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:

• 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

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:

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."

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:

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.

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

Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M)

From Reuters today, comes the report that eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays: "

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.

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:

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.

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.

Memorial Day - 2007

From bartleby.com, George Patton once said:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God
that such men lived."

We 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.

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!

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

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:"

"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.

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.

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

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.

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:

"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.

A Woman's Right To Insanity

The AP reports that the California mom who dropped her three sons into San Francisco Bay was:

"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."

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.

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.

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:

"My client is mentally ill. She is medicated. She needs help. She needs to be in
a mental hospital."

Why is this mother mentally ill? For that matter why does the reason matter?

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.

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, "

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 foundations
and the contributions of diversity."

Gregoire continues on, quoting The Letter from the Birmingham Jail (which I consider one of the top 5 documents in our nations history):

"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:

"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]

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?

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.

Ideology of the Nazi Doctors

The New York Times reports

"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."

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:

"Our Faith is 2,000 years old."
"Our thinking is not."

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.

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.

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.

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:

"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"