Sunday, January 20, 2013
2:00 am
Daniel J. Summers
(Each year, the Sunday closest to January 22, the date of the passing of Roe v. Wade, is observed as “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday” in many churches.)
Ten years have brought us a long way. The 7th post on this blog observed 2004's Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. This year brings us to the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand in the United States.
As America has become more politically polarized, her views on abortion have as well. However, there is a growing trend against abortion, particularly the more barbaric late-term procedures, which are now only approved by those blinded by their insistence on how much of a “right” it is. A recent Time cover read “40 Years Ago, Abortion Rights Activists Won an Epic Battle with Roe v. Wade: They've Been Losing Ever Since,” and Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, thoroughly dissected that article. And, there are some truly heartening statistics for those who value life:
Four states have only one abortion provider in the entire state
24 states have passed 90 laws restricting abortion since 2010
Some states require parental notification for minors seeking abortion
Some states impose waiting periods and/or counseling before an abortion can be obtained
30 states do not fund abortions via Medicare
The number of those who self-identify as “pro choice” is down to 41%
However, as Dr. Mohler so adeptly points out, abortion is far from the “rare” its proponents claim they want to see. 50 million abortions have been performed since Roe passed, and we are at the point where 1 in 3 women have had an abortion by the time they make 45.
Science is helping the pro-life cause. I covered a good bit of this about a year and a half ago. Ultrasound has given us a window into prenatal development, and psychology and psychiatry have identified post-abortion depression as much more common than postpartum depression per incident.
Interestingly enough, the most damage to the pro-life cause in the past year came from two pro-life national office candidates. I covered both thoseguys at the time (the latter also citing Dr. Mohler - what can I say, he agrees with me a lot!), and since that is where our movement faltered this year, I believe this is where our focus should be. Our participation in the debate should keep the following Scripture in mind:
“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. You are the light of the world…” - Matthew 5:13-14a (ESV)
“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ…” - Ephesians 4:15 (ESV)
As Christians advocating for God's way of handling His creation, we must remember who we are. Salt can make a meal pop; however, salt can also overpower, and can be painful when ground into an open wound. Akin and Mourdock were the latter, coming off as callous and uncaring, much like those who still support “partial-birth” abortion come across to us. Light illuminates, but it can also blind. I left the entirety of Ephesians 4:15 there to show it in its context, but the first part of that verse is the key. We know this works; the “crisis pregnancy center” didn't even exist before Roe v. Wade, and now they outnumber abortion providers. Their popularity is due to the care that pregnant and scared women can receive from these organizations. They don't beat the women over the head with their “mistakes” of pregnancy or of seeking an abortion; they offer counseling, ultrasound, and support through pregnancy, childbirth, and the first few months of motherhood. They show a better way, and many women are choosing that path.
While progress against abortion is good, there is an the assault on the sanctity of human life from the other flank. “Assisted suicide” has been making the news already this year. In late 2012, two brothers in Belgium asked to be euthanized and eventually found a doctor who agreed, despite their condition not being consistent with even a liberal interpretation of the “unbearable pain” that law requires. North of our borders, Quebec looks to become the first Canadian province to legalize assisted suicide, not through legal changes, but through medical characterization of the procedure.
Both the Belgium law and the Canadian guideline revisions have advocates claiming that they will be applied narrowly; it sounds like they want it to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Where have we heard that before? Belgium and Canada both have government-run health care systems, so the government has a financial interest to maximize its investments in the system. Right now, it's a long jump to allow someone to be euthanized because they have no hope of recovery, and keeping them alive is expensive. With the Belgian brothers, and this change in health guidelines in Canada, that jump became half as long. I'm certainly not accusing the advocates of these laws of wanting to kill people; I'm sure to them, this is just them trying to help people in pain. I can guarantee, though, that in 30 years, very few of these people will still be around, and the next generation will have been reared in a society where it's perfectly normal to choose when you die. At that point, faced with looming deficits, it's a very small leap to see mandatory euthanasia based on medical evaluation. The slope isn't terribly slippery, but it's a slope nonetheless.
This illustrates the root of the disagreements many of us pro-lifers have with these laws, guidelines, and procedures. The disagreement is one of worldview. We see human life as precious, from the moment of conception through natural death, being conferred that status by God's declaration and unique grace to us within His creation. Human life alone is described as being “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14); its offspring described as a “reward” and having many as a “blessing” (Psalm 127:3-5); prohibited from being killed (Exodus 20:13); offered salvation from our fallen state (John 3:16); and promised reuniting with God (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) or judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). God has made it pretty clear how He views the part of His creation that was made “in His own image” (Genesis 1:27).
If we lived in a society that agreed with this worldview - well, I probably wouldn't be writing this. However, we do not, and the society in which we do live has an answer to each of those points.
Creation? No, we just evolved - somehow - big bang, amoeba, something - and there definitely was not intelligent design!
Lots of children are a good thing? No, that would interfere with our careers; let's delay that, scrape their beginnings off our womb if they're not convenient; there will be time for that later, right?
Murder? Don't try to force your religion on u… wait, if there aren't any laws against murder, then I could be murdered… OK, you can have that one.
Salvation? I'm a good person (hey, I don't murder!), why would I need to be saved?
Judgment? But wait, doesn't your own Bible say “Judge not, that you be not judged?”
We're made in God's image? Well, now you're on to something - if God is in each one of us, doesn't that make us all God? Then, what I want to do must be God's will, because it's my will!
This brings us back to the Akin/Mourdock problem. Simply asserting our views (then asserting them more loudly) is not going to be a very effective way of convincing others. We should keep in mind that not only does our society hold those conflicting views, they also claim to value tolerance above all else - except for tolerating us, interestingly; they have been raised to believe that we are hateful people who just want to control people's lives and force our religion down everyone's throats. Compounding the issue, some of our forebears actually did go about things this way, particularly over race.
So, is it just futile? Of course not. I believe the answer is three-fold.
We must advocate with words. We must choose those words wisely, but we must use words. These words should be loving, condemning the practice of abortion while offering love, compassion, and forgiveness to those who have had them, realizing that it is but by the grace of God that we have not made (or are not still making) the same decisions. Use words honestly - where science supports an argument, use it; where it doesn't apply, don't try to shoe-horn it into applying.
We must back up these words with actions. Crisis pregnancy centers, as mentioned above, have been hugely effective in not only preventing abortions, but for education and support. The film To Save a Life showed another angle of being pro-life, taking an interest in others to prevent suicide; though I didn't mention it above, suicides are also up this past year. Be involved with food banks, shelters, or other organizations that show we care for life when those lives are going through rough times. Be involved with senior's activities. Pick a place and plug-in; put feet to your words.
We must be vigilant. We must not give up the fight against legislation or policies simply because we haven't had time for the first 2 points above to be effective. We must continue to pray; we have the Creator of human life on our side.
Changing the culture seems like an overwhelming task, and it truly is a monumental one. However, the size of the task does not relieve us of our responsibility to be salt and light, and to work towards making it a place where all life is valued, from the moment of conception through natural death.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
12:00 am
Daniel J. Summers
This is the first or last post of our “2012 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous” series. 2012 wasn't all bad; let's take a look at how.
The London Olympics
London got a third turn to host the modern Olympic Games in 2012, and they did an outstanding job. The facilities were all first-rate. The opening and closing ceremonies both set new high bars, being spectacular without being cheesy. Security was also successful, with no violence or terrorist acts being committed during the games. Of course, seeing USA sitting atop the medal board at the end was an added bonus.
The only thing about the games that I would change would be the coverage. I'm not going into full #NBCfail mode, but they should have found a way to televise the games as they occurred, while still preserving their prime time “here's what we think you want to see” coverage. Rio lines up with the US, so that shouldn't be an issue as much; evening events can be broadcast live if they wanted.
Eat Mor Hate Chicken
In July, Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy, son of founder S. Truett Cathy, mentioned in a Baptist Press interview that the chain was supportive of the traditional definition of marriage. Judging from the reaction, you'd have thought that he had just introduced the new spicy sodomite sandwich! There were calls for all sorts of punitive actions against Chick-Fil-A, from boycotts to denying future permits. They also were attacked for giving charitable donations to "hate groups."* So why is this on the good list?
This is here because of what happened next. A groundswell of support arose for the purveyors of fine non-cow products, culminating in “Chick-Fil-A Day,” where every single restaurant had lines around the block as people came out to show their support. The protests two days later paled in comparison to the outpouring of support for the stand the Cathy family was willing to take. Meanwhile, many in the gay community “came out” (sorry, couldn't help it) in support of the restaurant, citing its employees' respect for every customer, and others spoke highly of the environment as an employee. Chick-Fil-A fought back against the “you donate to hate groups” charge, and the official boycott effort went by the wayside.
In a year where “same-sex marriage” won at the ballot box, and religious groups failed to get the government to amend “health care” requirements that violate their religion, Chick-Fil-A was a nice bright spot of support for traditional marriage and the right of business people to share their beliefs.
* Just a note, activists - if you call Focus on the Family a hate group, you really should educate yourself, and close your mouth so you don't completely destroy your credibility when you figure out how things actually are and start making sense.
MSM Exposed
Mark it down - 2012 proved that the mainstream media now makes no attempt at objective reporting. From the debate moderators, to the selective coverage of the party conventions, to the complete dearth of investigative reporting on Benghazi, it's like they just quit trying. When comedians other than Jay Leno are writing jokes about you, you've become a parody of yourself; and, when Jon “I can cuss, 'cause I'm edgy, but they can't broadcast it” Stewart makes more sense than you do, you are an embarrassment to the craft. But, these two facts have become so self-evident that even the American people can't miss it.
The bias is not the “good” part, but sunlight is the best disinfectant; the exposure of it (and embracing of it) is why this lands on the good list. Some journalists are starting to get it. While Jake Tapper (of ABC News in 2012, of CNN this year) has been the fairest MSMer for a while, this year saw many reporters, including CNN's Anderson Cooper, asking tough questions and refusing to allow dodging. Special recognition also goes to Univisión for their debate questions; the English-language moderators could learn from you.
Maybe we're almost to the point where liberals will actually see why criticizing “Faux News” with supporting links from The Huffington Post and Mother Jones aren't that convincing. And there lies the rub; you shouldn't restrict your reading to either “side.” Read the editorials with which you disagree, as well as the ones you like. Compare story selection among several news sources, and if there is a story missing, find out why. We have the tools now to easily do it, which may be the best part of all of this. You can be as informed as you want to be.
Family Time
This past year was a great year for our family. In January, February, and March, we were able to do quite a bit of snow skiing. I and my two oldest sons conquered several black diamond runs and couple of double-blacks; I learned the trick to moguls (ski the tops, not the groove in between them); and even my 7 year old found blue and a couple of black diamond runs he could do. We're looking forward to more of that in the next few months, as our favorite ski area is ready!
In September, we were finally able to take a family cruise where one of our stops was letting our sons swim with stingrays in Grand Cayman. Michelle and I had done that back in 2006, and wanted them to experience it. We also visited Jamaica, where we had a surprisingly good time, and I celebrated my 39th birthday in Cozumel, Mexico. We got to cruise with the same couple with whom we cruised in 2006, and they also brought their family; it was great to spend time with them.
When we got back, we prepared to move. After living on a military base for nearly 10 years straight, we now have a place to live off base. Great friends here in Albuquerque got transferred overseas, and we are able to live in their house. It was a great blessing; we had begun to outgrow our current house. It is definitely nice to have a separation between “work” and “home” now; plus, now I'm not the guy who lives on base, who gets the calls to do stuff “because you're already there.” Win-win!
Finally, in November and early December, our family was able to participate in Hoffmantown Church's production of The Story, a dramatic musical presentation of the Christmas story, starting with creation and ending with the resurrection. We had never done anything like it; we usually were not around for it. But, since we were, we signed up. It was amazing! At the first rehearsal, I was not quite sure it was all going to come together, but each time, things got smoother, and by the time our final dress rehearsal came, we were ready. There were 450+ volunteers who worked, and over 6,500 people saw it. We are really looking forward to next year.
Of course, the 2013 production of The Story is still 11 months away; there's a lot of 2013 between now and then. I hope that I have much trouble narrowing down the few things to include in this post next year. Happy New Year!
Sunday, October 28, 2012
8:02 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, produces a daily podcast called “The Briefing,” which he describes as an analysis of current event from a Christian world view. It's my morning newscast; at 15 minutes, it'll pretty much get me to work. This past Friday, he hit an absolute game-winning, out-of-the-park, grand-slam home run. (Hey, I've got to get my baseball metaphors out of the way, since the season's over as of about an hour ago.)
The transcript below is mine (names spelled phonetically if I didn't know them already), of the final 10 minutes. He analyzes Richard Mourdock's controversial comments, then turns his attention to the issue that both he and Todd Akin have both bumblingly defended. (If you're in a hurry, skip to the last 4 paragraphs.)
It was a statewide debate that would've been unlikely to gain national attention. But all that changed on Tuesday night when, in a debate between United States Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, the Republican, and US Representative Joe Donelly, the Democrat, the issue of abortion arose, and it ended up arising explosively. In this case, Richard Mourdock, asked about his position on abortion, said this: “The only exception I have to have an abortion is that in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And I think that, even that life that begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
The fury and firestorm that erupted after Mourdock's comments has now reached a fever pitch. And, what you have across the political spectrum is somewhat feigned, and perhaps somewhat genuine outrage at the candidate's statements on abortion. All this, of course, is more intensive in terms of our national discussion, because of the aftermath of the controversy over another Senate candidate's comments - that was Todd Akin, running for the United States Senate seat in Missouri - and in a similar way, Mr. Akin found himself as the topic of focus and controversy over the statements that he intended to be reflective of a consistent pro-life position.
In both cases, the issue was rape, and the connection to abortion. In Mr. Mourdock's case, the comments are actually far less complicated than the comments that were made by Todd Akin. His statement - let me repeat again - was about his position on the sanctity of human life, and thus, exemptions for abortion. Mr. Mourdock is known as a pro-life candidate who has said he will try to achieve increased limitations on abortion if elected to the Senate. Let me read to you his words again. He said, “The only exception I have to have an abortion is that in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And I think that, even that life that begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Many in the media, and even some in very high office, have attempted to characterize Mr. Mourdock's statement as suggesting that rape is a part of God's will. For instance, you have the President of the United States responding with outrage, suggesting that what Mr. Mourdock said is nothing less than politically atrocious. The Obama campaign, according to Jonathan Weissman of the New York Times, sought to exploit the opening from Mr. Mourdock's comments, as did virtually every Democratic campaign for the US Senate; pressing, they say, a unified message that the Republican party's out of step with female voters. President Obama “felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women,” so said Jane Saki, the president's campaign spokeswoman. Ms. Saki also said it was perplexing that Mr. Romney, the Republican candidate, had not demanded that his ad for Mr. Mourdock be taken off of television.
Let's look at the comment, and let's consider the controversy. There is something here that is very important for those of us who are pro-life to note, and to note with requisite care. What we're talking about here is a man who, very sincerely and very self-evidently, sought to define the sanctity of human life to cover every single human being from the moment of conception until natural death. He has found himself in very hot political water, in a very close Senate race that was probably already too close to call, and may now put himself in a significant electoral disadvantage. What went on here, and what should we learn from it?
The first issue to consider here is the matter of communication. I think any fair-minded person would understand that Mr. Mourdock is right when he complains that his comments have been taken out of context, so that it appeared that he was referring to rape as God's will rather than the gift of life. Hats off to at least some in the media who have noted this; Amy Sullivan writing in the New Republic wrote this: “Despite the assertion of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I don't think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women, or want to control women. I think they're totally oblivious,” she writes, “and insensitive, and can't for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape. I don't think most care that their policy decisions can impact what control a woman does or doesn't have over her own body.” She then writes this: “But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life, and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances under which the pregnancy came about.” She is exactly right; that was Richard Mourdock's point.
But, he's paying the price for miscommunicating here, and for bringing up the issue of rape in a context in which he didn't have to answer the question that way. He brought up the issue of rape without a way of adequately explaining what he was going to say thereafter, and he spoke in a way that was simply too brief to carry the weight or the moral meaning of the argument he was trying to express. He needed to say that he believes that God has given the gift of life to every single human being, and that the circumstances that brought that gift of life about are not what establishes the dignity or sanctity of any human individual's life. Rather, he was trying to say that there is an objective value - sanctity, dignity - to every human life, and that includes one born out of wedlock, that includes one born out of expectation or hope, and that includes one born, also, out of something so absolutely horrible, sinful, and almost unspeakable as forcible rape.
There are others who similarly got it right, in the midst of those who clearly got it wrong. Kevin Drum, writing at Mother Jones, which is one of the most leftist periodicals in America, also decided to do a bit of truth-telling here. He writes this: “Mourdock is getting beat up pretty bad for this, so I think that's just fine.” He means that politically. “At the same time, can't we all acknowledge that this is just conventional Christian theology?” Very interesting. He goes on to write: “What I find occasionally odd is that so many conventional bits of theology like this are so controversial if someone actually mentions them in public.”
Going back to Amy Sullivan, again at the New Republic, she writes this: “Take a look again at Mourdock's words. 'I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.'” She then writes, “The key word here is ‘it’; I think it's pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by rape, he's not arguing that rape is the ‘something’ that God intended to happen.” She then writes this, very important: “This is a very common theological belief, the understanding of God as an active interventionist. It's also,” she writes, “not limited to conservative Christians. There are liberal Christians,” she writes, “who also argue that things work out the way they're supposed to. Some of them are in my own family, and I think they are wrong.” So, in other words, Amy Sullivan clearly believes that Richard Mourdock is wrong; but she's very clear also that her liberal media peers, far to many of them, and those who are politically opportunistic on the other side, are using this statement out of context, and knowingly so.
But there are severe lessons to us. The lesson first is communication. We must not let ourselves fall into the position of appearing to say anything that comes close to what Richard Mourdock is accused, albeit falsely, of having said. But the most important issue here is not politics - it's not political; and, it's not about communication either. It's about the dignity and sanctity of every human life, and the attack upon human life by the culture of death in the form of abortion. Here is something that conservative Christians - those running for office, and those voting for someone running for office; those who are activity in the political sphere, and those who are just trying to understand it - in terms of how abortion should be considered in the frame of public policy.
Right now, the public is very clear that the vast majority would accept legislation or some political action to constrict and restrict the number of abortions in America. Americans, across the board, are increasingly outraged at the scale of abortion, with 1.2 to 1.4 million babies being aborted every year. Only a tiny percentage of them are covered by the most frequently-asserted exceptions, whether it's rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. The last of the three, an intervention to save the life of the mother, is often misconstrued by virtually everyone, because the main issue there should be cases in which action to save the life of the mother tragically, but unavoidably, causes the death of the unborn child. But in looking at the three exceptions - just taking them at face value, understanding that we cannot be morally satisfied that the circumstances of those conceptions should lead to the allowance of the abortion of those babies - we should, as a matter of public policy, right now, work for legislation that would restrict the number of abortions, and would eliminate the vast majority of abortions. Approximately out of the 1.2 to 1.4 million, we're talking about all but a handful of about 20 to 50,000 abortions, at the most extreme estimate, in terms of a year.
Now let me be clear: we could not accept those exceptions as a permanent condition. We could understand that on the way to this society embracing the full dignity and humanity of every single human life, this is a way of at least saving the vast majority of unborn babies. That's why, when a politician right now is running for office, we should not expect them to say that they would not accept any exceptions in terms of public policy. But I do expect them to say that they cannot accept them morally as a permanent condition. In other words, if I were asked this question, I would say that right now, I'd be willing to sign on the dotted line to legislation that would eliminate over 95% of all abortions in America. I would not then remain satisfied. Even as the pro-abortion movement would be trying to convince Americans to liberalize abortion, I will from that point onward be doing my dead-level best to try to convince Americans to move to an even more consistent pro-life position.
There's a statement that applies in politics perhaps more appropriately than anywhere else. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” We cannot sell out our principles - most importantly, the principle of the dignity and the sanctity of every single human life - but, we cannot sacrifice millions of unborn children to our principle on our way to trying to get this nation's conscience in alignment with human dignity.
If you aren't listening to “The Briefing,” you're missing out. Check it out on iTunes, or at Dr. Mohler's site.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
6:04 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Last weekend, Claire McCaskill's (D) opponent in the Missouri Senate race, current Representative Todd Akin (R) went on a television show, and the discussion turned to his views regarding abortion. He is on record as not supporting a rape exception as part of an abortion ban. He explained himself thusly:
Charles Jaco, Interviewer: Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.): Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, “Well, how do you - how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question.” It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
To say that the middle sentence in his reply got a lot of attention would be the understatement of the week. As someone who shares his overall views, that sentence made me cringe. There are two ways to address the “what about a rape exemption” question, and neither one are that.
First off, he's wrong on the biology. What he wanted to say was that significant emotional distress can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, or can cause hormonal changes that can trigger a miscarriage; since rape is such an emotionally devastating event, the body may very well take care of it itself. This is something that I've heard anecdotally (from real people, not a website), but I'm not aware of any sort of study that can confirm that. Even if there is an increased likelihood that an egg fertilized during rape will not turn into a pregnancy, though, it in no way “shut(s) the whole thing down.” A risk factor is not the same as a bodily function.
Secondly, he's wrong on “legitimate” rape. One he knows what he meant by that; he's later clarified to say that he meant “forcible” (as opposed to statutory), but still - what a horrible choice of words! What is the world is a legitimate rape? I'd wager that all of them are illegitimate acts of violence against the other party. Some might excuse it as a slip-up, but this man has been a legislator for longer than Obama's been in politics - he should darn well know how to articulate his views without giving the left a Scooby snack! Rush Limbaugh, in his denunciation of these remarks and call for Akin to get out of the race, speculated that he surrounds himself by only those who agree with him, so he hasn't had to articulate it very much.
This gets to the crux of why he should remove himself from the race. Mr. Akin, you have misrepresented the position, discredited yourself and your party, and you're down over 10 points in Missouri polling. All Republican party groups, including the Romney/Ryan team, have distanced themselves from you and your remarks. I personally have learned to silently roll my eyes when the sneering liberals group me with what they call anti-science religious zealots, but I absolutely hate it when they're right. You have single-handedly dealt the pro-life cause a serious blow, and by continuing to stay in this race, you are doing little more than twisting the dagger. People of principle are loyal to the principle, not the person. You may be right on principle, but by continuing to force yourself as the leader of that cause, you are making it about you instead of the cause of life. No one wants you to go down with the ship; if you step aside and let another lead, the ship may not go down at all.
Tangent #1
He did hit the first way to address the “what about rape” question toward the end of the excerpt above; it's not the baby's fault. The other is an equally simple response; either all life is sacred, or it is not. If abortion is unacceptable because life is sacred, life created through violence is no less sacred, and should be afforded the same protections. He sort of hit that earlier in his interview when discussing tubal pregnancies, even using the term “optimize life.” That's a good way to put it, IMO.
Tangent #2
Mike Huckabee, you need to get out of this too. You lost to Mitt in 2008, and revisiting your grudge in 2012 is going to do nothing but give us 4 more years of Obama, with no chance of repealing that health care monstrosity. If that happens, public tax money will be used to fund abortions and abortofacients, and religious organizations will be forced to provide them against their convictions. I know you don't like the idea of voting for a Mormon, but the only rallying that needs to be done is the one that will drum Akin off the ballot.
Did Bob Costas really refer to a black European Olympics medalist as an “African-American?” What kind of mindless politically correct stupidity is that?
And while we're on the subject, if an “African-American” who is actually from the United States wins a medal, how do the Olympics officials decide which African country gets to share the credit for that medal? Just wondering.
Still more ... if an African-American wins a gold medal, what national anthem do they play? Have they created some kind of medley?
One of the funniest things I remember was hearing someone referring to a person from Africa as an “African-American African.” It certainly does seem that, when exposed to global culture, the American PC-ese seems to range from misguided to offensive. The same people who cry the loudest over discrimination over ethnic origin are also the same people who make sure we can't look past ethnic origin, thereby making all people equal.
Somewhere, we seem to have swallowed whole the lie that what someone else says about us has to be true. If someone calls you ugly, are you ugly? If someone calls you mean, are you mean? If things worked like that, I'd just pay someone to call me a 6-foot, 3-inch Harrison Ford look-a-like!
Now, I'm not ignoring our country's trouble past when it comes to true equality, but I'm also not convinced that affirmative action and political correctness have gotten us any closer to that equality. To suggest that someone be color-blind is ridiculous; on the other hand, differences are not generally liabilities. This infatuation with words, though, is a trickier thing. Freedom of speech is important, as evidenced by its being enshrined as Article 1 in the Bill of Rights, yet political correctness is the complete opposite of this. If jerks are not allowed to say jerky things, how do you know who the jerks are? I'm certainly not advocating being personally offensive to another individual; there are standards of decorum, manners, and courtesy for that. (See “jerk” in the prior sentence.) Hate speech, political speech, religious speech - it's all speech, and it gives the hearer an idea of what is in the speakers' heart.
And then - if a violation of the PC speech codes occurs, we get the calls for an apology. This, too, violates the principles of free speech; how “free” is speech that is demanded? If the offended party were to simply register their offense, then if the offending party cared that they had been offensive, they could choose to offer an apology. When was the last time you heard a demanded apology that was worth the time it took to listen to it? “I'm sorry IF you got offended by what I said” - that's not an apology for saying the words, it's an apology for the offense! It's almost like we're still in grade school. “Now, say you're sorry, Timmy…”
I also worry about generations reared with this viewpoint; if we're not tough enough to withstand words that we don't like, how in the world are we going to face down real evil? I believe there is a better way to handle that. If the words bother you, determine why they bother you; are they offensive words, do they point out your shortcomings, etc. Once you determine the source of the offense, you will know if you are dealing with a “the truth hurts” scenario, a “this person is a jerk” scenario, or a “that was unfair / inaccurate” scenario. You can then ignore the speech, change your ways, or register your offense, and move on. It's a much more productive way to deal with words that tried to hurt you.
I'll wrap up with this; if you regularly hear “racist dog-whistles” coming from your opponents, your opponents likely aren't the problem.
Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration and currently mayor of Chicago, seems to have his needle stuck declaring that certain things do not mesh with Chicago values. He is one of three mayors who, as of this writing, have said that Chick-Fil-A's owners' stance on gay marriage is incompatible with Chicago values, and he is currently supporting an alderman's decision to block a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant in his district. So, evidently, 97 jobs, a local franchisee, and southern hospitality for all is not consistent with their values simply because the corporation holds to 5,000-year-old beliefs on marriage that are consistent with every single in-context reading of the Bible that has ever been done.
Another thing that seems to be contrary to Chicago values is gang violence… that involves children. “We've got two gangbangers, one standing next to a kid. Get away from that kid. Take your stuff away to the alley…. It's all about values….” Lest I be accused of taking this out of context, he was interviewed and asked to clarify, and he confirmed the above as his meaning. So, the gang stuff needs to happen in the alleys. Interesting.
So, Rahm, how about this? We're a week removed from 12 killed and 58 wounded in Aurora, Colorado. But, if you take the two weekends before that, how's Chicago doing? 11 dead, 75 wounded. Aurora was an isolated incident; these are your bi-weekly statistics! What sort of values are those? Are the ones that happened in an alley between rival gangs OK?
If I were from Chicago, I would be outraged; surely these are not the values of most Chicagoans. Your inability to call evil for what it is cannot be termed a “value,” and neither can your ability to call good evil.
UPDATE: After I drafted this, but before it posted, Rahm clarified his remarks - as with the president's clarification of his remarks, and Rahm's clarification of the gang violence remarks, the clarification is little if any better than the original statement. The “blocking” of the restaurant was never from the mayor, but from an alderman.)
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
10:29 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Earlier today, I saw a link to a blog post about a man, Michael Salman, who had been thrown in jail and fined for hosting a Bible study in his home. We've seen things like this before, but what made this one unique is that it was in Arizona; yes, this is happening right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I shared the link with others, voicing my support for him if the situation was as it was presented. However, a friend followed up with a link to a news story that gives more of the history and what has happened. As it turns out, the original post is highly-slanted advocacy that left out some key details. The more I've thought about it, the angrier I've become, to the point where I now hope that Salman comes to his senses while he's in jail.
Here is the Cliff's Notes version of the first post (feel free to read it if you'd like). This man and his wife were having family and friends over for a Bible study on a weekly basis. Neighbors complained about the extra cars and the traffic, and the fire department broke up one of their studies. The man then gets building permits for a 2,000 square foot building where the number of people could be without causing a fire hazard. Since erecting that building, he has been continually harassed and accused of running a church on his residential property. He maintains that these are simply guests in his home and new out-building, and that they have as much of a right to be there as would a birthday or Super Bowl party. Salman is now facing 30 months in jail and $12,000 in fines.
Sounds pretty bad, huh? Well, my opinion began to turn when I saw a picture of his yard…
OK - the “this is not a church” claim just became very, very hard to swallow. From the above link, plus another from the DailyMail, we learn some other interesting facts. First, Salman is an ordained minister. Second, this out-building, contrary to the restaurant-looking picture from the Freedom Outpost article, is equipped with a pulpit, stage, and chairs. Third, these Bible studies were hosted on the weekend. A time of Bible study on the weekend in a building with a pulpit on a stage… If only there were a word that would be more succinct to describe that sort of thing! There is, and it's the one the city of Phoenix used - church.
This brings me to the angry part. My anger is based in the blemish to the name of Christ that this has caused, and for the people who are going to look like fools for supporting this when the first, incomplete, biased, and dishonest story came out.
Yes, dishonest; candor is a part of honesty, and involved disclosing information that the hearer, upon learning that it was not disclosed, would feel wronged. There is real religious persecution going on all around the world; this does NOT rise to that level. In the realm of ideas, honesty is paramount. This is why so many arguments fall flat on their face when all the facts come out; even those who claim that their are no absolutes tend to still hold honesty as a moral character trait.
Secondly, what happened to “love your neighbor as yourself,” Mr. Salman? A Super Bowl party and a birthday party are both once-a-year events, and even those have been broken up by police and fire officials if they cause a safety concern. You knew that your neighbors did not like the extra traffic, particularly when your study expanded from 15 to nearly 40. I'm sure there is a restaurant in Phoenix that would love to have a weekly banquet room reservation for 30 people; there are two I could attend in the Albuquerque area every week. But, rather than show peace and love, you extended “the middle finger of the Lord” to your neighbors and the city. You are now reaping what you have sown; how can you expect your neighbors or the city to have mercy on you when you were not interested in giving it to them?
Thirdly, Mr. Salman, did we miss Romans 13:1-2?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
The city told you what you needed to do. They did not prohibit you from continuing to have meetings; they told you the codes with which you must comply if you wanted to continue doing so. All churches have to meet building codes; if you have any doubts regarding their importance, compare the earthquake devastation in countries with them to the devastation in countries without them. They ensure public safety where large numbers of people are present on a regular basis; a building does not have to be a public building to meet this criteria. You chose to call your meetings something other than church to get around that (see how that honesty thing keeps cropping up?), you got called on it, and now you have, to quote Paul, “incur[red] judgment.”
Mr. Salman, I hope you use your time away to think about what you have done. Will the world be better off if your 5 children show the world the love of God the way you've modeled it for them in this situation? And please, be HONEST when asking for help. There are good people who will support you, but we don't want to be played for fools. By doing what you have been doing for the past several years, YOU ARE HARMING THE CAUSE OF CHRIST. Christ did not come to give us freedom of religion; He came to free us from sin. He chose to place us in a country where we have very few limits on the free exercise of religion; don't lose sight of that because you happen to have bumped up against what you view as an impediment on that free exercise.
The good thing in all this is, Mr. Salman, that grace is always there. You can receive it, and you can extend it. This cause is not hopeless, especially if you change the focus from “I have a right!” to “where does God want me to hold this study?” Who knows the ministry God may have for you if you get out of a landlocked residential neighborhood and into some place with room for growth?
Today, our president announced that, in a 180-degree turn from his previous statements, he now favors “gay marriage.” There are several things about this entire situation that boggle the mind about this, and most of them come back to the inescapable fact that few other religions would permit such bigotry against them. For the vast majority of opponents to same-sex marriage, their opposition is not rooted in hate, but in their religious beliefs. The insistence of these activists to literally re-define marriage is what makes this most distasteful. In future parts, I'll also deal with the fact that they are not honest in their arguments; they cannot be, or they will have to cede what they feel are their strongest points. Finally, I have an opinion (bet you didn't see that coming, huh?) of how I believe government can both respect religion and get the vast majority of what the “gay marriage” activists want; that will be part 3.
Imagine, if you will, that our founding fathers were Jews rather than Christians and Deists. They set up our government to honor Passover above any and all other days, requiring that employers give Jewish employees time off from sundown to sundown on Passover, provided they attend the special services at the temple. This worked well for over 200 years, as some people got a day off each year, and other's didn't. It didn't occur to them to mind; this is just the way it's always been. There's a program out there for which they don't qualify, but it didn't bother them, the same way that it didn't bother them that they weren't eligible for food stamps because their income was too high.
Then, one day, the Protestant population started wondering why they didn't have this same protection - “Why can't I demand a free day off a year, just because I don't hold to that ancient, antiquated religion?” They go to the government and say “Hey, this doesn't seem fair - why can't we get a free day off each year?” The government says, “Well, what do you have in mind?” The people reply “Passover should be for all! We want a Protestant Passover, except without that temple requirement; we just want a free day off like them!” The government promptly laughs them out of its offices.
These Protestants aren't done yet, though. Prestigious universities have been teaching Protestantism as an equally valid alternative to Judaism for many years, and now these university-educated people are educating an increasing number of the nation's children. They decide to lay the groundwork by starting to normalize Protestantism. They find some inspiring stories about Protestants throughout history; they speculate that others may have been &“closet” Protestants, even though they never really said for sure. Finally, they follow this up with people who were “unfairly” treated simply because they were Protestant. If it's one thing kids understand, it's "that's not FAIR!", and this plan has wildly-successful results. The reasons given tend to evolve as well; in the beginning, it's fear; a few years later, it's bigotry; a few years after that, it's just hate.
Finally, this so-called Protestant Passover movement really starts to have some legs. Politicians are asked their view of this, even when the nation is facing far more pressing issues. The Jews are livid about the government defining a “Protestant Passover” that confers all the rights of the free-day-off Passover, but is celebrated by people who have no clue what it is they're celebrating, and without the worship requirement (which was the original reason behind the law in the first place). They would base their complaints on the free exercise of religion, and they would be told to stop hating.
You see where I'm going with this. There is absolutely no way our fictional government would even consider something so ludicrous as Protestant Passover; but, with two generations of conditioning by partial parties, now it doesn't seem ludicrous. I believe this is the point we have reached in our nation today; those who are for “gay marriage” cannot fathom any motivation other than hate in their opposition, no matter how little sense this makes. (“But wait,” you say, “wouldn't the original Passover law constitute an establishment of religion?” One could make that argument; come back for part 3, my friend.)
The word “marriage” means something to the Christian faith. Through the several Scriptures that follow, we survey some of the verses that establish marriage as having special significance; this is my proof that the “gay marriage” push is offensive to Christianity. We'll start with two verses that are central to this argument.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
These two verses establish the sufficiency and completeness of Scripture. Either it's all true, or none of it is; I hold to the former view. What was written was written, and the omission of what was not written is also significant. We also see that the purpose of Scripture is to equip man through teaching (education), reproof (some versions translate this “rebuke”), correction (a change of course), and training (“here is how you do it”). This means that, although Jesus has come and fulfilled the law, reading the law still has value; it gives us insight into how God thinks. Studying how God dealt with people and nations can show us His patience, mercy, and judgment all at the same time.
I think that this is where many of the Christians who identify themselves on the “pro” side of this argument go astray. They focus on one verse or passage, to the exclusion of all others. They may give special emphasis to the words of Jesus - most Bibles do, by putting His words in red! However, these verses tell us that all Scriptures is profitable. If Jesus said something, Paul echoed it, and Peter explained it, Peter's explanation is not “one of many interpretations” of Jesus' words; it is the explanation that God has preserved in His Word!
With that being said, let's take a look first at some pro-marriage verses. From the very beginning, God created male and female (yes, “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve”), and near the end of Genesis 2, we read
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.
(Am I the only one noticing that not only are they supposed to be husband and wife, but they're supposed to keep the fire burning? Ever read the book Song of Solomon? Yowza!)
Now, sure, those are both Old Testament. But, when Jesus quotes these words (and not in the “It has been said...but I say” way)…
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...”
...well, that would seem to make them doubly-important in my book. Paul, who was one of the last people to see Jesus, found himself in the position of educating new believers who came from a background of hedonism. We'll deal with the "don't"s here in a bit, but let's look at how he summarizes his instructions on roles in marriage.
However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Husband with masculine pronoun, wife with a feminine pronoun - it's almost like there's a secret message there. No, I kid; it's no secret at all. Keep in mind this was written in Greek, when the Greek culture had just recently begun to fade. There was certainly plenty of homosexuality and pederasty in Greece; if there had been something positive to say about either of these things, Paul had the perfect opportunity. However, he had a different take.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Could that last part be talking about venereal disease or AIDS? Probably shouldn't go there; this is already long enough as it is.)
Paul is not a lone wolf on this; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the prohibitions in the Levitical law on not only homosexuality, but also bestiality, incest, and adultery are consistent with this. Incidentally, these laws are given as a group, lending a certain “they're all the same sin” feel to that list. Non-marital sexual activity was prohibited.
Marriage was the first institution established by God, followed closely by the family. The reason our government issues marriage licenses in the first place is a carry-over from the Church of England (more on that in part 3). It is significant in the Christian faith. The fact that it has been abused and devalued by Christians and non-Christians alike does not change that. In fact, let's go ahead and get that red herring out of the way here. Remember above, where Jesus quoted the Old Testament? Let's pull that passage over here in with a bit more context.
And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so….”
Here, Jesus not only recognizes the institution of marriage, He reinforces it, tearing down an “out” that Moses had permitted, and had been a part of their law ever since. Now, I personally believe that it's a good thing that divorcees aren't shunned; Jesus doesn't indicate that divorce is better or worse than any other sin, but He does call it out as sin. If sin is forgiven and forsaken, my reading of Scripture tells me that's good enough for God, and if it's good enough for Him, it's good enough for me. However, the modern church has swung too far away from shunning to the point that divorce is common and accepted; it makes the argument for the sanctity of marriage weaker, especially in the eyes of the non-believing world. However, it does nothing to dilute the words of Jesus here.
Marriage is significant to the Christian faith. I believe I've demonstrated above that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron; how do you have “prohibited-activity sacred-institution”? Just as Muslims would fight a move to classify pulled pork as a halal dish, or Catholics would not want to receive a Big Mac as the Eucharist, Christians who oppose “;gay marriage” are simply defending their faith. Redefining a word that currently denotes the first institution ordained by God should be met with strong resistance by all Christians. Maybe this assault is what we need to recognize how far we've drifted from what the Word says should be the way. Forget about the sins of the past; we should determine what God says, then stand for it.
(This is part 1 of a 3-part series. The other parts will be linked here as they are published. The other parts will remain in my head.)
A few days back, the Obama campaign released an interactive slideshow called The Life of Julia. Ladies, if you have not yet seen it, walk through it. Then remember that neither I, nor the vast majority of Republicans, view you as helpless, impotent freeloaders the way Julia is portrayed here. A candidate for president wants you die. Seriously? (I've already covered that, but it keeps cropping up; I guess the campaign isn't reading my blog.)
This also shows Obama's pure hubris and arrogance once again. Are his policies REALLY going to affect her life 60+ years in the future? Without a strong country backing it, all the health policies in the world are nothing more than useless words on paper. We do not have the money to fund this vision of our nation, even if we all agreed that it was the way to go.
Finally, this illustrates a strange world view. God has commanded the church to care for the poor, and commanded husbands to care for their wives and fathers to care for their children. There's precious little of ANY of those institutions mentioned in poor Julia's life. Where is the love? Where is the community? Where is the family? Nowhere to be seen. Her dependence on government programs is pretty strong, though.
I can't help but wonder if Romney hacked Obama's website and put this up there. It certainly paints a worse picture of Obama/Biden and their disdain for women than it does of Romney and any of his plans.
Congress, addressing the Pentagon's request to increase TRICare fees. I don't know think that I can improve on this, so it's presented without further comment.
...career members of the uniformed services and their families endure unique and extraordinary demands and make extraordinary sacrifices over the course of a 20- to 30-year career in protecting freedom for all Americans. ... Those decades of sacrifice constitute a significant pre-paid premium for health care during a career member's retirement that is over and above what the member pays with money.
First off, he's wrong on the biology. What he wanted to say was that significant emotional distress can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, or can cause hormonal changes that can trigger a miscarriage; since rape is such an emotionally devastating event, the body may very well take care of it itself. This is something that I've heard anecdotally (from real people, not a website), but I'm not aware of any sort of study that can confirm that. Even 