Thursday, July 30, 2015

"Hands Up! Don't Crush!"

I’m borrowing “Hands Up! Don’t Crush!” from a meme I saw on Facebook. It has a baby in the womb with her hands above her head—an obvious reference to the wanton murdering of innocent preborn babies. 

It’s an unconscionable fact: Over 50,000,000 preborn and partially born babies have been legally murdered in the United States. This is proof positive that there is often a world of difference between what is legal and what is moral 

It’s undeniable. In the USA killing babies is big business.  

And make no mistake. It is baby-killing. Both Princeton ethicist, Peter Sanger, and deceased atheist, ChristopherHitchens, point this out. There is no biological, logical, or rational difference between killing a baby inside the womb and killing her outside it. The birth canal isn’t magical. The baby in the room is the very same baby in the womb—no change of being or essence.  

Nevertheless the barbarism continues. 

Then there’s this (see video below). 

Many are livid about the video—but not at Planned Parenthood. No. These angry people want to investigate the makers of the film but not the murderers of the babies. This should come as no surprise. 

Think about it. 

Why would folks who support slaughtering live babies oppose selling dead ones? 

But I do have a question for the pro-abortion folks who stand for what they say is a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. Whose body parts are being sold to the highest bidder?


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Christian Libertarianism, Anyone?

A Facebook friend wrote: “It [Libertarianism] is a reaction against statism. But it is a reaction which neglects to remember God.

I pointed out that his statement is a sweeping generalization and that it could be used to hastily dismiss libertarian ideals. Below is a presentation of our ensuing conversation.

His words are bold and italicized.


“Libertarianism as I'm using the term is a godless philosophy predicated upon a false premise. Libertarianism, as I'm using it here, exalts the individual and wars against the principle of God-ordained civil government . . ."

If this is how you define "libertarianism" what's left to discuss? It seems to me that you are conflating "libertarianism" with anarchism. I favor neither anarchy nor your caricatured view of libertarianism.

“Please feel free to contrast what you think is ‘Libertarianism’ with how I've used the term. . . . If you aren't in favor of anarchy, that's great! So where do you see the proper jurisdictional boundary between the individual and civil government?”

First, I don't believe libertarianism is necessarily godless.

Also, I don't believe it is anti-government. I personally favor a non-intrusive form of governance. (As things presently are, our personal liberties are shrinking by the day. There's not much the government doesn't regulate or manipulate.)

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "proper jurisdictional boundary."

Personally, I think the Christian should obey the civil government unless or until the civil government commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands. (The lengths to which one should go in disobeying are debatable.)

This principle of obedience however, doesn't mean that I think the government is behaving "properly" towards its own citizens or the citizens of other countries. (As I've said many times: What is "legal" is not necessarily what is moral.)

Finally, does the Bible extol the Nanny-Police-State? I don't believe it does. Does it embrace anarchy? I don't believe it does.

So, can a Bible-believing Christian desire a limited, non-intrusive government which seeks to uphold personal liberties and/or responsibilities of individuals?

Can a Christian prefer a model of self-governance (self-control or temperance) to a top-down, intrusive, heavy-handed civil government paradigm?

I believe the answer to both questions is yes.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Symbols Over Substance

The past few weeks have been quite extraordinary. The Supreme Court’s been awfully busy and folks are in a dither everywhere.

Gay marriage is now the law of the land. Obama celebrated this feat by lighting up the Whitehouse with rainbows; and over the Fourth of July weekend Chicagoans celebrated it by lighting up the streets with bullets.

Thankfully, none of Chicago’s 10 dead and 55 wounded was or is gay—or shot by cops. (I know this because Al Sharpton and GLAAD have said nary a word.) But still, shouldn’t a nation do something about the indiscriminate violence so rampant within its “urban youth” community?

We should and we have.

First, we’ve tackled what can only be called a national embarrassment since 1979. I’m speaking of course of “The Dukes of Hazzard.” Say what you will, but the General Lee is entirely too racy for today’s sensitivities.

Sure, I loved the Dukes as a kid! But that’s because I was too mesmerized by Daisy Mae to notice all the Black people not on the show. That’s how they get you.

Second, South Carolina has removed the Confederate Flag (or whatever it is) from their state capitol. I’ve never been to South Carolina’s state capitol and may never make the pilgrimage, so I don’t really care all that much. But the symbol of hate and/or heritage is gone!

Third, and not to be outdone by South Carolina, the Memphis City Council unanimously voted to remove the remains of Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife from their perhaps not so final resting place. They did this because nothing—and I mean nothing—says “Black lives matter” more than desecrating the graves of White racists.

It’s the new American way: Symbolism over substance. Said another way, we prefer feeling better to fighting disease.