • Ian James says

                      Oh you won’t be condemned, don’t worry about that. You’ll just get moved into the Stuck on Stupid room. For brunch they serve Dachshund or Fox Terrier, I can’t remember which.

                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      I hope not! I am the only one in my immediate family who has not voted for Mr. Obama and I hope to be with my politically-mistaken loved ones in heaven. Like Ian said, you would be a guest at the Stuck on Stupid Resort, where they do not serve dogs (what an idea!!!) but crow.

                    • Ian James says

                      If they are not as stubborn as Daniel Fall, they get fish.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I hear dog tastes a little like chicken.

                    • Mr. Fall reasons that Christians who are already in the Church, who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them, who partake of the Body and Blood of Christ and thus have His very life within them will somehow be driven to atheism by being reminded of their responsibility to refrain from the promotion of manifest evil.

                      Mr. Fall has a very low opinion of the power of Christ.and not a clue of what following Him requires. He has apparently missed more Liturgies than that he admits to.

                      Contrary to Mr. Fall’s assertions, Christ never hesitated to tell the truth – even when doing so caused many to turn away from Him. He wasn’t looking to please the crowd. He was seeking disciples, not fans.

                    • Daniel E. Fall says

                      Suggesting a vote for Obama is the promotion of evil, then suggesting my missing Liturgy is the reason I did so is gosh darn funny stuff. I’m sure you’ll twist that into me thinking abortion is funny, too.

                      In the context of Fr. Han’s show on atheism; he sure is getting a lot of good content on why a follower might turn away.

                      Hopefully he’ll investigate lousy disciples as a likely reason.

                      The Christ we all know would most likely tell us each person was responsible for their child’s birth, but we still have those blaming Obama for abortion instead of the men who create the unwanted child.

                    • In that case there is no need to be in favor of or in opposition to anything, Mr. Fall – no need for morality or any form of government at all, no laws that restrain the evil nature of man for his own benefit and that of his fellows, no need of anything except our own personal opinions and choices.

                      You have no idea whatsoever what you are advocating – selectively of course, for you would not tolerate the legalization of murder, forced starvation, theft of property…or would you?

                      Fr. Patrick did not mention Mr. Obama’s name or party in that bulletin. He would be the first to tell you (quite factually) that the opposition party in Illinois has more than its share of “pro-abortion candidates.” No one with the conscience of a Christian could choose them either.

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              Fr Patrick, if that is the case (and I don’t believe it will be), and it degenerates into happy-clappiness/kumbaya/ain’t diversity grand nonsense, then Orthodoxy will decline into oblivion here in America. We forget that even though Old World Orthodoxy has survived, it has done so because the state supported it in the past. We don’t have that luxury today. Either we will correctly critique the culture –and call our own people into account–or we will become ethnic Episcopalians. Of no consequence and of no use to the Holy Spirit.

              • Patrick Henry Reardon says

                George comments: “Fr Patrick, if that is the case (and I don’t believe it will be), and it degenerates into happy-clappiness/kumbaya/ain’t diversity grand nonsense, then Orthodoxy will decline into oblivion here in America.”

                Jane Rachel has just provided a good reason for fearing this may happen.

                • Fr, I think you and Michael have hit the nail on the head. Worship of the state will eventually lead to our persecution. I know I sound alarmist but I am intimate with several mid-level people in the Catholic Church, and they are all talking about the revival of the Church of the Catacombs. A year ago I would have thought that they were hysterical, now I’m not so sure.

                  It is vital for us Orthodox to remain true to the canonical tradition and teachings of our Church. Believe it or not, the other Christian denominations look to us for theological sustenance. Otherwise, they would not have asked Metropolitan Jonah to start off the March for Life.

                • Would you say President Assad is pro-life, Fr Patrick?
                  I mean…you defended him, yes?
                  You met with him, spoke with him, had your picture taken, told us what a good fellow he is.
                  How many innocents has he slaughtered before and since?
                  Given your support for him, does not their blood stain your hands as well?
                  I hope you too are ready to explain yourself before the Throne of Judgment!

                  No…my point is not to condemn you, but to point out that this world is messy, incredibly so, but God, having become a human being, knows our predicament and is merciful – thankfully!

                  • Patrick Henry Reardon says

                    Syria has been in a growing civil war for over a year.

                    People get killed in civil wars.

                    The killing is done by both sides.

                    Thus, Assad has blood on his hands.

                    So did Lincoln. So did Robert E. Lee.

                    Somehow Basil believes I have blood on my hands because I favor one the two sides in the current civil war in Syria.

                    I have only one objection to Basil’s comment: “I hope you too are ready to explain yourself before the Throne of Judgment!”

                    There should be commas before and after the “too.”

                    • Kind of like Lindbergh or the Duke and Duchess of Windsor going to Germany and oohing and ahing over Hitler..I’m surprised you would actually say that you favor Assad,.I just thought you and Father David were Met.Phillip’s lackeys.

              • Jane Rachel says

                Oh gosh, I thought God was in control.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        Dear Father–If you start talking like Bill Buckley, I will have to reassess reincarnation. 🙂

  2. Looking forward to the program!

  3. Roman Juriga says

    Father Hans, I have a topic: what is “traditionalist” Orthodox and where did it come from and is the communion of the Church endangered by grafting onto the faith categories which, in my opinion, seem foreign. I was raised Orthodox in the Czech Republic. I have never heard of our Orthodox faith being “traditionalist” or “non-traditionalist”. I hope you will consider such a topic. I for one will certainly call in.


  4. George, Especially given the biweekly scheduling of Ancient Faith Today, I hope we will see ongoing forum discussions here following each program.

  5. Jane Rachel says

    Here is a link to a blog that links to a debate between Father Hans Jacobse and Matt Dillahunty, president of the Atheist Community of Austin and host of The Atheist Experience. Matt Dillahunty comments on the debate experience with Father Hans a few posts down.

    • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

      I got hammered hard on all the atheist blogs after the debate. I just quit reading them after a day or two. I take the hammering as a contra-indicator so the hammering indicates effectiveness, especially since most of them were attacks on character rather than substance. I got 75-80% of the questions after the debate so I knew I won the audience. Some of the criticisms are accurate (I was too wordy) but it was my first debate and I’ll get better as time goes on.

      Matt was a congenial person but his theological ideas were completely trapped in the categories of the fundamentalism within which he was raised (his dad was a Baptist preacher). I overheard him saying to a supporter after the debate he had never heard of Orthodox Christianity before. He expected, I think, a debate where the Christian felt he had to prove the existence of God.

      The debate ended up being voted the best student event at the college that year. I thought that was cool.

      • Geo Michalopulos says

        congratulations, Fr! Interesting insights. I think mos atheists are trapped in two categories: 1) an aversion to Fundamentalism/literalism, and 2) acceptance of dogmatic Darwinism. We can’t forget that most atheists are that way now because they think Darwin provided the magic bullet which confirmed random biogenesis.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          George, you might be interested in a book review I wrote a few years back:

          From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          I agree too with your two points. The aversion is powerful motivator I think. And dogmatic Darwinism is of course an article of faith (the presumption of a materialist universe) that possesses a patina of scientific certitude which gives it the ring of authority even though the proof of the dogma lies well beyond the reach of science.

          Materialists are the anti-Galileo party of our day — the flat-earthers who trumpet their dogma with all the certainty of their medieval counterparts. They don’t see however, that their materialist assumptions cannot hold — not yet anyway.

      • Jane Rachel says

        Father Hans, I liked it most when you kept breaking into “father” mode towards Matt.

      • Jane Rachel says

        To Father Hans: Instead of turning the blog comments off and not reading them, you should jump into the fray and talk to them, Father Hans. It would be good practice. And because you are Orthodox and have the True Faith, you could present Orthodoxy and nothing else to them .Not your personal opinions or ideas, and not your politics or your conservatism or your Intelligent Design beliefs. They hate Intelligent Design and I don’t blame them for that. But just tell them about Orthodoxy. They will listen to that, I know it. It’s beyond any understanding they have, and you had some good things to say about the mystery of creativity. Or, you can just stay on Orthodox radio and talk about Atheism to all the nice Orthodox people who tune in.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          I never preach “Orthodoxy.” I never preach the “True Faith” I only preach Christ.

          I will instruct someone about the Orthodox faith if necessary. But I never conflate the Gospel of Jesus Christ with apologetic constructs. The Gospel constitutes the Church. The Church does not constitute the Gospel.

          And the words I preach are not true because “I am Orthodox” or because I have the “true faith.” They are true because they come from the mouth of God through the mouth of the apostle. Those words will judge even the Church in the end — just as they judged Laodicea, Ephesus and others many centuries ago.

          • Heracleides says

            Very well said, Father.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            Father Hans remarks, “I never preach ‘Orthodoxy.’ . . . I only preach Christ.”

            And when the rest of the Orthodox people begin to follow that example, I submit, the Orthodox Church will begin to make some headway in the evangelization of this country.

            • Touche’, Fr. Hans (and Fr. Patrick). Preaching Christ and Him crucified? What a concept! And just think, a few years ago I mentioned how much I was encouraged by an article you had written for Orthodoxy Today to an Orthodox priest friend of mine. He just shrugged and said “Fr. Hans is a nut case.” Sigh…if that’s so, please pass me a bowl full. Dry roasted. Easy on the salt. Keep up the good work, friends.
              Some of us are listening even if we hardly ever post.

  6. cynthia curran says

    As for Orthodox support for Obama, foreign policy is one elment, Orthodox tend to be more anti-usa or western European which would incline one more toward the Democratic Party but sometimes this doesn’t always work since the conflict in the Balkins the democratics supported more intervernation. Anyway, here is how each group votes, Mormons are the most Republican as a voting group even with some like Harry Reid. Evangelicals are the second most Republican group mainly since they tend to be more pro-USA in foreign policy being more from the south. Mainline Protestants are the next Republican Group most mainline Protestants are not that liberal except their clergy. Then Roman Catholics and Orthodox are the most Democratic group.

    • I am a Democrat and will probably vote for Obama again…

      • Patrick Henry Reardon says

        StephenD says: “I am a Democrat and will probably vote for Obama again>’

        I, also, am a Democrat, and I certainly won’t .

    • Michael Bauman says

      Cynthia, the foreign policy of both parties is disastrous for our fellow Christians around the globe because it is based on power, not principal. Of course, thta is only to be expected. I, frankly, don’t think it is really possible to have a Chrisitan foreign policy.

      Neither the Rs nor the Ds nor the Ls recognize the insidiousness of jihadic Islam. If the jihadists were smart they would forswear all violence and simply breed us into submission. A stragegy which is actually part of the less violent side of jihad.

      From an Orthodox perspective, Antioch, Constantiople, Alexandria and Jerusalem are so dhimmi in nature that they simply offer little hope.

      America is one of the few if not the only country that was founded on ideas, therefore to be American is an ideological reality more that it is territorial, linguistic, religious or ethnic reality. That is both a strength in some ways, and a handicap. It is a handicap for we Orthodox and very little benefit since the American ethos and ideology is not a comfortable fit for an hierachical communal polity that requires repentance and obedience which, at the same time, recognizes the sinfulness of many of the passions which are oft times celebrated by the distorted versions of the American ethos.

      Economic fascism, tryannical egalitarianism and individual sovereignity seem to rule the political world in the US. All tend toward an amoral utilitarian expression that is frightening. The reason why I would not vote for Obama is that he and his friends have gone beyond such activities to actively promoting evils such as abortion, homosexual normalization, and state control of all aspects of our lives. Not to mention the messianic idealization that goes way beyond any rational policital support.

      Government only works for our benefit if it, and the people in government can be held accountable to both a social/soceital norm and specific ethical norms. The further removed from the local community the people who govern are, the less acountable they are. Therefore they are more subject to corrruption and tyranny.

      However, since most folks are profoundly uncomfortable with real freedom and the consequences that result from such freedom, we tend to allow ourselves to be boiled like frog as long as the increasing temp/tyranny is not too noticeable as long as we are pandered to.

      • Daniel E. Fall says

        ‘homosexual normalization’ and ‘state control of all aspects of our lives’ are polar opposites

        The Obama administration has a truer position on marriage they don’t disclose. That is that marriage by its nature has become discriminatory. If a married person has opportunities a single person does not or vice versa. Cass Sunstein has written good bits about marriage and his positions best reflect the actual positions of the administration, although politically they may be impossible to purport.

        Allowing discussion of abortion is not promotion of it and the Obama administration has not promoted abortion. In fact, Obama himself has stated “no one is pro-abortion”.. I may be paraphrasing him here a bit, but he as much said it is a disgusting procedure in an interview awhile back..

        • George Michalopulos says

          Daniel, two things:

          1. Yes, marriage by definition has to be discrimantory. If I am married to Sally Smith, then I can’t be married at the same time to Molly Jones. I’ve “discriminated” against Molly Jones. Likewise my wife Sally can’t be married to Bocephus Tyler. In addition, we have to be a discriminatory unit because we are co-dependant. Sally gave up her career to raise my children therefore she’s at an economic disadvantage vis a vis Elaine Taylor who remained single and pursued a career in corporate law.

          2. No, I heartily disagree. I do believe that there are many people who are pro-abortion. And I don’t mean as a fall-back position to cull the “less fit” races (as Margaret Sanger called them). I mean as a quasi-religious sacrament itself. The whole “I had an abortion” tee-shirt craze (which fortunately fizzled out) was promulgated by feminazis who say they truly don’t regret having an abortion. One part of their agenda is to get as many women as possible to have abortions.

          Besides the practical aspects of this extreme view –getting as many women as possible to be complicit and therefore silent about it–there are demonic forces at work. Just as in ancient Canaan where child-sacrifice was necessary to appease and satiate their demonic idols, so too does abortion coarsen the culture and strengthen the demonic forces. Indeed, it unleashes them.

          • Daniel E. Fall says

            I will only speak to your number one as the #2 post is opinion and you are certainly welcome to it as am I mine.

            While I agree with you, I didn’t mean it precisely the same way.. Your examples are more indirect, but I like them.

            Where marriage is more directly discriminatory is when a married person gets a distinct advantage or disadvantage over single persons. i.e. Spouse on insurance policy, or hospital visitation rules, or the other way-spouse’s income is used in income evaluations for veteran’s benefits, etc. The aforementioned are of course the stated reasons for the gay marriage push.

            Cass Sunstein (Obama admin) advocates a libertarian view of marriage I tend to agree with…that is the state has no business in legalizing marriage because it is inherently discriminatory (and to this point we agreed from completely different directions!). Unfortunately, with the right’s persistent desire for state’s rights and the left’s persistent desire for simplification of multi-state legislation into federal law (legalizing gay marriage of all crazy notions); it is unlikely the Obama administration would dream of passing any law removing government from marriage altogether(their true position). This would be a time when bipartisan behavior removing state involvement in marriage forever would have great results for the society, but alas, in today’s divisive environment; an impossibility for sure. Disclaimer: in the past, I may have advocated for civil unions based on the notion that this would allow equality, however, this position is invalid in the context of the state does not recognize marriage or recognizes it as potentially discriminatory…. If I can’t have the optimal, I’ll settle for the second best….

            If the state did not recognize marriage and private companies were held to a standard of not discriminating based on whether you had an Orthodox, Jewish, or Festivian marriage; none of the hoopla would matter. Then if the gays wanted marriage, they could shop for the religion ?Festivian? that would host it, and the federal and state governments would only be in the business of reasonable treatment of citizens and not the promotion of gay marriage via the guise of equality.

            I’m sure this will break the hearts of many that believe marriage should offer you entitlements gays and single persons ought not receive, but I don’t give a darn; that position is extreme to me.

            By the way, under the concept, the state or federal government could recognize two people living together as an unorganized partnership for dissolution/liability/etc.

            I gotta get going here, sunny skies for a change in MN.. been rainy lately…

  7. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    StephenD says, “Kind of like Lindbergh or the Duke and Duchess of Windsor going to Germany and oohing and ahing over Hitler.”

    Ah yes, the “argumentum ad Nazium,” also known as the “reductio ad Hitlerum.”

    It was first identified, I believe, by Leo Strauss, in NATURAL RIGHT AND HISTORY (1976), pp. 42-43.

    I am somewhat surprised to find it used on this blog site.

    Like most people, I suppose, I associate it with the level of discourse in high school locker rooms.