I was quite impressed when I read that Senator McCain had decided to suspend his campaign to go to Washington to work on the "bailout bill". I thought it was a gutsy move given how close this race is.
I waited to hear how Senator Obama would respond when McCain suggested postponing the debate. I was disappointed to hear that he didn't want to postpone, indicating that he thought the American people would expect their President to be able to do multiple things at the same time, but that he would be available to help if needed.
I thought it was interesting that they both ended up in DC after all at the request of the current President.
Overall, I think it demonstrates leadership on the part of John McCain to act in the best interests of the country rather than that of his campaign.
Other sources that I read agree:
The Anchoress
Ed Morrissey here and here at HotAir (which inspired the name of this blog)
Mike Gallagher, whose talk radio show my sister-in-law recommends
Clarice
Thursday, September 25, 2008
On the Financial Crisis
Did you see the Fox News story on Sept 24?
I know some would question the veracity of the report, assuming that Fox is skewed to the right. But if accurate, it gives us an idea of where both candidates and representatives of their respective parties stand on economic issues.
A series of articles offering more thoughts from Investor's Business Daily, which I just discovered. I would guess that a Business publication might also lean right, but who knows.
Clarice
I know some would question the veracity of the report, assuming that Fox is skewed to the right. But if accurate, it gives us an idea of where both candidates and representatives of their respective parties stand on economic issues.
A series of articles offering more thoughts from Investor's Business Daily, which I just discovered. I would guess that a Business publication might also lean right, but who knows.
Clarice
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Wow! Discourse!
I've been quite busy the past week so I haven't stopped by this blog in a while. I didn't realize that we had comments to some of our posts. I'm very much looking forward to thinking through the issues that have been raised and starting new threads of conversation.
Clarice
Clarice
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Widow's Mite vs. Other People's Money
Why is it that the working poor give the most money to charities relative to their earnings? Remember Jesus' observations on charitable giving in the Bible?
The Widow's Offering
Mark 12:41-44 NIV (thanks to biblegateway.com)
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,[a]worth only a fraction of a penny.[b]
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
So, I've heard that conservatives far outgive liberals in money and time resources. Let's examine a few candidates...
Obamas: According to this Arthur C. Brooks's article, the Obamas gave less than one percent of their income during 2000-2004 when their average income was $244,000. After media fallout and their income raising to nearly a million dollars, then they generously started giving about 5% to charities.
BTW, the national average for charitable giving is 2.2%. The poor give the most, followed by the rich. The middle class gives the least.
Clintons: According to The Tax Foundation, the Clintons have averaged over 8% in charitable giving from 2000-2006, with a peak of over 12% in 2004. Not bad.
George W's: I couldn't find recent tax info, but this article gives early 1990s numbers typically over 10%.
Bidens: This record shows Bidens' giving since 2000 at far less than 1%. Biden's spokesperson David Wade claims he gives to his church - so I ask who gives to a charity and doesn't claim it on his taxes?
Gore: The Washington Post, for example, shows he gave about 0.2% one year, to the tune of less than $400, but he gave over 5% another year.
For contrast, try this giving level: In 2005, the Cheneys gave away 78% of their income to the tune of $6.9 million!!! Now, I don't think they do this every year.
But this takes the cake! R.G. LeTourneau, one of the world’s greatest inventors of earthmoving equipment and founder of LeTourneau University, gave away 94% of his income yearly before he died, according to his autobiography, Mover of Men & Mountains.
And any good Christian knows that Biblical tithing is a minimum of ten percent. When I was a toddler, my dad started giving me a weekly allowance of $1. I was taught to give a dime to the church as my tithe and a nickel toward a missionary. Thankfully, I wasn't taxed on the remaining 85 cents.
Here's a link with a few more fun facts about how liberals like to give away OPM (Other People's Money) through taxes and government socialism, but not their own.
So, who really cares about the poor?
Ian
The Widow's Offering
Mark 12:41-44 NIV (thanks to biblegateway.com)
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,[a]worth only a fraction of a penny.[b]
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
So, I've heard that conservatives far outgive liberals in money and time resources. Let's examine a few candidates...
Obamas: According to this Arthur C. Brooks's article, the Obamas gave less than one percent of their income during 2000-2004 when their average income was $244,000. After media fallout and their income raising to nearly a million dollars, then they generously started giving about 5% to charities.
BTW, the national average for charitable giving is 2.2%. The poor give the most, followed by the rich. The middle class gives the least.
Clintons: According to The Tax Foundation, the Clintons have averaged over 8% in charitable giving from 2000-2006, with a peak of over 12% in 2004. Not bad.
George W's: I couldn't find recent tax info, but this article gives early 1990s numbers typically over 10%.
Bidens: This record shows Bidens' giving since 2000 at far less than 1%. Biden's spokesperson David Wade claims he gives to his church - so I ask who gives to a charity and doesn't claim it on his taxes?
Gore: The Washington Post, for example, shows he gave about 0.2% one year, to the tune of less than $400, but he gave over 5% another year.
For contrast, try this giving level: In 2005, the Cheneys gave away 78% of their income to the tune of $6.9 million!!! Now, I don't think they do this every year.
But this takes the cake! R.G. LeTourneau, one of the world’s greatest inventors of earthmoving equipment and founder of LeTourneau University, gave away 94% of his income yearly before he died, according to his autobiography, Mover of Men & Mountains.
And any good Christian knows that Biblical tithing is a minimum of ten percent. When I was a toddler, my dad started giving me a weekly allowance of $1. I was taught to give a dime to the church as my tithe and a nickel toward a missionary. Thankfully, I wasn't taxed on the remaining 85 cents.
Here's a link with a few more fun facts about how liberals like to give away OPM (Other People's Money) through taxes and government socialism, but not their own.
So, who really cares about the poor?
Ian
Unequal Pay?
During Obama's acceptance speak at the DNC, he said; "Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work."
Hmm, so why, according to seattlepi.com's research or multiple listings if you google "obama female pay," does Obama pay his female Senate staff on average 83% of what he pays his male staff? And why is he getting away with accusing McCain of opposing equal pay for equal work when McCain actually pays his female staff slightly more than his male staff on average?
Who's the hypocrite?
Ian
Hmm, so why, according to seattlepi.com's research or multiple listings if you google "obama female pay," does Obama pay his female Senate staff on average 83% of what he pays his male staff? And why is he getting away with accusing McCain of opposing equal pay for equal work when McCain actually pays his female staff slightly more than his male staff on average?
Who's the hypocrite?
Ian
Getting in their faces
Barack Obama said something on the campaign trail that I found interesting...and a bit revealing.
He said:
I found it interesting because as a follower of Jesus, I've made it a goal to tell people about the amazing kind of life I've found in Jesus just in case His way of living could make a profound difference in their own lives. Actually, I'm pretty convinced that Jesus' way is the best way possible, but I have to frame my mental thinking according to my first statement. See, any other way, then I'm accused of proselytizing, of trying to convert, of ramming my religion down the throats of others, of being intolerant of the beliefs of others, of (because I work for the University) violating the separation of church and state.
It seems to me that those who have been most ardent about taking religion out of government and education and anything public are usually from the left end of the political spectrum. So it's not okay to "argue" about religion or "get in their face" about their spiritual lives, but it is okay....even encouraged...no, let's call this mandated...to do the same about what Obama's campaign is promoting. So what's the difference? Aren't political views usually a reflection of a belief system? That's just one aspect of what he said that bugged me. There's a hint of hypocrisy there (and I am willing to admit that the right has its own hypocrisy...just not always so rabid). Here's the other. If a person really believes he/she has something great to offer me, I'm happy to discuss it and willing to be persuaded, because I'd love to pursue those things that might offer benefit to my life and the lives of others. But if a person's approach is to be invasive, then I start to think that it's not really about the common good, but instead about what he/she wants for self instead. And the argument seems rather self-serving.
I generally like to think more about good things to move toward rather than negative things to move away from. Thus, I would much rather spend time thinking about what the McCain/Palin ticket offers that would persuade me to vote for them rather than what dissuades me from voting for Obama/Biden. But this is one framework of thinking revealed in Obama's quote leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
Clarice
He said:
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”
I found it interesting because as a follower of Jesus, I've made it a goal to tell people about the amazing kind of life I've found in Jesus just in case His way of living could make a profound difference in their own lives. Actually, I'm pretty convinced that Jesus' way is the best way possible, but I have to frame my mental thinking according to my first statement. See, any other way, then I'm accused of proselytizing, of trying to convert, of ramming my religion down the throats of others, of being intolerant of the beliefs of others, of (because I work for the University) violating the separation of church and state.
It seems to me that those who have been most ardent about taking religion out of government and education and anything public are usually from the left end of the political spectrum. So it's not okay to "argue" about religion or "get in their face" about their spiritual lives, but it is okay....even encouraged...no, let's call this mandated...to do the same about what Obama's campaign is promoting. So what's the difference? Aren't political views usually a reflection of a belief system? That's just one aspect of what he said that bugged me. There's a hint of hypocrisy there (and I am willing to admit that the right has its own hypocrisy...just not always so rabid). Here's the other. If a person really believes he/she has something great to offer me, I'm happy to discuss it and willing to be persuaded, because I'd love to pursue those things that might offer benefit to my life and the lives of others. But if a person's approach is to be invasive, then I start to think that it's not really about the common good, but instead about what he/she wants for self instead. And the argument seems rather self-serving.
I generally like to think more about good things to move toward rather than negative things to move away from. Thus, I would much rather spend time thinking about what the McCain/Palin ticket offers that would persuade me to vote for them rather than what dissuades me from voting for Obama/Biden. But this is one framework of thinking revealed in Obama's quote leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
Clarice
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Getting to know McCain
I haven't been a big fan of John McCain up to this point. I suppose the "Maverick" title gave me a poor first impression. But when he made Sarah Palin his surprise choice for running mate, I was a bit more interested in what makes him tick.
Then I heard his speech at the RNC. I had heard that he wasn't a great speaker. I wasn't wowed by his speaking ability, but I was certainly struck by his story and his earnestness (at least what I interpreted as such).
A few days ago, I remembered that my sister-in-law told me that McCain's daughter, Meghan, has been on the campaign trail with him and has been blogging about her experience. I think you can tell a lot about a man by what his daughter thinks of him. She seems to think highly of him. You can check out her "musings" at mccainblogette.com. Oh, and she wrote a children's book about her dad. I think I'll be getting this for Jackson.
Clarice
Then I heard his speech at the RNC. I had heard that he wasn't a great speaker. I wasn't wowed by his speaking ability, but I was certainly struck by his story and his earnestness (at least what I interpreted as such).
A few days ago, I remembered that my sister-in-law told me that McCain's daughter, Meghan, has been on the campaign trail with him and has been blogging about her experience. I think you can tell a lot about a man by what his daughter thinks of him. She seems to think highly of him. You can check out her "musings" at mccainblogette.com. Oh, and she wrote a children's book about her dad. I think I'll be getting this for Jackson.
Clarice
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Party Observations
The candidates this election season seem to be more polar opposite on issues than I remember in past elections. I've been noticing a few gross generality differences between the two main parties, or even more generally, liberals and conservatives.
On the Meyers Briggs test: Democrats tend to make decisions based on feelings and Republicans tend to make decisions based on thinking.
On the glass half full/empty of water: Democrats tend to be pessimistic on America and Republicans tend to be optimistic.
On deferred gratification: Democrats tend to focus on short term fixes and Republicans tend to focus on long term fixes.
On media: Democrats seem to dominate TV news while Republicans dominate radio talk shows. But the blogosphere is the great equalizer.
On evil: Democrats tend to believe people do evil things if they didn't get enough hugs growing up and Republicans tend to understand that every person is capable of evil because of our sin nature and the presence of demonic spiritual influences.
As the saying goes; "If you're in your twenties and you're not a Democrat, you don't have a heart. If you're in your forties and you're not a Republican, you don't have a brain."
Fortunately, these party differences make for good checks and balances to protect us from extremism and corruption.
Ian
On the Meyers Briggs test: Democrats tend to make decisions based on feelings and Republicans tend to make decisions based on thinking.
On the glass half full/empty of water: Democrats tend to be pessimistic on America and Republicans tend to be optimistic.
On deferred gratification: Democrats tend to focus on short term fixes and Republicans tend to focus on long term fixes.
On media: Democrats seem to dominate TV news while Republicans dominate radio talk shows. But the blogosphere is the great equalizer.
On evil: Democrats tend to believe people do evil things if they didn't get enough hugs growing up and Republicans tend to understand that every person is capable of evil because of our sin nature and the presence of demonic spiritual influences.
As the saying goes; "If you're in your twenties and you're not a Democrat, you don't have a heart. If you're in your forties and you're not a Republican, you don't have a brain."
Fortunately, these party differences make for good checks and balances to protect us from extremism and corruption.
Ian
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11 Censorship
Earlier this year, I flew to Jordan to stunt coordinate a stoning-to-death scene for director Cyrus Nowrasteh in a movie called The Stoning of Soraya M./ It's a daring true story of corruption in the name of religion; one of those horrible stories that needs to be told but too many people are afraid to stand up and tell the truth. Cyrus is one of my heros.
Cyrus wrote a movie called The Path to 9/11 that attempts to explain how the 9/11 attack was allowed to happen; another true story that needs to be told. But this TV miniseries is being censored by Bill Clinton, according to a new documentary called Blocking "The Path to 9/11" The Anatomy of a Smear, and Disney has chosen to take a loss of $40M rather than face the Clinton machine. Read more about it at Fox News.
Ian
Cyrus wrote a movie called The Path to 9/11 that attempts to explain how the 9/11 attack was allowed to happen; another true story that needs to be told. But this TV miniseries is being censored by Bill Clinton, according to a new documentary called Blocking "The Path to 9/11" The Anatomy of a Smear, and Disney has chosen to take a loss of $40M rather than face the Clinton machine. Read more about it at Fox News.
Ian
9/11 Seven Years Later
Today is historic for me because I swear in as an American Citizen. It's also seven years since the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. We can be grateful to all the Americans who have proactively kept America safe in the last seven years. And we can be grateful to President Bush for leading us.
Ann Coulter at Townhall.com compares liberal attitudes toward terrrorism to liberal attitudes toward reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minnesota. We absolutely cannot be passive about terrorism or aging infrastructure because innocent lives will be lost if we forget our history and the realities of evil in many hearts. And yes, there is a cost to preventative measures.
During the DNC, terrorism was hardly if ever mentioned. We cannot be lulled into thinking that we are actually safe. Here is a list from Fox News of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking radioactive-laced "dirty bomb" to use in an attack against Amrica. Padilla was convicted of conspiracy in August, 2007.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda after attending jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• Click to view photos of suspected terrorists and attack sites.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with plotting to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up natural gas refinery in Wyoming, the Transcontinental Pipeline, and a refinery in New Jersey. Reynolds was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to bomb New York City train tunnels.
• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.
• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey. The plan included attacking and killing soldiers using assault rifles and grenades.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men are accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries that run through residential neighborhoods at JFK Airport in New York.
• September 2007, German authorities disrupt a terrorist cell that was planning attacks on military installations and facilities used by Americans in Germany. The Germans arrested three suspected members of the Islamic Jihad Union, a group that has links to Al Qaeda and supports Al Qaeda's global jihadist agenda.
Let's remember those who have given their lives and reputations for our safety by staying vigilant and electing John McCain.
Ian
Ann Coulter at Townhall.com compares liberal attitudes toward terrrorism to liberal attitudes toward reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minnesota. We absolutely cannot be passive about terrorism or aging infrastructure because innocent lives will be lost if we forget our history and the realities of evil in many hearts. And yes, there is a cost to preventative measures.
During the DNC, terrorism was hardly if ever mentioned. We cannot be lulled into thinking that we are actually safe. Here is a list from Fox News of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking radioactive-laced "dirty bomb" to use in an attack against Amrica. Padilla was convicted of conspiracy in August, 2007.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda after attending jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• Click to view photos of suspected terrorists and attack sites.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with plotting to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up natural gas refinery in Wyoming, the Transcontinental Pipeline, and a refinery in New Jersey. Reynolds was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to bomb New York City train tunnels.
• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Mohammedalso plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.
• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey. The plan included attacking and killing soldiers using assault rifles and grenades.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men are accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries that run through residential neighborhoods at JFK Airport in New York.
• September 2007, German authorities disrupt a terrorist cell that was planning attacks on military installations and facilities used by Americans in Germany. The Germans arrested three suspected members of the Islamic Jihad Union, a group that has links to Al Qaeda and supports Al Qaeda's global jihadist agenda.
Let's remember those who have given their lives and reputations for our safety by staying vigilant and electing John McCain.
Ian
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Flip-Flopping
There seem to be no lack of negative statements on all sides about a politician flip-flopping on an issue. I flip-flop if I make a statement without knowing all the facts and then learn more about the issue. Is flip-flopping always negative? It's sometime hard to find the truth or trust the source. But I would think that a public person would do more research, especially before voting in the Senate, for example. What I do dislike is when a politician skirts an issue or flip-flops seemingly in reaction to a poll. Why not state your conviction and stick with it?
So, here's an opportunity for you, my readers, to discuss your favorite flip-flops. Here's one to get us started:
Sarah Palin initially approved the Bridge To Nowhere, then defeated it, and now I hear that she kept the money. How much of this is fact and how much spin? Would there not have been a public outcry, especially from Democrats, if she had kept $400 Million of Federal taxpayer money for Alaska? Wouldn't somebody want to know where that money was going to be spent instead? I mean, if Sarah is being held accountable for accepting $50 per day to sleep in her own home when she's away from the governor's mansion, surely somebody would care about this apparent inconsistency of not really giving $400M back to the taxpayers, especially while bragging about reform? Unless it's a myth!
Talk amongst yourselves, then post a comment...
Ian
So, here's an opportunity for you, my readers, to discuss your favorite flip-flops. Here's one to get us started:
Sarah Palin initially approved the Bridge To Nowhere, then defeated it, and now I hear that she kept the money. How much of this is fact and how much spin? Would there not have been a public outcry, especially from Democrats, if she had kept $400 Million of Federal taxpayer money for Alaska? Wouldn't somebody want to know where that money was going to be spent instead? I mean, if Sarah is being held accountable for accepting $50 per day to sleep in her own home when she's away from the governor's mansion, surely somebody would care about this apparent inconsistency of not really giving $400M back to the taxpayers, especially while bragging about reform? Unless it's a myth!
Talk amongst yourselves, then post a comment...
Ian
Not Imposing
I was talking to a friend recently about abortion and she said that she would never have an abortion herself, but she doesn't believe in imposing that belief on others. Not having a good answer at the ready and not wanting to appear instantly judgmental, I rambled on about other issues of imposing on others such as seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws.
But I do have an answer for the not-legislating-morality crowd. Government legislates all sorts of morality for the common good. Such morality is found in the Bible, which many reject, but more universally than that everybody has a born understanding of right and wrong through our consciences. Of course government should legislate against moral issues such as murder and abuse. Nobody questions that!
So, for those who wouldn't abort their own unborn baby but also wouldn't force others to save their unborn "fetal tissue," that unwanted baby has the potential of contributing to society, even if severely handicapped or unwanted, and needs to be protected at all stages of life. We humans do not get to choose who lives and who doesn't; we must do our best to save life when it is within our ability. Abortion is murder, and exceedingly violent, and government should impose legislation to protect all human life.
Ian
But I do have an answer for the not-legislating-morality crowd. Government legislates all sorts of morality for the common good. Such morality is found in the Bible, which many reject, but more universally than that everybody has a born understanding of right and wrong through our consciences. Of course government should legislate against moral issues such as murder and abuse. Nobody questions that!
So, for those who wouldn't abort their own unborn baby but also wouldn't force others to save their unborn "fetal tissue," that unwanted baby has the potential of contributing to society, even if severely handicapped or unwanted, and needs to be protected at all stages of life. We humans do not get to choose who lives and who doesn't; we must do our best to save life when it is within our ability. Abortion is murder, and exceedingly violent, and government should impose legislation to protect all human life.
Ian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
