Breaking news out of California as reported by major news outlets, the California Supreme Court declared that multiple people "in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the polygamy rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of (group) matrimony."
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case.
What you say? The Court didn't legalize multiple partner relationships but rather legalized same-sex marriages. But if, as Robin Tyler states, it all "boils down to love" on what grounds does the Court deny people who want to have multiple spouses? Yet, same-sex marriage advocates adamantly claim that only two individuals are allowed to enter into a marriage relationship.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, promotes the lie that grounds same-sex marriage:
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
Wrong. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from establishing "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person". In fact, abcnews reports that "Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, 'Pali, will you marry me?' " Was Rizzo and Pali not in a loving and long-term committed relationship for 19 years? And they did so without marriage!
Yet, even that is not the big lie. The big lie is the claim that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. Wrong. Homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen as long as they adhere to the criteria to which that every other citizen, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.
But homosexuals say this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.
In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it is only applied to a same-sex relationship. Once the argument is applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.
Unrepentant lawbreaker and San Francisco "mayor" Gavin Newsome stated, "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California". No word yet from Newsome on why he has yet to stand up and break the law for the human dignity and human rights of those who want multiple spouses.
We have rights and dignity because of the type of beings we are, i.e. human (for a more in-depth analysis, see The Foundation for Human Rights). We are made a certain way. But the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) - of which Newsome and George belong - can't argue that way rationally as evidenced by the "we are born that way" argument.
If one is born with a sexual orientation for the same gender they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are designed for the opposite gender. GET 'M never acknowledges the latter because to make that fundamental observation of nature is to admit that there is an inherent contradiction for the homosexual. It recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural design of the human being.
Same-sex marriage advocates say we cannot appeal to nature to determine the purpose of marriage. But then they say we must limit marriage to two people. The concept of two in a marital relationship goes to the very heart of our natures in sexual union - the idea of coupling. If it is discriminatory to appeal to the way our sexual organs are designed to fit together with the opposite gender then on what grounds do we say that those organs have to fit together between only two. Why not a threesome? Why not one man and multiple wives which has been recognized as marriage throughout history?
Same-sex marriage is an arbitrary concept. Advocates want to do away with only that criteria that keeps their relationships from being affirmed. This isn't about human rights and dignity. The is rights language GET 'M uses to create the necessary emotional response to their cause.
It is about elevating same-sex relationships to the same level as opposite-sex relationships. If any relationship was allowed then all relationships would be equal and then same-sex relationships wouldn't be elevated and special. It would be just one of many types of relationships.
Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigoted and discriminatory concept.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Harriet Tubman
On this date in 1913, Araminta Ross died in Auburn, New York.
She was "one of eleven children born to her slave parents on a plantation in Maryland. While she was still a girl, an overseer threw a lead weight at her head, knocking her unconscious. She finally recovered, but the blow left a scar on her head. From that day forward, she was committed to seeking freedom for herself and her fellow slaves." [1]
Upon the death of her master, the twenty-nine-year-old Ross "decided to escape to avoid being sold. She left her family and made her way to Philadelphia, where she became active in the abolitionist movement."[2]
Ross was willing to break the law to free her fellow slaves, and she anointed with the nickname "General" during her service as a "conductor" on the Underground Railroad.[3]
"When the Civil War began, [Ross] volunteered for Union service at Fort Monroe in Virginia and was then transferred to Beaufort, South Carolina, where she helped Yankee commanders liberate slaves on Confederate plantations. She also served as a spy for the Union cause.[4]
In fact, she helped Commander John Montgomery lead the Campaign on the Combahee River that freed an estimated 500 slaves while raiding several plantations and found volunteers for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry.
Araminta Ross is better known as Harriet Tubman and she was given the nickname "General Tubman" by abolitionist John Brown.
After the war, Tubman was active in the women’s suffrage movement.
[1-4] Excerpted from Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Civil War by Catherine Clinton, p. 34
For further information, see the following links:
Library of Congress Concise Summary of Harriet Tubman’s life
Auburn Citizen newspaper Memorial
Harriet Tubman’s Home
Campaign on the Combahee (June 2, 1863)
African-American Odyssey exhibit at the Library of Congress provides background information on African-Americans from slavery up through the civil rights era.
She was "one of eleven children born to her slave parents on a plantation in Maryland. While she was still a girl, an overseer threw a lead weight at her head, knocking her unconscious. She finally recovered, but the blow left a scar on her head. From that day forward, she was committed to seeking freedom for herself and her fellow slaves." [1]
Upon the death of her master, the twenty-nine-year-old Ross "decided to escape to avoid being sold. She left her family and made her way to Philadelphia, where she became active in the abolitionist movement."[2]
Ross was willing to break the law to free her fellow slaves, and she anointed with the nickname "General" during her service as a "conductor" on the Underground Railroad.[3]
"When the Civil War began, [Ross] volunteered for Union service at Fort Monroe in Virginia and was then transferred to Beaufort, South Carolina, where she helped Yankee commanders liberate slaves on Confederate plantations. She also served as a spy for the Union cause.[4]
In fact, she helped Commander John Montgomery lead the Campaign on the Combahee River that freed an estimated 500 slaves while raiding several plantations and found volunteers for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry.
Araminta Ross is better known as Harriet Tubman and she was given the nickname "General Tubman" by abolitionist John Brown.
After the war, Tubman was active in the women’s suffrage movement.
[1-4] Excerpted from Scholastic Encyclopedia of the Civil War by Catherine Clinton, p. 34
For further information, see the following links:
Library of Congress Concise Summary of Harriet Tubman’s life
Auburn Citizen newspaper Memorial
Harriet Tubman’s Home
Campaign on the Combahee (June 2, 1863)
African-American Odyssey exhibit at the Library of Congress provides background information on African-Americans from slavery up through the civil rights era.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
NARAL's Deadly Deception
In the Seattle PI article, "Pro-choice group says Plan B unavailable at 10 percent of state pharmacies", Tom Paulson reports:
I have to admit I laughed at Cooper's comment. If Plan B is unavailable at 10% of pharmacies that means that it is available at 90%. But then I continued to read more:
In other words, the 10% figure is over-inflated! In fact later, the article specifies that "3 percent reported having at least one pharmacist on the premises who refuses to dispense the drug."
Of course, NARAL isn't content with over 90% availability. They backed a state of Washington regulation that mandated pharmacists to dispense Plan B even if it violated the pharmacist's conscience. That regulation is currently being challenged in federal court.
The article also quotes Trina Stout who went to a pharmacy for Plan B and was "turned away." She accused the pharmacist of being "unsympathetic and rude." Stout and NARAL, of course, do not have a problem being "unsympathetic and rude" toward pharmacists who wish to practice their livelihood according to their own conscience.
Stout says she was left shaken. So what did the poor, ruthlessly victimized Stout do? Well. she left and obtained "Plan B at another pharmacy."
In other words, the pharmacy had the liberty to refuse business that violated their conscience and Stout had the liberty to go to a pharmacy that would give her what she wanted.
Trudi Inslee, wife of Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash and a NARAL Pro-Choice Washington board member (geez, I wonder how much federal dollars NARAL receives) says Plan B is not an abortion pill because it prevents the release or fertilization of the egg. Yet, this is deception by ommission. Accordingt to FDA information on Plan B:
NARAL's position amounts to forcing pharmacists to be a partner in the possible killing of a unique, living, vulnerable, defenseless, unborn human being.
But as the article states, "Inslee said it is unacceptable for a minority of pharmacists to block any woman's access to legal medication based upon their personal opinions or beliefs."
Liberty raising its ugly head in the state of Washington? Perish the thought.
"One of the state's leading pro-choice organizations has issued a Web-based, interactive map that shows which pharmacies in Washington either don't stock or refuse to provide customers with an emergency contraceptive drug known as Plan B."
'I was astounded at how many,' said Karen Cooper, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington".
I have to admit I laughed at Cooper's comment. If Plan B is unavailable at 10% of pharmacies that means that it is available at 90%. But then I continued to read more:
"one out of 10 pharmacies in the state either do not stock the drug or employ at least one pharmacist who refuses to dispense it."Thus, NARAL counted pharmacies as unavailable if one pharmacist objected even if that pharmacy stocked Plan B and another pharmacist is available to dispense it.
In other words, the 10% figure is over-inflated! In fact later, the article specifies that "3 percent reported having at least one pharmacist on the premises who refuses to dispense the drug."
Of course, NARAL isn't content with over 90% availability. They backed a state of Washington regulation that mandated pharmacists to dispense Plan B even if it violated the pharmacist's conscience. That regulation is currently being challenged in federal court.
The article also quotes Trina Stout who went to a pharmacy for Plan B and was "turned away." She accused the pharmacist of being "unsympathetic and rude." Stout and NARAL, of course, do not have a problem being "unsympathetic and rude" toward pharmacists who wish to practice their livelihood according to their own conscience.
Stout says she was left shaken. So what did the poor, ruthlessly victimized Stout do? Well. she left and obtained "Plan B at another pharmacy."
In other words, the pharmacy had the liberty to refuse business that violated their conscience and Stout had the liberty to go to a pharmacy that would give her what she wanted.
Trudi Inslee, wife of Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash and a NARAL Pro-Choice Washington board member (geez, I wonder how much federal dollars NARAL receives) says Plan B is not an abortion pill because it prevents the release or fertilization of the egg. Yet, this is deception by ommission. Accordingt to FDA information on Plan B:
"If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)."In other words, it terminates a pregnancy. A unique, living human being exists (at conception) but is denied the chance to continue its development and thus its existence. An abortion also terminates a pregnancy thereby killing a unique, living human being!
NARAL's position amounts to forcing pharmacists to be a partner in the possible killing of a unique, living, vulnerable, defenseless, unborn human being.
But as the article states, "Inslee said it is unacceptable for a minority of pharmacists to block any woman's access to legal medication based upon their personal opinions or beliefs."
Liberty raising its ugly head in the state of Washington? Perish the thought.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Abraham Lincoln
Today, marks the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President under the U.S. Constitution. I find Lincoln to be a immense paradox. The trials of his private life and the trials of his public life.
His brilliance in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his staunch view that slavery was wrong.
Yet, I'm convinced that his going to war against the seccessionist Southern states "in order to preserve the Union" was unconstitutional.
Had Lincoln not finally placed the war on the higher moral plane of abolishing slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, I suspect he may have gone down in history far less favorably.
I also wonder if he had lived what Reconstruction would have looked like and if the racial history in the United States would have been different. In short, if our wounds would have healed.
The following links provide some insights into Lincoln's life and times.
Biography of Lincoln
Northern Illinois University Lincoln Digitization Project. Contains interesting facts about Lincoln and some of his writings.
Library of Congress' Lincoln Collection
Library of Congress Exhibition on The Gettysburg Address
Lincoln Memorial
Civil War images
Emancipation Proclamation
His brilliance in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his staunch view that slavery was wrong.
Yet, I'm convinced that his going to war against the seccessionist Southern states "in order to preserve the Union" was unconstitutional.
Had Lincoln not finally placed the war on the higher moral plane of abolishing slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, I suspect he may have gone down in history far less favorably.
I also wonder if he had lived what Reconstruction would have looked like and if the racial history in the United States would have been different. In short, if our wounds would have healed.
The following links provide some insights into Lincoln's life and times.
Biography of Lincoln
Northern Illinois University Lincoln Digitization Project. Contains interesting facts about Lincoln and some of his writings.
Library of Congress' Lincoln Collection
Library of Congress Exhibition on The Gettysburg Address
Lincoln Memorial
Civil War images
Emancipation Proclamation
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Reason for the Season - O Holy Night
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
This is one of those Christmas carols that helps bring the true reason for the season into focus. The reason there even needed to be a Savior.
Each one of us knows that moral crimes should be punished. We also know that we have committed moral crimes. And therefore, we know we should be punished for the moral crimes we have committed.
We long to sin, to commit these moral crimes. It is in our natures separated from the One who created us.
Yet, in an act of mercy and love, God created a way for us to escape His judgement. He offers us a pardon for the moral crimes we have committed and long to commit. So God became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.
That's why Jesus is important. He offers the way out of the judgement that is rightly ours.
The pardon, however, is only valid for those who accept it. Those who bow their knee and accept Jesus (the babe born of lowly status and laid in a manger) as their Savior.
Christmas is a time of wishing, of excitement, of love, of peace, of cheer, of good tidings, and of hope. Yet we don't really stop to think of why we need these things:
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
But then comes the good news of great joy:
Till He appears and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
In response, we should:
Fall on our knees, O hear the angel voices,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born.
O night divine, O night when Christ was born,
O night divine, O night when Christ was born.
May your Christmas be one of falling on your knees and rejoicing in the thrill of hope brought forth by our dear Savior's birth over 2000 years ago.
Merry Christmas to you and your family!
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Saint Nicholas Day 2007
In the Rambousek house, we have never focused on Santa Claus. Instead we celebrate St. Nicholas Day (December 6th each year) in honor of the man from which spang the legend. We make gingerbread cookies and share them with our neigbors, have a special dinner, and each member of the family receives a stocking with something good to eat, something mad of paper or wood, something warm, and some money (see the story below for why these particular items).
The rest of the Christmas season, for our family, is focused on Christ. Our family hopes you have many blessings to be grateful for this year.
The following was taken and condensed from Martha Zimmerman' s book, Celebrating the Christian Year, copyright 1993.
THE REAL Santa Claus
There are very few known facts about this person, but we DO KNOW this about him. The man behind the legend was born in AD 280 to a wealthy couple who had been childless for some 30 years. He was named Nicholas. He was born in what is now Turkey. Both his parents died in a plague when he was about 9 years old and an uncle, who was a very devout Christian man, raised him.
In very early manhood, Nicholas became the Bishop of the city of Myra, a small seaport. It is known that he used the wealth of his inheritance to secretly care for the poor and destitute of the city. He served as Bishop for about 50 years and died on December 6, in approximately AD 343.
Two hundred years after his death, the church he served became known as the Church of Saint Nicholas - as the people had elevated him to sainthood long before the formal procedures of canonization were established. Nicholas was officially sainted in the 11th century.
Now for the legend - One of the best-recalled stories of Nicholas explains our current use of Christmas stockings. Nicholas knew a wealthy shipping merchant who lost all his ships and their cargo in a violent storm. The loss meant no dowry was available to ensure a proper marriage for each of his three daughters who were of marriageable age. The oldest daughter offered to sell herself as a prostitute to pay the dowries of her younger sisters. The family was appalled at her proposal.
Nicholas wanted to help. He had the resources, but he knew his friend would be hesitant and embarrassed to take "charity" and would feel obligated to him for life. He would probably never be able to repay him. After dark one night, Nicolas tossed a bag of gold coins through an open window into the daughter's room. Some of the coins fell into a stocking that had been hung to dry; some landed in the girls' shoes and some others on the floor. Nicholas quickly and silently returned to his home to avoid discovery.
Throughout his life, Nicholas consistently cared for the poor. He employed a weaver, a wood carver and a merchant to make clothing, toys and distribute food for the needy. Legend says Nicholas paid each handsomely on the condition that his identity as the benefactor remained hidden. Upon his death the townspeople discovered the Bishop had lived out the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:35-36: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…I needed clothes and you clothed me…"
The Bishop was also notorious for baking bread mixed with sugar and exotic spices. Having no family of his own, Nicholas was a special friend to the children of Myra. He delighted in passing out these "gingerbreads" to the town's children. The children dubbed him, "The Gingerbread Man".
December 6 is still celebrated in many European countries as St. Nicholas Day. Children awake to discover holiday stockings filled with small toys and good things to eat. Families make and decorate gingerbread houses, people and other cookie shapes. In the United States, the holiday has been combined with Christmas as Nicholas' life exemplifies kind deeds and generosity.
In the early 1930's, Santa Claus as we know him was illustrated to be used in a Coca-Cola advertisement that coincided with the Christmas holiday. (If Pepsi had thought of it first, perhaps the Jolly Old Elf would also be sporting some blue in his holiday attire.)
The rest of the Christmas season, for our family, is focused on Christ. Our family hopes you have many blessings to be grateful for this year.
The following was taken and condensed from Martha Zimmerman' s book, Celebrating the Christian Year, copyright 1993.
THE REAL Santa Claus
There are very few known facts about this person, but we DO KNOW this about him. The man behind the legend was born in AD 280 to a wealthy couple who had been childless for some 30 years. He was named Nicholas. He was born in what is now Turkey. Both his parents died in a plague when he was about 9 years old and an uncle, who was a very devout Christian man, raised him.
In very early manhood, Nicholas became the Bishop of the city of Myra, a small seaport. It is known that he used the wealth of his inheritance to secretly care for the poor and destitute of the city. He served as Bishop for about 50 years and died on December 6, in approximately AD 343.
Two hundred years after his death, the church he served became known as the Church of Saint Nicholas - as the people had elevated him to sainthood long before the formal procedures of canonization were established. Nicholas was officially sainted in the 11th century.
Now for the legend - One of the best-recalled stories of Nicholas explains our current use of Christmas stockings. Nicholas knew a wealthy shipping merchant who lost all his ships and their cargo in a violent storm. The loss meant no dowry was available to ensure a proper marriage for each of his three daughters who were of marriageable age. The oldest daughter offered to sell herself as a prostitute to pay the dowries of her younger sisters. The family was appalled at her proposal.
Nicholas wanted to help. He had the resources, but he knew his friend would be hesitant and embarrassed to take "charity" and would feel obligated to him for life. He would probably never be able to repay him. After dark one night, Nicolas tossed a bag of gold coins through an open window into the daughter's room. Some of the coins fell into a stocking that had been hung to dry; some landed in the girls' shoes and some others on the floor. Nicholas quickly and silently returned to his home to avoid discovery.
Throughout his life, Nicholas consistently cared for the poor. He employed a weaver, a wood carver and a merchant to make clothing, toys and distribute food for the needy. Legend says Nicholas paid each handsomely on the condition that his identity as the benefactor remained hidden. Upon his death the townspeople discovered the Bishop had lived out the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:35-36: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…I needed clothes and you clothed me…"
The Bishop was also notorious for baking bread mixed with sugar and exotic spices. Having no family of his own, Nicholas was a special friend to the children of Myra. He delighted in passing out these "gingerbreads" to the town's children. The children dubbed him, "The Gingerbread Man".
December 6 is still celebrated in many European countries as St. Nicholas Day. Children awake to discover holiday stockings filled with small toys and good things to eat. Families make and decorate gingerbread houses, people and other cookie shapes. In the United States, the holiday has been combined with Christmas as Nicholas' life exemplifies kind deeds and generosity.
In the early 1930's, Santa Claus as we know him was illustrated to be used in a Coca-Cola advertisement that coincided with the Christmas holiday. (If Pepsi had thought of it first, perhaps the Jolly Old Elf would also be sporting some blue in his holiday attire.)
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Barry Manilow's Oppressive Rationality
This past week, Barry Manilow decided he would not appear on the show, The View. Manilow posted on his web site (emphasis mine):
Interestingly, Manilow doesn't specify what views Hasselbeck holds that are "dangerous and offensive." He simply asserts that she - that is, not her views but Hasselbeck, herself - is "dangerous and offensive" while providing absolutely no evidence.
Second, every statement surrounding the purpose of Manilow's appearance was to promote his new album not to debate any issues with the co-hosts. Had he just appeared, no one would have compared his beliefs to anyone else on the show.
Third, even if Manilow had been on the show to debate issues, that is the format of the show. It is called The View after all. So why wouldn't Manilow want the opportunity to give solid, rational arguments in support of his positions and why Hasselbeck's positions are faulty.
I suspect it's because Mainlow doesn't hold his positions based on rational arguments. He holds them becuase they make him feel good. If someone opposes his positions, well, that doesn't make him feel good so he engages in name-calling, trying to paint Hasselbeck as evil. That makes him feel better. Rather than think carefully on this matter, he emotes.
I also suspect that Manilow believes he is an open-minded tolerant person. Thus, Manilow's labeling of Hasselbeck as "dangerous and oppressive" raises a question:
The entertainment reporting site, TMZ.com quoted Manilow as saying, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her."Monday, September 17, 2007
A message from Barry...
Hey guys,I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy, Barbara or Whoopi, but not Elisabeth Hasselback. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out.It’s really too bad because I've always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs. The good news is that I will be on a whole slew of other shows promoting the new album so I hope you can catch me on those.
Love,
Barry
Interestingly, Manilow doesn't specify what views Hasselbeck holds that are "dangerous and offensive." He simply asserts that she - that is, not her views but Hasselbeck, herself - is "dangerous and offensive" while providing absolutely no evidence.
Second, every statement surrounding the purpose of Manilow's appearance was to promote his new album not to debate any issues with the co-hosts. Had he just appeared, no one would have compared his beliefs to anyone else on the show.
Third, even if Manilow had been on the show to debate issues, that is the format of the show. It is called The View after all. So why wouldn't Manilow want the opportunity to give solid, rational arguments in support of his positions and why Hasselbeck's positions are faulty.
I suspect it's because Mainlow doesn't hold his positions based on rational arguments. He holds them becuase they make him feel good. If someone opposes his positions, well, that doesn't make him feel good so he engages in name-calling, trying to paint Hasselbeck as evil. That makes him feel better. Rather than think carefully on this matter, he emotes.
I also suspect that Manilow believes he is an open-minded tolerant person. Thus, Manilow's labeling of Hasselbeck as "dangerous and oppressive" raises a question:
What would Manilow have called Hasselbeck if he was intolerant!
Friday, August 24, 2007
An Argument That Proves Too Much
Today, a Florida Circuit court judge sentenced John Evander Couey to death for kidnapping and raping 9 year old Jessica Lunsford then putting her into a trash bag and burying her alive. What struck me, however, was an argument made by Couey's attorney. From an AP story, "Lunsford Killer to Die for His Crime": "
The attorney's argument proves too much. Intellectually consistentency demands that Couey shouldn't be held at all because, after all, he is mentally retarded. But even his attorney wouldn't argue that. Why? Because Couey is guilty and freeing him denies justice.
Couey took an innocent child from the safety of her own bedroom, used her for his own pleasure, then buried her as if this innocent, defenseless human being were trash. His life should be forfeit.
To allow him to live - albeit denying him freedom - trivalizes the dignity and worth of another human being ... in this case, Jessica Lunsford.
It's time to take out the true trash.
I'm not going to argue whether Couey had a reduced mental capacity because I don't see how it matters. Even if true, why should that reduce Couey's sentence from death to life? If he is really mentally retarded then why not ten years. But wait, he's mentally retarded so why not, five years. Again, Couey is mentally retarded.The public defender representing Couey had asked for a life sentence instead of capital punishment, arguing that Couey is mildly retarded. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibits the execution of mentally retarded people.
A judge, however, ruled earlier this month that Couey was not mentally retarded and was eligible for the death penalty. At today's hearing, Howard again batted away the arguments that Couey's mental aptitude had prompted his uncontrollable behavior."
The attorney's argument proves too much. Intellectually consistentency demands that Couey shouldn't be held at all because, after all, he is mentally retarded. But even his attorney wouldn't argue that. Why? Because Couey is guilty and freeing him denies justice.
Couey took an innocent child from the safety of her own bedroom, used her for his own pleasure, then buried her as if this innocent, defenseless human being were trash. His life should be forfeit.
To allow him to live - albeit denying him freedom - trivalizes the dignity and worth of another human being ... in this case, Jessica Lunsford.
It's time to take out the true trash.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Disrespect in a Sexually Saturated Culture
Several weeks ago, Faith Hill verbally reprimanded a female fan who grabbed her husband Tim McGraw in the crotch at the Louisiana stop of their Soul2Soul tour. According to E! Online, Hill admonished the fan from the stage,
But both McGraw and Hill wear outfits that accentuate their physical handsomeness and beauty. Sex sells. McGraw wears pants that emphasis his backside and his "privates". Or his shirt unbuttoned to show his chest hair.
Hill's photo layout for her album "Breathe" shows her reclining against a wall, with a seductive glance, one part of her sweater falling off her shoulder exposing her bra strap while the sweater front is strategically opened in the front to show the top of her laced-bra covered breast. The black sweater fails to cover most of her legs.
Does Hill not care about "grabbin' somebody else's husband's mind"? Now, there is a huge chasm between what Hill does to sell albums and what the female concertgoer did to McGraw. In fact, I think the fan should be charged. After all, what would have been the result had a male fan let his fingers do the walking on Hill?
In our sex-saturated culture, what Hill does is pretty tame. But, to say it doesn't have any affect on men, putting images into their heads - images of one man's wife into the heads of other women's husband - is foolish. That is, after all, what it is designed to do.
Hill is not physically accousting men but she is mentally accousting them. I have to wonder why that, on some level, isn't also considered "disrespectful".
Good for Hill for saying something. I would add that you don't grab anyone's private area unless - perhaps - you are married to them and they are willing to have that type of attention."Somebody needs to teach you some class, my friend," a finger-wagging Hill told
the woman. "You don't go grabbin' somebody else's, somebody's husband's
[privates], you understand me? That's very disrespectful!"
But both McGraw and Hill wear outfits that accentuate their physical handsomeness and beauty. Sex sells. McGraw wears pants that emphasis his backside and his "privates". Or his shirt unbuttoned to show his chest hair.
Hill's photo layout for her album "Breathe" shows her reclining against a wall, with a seductive glance, one part of her sweater falling off her shoulder exposing her bra strap while the sweater front is strategically opened in the front to show the top of her laced-bra covered breast. The black sweater fails to cover most of her legs.
Does Hill not care about "grabbin' somebody else's husband's mind"? Now, there is a huge chasm between what Hill does to sell albums and what the female concertgoer did to McGraw. In fact, I think the fan should be charged. After all, what would have been the result had a male fan let his fingers do the walking on Hill?
In our sex-saturated culture, what Hill does is pretty tame. But, to say it doesn't have any affect on men, putting images into their heads - images of one man's wife into the heads of other women's husband - is foolish. That is, after all, what it is designed to do.
Hill is not physically accousting men but she is mentally accousting them. I have to wonder why that, on some level, isn't also considered "disrespectful".
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Celebrating Independence
Today is the 231st anniversary of the creation of the united States of America. I have written in the past about the significance of this day, even quoting some of the Founders (see Independence Day). I've also commented on, what I believe to be, one of the most inspirational songs about this country, America the Beautiful.
So this year, I would like to make a few observations about Independence Day that occurred to me as I attended the annual Ridgefield, Washington Fourth of July Celebration Parade.
So this year, I would like to make a few observations about Independence Day that occurred to me as I attended the annual Ridgefield, Washington Fourth of July Celebration Parade.
- First, I really dislike calling this the Fourth of July. It has about as much meaning as the Third of July. It is Independence Day. That title reveals much more about the meaning of the celebration.
- Traditionally, the parade kicks off with a couple of F-15 fighter jets doing a fly over of the parade route. Very inspiring. I'm amazed at how you don't really hear the jets until they are right over you. But the raw power and grace of these machines is magnificent and a great way to start off the parade.
- When the color guard passed by at the beginning of the parade very few people actually stood. When I was growing up, I don't remember people sitting on their fat, gluteous maxumus' while the symbol of freedom and liberty passed by. That is really disrespectful although I don't think most of those who sat as the flag passed by intended to be disrespectful. I think it is a lack of education on the part of their parents and our nation.
- A young military man was riding in a Mustang. As it passed, several people applauded. To my knowledge, I was the only one who stood and applauded. That was disappointing.
- However, the next group of military came by and this time several people stood, more applause was louder, and a woman from behind me yelled, "Thanks for your service!"
- The last group of military was Marines. There were dressed in very nice looking uniforms. Most of the people stood and applauded and the woman behind me again yelled her affirmation. I think these men were very touched even as they tried to remain stoic. It was a touching moment for me.
I hope each of you have had a safe Independence Day. I hope that we all remember what happened on that day 231 years ago which birthed a new experiment in liberty such as the world has never experienced before.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Consequences of Putting Science Before Ideology
Yesterday, president Bush vetoes a bill allowing the federal government to fund embryonic stem cell research. In an AP report, "Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill", Deb Riechmann writes:
That is what the Nazi's did; doing medical experiments on prisoners and the less desirables of society (as defined by the Nazi's) in order to better the needs of their families (i.e. the Aryan race). For an understanding of the horrors of letting science be the arbitrator of ethics, see "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Lifton. The issue isn't about putting ideology before science but rather is the ideology a legitimate grounds for scientific ethics.
Second, Clinton's response is to Bush's statement:
Either way, her stated position leaves her no way to argue against the actions of the Nazi's. She unknowingly echoes the Nazi concept of lebensunwertnes Leben:
"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research. "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.Does Senator Clinton really want to put science before ideology?
That is what the Nazi's did; doing medical experiments on prisoners and the less desirables of society (as defined by the Nazi's) in order to better the needs of their families (i.e. the Aryan race). For an understanding of the horrors of letting science be the arbitrator of ethics, see "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Lifton. The issue isn't about putting ideology before science but rather is the ideology a legitimate grounds for scientific ethics.
Second, Clinton's response is to Bush's statement:
"If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." (emphasis added)It is a scientific fact that a human being exists from the moment of conception. So Senator Clinton's position is either that these tiny humans can be destroyed in order to benefit others or she is saying these are not really human beings and thereby denying science.
Either way, her stated position leaves her no way to argue against the actions of the Nazi's. She unknowingly echoes the Nazi concept of lebensunwertnes Leben:
Some Life is Unworthy of Life
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Becoming Children of God - part II
Yesterday, I discussed how self-described Christians were misinterpreting the concept of being a child of God. See "Becoming Children of God" for a review. The bottom line is that those who claim that individuals engaged in homosexual behavior are children of God because God created them and loves them destroy the very need for Jesus Christ and redemption.
But there is a second part that needs to be addressed: How then do we treat the sinner in our midst in a biblical and Christ-like manner?
The first point we need to remember is that we are the sinner in our midst. Activists have assaulted us with their homosexual agenda. In standing against that assault Christians need to remember that homosexual behavior is a symptom of our sinful nature just as heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage. The same for things like adultery, murder, gossip, etc.
We are all created by God. This is where the "open and accepting" churches have it right. They Open their congregations to those engaging in homosexual behavior.
Unfortunately, these churches turn from dealing with the sin thereby implicitly loving only the physical body while ignoring the soul. Instead, they Accept the sin.
The proper Christian response is to come along side those who are in sin (here I do not speak of merely homosexual sin but any sin in which people are engaged) and help them. Be an accountability partner, pray with them, rejoice with them when they are victorious in their self-discipline, and provide a shoulder on which to cry when they fail.
This is true biblical love. This is allowing God's love shine through us onto the individual in spiritual need.
Unfortunately, the "open and accepting" churches have redefined love to mean "no condemnation". Well, more precisely, love is "no condemnation" toward behaviors that they deem acceptable. They jettison God's justice in favor of God's love seemingly unawares that without the justice of God there cannot be the love of God in any meaningful sense.
So they say to those of us that do have a heart for those in homosexual activity that we are not loving because we won't turn our heads and let them go about how they want to live.
That would actually be fine with me, if it was my creation. But it's not; it's God's creation. He designed it and us. He set forth the rules.
I can't make anyone turn their face toward God. That's between them and God. But for those who truly are seeking to come under the Lordship of Christ there are many Christians who long to show you the love of Christ and help you bear the struggles because they care about your eternal souls.
But there is a second part that needs to be addressed: How then do we treat the sinner in our midst in a biblical and Christ-like manner?
The first point we need to remember is that we are the sinner in our midst. Activists have assaulted us with their homosexual agenda. In standing against that assault Christians need to remember that homosexual behavior is a symptom of our sinful nature just as heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage. The same for things like adultery, murder, gossip, etc.
We are all created by God. This is where the "open and accepting" churches have it right. They Open their congregations to those engaging in homosexual behavior.
Unfortunately, these churches turn from dealing with the sin thereby implicitly loving only the physical body while ignoring the soul. Instead, they Accept the sin.
The proper Christian response is to come along side those who are in sin (here I do not speak of merely homosexual sin but any sin in which people are engaged) and help them. Be an accountability partner, pray with them, rejoice with them when they are victorious in their self-discipline, and provide a shoulder on which to cry when they fail.
This is true biblical love. This is allowing God's love shine through us onto the individual in spiritual need.
Unfortunately, the "open and accepting" churches have redefined love to mean "no condemnation". Well, more precisely, love is "no condemnation" toward behaviors that they deem acceptable. They jettison God's justice in favor of God's love seemingly unawares that without the justice of God there cannot be the love of God in any meaningful sense.
So they say to those of us that do have a heart for those in homosexual activity that we are not loving because we won't turn our heads and let them go about how they want to live.
That would actually be fine with me, if it was my creation. But it's not; it's God's creation. He designed it and us. He set forth the rules.
I can't make anyone turn their face toward God. That's between them and God. But for those who truly are seeking to come under the Lordship of Christ there are many Christians who long to show you the love of Christ and help you bear the struggles because they care about your eternal souls.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Becoming Children of God
Yesterday was the Gay Pride Parade in Portland, Oregon. I caught the report on one of the local TV news stations. One of the women interviewed belonged to one of the many churches marching in the parade. She made a comment to the effect (this is not an exact quote) "that God created everyone and so we are all children of God." The implication was that therefore God loves the homosexual and does not consider homosexual behavior a sin.
This is an interesting concept, one I have heard many times before from those who say they are disciples of Jesus Christ. The problem is that this is not a biblical concept.
The Bible does not say that because God created us we are children of God. No, as even my nine-year old noted: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)
In other words, we are not "children of God" merely because God created us. The "children of God" are those that believe in Jesus Christ and are obedient to Him.
Eleven times the phrase "children of God" appears in the New Testament. Each time, it describes those who have turned their face from their sinful nature and toward Jesus Christ. (See context for John 1:12; 11:52; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16, 21; 9:8; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). That is what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.
So, this woman has a mistaken notion of what being a disciple of Christ actually entails.
Secondly, if we are all children of God simply because God created us and since he loves us He would condone our behavior what actions on our part would be sinful? Adultery? But God loves us; we are children of God because He created us. Murder? Gossip? Gay-bashing? Same problem. Meaning there is no problem.
This bumper sticker theology eliminates the need for God's plan of redemption. It eliminates the need for Jesus Christ because God, in His love, turns a blind eye to justice.
But that is not the message of the Bible. We all know we have committed moral crimes and we all know moral crimes should be punished. That knowledge points to an objective moral standard; that is, a moral rule that is put in place by something outside of ourselves and to which everyone is beholden.
But if we know we have committed moral crimes and we know that moral crimes should be punished then (here's the bad news), we know we should be punished.
Here's the good news: God, in an act of true mercy and true love, provided a way for us to escape His judgement. He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.
That's why Jesus is important. He did the time for the crimes we commit so we can be pardoned and go free.
This is an interesting concept, one I have heard many times before from those who say they are disciples of Jesus Christ. The problem is that this is not a biblical concept.
The Bible does not say that because God created us we are children of God. No, as even my nine-year old noted: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)
In other words, we are not "children of God" merely because God created us. The "children of God" are those that believe in Jesus Christ and are obedient to Him.
Eleven times the phrase "children of God" appears in the New Testament. Each time, it describes those who have turned their face from their sinful nature and toward Jesus Christ. (See context for John 1:12; 11:52; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16, 21; 9:8; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). That is what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.
So, this woman has a mistaken notion of what being a disciple of Christ actually entails.
Secondly, if we are all children of God simply because God created us and since he loves us He would condone our behavior what actions on our part would be sinful? Adultery? But God loves us; we are children of God because He created us. Murder? Gossip? Gay-bashing? Same problem. Meaning there is no problem.
This bumper sticker theology eliminates the need for God's plan of redemption. It eliminates the need for Jesus Christ because God, in His love, turns a blind eye to justice.
But that is not the message of the Bible. We all know we have committed moral crimes and we all know moral crimes should be punished. That knowledge points to an objective moral standard; that is, a moral rule that is put in place by something outside of ourselves and to which everyone is beholden.
But if we know we have committed moral crimes and we know that moral crimes should be punished then (here's the bad news), we know we should be punished.
Here's the good news: God, in an act of true mercy and true love, provided a way for us to escape His judgement. He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.
That's why Jesus is important. He did the time for the crimes we commit so we can be pardoned and go free.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
D-Day June 6, 2007
Sixty-three years ago today Operation Overlord, the largest invasion in history commenced against Hitler's "Fortress Europe". I am currently reading the book, "D-Day" by Stephen Ambrose, which is a stirring and often sobering account from interviews with many of the actual participants and from military records.
Had the Allied forces been repelled, how would Europe (or the rest of the world) look today? How would that have impacted the Eastern Front? We probably don't often think about these pivot moments of history.
That longest day in 1944 was a pivotal point in history, faced by men and women who grasped a higher cause above their own well-being at significant, and many times ultimate, cost.
For further information:
Had the Allied forces been repelled, how would Europe (or the rest of the world) look today? How would that have impacted the Eastern Front? We probably don't often think about these pivot moments of history.
That longest day in 1944 was a pivotal point in history, faced by men and women who grasped a higher cause above their own well-being at significant, and many times ultimate, cost.
For further information:
- National World War II Memorial
- Encyclopaedia Britannica's Guide to Normandy 1944 (contains maps, veteran's accounts, photos, etc)
- PBS' "American Experience: D-day"
- A friend of mine also recommends the book, "The Victors" by Stephen Ambrose
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
John Laird and The Test for Intellectual Honesty
Columbian Editorial Page Editor John Laird May 27, 2007 editorial contained some miscellaneous thoughts including the following:
Larry: Regarding the your May 27th column, sub-heading “One word, and a piece of paper”, I agree with your view that there is no meaningful difference between civil unions and marriage since civil unions “allow every condition of marriage.” You criticized opponents of same-gender marriage for saying there is a difference. Will you also publicly criticize the Oregon Legislature for passing legislation allowing “every condition of marriage” for same gender relationships thereby violating their state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman?
Second, the phrase “gay marriage” is incorrect. Gays already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. John Laird cannot marry a male. Neither can a homosexual male marry a male. Both can marry a female. They have exactly the same rights and equal protection under the law. The real issue is whether government
should endorse the marriage relationship as strictly between opposite genders or also allow same gender relationships also.
This is important in regards to your illustration comparing this issue with race. A more apt comparison would be to say that men could now have unlimited access to women’s restrooms (or visa versa) only you can’t say you are using the women’s restroom.
John Laird: Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. We always get a lot of feedback on both sides of this issue. You make some very good points. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor if you like.
Larry: Thanks for your response. I was inquiring as to whether you would be willing to hold both sides to the same criticism that you voiced in your column since both sides are guilty of the same thing. Or if you only intend to criticize those with whom you disagree.
I can write a letter to the editor pointing out the one-sidedness of that particular part of your column. However, if you write about how both sides are misusing the concept of civil unions, it would show that you are being fair by
applying your critique to both sides of the issue. Just a thought.
+++
As of this writing, I have not received a response from John whether he will publicly apply his criticism to all whom it applies, including his side of the debate. I suspect that he will not since his past style has been to write in such a way that places those with whom he disagrees in the most ridiculous light possible.
But, if his criticism of same-sex marriage opponents is legitimate in regards to their view of civil unions then it speaks volumes of advocates who have pushed civil unions in Oregon in violation of their constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Test for Intellectual Honesty now stands before John Laird. Will he pass? Time will tell.
John advocates same-sex marriage. In order to criticize the opposition, he has made a startling admission, that is, the concept of civil unions is no different from the concept of marriage. In response, I sent an email to John. Following is our email discussion:One word, and a piece of paper - You gotta wonder about people who say they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. In other words, they will allow every condition of marriage except the use of the word and the granting of a certificate.
That's like a country club telling an applicant of a different skin color: "OK, here's our offer. You can park in our parking lot, use our locker room, play on our golf course, win our trophies and eat in our dining room. But you absolutely cannot say you're a member of our country club, and you
cannot have a membership card. Oh, no, 'cause that would erode the sanctity of our institution."
Larry: Regarding the your May 27th column, sub-heading “One word, and a piece of paper”, I agree with your view that there is no meaningful difference between civil unions and marriage since civil unions “allow every condition of marriage.” You criticized opponents of same-gender marriage for saying there is a difference. Will you also publicly criticize the Oregon Legislature for passing legislation allowing “every condition of marriage” for same gender relationships thereby violating their state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman?
Second, the phrase “gay marriage” is incorrect. Gays already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. John Laird cannot marry a male. Neither can a homosexual male marry a male. Both can marry a female. They have exactly the same rights and equal protection under the law. The real issue is whether government
should endorse the marriage relationship as strictly between opposite genders or also allow same gender relationships also.
This is important in regards to your illustration comparing this issue with race. A more apt comparison would be to say that men could now have unlimited access to women’s restrooms (or visa versa) only you can’t say you are using the women’s restroom.
John Laird: Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. We always get a lot of feedback on both sides of this issue. You make some very good points. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor if you like.
Larry: Thanks for your response. I was inquiring as to whether you would be willing to hold both sides to the same criticism that you voiced in your column since both sides are guilty of the same thing. Or if you only intend to criticize those with whom you disagree.
I can write a letter to the editor pointing out the one-sidedness of that particular part of your column. However, if you write about how both sides are misusing the concept of civil unions, it would show that you are being fair by
applying your critique to both sides of the issue. Just a thought.
+++
As of this writing, I have not received a response from John whether he will publicly apply his criticism to all whom it applies, including his side of the debate. I suspect that he will not since his past style has been to write in such a way that places those with whom he disagrees in the most ridiculous light possible.
But, if his criticism of same-sex marriage opponents is legitimate in regards to their view of civil unions then it speaks volumes of advocates who have pushed civil unions in Oregon in violation of their constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Test for Intellectual Honesty now stands before John Laird. Will he pass? Time will tell.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Silent Voices
This past Saturday (June 2, 2007), was the Walk for Life to raise funds for the local Community Pregnancy Center which helps women and teens facing unplanned pregnancies. A friend of mine co-wrote a song about the child with in the womb.
Both composers performed the song for our community's walk:
Silent Voices
In hidden shrouds new life has begun,
Deep within, a daughter or son!
Knit of God, but torn by a "choice,"
Can no one hear their innocent voice?
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Never knowing simple delights,
Never having joy in this life,
Never sharing a hug or a kiss,
Silent pleas remain on their lips.
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Hidden talents, silenced and stilled,
Vacant places - voids never filled;
Guilt leaves us with only the tears,
Till in heaven, their voices we hear.
Hear the voices of grateful lives,
Untold millions, no more cries;
Jubilant voices, no tears can be found,
God's precious gift is safe and sound.
Don't you know, our God always hears?
Each silent plea reaches His ears?
He also hears our cries of despair, even our grief is in His care...
Their precious life...Your precious life...
Each precious life is in God's care.
©1995 Bob Heberling/Pat Richardson
Both composers performed the song for our community's walk:
Silent Voices
In hidden shrouds new life has begun,
Deep within, a daughter or son!
Knit of God, but torn by a "choice,"
Can no one hear their innocent voice?
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Never knowing simple delights,
Never having joy in this life,
Never sharing a hug or a kiss,
Silent pleas remain on their lips.
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.
Hidden talents, silenced and stilled,
Vacant places - voids never filled;
Guilt leaves us with only the tears,
Till in heaven, their voices we hear.
Hear the voices of grateful lives,
Untold millions, no more cries;
Jubilant voices, no tears can be found,
God's precious gift is safe and sound.
Don't you know, our God always hears?
Each silent plea reaches His ears?
He also hears our cries of despair, even our grief is in His care...
Their precious life...Your precious life...
Each precious life is in God's care.
©1995 Bob Heberling/Pat Richardson
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M)
From Reuters today, comes the report that eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays: "
The answer is because the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) disallows any and all dissent against homosexual behavior. Instead of Carlson having the freedom to choose a service that offers her the product she wants AND eHarmony having the freedom to choose to offer the services they want, the Totalitarians of GET 'M say if you don't approve of homosexual behavior we will make you pay!
The lawyer, Todd Schneider, claimed the lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."
Really Mr. Schneider? How was your client denied the "right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." The only way that it can be classified as a denial of rights is if Carlson has the "right" to demand what she wants wherever she wants it from whomever she wants. Of course, that isn't a right, tolerance or liberty.
But it does show the true colors of a movement that long ago lost its moral grounding in true equality.
The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay. Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a "men seeking men" or "women seeking women" option."Here's the question for Carlson. Why don't you use one of the many online services that does offer "men seeking men" and "women seeking women" services? Why not choose a dating service that offers the services you want?
The answer is because the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) disallows any and all dissent against homosexual behavior. Instead of Carlson having the freedom to choose a service that offers her the product she wants AND eHarmony having the freedom to choose to offer the services they want, the Totalitarians of GET 'M say if you don't approve of homosexual behavior we will make you pay!
The lawyer, Todd Schneider, claimed the lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."
Really Mr. Schneider? How was your client denied the "right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." The only way that it can be classified as a denial of rights is if Carlson has the "right" to demand what she wants wherever she wants it from whomever she wants. Of course, that isn't a right, tolerance or liberty.
But it does show the true colors of a movement that long ago lost its moral grounding in true equality.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The solution for moral crimes
The following letter to the editor from George Thomas of Vancouver, WA appeared in May 25th The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) newsapaper. My response follows:
Thomas implies that there is something bad in these events and that a heavenly plan would not have bad events but good. But where does he find this notion of mayhem? As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
What gives Thomas the animal more moral authority over the animals who pick up holy books? Who is Thomas to say the Virginia Tech killings are an example of mayhem. If there is no objective standard then there is only personal preference, that is, what someone likes or dislikes. A "human animal" has a personal preference of ending the lives of "human animals" on a campus. Thomas dislikes that. Why is that bad or mayhem? Thomas' evolutionary atheology has no answer.
"Murder, suicide, endless mayhem" only make sense if there is an objective standard by which actions are measured. Thomas knows this. That is why he can say those actions are bad. He is denying the very thing his argument requires (an objective standard from a transcendant source) to be rational.
Thomas believes:
But there is good news. In an act of mercy and love, God provided a solution for us to escape His judgement.
He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself. He's the one who took the sentence for the crimes we committed so we can be pardoned, released, and go free.
That's why Jesus is important.
[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Collier Books, MacMillian Publishing Company, New York, 1960, p. 45.
Animals act like animals
The Virginia Tech shooting brings it all up again, doesn't it? Murder, suicide, endless mayhem - sounds crazy, doesn't it? No wonder people have unanswerable questions. They're stuck dumb with wonder. They wonder why God allows such things to happen. They wonder why God's tornado strikes down this church and spares that topless bar, or vice versa. They blame themselves or others as sinners.
People have been putting blame or reading godly purposes into the cosmos since forever. They never get a satisfactory answer and the mayhem goes on. It's so simple, really. The only explanation that fits all the facts is that there is no "God," no "godly" purpose in any event and never has been. If their were a heavenly plan, would it look like this?
All mayhem is the result of natural accidents or of human animals, recently evolved from nonhuman animals, with the consciousness of hunter-gatherers who find themselves in a modern society they don't quite fit into yet.
They keep trying to understand the problem with the wrong set of instructions. If they want answers that fit the facts, they need to put down their holy books and read up in the cognitive sciences.
George Thomas
Vancouver
Thomas implies that there is something bad in these events and that a heavenly plan would not have bad events but good. But where does he find this notion of mayhem? As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"[1]Thomas' worldview cannot account for objective right and wrong. He tells us we've evolved from nonhuman animals. We're nothing more than animals ourselves. There is no objective standard outside ourselves. We animals make the rules. Thomas says we should "put down [our] holy books and and read up in the cognitive sciences." My question is why?
What gives Thomas the animal more moral authority over the animals who pick up holy books? Who is Thomas to say the Virginia Tech killings are an example of mayhem. If there is no objective standard then there is only personal preference, that is, what someone likes or dislikes. A "human animal" has a personal preference of ending the lives of "human animals" on a campus. Thomas dislikes that. Why is that bad or mayhem? Thomas' evolutionary atheology has no answer.
"Murder, suicide, endless mayhem" only make sense if there is an objective standard by which actions are measured. Thomas knows this. That is why he can say those actions are bad. He is denying the very thing his argument requires (an objective standard from a transcendant source) to be rational.
Thomas believes:
"The only explanation that fits all the facts is that there is no 'God,' no 'godly' purpose in any event and never has been. If their were a heavenly plan, would it look like this?"In reality, the only explanation that fits all the facts is that there is a 'God,' with a 'godly' purpose in any event and always has been. And the Creator's heavenly plan, rejected by the creation, would have consequences that look exactly like this! The endless mayhem doesn't just include murder but every single moral crime that we have ever committed, no matter how small. I'm guilty. Thomas is guilty. Everyone reading this blog is guilty.
But there is good news. In an act of mercy and love, God provided a solution for us to escape His judgement.
He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself. He's the one who took the sentence for the crimes we committed so we can be pardoned, released, and go free.
That's why Jesus is important.
[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Collier Books, MacMillian Publishing Company, New York, 1960, p. 45.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Life is a Wisp
My youngest son turned 9 years old yesterday. We had a great day. I took him and his brother to see Spider-man 3, we went to lunch at Red Robin, went to a park, came home and had dinner and watched the Fantastic Four movie, had cake and ice cream and opened presents. It was a fun day.
Today, at work, I learned that a woman I work with lost her 22 year old son in a car accident. He was with a friend and their car crossed the median into oncoming traffic and hit another car killing themselves and the two people in the other car ( a father and his 12 year old son returning home from the boy's baseball game).
Life is a wisp. We never know when it might end. I don't know what caused the accident. I don't know if it could have been avoided. I do know that there are three families who are in a great amount of pain right now. I hope they remember the good times they had with their loved ones.
It reminds me to cherish times like our family had yesterday. We don't know what the morrow will bring.
Today, at work, I learned that a woman I work with lost her 22 year old son in a car accident. He was with a friend and their car crossed the median into oncoming traffic and hit another car killing themselves and the two people in the other car ( a father and his 12 year old son returning home from the boy's baseball game).
Life is a wisp. We never know when it might end. I don't know what caused the accident. I don't know if it could have been avoided. I do know that there are three families who are in a great amount of pain right now. I hope they remember the good times they had with their loved ones.
It reminds me to cherish times like our family had yesterday. We don't know what the morrow will bring.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day - 2007
From bartleby.com, George Patton once said:
While we cannot thank them personally, we should still say thank you in our rememberance of them. So as we participate in BBQs, picnics, movies, or just spend a quiet time at home, may we remember their sacrifice and in our hearts say:
"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank GodWe have much for which to be thankful in this country and I could not agree more with General Patton. These men and women gave up there lives so that their fellow Americans and future generations of Americans could continue to enjoy our freedoms.
that such men lived."
While we cannot thank them personally, we should still say thank you in our rememberance of them. So as we participate in BBQs, picnics, movies, or just spend a quiet time at home, may we remember their sacrifice and in our hearts say:
THANK YOU!
Friday, May 18, 2007
Pro-choice means never allowing conscience
Last month, the state of Washington (read Governor Christine Gregoire pressuring the oversight board) adopted a policy to force pharmacists to dispense the emergency contraception known as Plan B (or the morning-after pill). In response, Dr. Jerome Wernow of Northwest Center of BioEthics and a licensed pharmacist (he is also my pastor) wrote the following editorial for The Columbian (Vancouver, WA). The Columbian did not publish it because Dr. Wernow objected to their editing his piece without permitting him to approve of their changes before they published it.
Dr. Wernow has given permission for his unedited editorial to be printed here:
Healthcare without Conscience
Friday the 13th of April was reported as a banner day for women’s reproductive access in Washington, as pharmacists must now set aside their conscience and dispense Plan B contraception. As one editorial put it, it was a “welcome end to a political fight disguised as morality.” As a pharmacist and ethicist, I mused over just what women - and for that matter residents of Washington - had won. Women won the right to force pharmacists with conscience to participate in the dispensing of chemicals that might stop pregnancy, a claim that even Planned Parenthood board member Dr. James Tressel finds dubious in a recent study. Conscientious objection to forced participation in the termination of pregnancy, which has been honored since the Frank Church Amendment in 1973 (and is not a new idea, as one ill-informed pharmacy board member asserts) is now discarded.
A NARAL shill and pharmacy board member claims another victory, one for the majority and for pharmacists who can “separate their personal beliefs from their professional duties.“ Surely, her opinion was not informed by the HCD pharmacy survey that revealed 69% of pharmacists supported conscientious objection, was it? Has she read Robert Jay Lifton’s notion of “doubling” that accounted for Nazi doctors being brutal in their camp practice yet civil and respectable at home and in the public? Does she or the rest of the board really understand that those who claim to have a conscience claim it as part of their being and not an extraneous add-on for Sunday worship?
As curious as the answers to these questions might be, they are not what cause me pause or perhaps recollection of horror. That is reserved for something much larger, a victory that is much more disturbing. It is a victory of the power brokers, the instruments they command, the media that reports without question, and the public that is largely silent. Under Planned Parenthood’s “Pill Patrol,” “secret shoppers “ are sought as undercover agents to ferret out pharmacists who choose not to comply in dispensing Plan B medications and report them. The pharmacy board threatens to strip these professionals of their license, and the governor demands the new rules be kept. Does this not ring with similarities to the unofficial informants of Stasi in former communist Germany? Can the stripping of pharmacists of their wealth and means easily be separated from memories of Krystalnacht? How about a recent newspaper cartoon caricaturing a religious catholic pharmacist determining whether to dispense or not? How is this different from the propaganda of Goebbels, particularly when conscience is to be set aside? Maybe f those who “think they are free,” as said by author Milton Meyer, consider my query too derogatory or too large of a leap. I hope they are right and that the loss of freedom and tolerance I sense does not escalate to such proportions that “it becomes too late” to escape the terrible consequence of such perceived victories by the “majority.”
Jerome R. Wernow R.Ph., Ph.D. is a licensed pharmacist and directs the Northwest Center for Bioethics
Dr. Wernow has given permission for his unedited editorial to be printed here:
Healthcare without Conscience
Friday the 13th of April was reported as a banner day for women’s reproductive access in Washington, as pharmacists must now set aside their conscience and dispense Plan B contraception. As one editorial put it, it was a “welcome end to a political fight disguised as morality.” As a pharmacist and ethicist, I mused over just what women - and for that matter residents of Washington - had won. Women won the right to force pharmacists with conscience to participate in the dispensing of chemicals that might stop pregnancy, a claim that even Planned Parenthood board member Dr. James Tressel finds dubious in a recent study. Conscientious objection to forced participation in the termination of pregnancy, which has been honored since the Frank Church Amendment in 1973 (and is not a new idea, as one ill-informed pharmacy board member asserts) is now discarded.
A NARAL shill and pharmacy board member claims another victory, one for the majority and for pharmacists who can “separate their personal beliefs from their professional duties.“ Surely, her opinion was not informed by the HCD pharmacy survey that revealed 69% of pharmacists supported conscientious objection, was it? Has she read Robert Jay Lifton’s notion of “doubling” that accounted for Nazi doctors being brutal in their camp practice yet civil and respectable at home and in the public? Does she or the rest of the board really understand that those who claim to have a conscience claim it as part of their being and not an extraneous add-on for Sunday worship?
As curious as the answers to these questions might be, they are not what cause me pause or perhaps recollection of horror. That is reserved for something much larger, a victory that is much more disturbing. It is a victory of the power brokers, the instruments they command, the media that reports without question, and the public that is largely silent. Under Planned Parenthood’s “Pill Patrol,” “secret shoppers “ are sought as undercover agents to ferret out pharmacists who choose not to comply in dispensing Plan B medications and report them. The pharmacy board threatens to strip these professionals of their license, and the governor demands the new rules be kept. Does this not ring with similarities to the unofficial informants of Stasi in former communist Germany? Can the stripping of pharmacists of their wealth and means easily be separated from memories of Krystalnacht? How about a recent newspaper cartoon caricaturing a religious catholic pharmacist determining whether to dispense or not? How is this different from the propaganda of Goebbels, particularly when conscience is to be set aside? Maybe f those who “think they are free,” as said by author Milton Meyer, consider my query too derogatory or too large of a leap. I hope they are right and that the loss of freedom and tolerance I sense does not escalate to such proportions that “it becomes too late” to escape the terrible consequence of such perceived victories by the “majority.”
Jerome R. Wernow R.Ph., Ph.D. is a licensed pharmacist and directs the Northwest Center for Bioethics
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Aimee Wilson - Victimless Violator
From the Oregonian this morning, "GOP complaints targets lesbian: Lobbyist shouldn't have been on the House floor, they claim," by AP reporter Aaron Clark.
This article is worded rather interestingly. For example, the headline proclaims: "GOP ... targets lesbian". Clark opens the article "House Republicans [in the Oregon legislature] raised a stink ... because a lesbian lobbyist sat with her partner - state Rep. Tina Kotek - at her desk on the House floor last week during a lengthy debate about gay rights." (emphasis mine)
Raised a stink?!? Why not say the GOP pointed out that a lobbyist sitting with Kotek during the debate violated House rules? Why? Because using perjorative language creates a negative emotional response against the GOP.
Notice the language: the GOP raised a stink against this nice lesbian who was doing nothing but sitting with her partner. Clark reinforces this later by noting "Kotek kissed Wilson (the lobbyist) on the cheek after the bills passed."
The sweet, loving couple targeted by the mean, bigoted, intolerant, anti-gay Republicans! That was exacting the message conveyed via the language used by this journalistic professional.
In fact, Clark quotes the lobyist, Aimee Wilson, who "questioned the timing of the GOP criticism a week after the House debate:"
This isn't surprising given one of the bills being voted upon. The domestic partnership bill provides all the state benefits of marriage. Advocates changed the name from Civil Unions to Domestic Partnerships to gain more political support. This means that civil unions is the same thing only under a different name.
If domestic partnerships and civil unions give all the benefits of marriage that the state of Oregon can provide then they are no different from marriage. Yet, the Oregon Constitution only allows marriage between a man and a woman.
To allow marriage for same-gender relationships, advocates changed the name. Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, Marriage are all synonyms (different words that mean the same thing) which means the bill's sponsors, every legislator who voted for it, and the governor who signed it, are actively violating the Oregon Constitution.
If Rep. Kotek and Ms. Wilson will willfully violate their state's Constitution, it is not hard to fathom that they wouldn't have a problem violating a House rule also.
This article is worded rather interestingly. For example, the headline proclaims: "GOP ... targets lesbian". Clark opens the article "House Republicans [in the Oregon legislature] raised a stink ... because a lesbian lobbyist sat with her partner - state Rep. Tina Kotek - at her desk on the House floor last week during a lengthy debate about gay rights." (emphasis mine)
Raised a stink?!? Why not say the GOP pointed out that a lobbyist sitting with Kotek during the debate violated House rules? Why? Because using perjorative language creates a negative emotional response against the GOP.
Notice the language: the GOP raised a stink against this nice lesbian who was doing nothing but sitting with her partner. Clark reinforces this later by noting "Kotek kissed Wilson (the lobbyist) on the cheek after the bills passed."
The sweet, loving couple targeted by the mean, bigoted, intolerant, anti-gay Republicans! That was exacting the message conveyed via the language used by this journalistic professional.
In fact, Clark quotes the lobyist, Aimee Wilson, who "questioned the timing of the GOP criticism a week after the House debate:"
"I was acting in that capacity as her spouse [my note: at that moment there was no concept of a same-gender spouse in Oregon law]. I just have to wonder whether this is about really protecting the process or if this is really about the issue at hand."The question for Ms. Wilson is this, "Did your presence during the vote violate House rules?" Period. The timing isn't an issue. If you have a problem with the timing don't violate the rules! But instead of addressing the real question she tries to paint herself as the victim. And she has a willing accomplice in the reporter, Aaron Clark.
This isn't surprising given one of the bills being voted upon. The domestic partnership bill provides all the state benefits of marriage. Advocates changed the name from Civil Unions to Domestic Partnerships to gain more political support. This means that civil unions is the same thing only under a different name.
If domestic partnerships and civil unions give all the benefits of marriage that the state of Oregon can provide then they are no different from marriage. Yet, the Oregon Constitution only allows marriage between a man and a woman.
To allow marriage for same-gender relationships, advocates changed the name. Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, Marriage are all synonyms (different words that mean the same thing) which means the bill's sponsors, every legislator who voted for it, and the governor who signed it, are actively violating the Oregon Constitution.
If Rep. Kotek and Ms. Wilson will willfully violate their state's Constitution, it is not hard to fathom that they wouldn't have a problem violating a House rule also.
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Definition of Victory
Yesterday, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said, "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence yesterday.[1] (emphasis added)
This raises a question in my mind. What, in Senator Reid's view, would constitute a victory?
If "extreme violence yesterday" is objective evidence that the "surge is not accomplishing anything" and thus the "war is lost," then Reid must believe that the criterion for victory is not to have "extreme violence."
This seems rather naive to me. Does Reid just expect the enemy to roll over and do nothing? The surge, by definition, increases troop strength to engage the enemy ... to root them out. More engagement means more violence. And the terrorists, who were targeting (i.e. bringing violence upon) civilians when we were not surging would naturally (and not unexpectedly) increase their level of violence.
Reid's comment is nonsensical. Had someone asked him to define his criterion for victory this would have been obvious. This should be a question for all our political leaders regardless of the political party: Define what victory means in Iraq, in Afganistan, in the war against radical Islam.
Every generation faces a great evil. Our generation is no different. If we do not define what victory looks like then there will be no rallying around an objective and no hope for victory.
Then, history will record Senator Reid as a prophet.
Not because the war was lost on the battlefield but because it was lost in our hearts.
[1] Anne Flaherty, "Reid says War is Lost", AP, published by The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), 4/20/07, A8.
This raises a question in my mind. What, in Senator Reid's view, would constitute a victory?
If "extreme violence yesterday" is objective evidence that the "surge is not accomplishing anything" and thus the "war is lost," then Reid must believe that the criterion for victory is not to have "extreme violence."
This seems rather naive to me. Does Reid just expect the enemy to roll over and do nothing? The surge, by definition, increases troop strength to engage the enemy ... to root them out. More engagement means more violence. And the terrorists, who were targeting (i.e. bringing violence upon) civilians when we were not surging would naturally (and not unexpectedly) increase their level of violence.
Reid's comment is nonsensical. Had someone asked him to define his criterion for victory this would have been obvious. This should be a question for all our political leaders regardless of the political party: Define what victory means in Iraq, in Afganistan, in the war against radical Islam.
Every generation faces a great evil. Our generation is no different. If we do not define what victory looks like then there will be no rallying around an objective and no hope for victory.
Then, history will record Senator Reid as a prophet.
Not because the war was lost on the battlefield but because it was lost in our hearts.
[1] Anne Flaherty, "Reid says War is Lost", AP, published by The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), 4/20/07, A8.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Washington's Birthday
Today, February 22nd, marks the 275th birthday of George Washington. In honor of his birthday, I thought I would ask a trivia question:
Who was the first President of our country?
If you answered George Washington, well, you would be right but also wrong. Washington was the first President under the Constitution of the United States. But the country actually existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution having been creating on July 4, 1776. America's first Constitution was actually the Articles of Confederation, which also provided for a President but one with very weak powers.
There is some debate over who served as the first President under the Articles of Confederation but according to "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It" published from www.ConstitutionFacts.com, the very, very first President of the United States was John Hanson in 1781. His official title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". He served for a one-year term. Eight men served as President under the Confederation (and thus prior to George Washington).
So when we refer to Washington as our first President we are actually talking about our first president under our current form of government defined by the United States Constitution.
First Inaugural Address
Second Inaugural Address
Mount Vernon Estate (including a virtual tour of Washington's home)
Biography
George Washington Papers
Who was the first President of our country?
If you answered George Washington, well, you would be right but also wrong. Washington was the first President under the Constitution of the United States. But the country actually existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution having been creating on July 4, 1776. America's first Constitution was actually the Articles of Confederation, which also provided for a President but one with very weak powers.
There is some debate over who served as the first President under the Articles of Confederation but according to "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It" published from www.ConstitutionFacts.com, the very, very first President of the United States was John Hanson in 1781. His official title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". He served for a one-year term. Eight men served as President under the Confederation (and thus prior to George Washington).
So when we refer to Washington as our first President we are actually talking about our first president under our current form of government defined by the United States Constitution.
First Inaugural Address
Second Inaugural Address
Mount Vernon Estate (including a virtual tour of Washington's home)
Biography
George Washington Papers
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Overturning Roe v. Wade
abcnews.com has posted a report by AP Correspondent Jim Davenport that Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain told a South Carolina audience that "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
I don't know if McCain is serious about this or just engaging in political pandering but I am sure that pro-choice organizations will deride this as trying to take away a woman's right to choose.
It's fair to ask what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Would abortion become illegal throughout the nation? The answer is no. The question of abortion would be returned to each state. We'd see a variety of abortion laws from state to state - some more restrictive, some more open.
But proponents of choice do not want the states to have the choice to choose because they know that the vast number of states and Americans think that abortion should be, as Bill Clinton stated, "safe, legal, and rare." (emphasis mine)
For the Planned Parenthoods and the NARALs of the world, it is far easier to convince five judges sympathetic to their ideology to mandate the terminating of unborn human children than it is to convince the legislatures of 50 states.
I don't know if McCain is serious about this or just engaging in political pandering but I am sure that pro-choice organizations will deride this as trying to take away a woman's right to choose.
It's fair to ask what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Would abortion become illegal throughout the nation? The answer is no. The question of abortion would be returned to each state. We'd see a variety of abortion laws from state to state - some more restrictive, some more open.
But proponents of choice do not want the states to have the choice to choose because they know that the vast number of states and Americans think that abortion should be, as Bill Clinton stated, "safe, legal, and rare." (emphasis mine)
For the Planned Parenthoods and the NARALs of the world, it is far easier to convince five judges sympathetic to their ideology to mandate the terminating of unborn human children than it is to convince the legislatures of 50 states.
Monday, February 05, 2007
The Content of One's Character
Last night, the Indianapolis Colts won the Super Bowl. On the stage to accept the trophy CBS Sports announcer Jim Nantz reminded Colts head coach Tony Dungy of the historic social implications of the becoming the first African-American to win a Super Bowl. To which Dungy replied:
Dungy's words echo those immortal words spoken from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial nearly 45 years ago:
"I'm proud to be the first African-American coach to win this. But again, more than anything, Lovie Smith [Chicago Bears' Head Coach] and I are not only African-American but also Christian coaches, showing you can do it the Lord's way. We're more proud of that."Dungy did an extraordinary thing. He first acknowledged the emphasis on race that others were giving the occassion. Then he emphasized that which transcends race, that which defines there character, their bowing the kneww to the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Dungy's words echo those immortal words spoken from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial nearly 45 years ago:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."To Dungy and Smith, being an African-American (i.e. the color of one's skin) is not the most important thing. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ (content of one's character) is.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A Woman's Right To Insanity
The AP reports that the California mom who dropped her three sons into San Francisco Bay was:
My point is not to criticize the judge or attorneys. They are acting consistent with the law. It is legislators who have created an intellectually inconsistent law. And they did so for purely politically reasons, not for justice.
As I mentioned yesterday in Abortion Schizophrenia, there is no difference in the nature of being between that which lives inside the mother's womb and that which lives outside her womb. Both are human beings, scientifically, medically, and philosophically.
Since there is no ontological difference between the two then the law should not treat them differently when someone intentionally kills them. But these lawmakers are beholden to an ideology rather than justice.
Where are the Kate Michelman's and Gloria Steinham's now? Where is Planned Parenthood's lawsuit claiming that this woman's right to choose is being trampled? They will keep silent. The womb blocks the killing of the unborn child from the public view. Dropping the child off a San Francisco pier, that's different. Lots of witnesses to the horror. So pro-choicers willingly sacrifice this woman's right to choose to keep the light from shining on the inhumanity of their view.
Defense attorney Caffese has missed the point. What about a woman's right to choose? The only difference in Harris' actions is that her children were outside the womb. If they had been inside the womb, Harris would be off the hook. No messy court case. No second-degree murder charge. No need for a judge to rule her criminally insane."declared criminally insane Wednesday by a judge whose decision spared her a possible life sentence."
"The rare ruling came a day after a jury found LaShuan Harris, 24, guilty of second-degree murder in the 2005 drownings of her three boys.
The decision voids the jury verdicts, and Harris will be sent to a mental hospital indefinitely instead of state prison. She can be released if doctors ever find her legally sane.
"Yesterday there was no justice," defense attorney Teresa Caffese said. "Yesterday it was about the law. Today there was justice."
My point is not to criticize the judge or attorneys. They are acting consistent with the law. It is legislators who have created an intellectually inconsistent law. And they did so for purely politically reasons, not for justice.
As I mentioned yesterday in Abortion Schizophrenia, there is no difference in the nature of being between that which lives inside the mother's womb and that which lives outside her womb. Both are human beings, scientifically, medically, and philosophically.
Since there is no ontological difference between the two then the law should not treat them differently when someone intentionally kills them. But these lawmakers are beholden to an ideology rather than justice.
Where are the Kate Michelman's and Gloria Steinham's now? Where is Planned Parenthood's lawsuit claiming that this woman's right to choose is being trampled? They will keep silent. The womb blocks the killing of the unborn child from the public view. Dropping the child off a San Francisco pier, that's different. Lots of witnesses to the horror. So pro-choicers willingly sacrifice this woman's right to choose to keep the light from shining on the inhumanity of their view.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Abortion Schizophrenia
The AP reports that the mom who dropped her three boys into San Francisco Bay in October 2005 was convicted today of second-degree murder.
According to the report, LaShaun Harris "claimed she was sacrificing her young sons for God." Now, if any of her children were still in her womb, she could have sacrificed them via abortion and never been charged. In fact, she didn't even need the Almighty's direction to do so. She could have aborted for any reason she wanted: she couldn't support them, they were inconvenient, or even if they gave her gas pains.
Kill them inside the womb, society is supposed to turn their heads. Oh, but do it outside the womb and suddenly society is shocked; aghast. How could a mother do this they ask? On Jan 10, an abcnews.com article, SF Mom Guilty of Assault in Kid's Death, reported that "defense attorney Teresa Caffese said she was relieved jurors concluded that Harris did not kill her children in a premeditated act." Caffese said:
The child inside the womb is only different from the child outside the womb - in this case, the Harris children - in four ways - size, level of dependency, environment, degree of dependency - none of which are morally relevant to its humanness.
The unborn child is smaller than the Harris children but size does not convey rights. Nancy Pelosi is not less of a person than Shaquille O'Neal simply because she is smaller.
The unborn is less developed than the Harris children but then the Harris children are less developed than the mother, judge, and defense attorney. If the development of a human being determines their right to life then the Harris children, not to mention disabled adults, should be allowed to be killed without retribution.
Nor does the environment determine a human beings right to life. Can an astronaut be killed just because she depends on life support to support her life? A child at 23 weeks inside the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a person than a premature baby who is sustained by an neonatal incubator.
An unborn child depends on his mother for survival. But if dependency means one loses the right to life than anyone on dialysis can also be killed, as well as those dependant on insulin. There is no moral difference between the person plugged into a kidney machine and the unborn child plugged into her mother.
Caffese said that Harris was "schizophrenic" and "believed she was sending her children to a better place." To a schizophrenic society that belief is okay when conducted behind the walls of the womb; out of sight. But out in the open, the truth - the inhumanity - can no longer be hidden.
According to the report, LaShaun Harris "claimed she was sacrificing her young sons for God." Now, if any of her children were still in her womb, she could have sacrificed them via abortion and never been charged. In fact, she didn't even need the Almighty's direction to do so. She could have aborted for any reason she wanted: she couldn't support them, they were inconvenient, or even if they gave her gas pains.
Kill them inside the womb, society is supposed to turn their heads. Oh, but do it outside the womb and suddenly society is shocked; aghast. How could a mother do this they ask? On Jan 10, an abcnews.com article, SF Mom Guilty of Assault in Kid's Death, reported that "defense attorney Teresa Caffese said she was relieved jurors concluded that Harris did not kill her children in a premeditated act." Caffese said:
"My client is mentally ill. She is medicated. She needs help. She needs to be inWhy is this mother mentally ill? For that matter why does the reason matter?
a mental hospital."
The child inside the womb is only different from the child outside the womb - in this case, the Harris children - in four ways - size, level of dependency, environment, degree of dependency - none of which are morally relevant to its humanness.
The unborn child is smaller than the Harris children but size does not convey rights. Nancy Pelosi is not less of a person than Shaquille O'Neal simply because she is smaller.
The unborn is less developed than the Harris children but then the Harris children are less developed than the mother, judge, and defense attorney. If the development of a human being determines their right to life then the Harris children, not to mention disabled adults, should be allowed to be killed without retribution.
Nor does the environment determine a human beings right to life. Can an astronaut be killed just because she depends on life support to support her life? A child at 23 weeks inside the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a person than a premature baby who is sustained by an neonatal incubator.
An unborn child depends on his mother for survival. But if dependency means one loses the right to life than anyone on dialysis can also be killed, as well as those dependant on insulin. There is no moral difference between the person plugged into a kidney machine and the unborn child plugged into her mother.
Caffese said that Harris was "schizophrenic" and "believed she was sending her children to a better place." To a schizophrenic society that belief is okay when conducted behind the walls of the womb; out of sight. But out in the open, the truth - the inhumanity - can no longer be hidden.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Martin Luther King Day - 2007
Today is the official day set aside to honor, someone who I think is one of the greatest Americans in our country's history, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Washington State Governor, Christine Gregoire issued a statement honor King. Gregoire states, "
For example, how do you define a just and an unjust law. Here's how King define them:
King recognized that man’s dignity derives from the Creator’s design and a law that does not also recognize the Creator's design is unjust. One’s character, not their skin color, reveals God’s image.
People want to say they honor the man but what they will not tell you, probably because they do not know it themselves, that they do not actually hold his view.
The next time someone quotes or extolls Martin Luther King or say they are continuing in the steps of the civil rights movement, quote King's definition of just and unjust laws (without telling them you are quoting King) and watch the reaction. Then ask them what they think of Dr. King.
You'll be astonished at how many say they honor the man's name but reject the very views that made the man's name one to honor.
[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from the Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963, Reprinted in "A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.", edited by James M. Washington, First HarperCollins, 1986. The phrase in brackets "[i.e. the dignity and worth of man who is made in the image of God] is King’s definition of the term "human personality" from "The Ethical Demands of Integration, pp. 118-119.
[2] Ibid., "The Ethical Demands of Integration," pp. 118-119.
[3] Ibid., p. 119.
Washington State Governor, Christine Gregoire issued a statement honor King. Gregoire states, "
King called on us to live up to the ideals that we claim to value as Americans ... His vision encompassed ... all people in need and he taught us many lessons - the continuing struggle for justice, nonviolence, the need to change the status quo, the importance of spiritual foundationsGregoire continues on, quoting The Letter from the Birmingham Jail (which I consider one of the top 5 documents in our nations history):
and the contributions of diversity."
"Human progress ... comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God."Yet, what many miss (and I suspect by Gregoire's actions she does too) is that King didn't just say spiritual foundations were important, he grounded the civil rights movement on spiritual - and more precisely Judeo-Christian - foundations. In fact, the civil rights movement would not have been possible apart from its Judeo-Christian foundation.
For example, how do you define a just and an unjust law. Here's how King define them:
"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in the eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality (i.e. the dignity and worth of man who is made in the image of God) is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."[1]What does King mean by the human personaility? Here's his views from The Ethical Demands of Integration:
How many legislators forty years later, would create just laws based on how they uplift the image of God that is stamped on each human being?"Every human being has etched in his personality the indelible stamp of the Creator.[2]
"This idea of the dignity and worth of human personality is expressed eloquently and unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence. ‘All men,’ it says, ‘are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.’"[3]
King recognized that man’s dignity derives from the Creator’s design and a law that does not also recognize the Creator's design is unjust. One’s character, not their skin color, reveals God’s image.
People want to say they honor the man but what they will not tell you, probably because they do not know it themselves, that they do not actually hold his view.
The next time someone quotes or extolls Martin Luther King or say they are continuing in the steps of the civil rights movement, quote King's definition of just and unjust laws (without telling them you are quoting King) and watch the reaction. Then ask them what they think of Dr. King.
You'll be astonished at how many say they honor the man's name but reject the very views that made the man's name one to honor.
[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from the Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963, Reprinted in "A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.", edited by James M. Washington, First HarperCollins, 1986. The phrase in brackets "[i.e. the dignity and worth of man who is made in the image of God] is King’s definition of the term "human personality" from "The Ethical Demands of Integration, pp. 118-119.
[2] Ibid., "The Ethical Demands of Integration," pp. 118-119.
[3] Ibid., p. 119.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Ideology of the Nazi Doctors
The New York Times reports
It is a scientific fact that a unique human life begins at conception (i.e. the uniting of the male genetic material and the female genetic material). The destruction of these embryos, then, result in a dead human life.
The Nazi's also conducted medical research and experiments on those they deemed expendable for the benefit of science and the betterment of the Aryan race. Killing as healing. In fact, the first paragraph of the New York Times article only needs minor tweaking to read:
What about killing those two-year olds who are disabled, unwanted, or inconvenient? Look at the millions of people suffering with diseases that could be cured. Isn't the sacrifice of these unwanteds worth the betterment of those who are important to us?
The answer should be obvious. Just because something may provide a cure doesn't make it moral to do. It is wrong to kill innocent life. ESCR kills an innocent life.
Rep. Space and other supporters of ESCR support the concept that the destruction of human beings for medical research is legitimate for healing.
Killing as healing.
One could very well imagine a Nazi doctor excusing his evil by saying, "This research represents the only meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime."
"The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to broaden federal support for embryonic stem cell research, ... which would authorize federal support for research using stem cells derived from excess embryos that fertility clinics would otherwise discard."The AP provides this report on why a Representative views embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) as important.
Addressing "those who do not have the will to stand up against a presidential veto," freshman Rep. Zach Space, D-Ohio, described his 16-year-old son's battle against juvenile diabetes and wondered aloud what awaited him as an adult.
"This research represents the only meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime," Space said.
Embryonic stem cells hold the promise of medical breakthroughs because they have the ability to become any tissue in the body. But the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization, a step that stirs passions over the beginning of life. (emphasis added)
It is a scientific fact that a unique human life begins at conception (i.e. the uniting of the male genetic material and the female genetic material). The destruction of these embryos, then, result in a dead human life.
The Nazi's also conducted medical research and experiments on those they deemed expendable for the benefit of science and the betterment of the Aryan race. Killing as healing. In fact, the first paragraph of the New York Times article only needs minor tweaking to read:
"The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to broaden federal support for [Nazi medical] research, ... which would authorize federal support for research using stem cells derived from excess [prisoners] that [camps] would otherwise discard."What if we discovered two-year olds contained the miracle cure for all diseases. AIDS, breast cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimers. All mere memories. But to obtain this miracle cure, the two-year old must be killed. Should we do it?
What about killing those two-year olds who are disabled, unwanted, or inconvenient? Look at the millions of people suffering with diseases that could be cured. Isn't the sacrifice of these unwanteds worth the betterment of those who are important to us?
The answer should be obvious. Just because something may provide a cure doesn't make it moral to do. It is wrong to kill innocent life. ESCR kills an innocent life.
Rep. Space and other supporters of ESCR support the concept that the destruction of human beings for medical research is legitimate for healing.
Killing as healing.
One could very well imagine a Nazi doctor excusing his evil by saying, "This research represents the only meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime."
Friday, January 05, 2007
Thinking Christ's Thoughts After Him
During my virtual wanderings tonight my eye struck upon an interesting ad. The headline stated, "A Different Kind of Christmas" and claimed:
This is a startling admission from the UCC.
In two sentences totaling ten words, the UCC shows they are not serious about Christianity. A disciple is one who follows another's teachings. So a disciple of Jesus Christ is one who follows Christ's teachings. But Christ's teachings are 2000 years old (older if you consider Christ claimed he himself was God). If the UCC's thinking is not 2000 years old, then they cannot be following Christ's thinking.
Foundational errors lead to significant problems elsewhere. The claim that the UCC accepts all people is misleading because it tries to contrast the UCC as different from other Christian churches. Yet, most Christian churches also accept all people. While Christ invited all people, his message was clearly that He is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
How do we go through Jesus? In John 14:15, Jesus says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." So while churches invite the people, the difference is that serious Christian churches try to follow Christ's teachings, as best as possible, which clearly modeled how to be conformed into his image. That includes behaving righteously as their Teacher taught.
So the United Church of Christ is different from other churches in that they invite all people but they won't concern themselves with the spiritual righteousness of those individuals.
Jesus taught just the opposite. He said to come as you are but be like him.
Denying that fact, is to follow another Jesus, placing those that the UCC welcomes in eternal peril.
Clicking the link takes one to a United Church of Christ site to "Pledge for all the People". The site clearly pitches the view that the UCC accepts everyone."Our Faith is 2,000 years old."
"Our thinking is not."
This is a startling admission from the UCC.
In two sentences totaling ten words, the UCC shows they are not serious about Christianity. A disciple is one who follows another's teachings. So a disciple of Jesus Christ is one who follows Christ's teachings. But Christ's teachings are 2000 years old (older if you consider Christ claimed he himself was God). If the UCC's thinking is not 2000 years old, then they cannot be following Christ's thinking.
Foundational errors lead to significant problems elsewhere. The claim that the UCC accepts all people is misleading because it tries to contrast the UCC as different from other Christian churches. Yet, most Christian churches also accept all people. While Christ invited all people, his message was clearly that He is "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
How do we go through Jesus? In John 14:15, Jesus says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." So while churches invite the people, the difference is that serious Christian churches try to follow Christ's teachings, as best as possible, which clearly modeled how to be conformed into his image. That includes behaving righteously as their Teacher taught.
So the United Church of Christ is different from other churches in that they invite all people but they won't concern themselves with the spiritual righteousness of those individuals.
Jesus taught just the opposite. He said to come as you are but be like him.
Denying that fact, is to follow another Jesus, placing those that the UCC welcomes in eternal peril.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Peaceful Passing of Power
Today marked a remarkable event. The power of the United States governemnt passed from one group to another.
No bloodshed.
No violence.
No IEDs exploding. Or generals seizing power.
Power passed peacefully. We are very fortunate for this is very rare in human history.
No matter where we stand politically, we should all be thankful because, despite our worldview differences, we all hold to a common view that makes our system of government work.
No bloodshed.
No violence.
No IEDs exploding. Or generals seizing power.
Power passed peacefully. We are very fortunate for this is very rare in human history.
No matter where we stand politically, we should all be thankful because, despite our worldview differences, we all hold to a common view that makes our system of government work.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Day Of Infamy
Sixty-five years ago today, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That event shocked the nation just as events nearly sixty years later would.
I recently read a book titled, "Day of Infamy". Author Walter Lord pieces together the events of that day through interviews and documentation, as well as tours of the Harbor, air fields, and surrounding areas.
Lord's work has the feel of reading a work of fiction. He starts with the story of Army Nurse Monica Carter and her fiancé, 2nd Lt. Barney Benning watching the launches take men back to the warships anchored in the harbor.
We learn why all the battleships are in port at the same time. The battleships were "too valuable to maneuver alone without carrier protection" and the USS Enterprise was taking Marine fighters to reinforce Wake Island from what was believed to be an impending Japanese attack.
As we start relaxing with this nice, easy flowing story, and with our characters Nurse Carter and Lt. Benning, we read:
The reality of the three sailors on the USS West Virginia "hopelessly trapped in the pump room" where "they cling to life until the day before Christmas Eve". The reality of the 32 survivors pulled from the USS Oklahoma's upturned hull. The spreading rumor that a Japanese invasion was imminent. The reality of the sailors on the Japanese midget subs.
I recommend this book. This is an enthralling book, which breathes life into a moment of history, which needs to be remembered by all of us, even as the generation that lived it slowly passes away.
For all those who have defended this country and the cause of freedom, whether in the past or currently, to you I say,
I recently read a book titled, "Day of Infamy". Author Walter Lord pieces together the events of that day through interviews and documentation, as well as tours of the Harbor, air fields, and surrounding areas.
Lord's work has the feel of reading a work of fiction. He starts with the story of Army Nurse Monica Carter and her fiancé, 2nd Lt. Barney Benning watching the launches take men back to the warships anchored in the harbor.
We learn why all the battleships are in port at the same time. The battleships were "too valuable to maneuver alone without carrier protection" and the USS Enterprise was taking Marine fighters to reinforce Wake Island from what was believed to be an impending Japanese attack.
As we start relaxing with this nice, easy flowing story, and with our characters Nurse Carter and Lt. Benning, we read:
"Somebody suggested calling Lieutenant Bill Silvester, a friend of them all who this particular evening was dining eight miles away in downtown Honolulu. Monica called him, playfully scolded him for deserting his buddies -- the kind of call that has been placed thousands of times by young people late in the evening, and memorable this time only because it was the last night Bill Silvester would be alive."Suddenly, we are jerked across time to the reality behind the words. This is a story in the sense that it is the story of real people on a real day in history making real decisions with real life and death consequences.
The reality of the three sailors on the USS West Virginia "hopelessly trapped in the pump room" where "they cling to life until the day before Christmas Eve". The reality of the 32 survivors pulled from the USS Oklahoma's upturned hull. The spreading rumor that a Japanese invasion was imminent. The reality of the sailors on the Japanese midget subs.
I recommend this book. This is an enthralling book, which breathes life into a moment of history, which needs to be remembered by all of us, even as the generation that lived it slowly passes away.
For all those who have defended this country and the cause of freedom, whether in the past or currently, to you I say,
"Thank you"
Monday, September 11, 2006
In the Face of Death: 9/11 Remembrance
We can all remember where we were when we first heard.
I had gotten up late for work and decided to log on to check my fantasy football score based on the results from Monday Night Football the night before.
A plane had hit the World Trade Center said the headline that accompanied a picture showing black smoke pouring out of the top third of the building. Immediately the thought that a small airplane had accidently flown into the Trade Center entered my mind. I gave it no further thought, bypassing the article, and moving onto my "important" stuff - fantasy football.
On the way to work, the radio reported that the second tower had been hit by another plane. In that moment the realization swept over me. The odds are far too great that two small planes would accidently hit these buildings. This wasn't just some tragic accident. This was an intentional act of great evil.
Of course, the horror became even worse as the towers collapsed. I suppose the lucky victims were the ones who were killed instantly in the fireballs that engulfed them. They didn't have to deal with being trapped and knowing they were going to die. Or to make a decision that it was better to jump to your death than to burn to death.
Of course, they also didn't have time to say goodbye to their loved ones. I'm not sure how I would fair if placed in that situation. One minute you are going about your daily tasks. The next, to know you are moments from death.
From the calls for which we have records, it appears that the moment brought these unfortunate souls clarity about what is truly important. It's not fantasy football. It's relationships. It's about those whom we love.
In the midst of the most evil hatred imaginable, hatred that was being done to their very person, these individuals taught us a lesson in what's important.
In the face of death, they showed us what life is about.
I had gotten up late for work and decided to log on to check my fantasy football score based on the results from Monday Night Football the night before.
A plane had hit the World Trade Center said the headline that accompanied a picture showing black smoke pouring out of the top third of the building. Immediately the thought that a small airplane had accidently flown into the Trade Center entered my mind. I gave it no further thought, bypassing the article, and moving onto my "important" stuff - fantasy football.
On the way to work, the radio reported that the second tower had been hit by another plane. In that moment the realization swept over me. The odds are far too great that two small planes would accidently hit these buildings. This wasn't just some tragic accident. This was an intentional act of great evil.
Of course, the horror became even worse as the towers collapsed. I suppose the lucky victims were the ones who were killed instantly in the fireballs that engulfed them. They didn't have to deal with being trapped and knowing they were going to die. Or to make a decision that it was better to jump to your death than to burn to death.
Of course, they also didn't have time to say goodbye to their loved ones. I'm not sure how I would fair if placed in that situation. One minute you are going about your daily tasks. The next, to know you are moments from death.
From the calls for which we have records, it appears that the moment brought these unfortunate souls clarity about what is truly important. It's not fantasy football. It's relationships. It's about those whom we love.
In the midst of the most evil hatred imaginable, hatred that was being done to their very person, these individuals taught us a lesson in what's important.
In the face of death, they showed us what life is about.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
My Son's 11th Birthday
My son Alex turned 11 years old today. I look at him not quite believing in the length of time that is left in our wake. How fast it has gone. I am reminded of the oldies song "Turn Around" which talks of the quickness with which our children grow up:
The song speaks of a little girl but it also applies to little boys. Alex is not so little anymore. He is growing into a fine young man. I am grateful and proud of that fact.
And while I miss the joy of his younger years, these have been the most rewarding and, yes, fun.
Happy Birthday, Alex.
Love,
Dad
Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four
Turn around and you're a young girl going out of my door
The song speaks of a little girl but it also applies to little boys. Alex is not so little anymore. He is growing into a fine young man. I am grateful and proud of that fact.
And while I miss the joy of his younger years, these have been the most rewarding and, yes, fun.
Happy Birthday, Alex.
Love,
Dad
Monday, August 21, 2006
Planned Parenthood - Predatory Fanatics
David Crary, Associated Press Reporter, filed an August 20, 2006 article about a nationwide push by anti-abortion activists to expand their foothold in heavily black and Hispanic inner cities.
My favorite part of the story, Anti-Abortion Activists Eye Inner Cities: Anti-Abortion Activists Aim Expansion Drive at Urban Blacks and Hispanics is the quote from a Planned Parenthood chapter president:
Actually, it is Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger who championed eugenics as a way of racial cleansing, who preys on the most innocent, defenseless, and vulnerable members of the human community; the unborn child.
If we can kill unwanted children then can we also kill any child if they are no longer wanted? Where was Planned Parenthood when Andrea Yates no longer wanted her children? Their mouths runneth over with: “She’s a victim.” “Her husband should have known.” “She suffers from post-partum syndrome.”
Yates aborted her children. The only difference is that Yates’ act was done in full view of the world rather than hidden in a darkened womb.
Gaiter also errs about the centers leaving “young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer”. The volunteers show these women (and very often young teens) love; someone who cares. This may be the first time in that woman’s life she has actually received that.
But even more, the centers provide training and support for the parents to take responsibility for their actions, how to give love to another, and the confidence that they can persevere. Yes, even at great personal sacrifice.
In short, the pregnancy centers help these women develop character and integrity in their own lives. And they do so without ever asking the woman for money.
What help do these women receive after they leave the sterile confines of a Planned Parenthood clinic? The offer of a quick fix. The siren call to act only with oneself in view. To be selfish not selfless.
In short, Planned Parenthood offers these women the chance to continue in the way that brought them to this crisis in the first place. That character and responsibility are not important. Just show up at their door for future
unintended pregnancies and Planned Parenthood will solve all your problems.
Just make sure you bring the money.
My favorite part of the story, Anti-Abortion Activists Eye Inner Cities: Anti-Abortion Activists Aim Expansion Drive at Urban Blacks and Hispanics is the quote from a Planned Parenthood chapter president:
"Critics contend that pregnancy centers routinely mislead women seeking neutral advice on their options. A report in July from congressional Democrats said center counselors often overstate the medical risks posed by abortion.Predatory fanatics? And what is Planned Parenthood’s solution for helping children who are unwanted? To kill them. Problem solved.
Skeptics also argue that the same white conservatives supporting urban anti-abortion initiatives oppose other social policies that might help minority single mothers and their children.
"These predatory fanatics don't lift a finger to help the children who are born unwanted and unplanned," said Jatrice Martel Gaiter, head of the Washington-area Planned Parenthood chapter.
"In these centers of deception, they leave young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer," she said. "They leave people even more vulnerable than when they walked through the door, without any information about how to avoid a future unintended pregnancy."
Actually, it is Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger who championed eugenics as a way of racial cleansing, who preys on the most innocent, defenseless, and vulnerable members of the human community; the unborn child.
If we can kill unwanted children then can we also kill any child if they are no longer wanted? Where was Planned Parenthood when Andrea Yates no longer wanted her children? Their mouths runneth over with: “She’s a victim.” “Her husband should have known.” “She suffers from post-partum syndrome.”
Yates aborted her children. The only difference is that Yates’ act was done in full view of the world rather than hidden in a darkened womb.
Gaiter also errs about the centers leaving “young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer”. The volunteers show these women (and very often young teens) love; someone who cares. This may be the first time in that woman’s life she has actually received that.
But even more, the centers provide training and support for the parents to take responsibility for their actions, how to give love to another, and the confidence that they can persevere. Yes, even at great personal sacrifice.
In short, the pregnancy centers help these women develop character and integrity in their own lives. And they do so without ever asking the woman for money.
What help do these women receive after they leave the sterile confines of a Planned Parenthood clinic? The offer of a quick fix. The siren call to act only with oneself in view. To be selfish not selfless.
In short, Planned Parenthood offers these women the chance to continue in the way that brought them to this crisis in the first place. That character and responsibility are not important. Just show up at their door for future
unintended pregnancies and Planned Parenthood will solve all your problems.
Just make sure you bring the money.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Morally Equating Good and Evil
An actual post from an online discussion titled, "HOW TO piss off every living NEOCON":
The first and third posters have conceded that they are unable to make moral distinctions about good and evil. And yet they attack Bush as being evil because he invaded Iraq (they always seem to leave out with the blessings of Congress and the UN) and civilians are being killed. And they never use the same language for the terrorists.
So the ones who perpetuate evil and intentionally kill innocents are defended while those who try to protect as many innocents as possible while stopping the evil are considered the truly evil people.
You claim that "they want to kill us," yet you are exactly the same as they are,This is a striking comment. This poster sees no difference between those who kill innocents on purpose to further their evil and those who kill innocents accidently to stop evil. Another poster responded with some of the acts the terrorists have committed such as intentionally targeting civilians, recruiting suicide bombers, planting bombs on babies, hacking off innocents heads, the Breslan school massacre, Bali night club, Bombay, Spain train and London subway bombings, etc. To which a third poster wrote:
because you want to kill them. You are EXACTLY the same as they are, you just
attach a different name to it because it makes you feel like you're not a
terrorist, but you are. You are morally equivalent to all the terrorists - you
are superior to no one.
"How many innocent Iraqi and Lebanese children have been killed by "collateralOf course, this poster ignores facts like "How many innocent Iraqi and Lebanese children have been used as human shields by the terrorists."
damage" from bombing? Do you not suppose that the Iraqi and Lebanese civilian
population view this as an indiscriminate act of terrorism? The US and British
fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo during WWII, which killed thousands of
innocent civilians, were acts of direct terrorism used to intimidate the general
population in hopes that they would not continue to support the military. Hd we
lost the war, the architects of those attacks would have no doubt been placed on
trial as war criminals. If the american revolutionaries had been able to blow up
parliament and kill King George, would that have been an act of terrorism?
Terrorism is not unique to muslims and eastern nations. A definition of it
depends entirely on where you are sitting at the moment.
The first and third posters have conceded that they are unable to make moral distinctions about good and evil. And yet they attack Bush as being evil because he invaded Iraq (they always seem to leave out with the blessings of Congress and the UN) and civilians are being killed. And they never use the same language for the terrorists.
So the ones who perpetuate evil and intentionally kill innocents are defended while those who try to protect as many innocents as possible while stopping the evil are considered the truly evil people.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute writes an interesting article, "What Would Jesus Bomb?" at The Christian Post.
Whitehead writes:
Lastly, "Who Would Jesus Bomb" during WWII or was trying (and eventually) saving the world from the evil and destruction of facism wrong? After all, if God is love and wouldn't kill anyone then He would have had to let Hitler (or any evil) continue unabated.
Whitehead writes:
On the surface this seems like an unanswerable challenge but, in fact, this objection to the war is faulty.In a twisted play on the popular refrain "WWJD?"—What Would Jesus Do?—some anti-war activists have begun asking "What Would Jesus Bomb?" It is a question for which President Bush, a self-avowed Christian, seems to have no answer, at least if one were to judge by his authorization of bombing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and his silence over Israel’s latest military actions in Lebanon.
Yet most of the people I polled, a mixture of Christians and non-Christians, do not suffer the same confusion. "What or who would Jesus bomb?" they were asked. Their answers never varied: "Jesus would not bomb or kill anyone."
When pressed to explain, the responses ranged from "Jesus would have shown compassion rather than killing anyone" to "God is love" to "Jesus was always looking to love his enemies"—and so on.
- The challenge refers to Jesus in his first incarnation where he would use the physical to point to a transcendent truth.
- He modeled the Kingdom of Heaven as an individual not a government official. This may be an argument against Christians going to war but it's not an argument against war.
- They exclude the Jesus of Matthew 25:31-46 where He sends the wicked to "eternal punishment".
- Christianity says Jesus is God. The same God of Love who directed the Israelites numerous times to go to war and kill everyone of their enemies.
Those using this challenge, invoke Jesus as Lamb while ignoring Jesus as Lion.
The article quotes Bonhoffer as evidence for the author's position:
"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak."Bonhoffer was executed because he tried to kill Hitler. So "who would Jesus assassinate?" Bonhoffer saw killing Hitler as a chance to save lives.
Lastly, "Who Would Jesus Bomb" during WWII or was trying (and eventually) saving the world from the evil and destruction of facism wrong? After all, if God is love and wouldn't kill anyone then He would have had to let Hitler (or any evil) continue unabated.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
A Sunday Morning with Thee, Anger
Shortly after I commented on al-Zarqawi going out with a bang, I submitted "It's Beautiful" to The Columbian's Opinion page. Sunday morning, June 25th, The Columbian printed my letter. To summarize,
Allen: Is Larry there?
wife: May I take a message?
Allen: Well, is Larry there?
wife: May I ask who's calling?
Allen: This is Alan?
wife: Oh, you mean Larry's friend Allen?
Allen: Can I speak to him?
wife: (at this point, wife realizes this isn't Larry's friend Allen) I'm sorry. He's not available?
Allen: You tell, Larry, that my God is not a Nazi! ... Larry's going to have to kneel before God someday. ...
wife: (hangs up)
A couple of things struck me about this call:
1) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to call at 8 am on a Sunday morning! I guess Allen needed to release his anger before attending church service.
2) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to yell at my wife when he found out I wasn't available.
3) Whose God was I calling a Nazi?!? al-Zarqawi's God? The one who rewards those who behead and blow up innocent people? People who don't agree with him? Let's see didn't the Nazis kill lots of innocent people? Even after rereading my post of published letter, I honestly don't see where Allen was comming from. Unless, of course, he worships al-Zarqawi's God. The one that sanctions terror against the innocent.
4) It takes an act of true courage to take your anger out on the wife of the person with whom you disagree. Especially when she had nothing to do with the letter. But Allen must have felt better since he hasn't called back.
5) Yes, someday, I will expect to kneel before God, a "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice" the crimes for which I am guilty. That is why I kneel before the cross of Jesus Christ. He has come to me, a capital criminal, and offered me a pardon for my crimes. So that on that fateful day the beautiful entity will morph NOT into a horrible creature that consumes me but intoHis even more beautiful, loving, compassionate presence.
I compared Rene Belloq opening the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the Raiders of the Lost Ark and finding the beautiful being that transforms into something horrible that consumes and destroys him. I compared that to al-Zarqawi expecting to find the 70 beautiful virgins as a reward for the evil he committed. Then I speculated that upon seeing those beautiful virgins they morphed into "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice."At 8 am (Sunday morning, mind you), my wife received a phone call (I was in Seattle) from an Allen:
Allen: Is Larry there?
wife: May I take a message?
Allen: Well, is Larry there?
wife: May I ask who's calling?
Allen: This is Alan?
wife: Oh, you mean Larry's friend Allen?
Allen: Can I speak to him?
wife: (at this point, wife realizes this isn't Larry's friend Allen) I'm sorry. He's not available?
Allen: You tell, Larry, that my God is not a Nazi! ... Larry's going to have to kneel before God someday. ...
wife: (hangs up)
A couple of things struck me about this call:
1) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to call at 8 am on a Sunday morning! I guess Allen needed to release his anger before attending church service.
2) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to yell at my wife when he found out I wasn't available.
3) Whose God was I calling a Nazi?!? al-Zarqawi's God? The one who rewards those who behead and blow up innocent people? People who don't agree with him? Let's see didn't the Nazis kill lots of innocent people? Even after rereading my post of published letter, I honestly don't see where Allen was comming from. Unless, of course, he worships al-Zarqawi's God. The one that sanctions terror against the innocent.
4) It takes an act of true courage to take your anger out on the wife of the person with whom you disagree. Especially when she had nothing to do with the letter. But Allen must have felt better since he hasn't called back.
5) Yes, someday, I will expect to kneel before God, a "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice" the crimes for which I am guilty. That is why I kneel before the cross of Jesus Christ. He has come to me, a capital criminal, and offered me a pardon for my crimes. So that on that fateful day the beautiful entity will morph NOT into a horrible creature that consumes me but intoHis even more beautiful, loving, compassionate presence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
