More words from my Pastor... He has a way with words..
The sticky slope of abortion mottoes
Here's what the anti-abortion people think when they see the pro-abortion movement's bumper stickers.
By Paul Viggiano
Strolling Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade with my very expectant wife, the bumper-sticker merchants were amassing their armory in preparation for South Dakota's alleged siege on Roe v. Wade.
I don't recall ever having a bumper sticker. They seem incomplete -- and the more complete ones have led me into near accidents. I try to be a thorough reader.
Here is my effort to propitiate the pro-choice frustration and give the inside story of what pro-lifers see when they read pro-choice bumper-stickers. Since it is always helpful to accurately understand the thinking of those with whom you disagree, this should benefit everyone.
"Against Abortion? Don't Have One" is concise and clear. Keep your ethics to yourself! The libertarian in us all appreciates this. But does it always work? How would these slogans fly? "Against Clubbing Baby Seals? Turn In Your Bat." "Against The Tobacco Companies? Don't Smoke." "Against War? Don't Start One." The real question is what should be restricted to personal ethics and what should be a crime?
Hence the following.
"Keep Your Laws Off My Body." "No U.S. Intervention Into Women's Wombs." "U.S. Out Of My Uterus." These seek to paint the grotesque Orwellian picture of the Washington Monument surgically invading the woman's sanctum sanctorum. In my lectures to the underground church in China, I met one pastor who had been in a labor camp for voicing a similar sentiment -- but in a substantially different political landscape. In China, the government requires abortions for families that become too large. Now that's invasive.
Here's the watershed. If the unborn is a human being, then to terminate the unborn is to terminate a human being, which (I think all would agree) should be a crime. The question is, and always will be, when does life begin? I am not going to pursue that here, suffice it to say there is disagreement. Pro-lifers are unmoved by these bumper-stickers because their system of ethics is such that they believe life begins at conception. They are, therefore morally compelled to believe that abortion is not merely unethical but a crime.
It's not enough to tell pro-lifers to keep their ethics to themselves. A movement, for example, to allow parents to terminate 1-year-olds would (I pray) be resisted by all. For the members of this crazy movement to assert that, in their opinion, life doesn't begin until 13 months would be insane, even if they found a new word to describe the baby. Their bumper sticker might read "No U.S. Intervention In My Crib." Some sins are crimes.
The following bumper stickers, "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice" and "I'm Pro-Choice And I Pray" attempt to demonstrate the higher moral ground the pro-choicers are seeking to take. When I first saw "I'm Pro-Choice And I Pray," my mind was swept to the baptism scene in "The Godfather." To whom is one praying that allows this system of ethics? The historic atrocities done in the name of religion were spearheaded by people who prayed.
"Be A Voice For Choice," "Every Child A Wanted Child" and "A World Of Wanted Children Would Make A World Of Difference" is what poker players call a "tell." Implicit in this message is the idea of unwanted children who must be done away with. This is a dangerous philosophy for 12- to 14-year-olds.
The confusion of "How Can You Be Both Pro-Life And Pro War?" and "Unless You Oppose The Death Penalty, Don't Tell Me You're Pro-Life" can be speedily untangled. Innocent babies should be protected, and convicted murderers should be put to death. Innocent babies should be protected, and hostile governments should not be tolerated.
"If You Can't Trust Me With A Choice, How Can You Trust Me With A Child?" was the most famous pro-choice sticker for a long time. To a pro-lifer's ears, this translates to "If You Won't Give Me The Right To Kill My Child, How Can You Trust Me With My Child?" One is inclined to respond, "Obviously, you can't be trusted with either."
Finally, I saw a bumper sticker with a drawing of a little girl about 8 or 9. It read, "My Parents Are Pro-Choice." I'm always suspicious when movements have 8-year-olds as spokespeople. How many children under 11 are savvy enough to stay on top of the war effort or principles involving constitutional law or Roe v. Wade?
I had never discussed the abortion issue with my 8-year-old daughter. But when my wife miscarried last year at about 8 weeks, we sat down to explain to our children why mommy was no longer going to have a baby. When it dawned on my little girl what we were trying to say, she summed it up the way any child would: "The baby died?" followed by tears.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
DMV sucks...
One car registered, Two to go. Oh how I Loath, I mean Love the Department of Motor Vehicles. At least I can just mail in the Mustang's registration. Ok, off to bed I go...
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Lessons forgotten
"Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished. "
It's sad that we don't learn from our own mistakes. We just seem to forget lessons we learned. Maybe it's because those who were there failed to pass on the message. I wonder how much longer our ever expanding "drug war" will continue and if someone will pen the same feelings about it. I wonder if we'll pass the message on to our children or will they just continue the cycle into the next "Prohibition epidemic".
It's sad that we don't learn from our own mistakes. We just seem to forget lessons we learned. Maybe it's because those who were there failed to pass on the message. I wonder how much longer our ever expanding "drug war" will continue and if someone will pen the same feelings about it. I wonder if we'll pass the message on to our children or will they just continue the cycle into the next "Prohibition epidemic".
Friday, March 10, 2006
A quote from John Stewart
However liberal Stewart is personally, his best jokes are always mildly conservative.
He twitted the Hollywood audience, saying:
"I have to say it is a little shocking to see all these big names here, these huge stars. The Oscars is really, I guess, the one night of the year where you can see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic Party."
He twitted the Hollywood audience, saying:
"I have to say it is a little shocking to see all these big names here, these huge stars. The Oscars is really, I guess, the one night of the year where you can see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic Party."
Just unhappy cosmic accidents?
Now I know that good old Soli posted this on The Renewal Blog but it is a good article and I think we should keep it in circulation as long as possible, so I'm reposting it hear.
Just unhappy cosmic accidents?
The intelligent thing about teaching intelligent design is that it suggests to young people that they might have been part of a valuable plan.
By Paul Viggiano
Toward the end of my teaching career, I witnessed a good-faith effort to bolster the self-esteem of the students of a local high school. The faculty wanted the kids to know they were special.
Virtually every student who was capable of making it to school that day was given an award. After about the 800th award, the students began drawing an inevitable conclusion: "All this means is that none of us is special." A minor litter problem followed the event.
Poor self-image apparently has become an epidemic. Educators rifle endless avenues seeking to solve this crisis. Instilling a sense of inherent value in a teenager is no small task. Telling them they're smart, pretty, talented or funny is simply falling short. Our failures in this arena have been disastrous.
The third leading killer of teens is suicide, following only unintentional injuries (which may not be unintentional at all) and homicides. Our children are killing themselves. It's estimated that for every successful suicide, there are eight to 25 unsuccessful attempts; thank God for this incompetence.
The teen suicide rate has tripled since the 1960s. As one who was in school in the '60s and taught in the '70s, '80s and '90s, I offer my observation.
In the early '60s the "God notion" was becoming an unacceptable hypothesis for government-funded educational institutions. This created a black hole in the human soul. Something was gone, with no replacement forthcoming.
My attempt in the early '90s to notify these young, desperate minds that this vacuum simply cannot be filled by anything but God found me escorted out of my classroom by two gentlemen with walkie-talkies and dark glasses. I was not invited back until, shockingly, about a month ago.
During my guest lecture, I had access to eager teenage thoughts for more than an hour. I felt like I was throwing buckets of water on a dry and thirsty land when I told them they were each fearfully and wonderfully made by God and in the image of God. Dare I go further? With one eye on the door, I pressed on.
I conveyed that they, perhaps unwittingly, had been taught that their presence on this Earth was a mere accident and that they were themselves accidents. They were savvy. They seemed to pick up on the spiritual and psychological consequences of such a proposition.
We're notifying our youth that they are cosmic accidents, then we're vexed regarding the genesis of their depression. That's like the host of the party informing a guest that she received her invitation by accident and then being mystified at her sorrow, anxiety and desire to leave the party.
The late British theologian J. Sidlow Baxter made a projection: "Those who believe we evolved from the primordial slime have destined themselves, and those who follow, to re-evolve back into the slime from whence they believe they came."
Slime may sound overly pejorative, but I don't think Baxter meant this to be an insult. When his audience laughed, he rebuked them, "You should be weeping!"
Baxter's forecast was profound. Slime has no sense of inherent value. Whoever rejoiced that they were made in the image of slime? Slime doesn't care. It just slimes around. It's not concerned if it hurts itself or others.
Of course young people aren't slime. But we keep blasting this into their little psyches as if we're doing them a favor. Instead of being "fearfully and wonderfully made" in the "image of God"--the Imago Dei -- they're cosmic accidents made in the imago slime.
Whatever one thinks of intelligent design, it must be admitted that the finest minds in the history of human thought, from Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas to Galileo to Einstein to today's Alvin Plantinga, at some level, believed in intelligent design. It seems educationally dishonest to withhold from our children what some of the greatest thinkers in history believed.
Be that as it may, one astute young woman in the class made a startling observation: "Belief in the theory of evolution," she postulated, "requires faith." It requires faith in the scientists, in their instruments, in their observations and above all, in the conclusions they draw based upon those observations.
No materialist has ever managed to bring the Big Bang into their laboratory to scrutinize it according to the scientific method. And the only virtue flowing from the Big Bang are a lot of little bangs taking the lives of children in our neighborhoods. I say we give the kids the good news.
The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance.
Just unhappy cosmic accidents?
The intelligent thing about teaching intelligent design is that it suggests to young people that they might have been part of a valuable plan.
By Paul Viggiano
Toward the end of my teaching career, I witnessed a good-faith effort to bolster the self-esteem of the students of a local high school. The faculty wanted the kids to know they were special.
Virtually every student who was capable of making it to school that day was given an award. After about the 800th award, the students began drawing an inevitable conclusion: "All this means is that none of us is special." A minor litter problem followed the event.
Poor self-image apparently has become an epidemic. Educators rifle endless avenues seeking to solve this crisis. Instilling a sense of inherent value in a teenager is no small task. Telling them they're smart, pretty, talented or funny is simply falling short. Our failures in this arena have been disastrous.
The third leading killer of teens is suicide, following only unintentional injuries (which may not be unintentional at all) and homicides. Our children are killing themselves. It's estimated that for every successful suicide, there are eight to 25 unsuccessful attempts; thank God for this incompetence.
The teen suicide rate has tripled since the 1960s. As one who was in school in the '60s and taught in the '70s, '80s and '90s, I offer my observation.
In the early '60s the "God notion" was becoming an unacceptable hypothesis for government-funded educational institutions. This created a black hole in the human soul. Something was gone, with no replacement forthcoming.
My attempt in the early '90s to notify these young, desperate minds that this vacuum simply cannot be filled by anything but God found me escorted out of my classroom by two gentlemen with walkie-talkies and dark glasses. I was not invited back until, shockingly, about a month ago.
During my guest lecture, I had access to eager teenage thoughts for more than an hour. I felt like I was throwing buckets of water on a dry and thirsty land when I told them they were each fearfully and wonderfully made by God and in the image of God. Dare I go further? With one eye on the door, I pressed on.
I conveyed that they, perhaps unwittingly, had been taught that their presence on this Earth was a mere accident and that they were themselves accidents. They were savvy. They seemed to pick up on the spiritual and psychological consequences of such a proposition.
We're notifying our youth that they are cosmic accidents, then we're vexed regarding the genesis of their depression. That's like the host of the party informing a guest that she received her invitation by accident and then being mystified at her sorrow, anxiety and desire to leave the party.
The late British theologian J. Sidlow Baxter made a projection: "Those who believe we evolved from the primordial slime have destined themselves, and those who follow, to re-evolve back into the slime from whence they believe they came."
Slime may sound overly pejorative, but I don't think Baxter meant this to be an insult. When his audience laughed, he rebuked them, "You should be weeping!"
Baxter's forecast was profound. Slime has no sense of inherent value. Whoever rejoiced that they were made in the image of slime? Slime doesn't care. It just slimes around. It's not concerned if it hurts itself or others.
Of course young people aren't slime. But we keep blasting this into their little psyches as if we're doing them a favor. Instead of being "fearfully and wonderfully made" in the "image of God"--the Imago Dei -- they're cosmic accidents made in the imago slime.
Whatever one thinks of intelligent design, it must be admitted that the finest minds in the history of human thought, from Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas to Galileo to Einstein to today's Alvin Plantinga, at some level, believed in intelligent design. It seems educationally dishonest to withhold from our children what some of the greatest thinkers in history believed.
Be that as it may, one astute young woman in the class made a startling observation: "Belief in the theory of evolution," she postulated, "requires faith." It requires faith in the scientists, in their instruments, in their observations and above all, in the conclusions they draw based upon those observations.
No materialist has ever managed to bring the Big Bang into their laboratory to scrutinize it according to the scientific method. And the only virtue flowing from the Big Bang are a lot of little bangs taking the lives of children in our neighborhoods. I say we give the kids the good news.
The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance.
One of many letters to a Mormon friend of mine...
Hey John,
Reading my Bible last night I ran across some passages which to me, demonstated clearly God's providence and man's will and how they relate to each other. The story is of King David and his numbering of Israel.
1 Chronicles 21
1 And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
-- So here we see Satan moving King David to do a sinful deed.
2 Samuel 24
1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
-- Now here is a telling of the same story, except this time the author says God moves King David to do a sinful deed.
So was it God's or Satan's will and doing? Either God moved Satan to move David, or Satan moved God to move David. Well, I think Job clearly states that it is God who controls Satan and not vice versa.
I don't believe God is the author of sin, but I do believe that the Devil is "God's devil" and God uses Satan and his evil deeds to acomplish his good will. In this passage, just as in Job, it was Satan who did the evil deed, but it was God who predestined it for good. How else can you account for both God and Satan being attributed with moving David in this evil deed?
So if it was God who moved David through Satan, than how can God hold David accountable for his sin? Well, what does David say?
10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done:
-- David knows that he chose to do this sinful action using his own free will. He doesn't accuse God or Satan of influencing him and thus lay guilt on them, but accepts the blame of his own free choice.
David acted of his own free will... it was what he wanted to do..
(he meant it to satisfy his own sinful desires)
Satan acted of his own free will in accordance with his nature as the father of all evil and lies.
(he meant it to satisfy his own sinful desires)
and God acted in accordance with his divine will for his own divine good will and pleasure..
(He meant it for good)
The whole story and all the participants acted completely of thier own free will, and at the same time, completely inside of the will of God.
Reading my Bible last night I ran across some passages which to me, demonstated clearly God's providence and man's will and how they relate to each other. The story is of King David and his numbering of Israel.
1 Chronicles 21
1 And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
-- So here we see Satan moving King David to do a sinful deed.
2 Samuel 24
1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
-- Now here is a telling of the same story, except this time the author says God moves King David to do a sinful deed.
So was it God's or Satan's will and doing? Either God moved Satan to move David, or Satan moved God to move David. Well, I think Job clearly states that it is God who controls Satan and not vice versa.
I don't believe God is the author of sin, but I do believe that the Devil is "God's devil" and God uses Satan and his evil deeds to acomplish his good will. In this passage, just as in Job, it was Satan who did the evil deed, but it was God who predestined it for good. How else can you account for both God and Satan being attributed with moving David in this evil deed?
So if it was God who moved David through Satan, than how can God hold David accountable for his sin? Well, what does David say?
10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done:
-- David knows that he chose to do this sinful action using his own free will. He doesn't accuse God or Satan of influencing him and thus lay guilt on them, but accepts the blame of his own free choice.
David acted of his own free will... it was what he wanted to do..
(he meant it to satisfy his own sinful desires)
Satan acted of his own free will in accordance with his nature as the father of all evil and lies.
(he meant it to satisfy his own sinful desires)
and God acted in accordance with his divine will for his own divine good will and pleasure..
(He meant it for good)
The whole story and all the participants acted completely of thier own free will, and at the same time, completely inside of the will of God.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Catch-22
"You're wasting your time," Doc Daneeka was forced to tell him.
"Can't you ground someone who is crazy?"
"Oh, sure, I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who is crazy."
"Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger."
"Clevinger? Where is Clevenger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him."
"Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am."
"They're crazy."
"Then why don't you ground them?"
"Why don't they ask me to ground them?"
"Because they're crazy, that's why."
"Of course they're crazy," Doc Daneeka replied. "I just told you they're crazy didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide whether you are crazy or not, can you?"
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. "Is Orr crazy?"
"He sure is?" Doc Daneeka said.
"Can you ground him?"
"I sure can. But first he has to ask me. That's part of the rule."
"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"
"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."
"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"
"That's all. Let him ask me."
"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.
"No, Then I can't ground him."
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
This is my favorite scene out of one of my favorite books. It demonstrates the simple absurdity of bureacratic thinking. And it's this line of thinking and reasoning that is pervasive in our government today (and yesterday apparently). It's used to twist laws and thought to fit the needs of whomever is using it. We are constantly flooded with a barrage of irrationalities that are made to appear rational and logical. And then we are told that we are racist, or sexist, or a homophobe or hateful, or greedy, ect, ect, ect, if we choose to rightly pick apart and show the errors of these fallacies. In reallity what we really want is just to expose the irrationality of thier "logic".
Initially I just intended to quote a favorite part of a book. Now I'm wondering should I specify where such devices are used. It everywhere quite frankly. Lawyers use it, judges use it, theologians use it, the news definitely uses it, tv, movies, lobbyist, ect. The list goes on and on.
We truth seekers unfortunately are in the minority. Nobody wants truth anymore. Nobody cares what really happens. They are happy to share in the fate of poor Yossarian. Trapped in an inescappable web of twists and turns which obscure and hinder truth and justice. And then are happy to blame whomever they are told is responsible for thier dillema (no real evidence needed).
I thank God for eyes which see and ears that hear. I think the internet, while used for many evil enterprises, serves as a great tool for those seeking to see beyond the veil of the popular world.
Now that my wandering mind has turned one of my favorite books into a political statement, which I'm still isn't sure makes any sense to anyone but me, I'm gonna go watch "I love Lucy" with my Lucy addicted wife.
"Can't you ground someone who is crazy?"
"Oh, sure, I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who is crazy."
"Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger."
"Clevinger? Where is Clevenger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him."
"Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am."
"They're crazy."
"Then why don't you ground them?"
"Why don't they ask me to ground them?"
"Because they're crazy, that's why."
"Of course they're crazy," Doc Daneeka replied. "I just told you they're crazy didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide whether you are crazy or not, can you?"
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. "Is Orr crazy?"
"He sure is?" Doc Daneeka said.
"Can you ground him?"
"I sure can. But first he has to ask me. That's part of the rule."
"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"
"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."
"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"
"That's all. Let him ask me."
"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.
"No, Then I can't ground him."
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
This is my favorite scene out of one of my favorite books. It demonstrates the simple absurdity of bureacratic thinking. And it's this line of thinking and reasoning that is pervasive in our government today (and yesterday apparently). It's used to twist laws and thought to fit the needs of whomever is using it. We are constantly flooded with a barrage of irrationalities that are made to appear rational and logical. And then we are told that we are racist, or sexist, or a homophobe or hateful, or greedy, ect, ect, ect, if we choose to rightly pick apart and show the errors of these fallacies. In reallity what we really want is just to expose the irrationality of thier "logic".
Initially I just intended to quote a favorite part of a book. Now I'm wondering should I specify where such devices are used. It everywhere quite frankly. Lawyers use it, judges use it, theologians use it, the news definitely uses it, tv, movies, lobbyist, ect. The list goes on and on.
We truth seekers unfortunately are in the minority. Nobody wants truth anymore. Nobody cares what really happens. They are happy to share in the fate of poor Yossarian. Trapped in an inescappable web of twists and turns which obscure and hinder truth and justice. And then are happy to blame whomever they are told is responsible for thier dillema (no real evidence needed).
I thank God for eyes which see and ears that hear. I think the internet, while used for many evil enterprises, serves as a great tool for those seeking to see beyond the veil of the popular world.
Now that my wandering mind has turned one of my favorite books into a political statement, which I'm still isn't sure makes any sense to anyone but me, I'm gonna go watch "I love Lucy" with my Lucy addicted wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)