Britney and Kevin's Unborn Child

What exactly resides in the womb of the human mother? . In this morning’s Oregonian article, “Blazers trade down, then trade up”, John Canzano writes how the Portland Trailblazers, in drafting another player out of high school, has become an extremely young team.

“Player personnel director Kevin Pritchard, way back in his coaching days, suggested that getting "REAAAALLLY young" (he said it just like that) wasn't such a bad thing. I'll trust him there. But we're talking about a team that just got so young (new average age around 23.5 years) that you half expect the Blazers will consider using that conditional pick in 2006 on Britney and Kevin's unborn child. “ (emphasis added)

Unborn child? When removed from the rhetoric of the pro abortionists, people will naturally refer the unborn as a “baby” or a “child”. In our hearts we know exactly what the unborn is. It is only when those who have the power to destroy these children for there own convienence use words like fetus, embryo, cell mass to hide the truth.

The Establishment Clause in its Historical Context

Washington Post columnist George Will provides some historical background that shows why Monday's Supreme Court rulings on the Ten Commandments actually violates the Framers' (including Thomas Jefferson who, though not an actual Framer, is the authority upon which modern day Separatists rely) intentions regarding the First Amendment. See "Thou Shalt Split Hairs".

The fallacy of Separation of Church and State

Melinda Penner of Stand To Reason makes some salient points today that "Non-establishment is what the First Amendment affirms, not 'separation of church and state'" in her blog entry, "The Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court".

Identity As Criteria

Paul Scalia, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia and chaplain of the Arlington chapter of Courage, makes an interesting observation in the current issue of First Things. His comments are in the context of school organizations identifying children by their sexual orientation:

"The child is lovable, and is loved. That love, more than anything else, instills in adolescents the trust and confidence they need to struggle with whatever painful and saddening realities they face.

"Difficulties arise when the child insists on being accepted and loved not as a person but as a 'gay,' 'homosexual,' or 'other' - when he wants to be loved according to that label. Clearly this situation ... requires parents to insist continually that, no, their child is not just the sum of his sexual attractions, that they can love their child while rejecting some of their actions.

"Adolescents need to hear precisely this: People's sexual inclinations do not determine their identity."

While Fr. Scalia is specifically addressing sexual orientation, his thinking applies much more broadly, for example regarding race or ethnicity. This labeling divides and ultimately reduces a person's humanity to mere criteria; emphasizing certain criterion and reducing others. If the chosen criteria are not recognized then those holding the criteria see themselves reduced; second class citizens.

It is their clinging to a set of criteria as their identity which ultimately reduces their humanity.

I will include a link to the article, if and when, First Things places the article on their website.

Update (7/23/2005): First Things has indeed provided a link to this article, A Label that Sticks.

History of Repeated Injuries and Usurpations

The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States, To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World, ... For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us."
- Declaration of Independence

"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
- Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
- Benjamin Franklin

The Supreme Court ruled today in Kelo v. New London that "cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development . . . giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue."

Does anyone, who has even a tiny knowledge of the Founders' and the Framers' worldview believe today's Supreme Court decision aligns with their intent on property rights? That under the tyranny of King George that they believe it was okay for a government to take away private property and give to another private entity?

Then: When quartering the King's Army one still retained possession of one's property. Sometimes homes were burned to the ground.

Now: Local governments can simply take your property, bulldoze it, and give it too someone else.

The Founders and Framers must indeed be proud.

Michael Schiavo's Parting Shot

ABC News reports that Terri Schaivo's remains have been buried in Florida. The grave marker contains the words: "I kept my promise."

This parting shot from Michael Sciavo reveals his deep hatred for Terri's parents and siblings. Originally, he was adamant about burying Terri at an undisclosed location in Pennsylvania despite her parents wishes to have her buried in Florida.

So now he changes his mind, buries her close to the parents with his parting shot confronting them every time they visit their daughter's grave. "Hey, Schindlers, 'I kept my promise!' to kill your daughter. So there! In your face!" Micahel Schiavo appears to be a man who cannot let his hatred go until he lashes out bashing and battering those he hates.

This is just speculation on my part but I suspect that Michael went from an attitude of caring for Terri during those initial years to killing her as a way to assuage his anger towards the Schindler's.

Last item: The grave marker lists Feb. 25, 1990 as the date his Terri "Departed this Earth." This is a blatant lie. I'd like to hear Micahel and his death-embracing lawyer, George Felos, explain why Michael sued for (and won) money for Terri's rehabilitaion if she had already "departed from earth." This is simply a blatant lie.

Father's Day

My kids gave me a booklet they made with various pictures of us along with captions. Each picture was a memory of something we've done together; like canoeing, making campfires, coaching their basketball teams, and even the burping contest we had during boys weekend. It reminded me that my job is to raise good citizens but that also I am supplying them with memories that they will have for the rest of their lives just as my father provided (and still provides) for me.

Several years ago, the boys gave me a poem that they attached to a piece of construction paper they had decorated. I have it posted at my office as a reminder of a father's real purpose:

"Walk a little slower Daddy," said a child so small.
"I'm following in your footsteps and I don't want to fall.

Sometimes your steps are very fast,
Sometimes they're hard to see;
So walk a little slower, Daddy,
For you are leading me.

Someday when I'm all grown up,
You're what I want to be;
Then I will have a little child
Who'll want to follow me.

And I would want to lead just right,
And know that I was true;
So, walk a little slower, Daddy,
For I must follow you."

- author unknown

Mythical Conclusions From The Schiavo Autopsy

Sample Headlines
Columbian (Vancouver, WA): "Autopsy: Terri Schiavo was beyond medical help"
Oregonian (Portland, OR): "Autopsy: Schiavo's status was irreversible"
AP: "Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage"

USA Today: "Schiavo autopsy confirms diagnosis: Brain damage was ‘irreversible,' examiner finds"

Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason writes why these articles miss the point. As Penner states, "None of us are valuable because of the things we can do or offer society; we are valuable in virtue of the kind of beings we are."

From the AP story:
"This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," said Pinellas-Pasco County Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team. He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead." See Penner's comments.

George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said the findings back up their contentions made "for years and years" that Terri Schiavo had no hope of recovery. Think of all the terminal people in the world. Guess we can just off them

The finding that she was blind counters a widely seen videotape released by her parents of Terri Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. She moaned and laughed. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon. The parents said the video that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness. ... The parents said the video that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness. This is interesting not only in the diagnosis she was blind but, also, that there was no explanation given for why she would follow the balloons. It's hard to imagine "primitive visionary reflexes" occurring if she was blind. As to the correlation of brain function and consciousness, see my previous post "Philosophy As Medical Omniscience".

The cause of death was ruled dehydration from removal of the feeding tube, but the underlying reason for her brain damage was officially listed as "undetermined." In other words, she wasn't dying. She would not have died except that the tube was removed. Michael Sciavo and George Felos basically said Terri can be killed because she does not have any value in our eyes.

As to the Columbian's Headline that Schiavo was "beyond medical help"; no she was not. Terri was not beyond medical help. She was receiving, at the very minimum, the medical help someone in her position requires: basic nutritional care. She was only considered "beyond help" to those who see no value in helping those that are less fortunate in physical or mental ability. She was "beyond help" to those in power who say another must obtain their definition of consciousness.

Nature's Homophobic Bigotry

Associated Press writer, Daniel Yee, reports some revealing facts in his article, "More Than a Million in U.S. Live With HIV". Yee writes:

"Health officials say the prevention failure in part has come from an abandonment of safe sex practices by gay and bisexual men - who account for almost half of HIV cases. Experts think they may be weary of STD prevention messages. The majority of the others infected are high-risk heterosexuals and injection drug users. ... The CDC also warned those demographics may soon change because heterosexual blacks, women and others infected after having high-risk sex (such as with someone with HIV, an injection-drug user or a man who has sex with other men) now account for a larger proportion of those living with HIV than those who are living with full-blown AIDS." (emphasis added)

Notice the driving force behind the increase in HIV: unsafe sex by gay and bisexual men, intravenous drug users and high-risk heterosexuals (i.e. heterosexuals who have sex with the first two groups or someone who is already infected).

Why would non-high risk heterosexuals not be driving the increase in HIV cases while male homosexuals consist nearly half? Could it be in the way nature has designed the human body for sexual activity. In short, the penis is designed sexually for the vagina not the anus.

Activists want society's approval of homosexual behavior; the very behavior which we all know of life is detrimental to its participants' health. They want us to turn our faces from the incredible suffering and loss of life that this behavior produces. And when one turn their face from this destruction of humanity, they are labeled homophobes, hate-mongers, and gay-bashers for starters.

Activists' true anger, though, is against the very Nature that discriminates against homosexual activity in its design of human sexuality. It is Nature that is homophobic.

The Christian Mind Tackles the Problem of Evil

Several weeks ago, Stand to Reason mentioned The Christian Mind blog. Keith Plummer brings critical Christian thinking to a variety of issues in the public square. In an era when many people believe Christianity to be ignorant, Plummer harkens back to the tradition of the greatest thinkers of Western civilization; many of whom were Christians. I have added his blog to the nContx list of links.

Today, Plummer posts an online discussion he had with an atheist regarding the problem of evil and appropriately titled "An Atheist's Problem with the Problem of Evil".

Following Their Hearts of Bigotry

I've previously commented on the bigotry and intolerance of the homosexual activists in Oregon as they try to push through a civil unions bill which will give benefits only to same-sex relationships at the same time they oppose a reciprocal-benefits bill which would give benefits to any two adults unable to marry. A thought occurred to my while reading an article from the Eugene (OR) Register-Guard. The article states:

"Opponents of the reciprocal-benefits bill have called it woefully inadequate. Among the areas they said it fell short was its lack of legal protections for a same-sex couple's children, the right to benefits through spouse-survivor life insurance, or the right to continue workers' compensation benefits if a partner is killed or disabled on the job."

I mentioned before it is interesting that the opposition doesn't say how to make the reciprocal-benefits bill better for any two adults. Instead they cling to giving benefits only to same-sex couples.

My thoughts is this: if they can't support reciprocal benefits for any two adults because it falls "woefully inadequate" then why don't they change the civil union bill to include benefits for any two adults?

The answer is that benefits for any two couples does not place homosexual relationships on the same level as heterosexual relationships. The radical homosexual activists were given a test to show that they were really for equality and they failed.

Because equality is not their goal. Normalization of homosexuality is.

The Real Meaning of Sex

This month’s issue of Touchstone magazine has an excellent article discussing why the Christian view of sex actually conforms to the way the world actually is.

I encourage you to read Bodies of Evidence: The Real Meaning of Sex Is Right In Front of Our Eyes by Frederica Mathews-Green. It will make you think.

The Bigotry of Oregon Civil Unions

The sponsors of Oregon Senate Bill 1000, which would grant civil unions and make homosexuals a protected class, have taken a different path. They have created SB 1073 which authorizes civil unions but removes the "non-discrimination" language.

I've commented on this notion of civil unions in Oregon and why it is really marriage by a different name. It is interesting that civil union advocates have dismissed SB 3476 which would provide some of the specific legal remedies - like hospital visitation, health care representation, estate issues, medical records access, etc) to any two people who are unable to marry regardless of sexual orientation. They say it doesn't go far enough.

Instead of working to make the reciprocal benefits of SB 3476 better, they reject it entirely and go back to advocating state sanctioned marriage benefits. This reveals something very profound about the civil union advocates.

Though they tout equality, they only want benefits for same-sex relationships. SB 3476 actually helps more people then SB 1073. If it is bigoted to "deny" legal benefits and rights to same-sex relationships (which is the claim of same-sex marriage advocates) then it is equally bigoted to deny those benefits to other, less conventional, family relationships.

Civil union advocates are not interested in equality in any meaningful sense of the word. They want to normalize homosexuality. They need same-sex relationships to be on the same (or as close to the) level as opposite-sex relationships. To have other relationships on that same level does not hold same-sex relationships on a special level.

For more information, see the Oregon Family Council web site.

The Sith Lord and his Apprentice

We live in an age of anti-intellectualism. Another great example comes from Frank E. Decker of Vancouver and published in the pages of the local Columbian newspaper. My comments are italicized.

It's just a great sci-fi film
What is it with the religious right in this country? Why does everything always have to be about them and their politics? I'm speaking about the recent allegations that George Lucas and the final installment of the "Star Wars" saga is really nothing more than a 2-hour, 26-minute Bush-bash.
Since some non-religious people have made the same charge of Lucas, are they still part of the "religious right"? By not defining his term, Mr. Decker, seems more intent on creating a pejorative then actual expressing who he is actually criticizing..

I remember when the first "Star Wars" installments were released. Even then there were right-wing fanatics spouting off about how the movies were anti-Christian.
Did Decker view the Ant-Defamation League as fanatics for calling the movie, The Passion, anti-Semitic? What about when Muslims feel they are stereotyped as terrorists on TV or film? In Episode IV, an officer of the Empire refers to Vader's adherence to the Force as an "ancient religion". The Force surrounds everything in the universe. It allows immortality (see Yoda, Obi Wan, and even Anakin). Star Wars is filled with immense metaphysical undertones many of which are in direct conflict with Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. To say that the movie has anti-Christian elements is hardly fanatical. By the way, for those with a Catholic background, the expression, "May the Force be with you" is properly responded to with "And also with you!"

Now they've abandoned that crusade to bring their newest savior into the limelight. George W. Bush insisting that Vader's comment, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," is a play on Bush's speech on terrorism and that the evil Vader is actually a metaphor for Bush.
Bush's statement from his Sept 20, 2001 speech was "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Now Vader's: ""If you're not with me, you're my enemy". Is Decker trying to say that common sense cannot not say, "Hmm, I can see a similarity here"? The Associated Press reports that even the "Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between "Revenge of the Sith" -- the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering -- to President Bush's war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq." Is the Cannes audience really just right-wing fanatics? I'd like to see that evidence. Further, the AP article states the following:

Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy.
"As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things," Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. "I hope this doesn't come true in our country.
"Maybe the film will waken people to the situation," Lucas joked. (emphasis added)

Even Lucas sees the similarities even though he claims that it was unintended.

I wonder if these intellectually challenged sci-fiphobes are aware of how many leaders and dictators in history have used that same line. Or, what about the words of their spiritual leader in Matthew 20:13, "He that is not with me is against me"? Is Vader therefore a metaphor for Jesus as well?
Intellectually, challenged sci-fiphobes?!? No wonder the Columbian honored this writer with the May 2005 Wodsmithing Letter of the Month. I do agree with Decker that similar lines have been used throughout history and Lucas says he was looking at the way history repeats. But it doesn't follow that just the statement has been used before that Lucas may not have used it intentionally to make a statement about Bush. There is only one person that knows for sure. It is not I nor is it Decker. It is Lucas. There is enough evidence for reasonable people to draw the conclusion of intent just as the Cannes audience did. To say they are intellectually challenged reveals much about Decker's own anti-intellectualism.

"Star Wars" is sci-fi entertainment. It's great storytelling, nothing more. Find another witch hunt, folks, and let the rest of us enjoy a great story.
Good. Might as well get one more pejorative smart bomb. Perhaps Mr. Decker can now sleep well knowing that he has used his feelings to become strong in the anti-intellectual Force, wielding his pejorative powered lightsaber to save us all from the forces of reasonableness and common sense - which after all lead, in the galaxy of his mind far, far away, to the "Dark" Side.

May the Force Be With You.

And also with you.