Friday, January 22, 2010

The Switch that Saves Lives

In 1973, there was a young, childless couple living in Dallas. As most barren couples are, they desperately wanted children of their own. Somehow, they came to be aware of another young woman, this one single and pregnant, searching for someone to provide her with an abortion. At the time, even searching for someone to provide an abortion was criminal, much less the act itself. Both parties wound up in court over the matter-the young girl to fight the law that outlawed her "choice", and the young couple fighting for that very girl's unborn child. Dallas County allowed the young girl to proceed with her case against the state, but the couple was prohibited from pursuing theirs any further. The court's decision was based on the idea that you could not be in defense of another life if that other life wasn't a life at all, rather an "unborn".

Since that day, fiery battles have raged and lives have been lost over the terminology of conception. Pro-Choicers would have that babies don't grow in the womb, and it's not a baby kicking, breathing, eating, and sleeping. Rather, embryos, fetuses, and the unborn perform all these actions. These switches in terminology are key to a pro-choicers argument. Language is a very powerful force and an important cultural indicator, and it's much more powerful to call abortion baby killing than fetus-terminating or embryo-removing. If we call them babies, then that's exactly what they are. But if we call them the unborn, well that sounds a lot like the undead, and who's not ok killing zombies? This terminology debate started in the mid 70s along with environmentalism, animal rights legislation, and other traditional liberal sticking points. As society has become more liberal (read: hippie-esque), we have continued time and time again to depersonify pregnancy with our words and terms. This makes abortion legislation easier to pass and easier for the public to condone; Americans would never condone baby killing, but we sure vote for law makers who legalize using a vacuum hose to suck out all the contents of a woman's womb, or use bamboo sticks to pierce the cervix and absorb the placenta fluids so the life inside dies a slow, torturous death.

One could argue that American citizens are becoming more conservative in the wake of the Obama administration; the election in Massachusetts would certainly point to this trend. If one observes closely, there is also a country wide trend toward traditional family values (the destruction of prop 8 in CA and resistance to alternative marriage legislation in many other states) and moderation. The trends are inevitably interlinked, and the bigger picture shows that those grass-roots independents and sign-holding conservatives are the same people decrying the morally ambiguous and ethically bankrupt things that happen in our country today. Just as in the 70s when we started a downward slide into murky moral waters, our terminology is changing again as we climb back upwards.

The young couple aforementioned believed they were acting in defense of another human being when they went to court to stop the young girl from having an abortion. Scott Roeder also believed he was acting in defense of other human beings (past, present, and future) when he walked into a Kansas church and downed a late-term abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller, with one shot. Dr. Tiller performed late term abortions (even though there is a federal law on the books prohibiting late term abortions, many states continue to offer these procedures), which means that he terminates and then surgically removes babies that are anywhere from 16 weeks from birth to 2 weeks from birth. At 20 weeks, the baby is 8-10 inches long, has all fingers and toes, a heartbeat, eyelashes, and fingernails. Even staunch pro-choicers can't argue that's not life. Mr. Roeder is now in court facing murder charges for the death of Dr. Tiller. In this gruesome theater, there was not expected to be any surprises. There were many witnesses, it was clearly pre-meditated, and showed extreme violence and lack of remorse. Something happened, however, that shifted the entire trial and blasted this case into the stratosphere. The judge has allowed Mr. Roeder to argue that his actions were in the defense of other human beings. The law clearly states that one may defend another human being's life. Life is the key word. The law, at least in Kansas, has acknowledged life in the womb. If the state had continued to only refer to pre-birth babies as embryos or fetuses, the law wouldn't have applied. The state had to concede the existence of life in order for there to be defense of life. Voila, terminology switch!

The collective of our country is changing. We are beginning to wake up and embrace the right things-family, faith, and freedom, and dismiss that which is not sound logically, ethically, or morally. When our culture changes, so do our words. Our culture is changing, and as evidenced in Kansas, so are our words.

In 1973, a one Ms. Roe got her day in court and won herself an abortion and changed everything. While murder is never the answer, it's about time all those fighting for life, like that young couple, get their day in court and their chance to change everything.

The Scott Roeder murder trial coverage can be found here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

ACOGs for Jesus

Looks like the Satanists are getting revenge for the secret messages on heavy metal albums being exposed.

US Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret "Jesus" Codes

We train young men to drop fire on people... but we won't let
them write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene!
- Col Kurtz, Apocalypse Now

Note that it's not even the morality of killing human beings that's being discussed here. It's that someone being killed might be offended. It's okay to kill people, you just can't hurt their feelings.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

The Sum of it All

I recently read The 5000 Year Leap, and was surprised that there was nothing earth shattering or some great conservative (or libertarian) secret waiting to be learned. What I did learn was that our country is in trouble and without some type of paradigm shift America will be lost to us as we know.

The overarching theme I have seemed to discover through my reading of book on politics, philosophy, religion etc. I have finally recognized that we, as Americans, as a general rule are missing something so simple, so obvious that we should slap ourselves for missing it.

Our nation was founded as a society of virtue, children were instructed how to be virtuous from their parents and from the elementary schools they attended. America was a place were religion was encouraged and was proliferated throughout society as a whole. Children were taught to be industrious and generous, as their parents practiced it in everything they did.

Alexis de Tocqueville said this about America during the time he visited:

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there. In the fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there. In her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits, aflame with righteousness, did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

So where does that statement leave us? This is the point where Ayn Rand and I diverge, man needs to fill his spiritual hole in his heart to be complete. It can be argued that the founding fathers thought it important for Christian men and women to be involved in government. The founding fathers dictated freedom of religion for all, not the absence of Judeo-Christian principles being instilled into our government through its elected representatives.

I have thought on this for a long while, I believe that the word that comes to mind is balance. Balance in everything spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and physical balance. It is well and good to excel at making a living, but at the same time if you emotionally or spiritually deficient chances are you will not be happy or you may not be generous to your neighbor when he or she is in need. Is it your responsibility to help you neighbor? In America it isn't, but if you wish to and you feel led to help your neighbor then by all means do so.

An example of the virtue vacuum: Why does everyone get angry when corporate greed is exposed?

It is because greed in itself is wrong (it should not be construed as making a profit). When an example like corporate greed comes to mind, people scream for more government regulations and therefore more restrictions on the market. This in turn hampers the economy and so on and so forth. People have not realized what they have done to themselves. In asking for government protection they erode the very system that sustains them. If that corporate greed, in whatever form it manifested itself, had not occurred, the extra regulations would not have been levied and the free market system would have been left alone and allowed to function as it should. In a virtuous society (in America that usually means one espouses some type of Christian beliefs) greed is frowned upon, hard work is encouraged. Helping a neighbor in need is honorable whether it be giving aid yourself or directing them to a church with more resources than yourself.

Balance and personal responsibility are the answer to America's problems. America's churches and other not for profit organizations, no matter the religious affiliation, are the answer to solving the poverty question, not by giving the poor everything they need but giving the poor what they need to become productive members in society. Business on all levels would be cleaned up because business men and women would be concerned providing good and services for their customers while exhibiting honesty and integrity while making a profit. Government would be less involved in regulation and in taxing the citizenry and business. Government would be more fiscally responsible and accountable to its citizens.

As of now there is rampant spending by the government when there is no money in the treasury, massive entitlement programs that do not work or about to be bankrupt with more programs on the way to help the "poor" in our country, the continuous attempts by a socialist congress to cause the complete abdication of personal responsibility to the federal government, government officials involved in criminal and morally irresponsible scandals among other things.

Alexis de Tocqueville also said this:

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

I say, "Liberty and Freedom through Virtue instead of Restraint and Servitude through Socialism!"

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Google Is...

Christianity is bullshit.
Judaism is false.
Buddhism is wrong.
Hinduism is not a religion.

Islam is ________.

From "Blameitonthevoices".
Also posted at Jawa Report.

Check their links - they found it & disseminated it.

Then try it yourself. Just typed them in as of about 2130 CST 1/7/2010. These are screenshots I took just a few minutes before posting.





Islam is false, not a religion, and bullshit. See if you can find that, Google. Islam is good, peaceful, benevolent, and is not supportive of terrorism. Still nothing?

For a corporate motto that goes "Don't be evil," Google sure was okay with suppressing info about the Tiennamen Square Massacre, Climategate, and now Islam. Not just criticisms of Islam - stuff like: Islam is the cause for a huge amount of the world's terrorism, Islam is Bullshit, but also that Islam is Submission (factually correct), Islam is one of the world's major religions, or even that Islam is not Bullshit or Islam is a Religion of Peace or even Islam is Good. Positive sites about Islam are left out of the suggestions, too.

Nope, no suggestions whatsoever - except for the glaring contrast of other major religions.

Although, to be fair, typing in "Mohammed is" comes back with suggestions "a false prophet" and "the antichrist". The worst responses for "Jesus is", by contrast, come back with "my homeboy" and "just alright".
"Buddha is" comes back with a suggestion that seems like a koan.
Edited to add:
A commenter on Jawa noted that "the koran is" prompts some interesting responses. So before that's sanitized:
No "religionist Xs are" comes up with a response. "Christians are", "muslims are" come up with no suggestions. The reason for this is because "jews are" used to come up with some decidedly negative suggestions. Note that Google has had a problem with anti-semitic search results in the past.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Saturday, January 2, 2010