Search Results: What should I do

Apparently, I'm talking to this girl who recently gotten out of a courtship that went wrong. It appears she's healing from it and needs some time to get her emotions together.

I was just curious. I was thinking of talking to her once a week for a month to see if I could conjour anything and give her some time to heal, but also not stay in it if she's on some forever friend ish.

Was just curious on this perspective. Should I move on, continue pursuing, or a little bit in between. Thank you.

I wanted to call her but she said she wanted to get to know me first. Eventually she opened up a bit as we got to know each other and managed a call. It went pretty well. Maybe she's a bit hesitant cause she doesn't want to get hurt again. It's a bit of a confusing situation but just let me know.

A pro-life writer based in Nashville asks, “Are men the future of the pro-life movement?”

Christopher Kuehl says if men heard 1 million babies were being killed on the Southern border, they would immediately spring into action. But news of 1 million ab*rtions annually brings little widespread response. Kuehl examines the main reasons he thinks men are less publicly pro-life than they should be, including being cowed by the message of feminism and the vague language used around that.

Watch the full story: ow. ly/CXRb50Z6csV

Men absolutely should be part of the future of the pro-life movement. The idea that men should stay silent on abortion because they are men is one of the most damaging feminist framings in the debate. If unborn children are human beings, then defending them is not “controlling women.” It is a moral responsibility that belongs to both men and women.

What do you think?…

A society has the right to recognize that public blasphemy against God or Christianity is not just “ordinary disagreement,” but an attack on the moral and religious foundation that shaped much of our civilization. At the founding, some states treated Christianity as part of the public moral order, and I do not think that history should be dismissed as automatically tyrannical.

That said, I would not support vague laws that punish honest theological disagreement, private unbelief, or respectful criticism. The line would need to be narrow and aimed at public, malicious, contemptuous attacks on sacred things — not at forcing belief.

I understand current First Amendment doctrine would likely reject laws like this today, but as a matter of principle, I do think states should have more authority to defend public moral order than modern secular liberalism allows.

At the time of the U. S. founding, some states had laws punishing blasphemy or speech considered contemptuous toward Christianity. Do you support or oppose allowing states to enforce blasphemy laws today?