You likely have heard that yesterday, on the anniversary of Sept.
11, the US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three of his
staff
murdered last night in an attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, as
retaliation for a film made in the US depicting the prophet Mohammad in
an undesirable light. Truly a sad and unfortunate situation.
The US Embassy in Cairo said this:
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing
efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of
Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.
Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who
serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.
Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We
firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of
free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Now, what
is interesting here is that many are considering this statement by the
US Embassy as also a statement by the Obama Administration (meaning it
was perhaps approved by Obama, etc...) and that it is an unAmerican
statement because it effectively apologizes for the American value of
free speech. The Obama administration has indeed distanced themselves
from the statement and says that these are strictly the words of the US
Embassy. What is interesting, though, is that the statement by the US
Embassy is clearly against disrespecting religious beliefs...(naturally,
for it led to a horrible outcome in these recent hours)...and at first I
thought, "Wow, how contradictory for America to be saying that it
doesn't want to disrespect religious beliefs when we have Obamacare
which completely goes against this ideal, ahem, this constitutional
right for freedom of religion". However, Obama has indeed said that
these words are not his words, so he remains exactly where he originally
had been...abusing his right to power as President to hurt the
religious beliefs of many (the Catholic Church!).
I think we may need an increase in checks and balances...is that possible?
I mean, people in other countries are KILLING (which is not
right, but work with me) people in our country because they are so
offended by single acts of disrespect to their religious beliefs. Yet
America's very own President and a whole host of political leaders and
citizens are fighting tirelessly for the right to disrespect the
religious beliefs of Catholic Christians within the very same country.
What an oxymoronic situation! Oh not to mention, we are killing our own
citizens in the womb, and we get all worked up (as we should but again,
work with me) when someone wrongfully kills a few of our men (see
yesterdays attack and other terrorist acts). Are we possibly our own terrorists? And if so, what war should we be fighting?
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Constitutional Right to Kill?
Today marks the 39th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, the court ruling which legalized abortion in the United States. Many pro-life advocates commemorated this ruling with protests in our nation's capital in order to stand up for those in the womb who have been and continue to be murdered out of the convenience of mothers who simply do not want their children.
As I was reading an article about the March for Life in DC today, I noticed a related article on President Obama's comments regarding the anniversary of Roe V. Wade on FoxNews.com. Here it is:
"President Barack Obama is marking the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision by saying that the ruling was more than just about establishing a woman's right to an abortion.
As I was reading an article about the March for Life in DC today, I noticed a related article on President Obama's comments regarding the anniversary of Roe V. Wade on FoxNews.com. Here it is:
"President Barack Obama is marking the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision by saying that the ruling was more than just about establishing a woman's right to an abortion.
Obama says in a statement that the court's decision also makes clear that the government "should not intrude on private family matters."
The president says he's committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and "this fundamental constitutional right.""
This final line was what completely baffled me and led me to the understanding that our President may have never actually read our Constitution. He couldn't have read it, or else he would know that there is nothing in it that states that a woman's "right" to choose must be protected.
I repeat, there is absolutely zero wording in the Constitution that even implies that women have a "right" to kill their own babies within the womb.
Regardless of this not being within the Constitution while there is indeed a 'right to life' included at the forefront, there is so very much wrong with his statement.
"Right to choose" is interesting language, and I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly that we have this right...but not when it comes to choosing to murder our own children in the womb. I just recently watched the movie 'The Ides of March" and was struck by a line in the movie. When one character is attempting to apologize for making a mistake (one that cost him his job) to his boss, he specifically says that it was a mistake and he is sorry for it. To which his boss replies, "You didn't make a mistake, you made a choice."
Every time a person decides to engage in sexual intercourse with another person, he or she is making a choice. They are aware that this action could result in the outcome of becoming pregnant, regardless of whatever contraception measures are being used, there is still the possibility. Thus, their right to choose rests here...not in the aftermath of becoming pregnant and then needing yet to make another choice to keep or destroy the life inside them. For they already made a choice, and it's result could be pregnancy, which at this point, there clearly ought to not need to be a choice to make. I was under the impression that it was fairly obvious that it is wrong to murder your own child, but I guess this is a little foggy for President Obama (not to mention every other pro-"choice" advocate) to understand.
Or is it rather a willed ignorance, that is, the choice to ignore this initial choice of 'do whatever feels good' in the moment without having to think about the reactions that may result from our actions. I, for one, will choose not only to protect life in the womb to the best of my ability, but also to protect the desires of my own heart through a prayerful married life open to God's will with regard to children. I also will choose to educate my children on the great strength and power that lies in the mastery of self in a chaste life, one that dignifies the very existence that in our culture cannot be taken for granted as many of their peers are being aborted at this very second.
The president says he's committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and "this fundamental constitutional right.""
This final line was what completely baffled me and led me to the understanding that our President may have never actually read our Constitution. He couldn't have read it, or else he would know that there is nothing in it that states that a woman's "right" to choose must be protected.
I repeat, there is absolutely zero wording in the Constitution that even implies that women have a "right" to kill their own babies within the womb.
Regardless of this not being within the Constitution while there is indeed a 'right to life' included at the forefront, there is so very much wrong with his statement.
"Right to choose" is interesting language, and I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly that we have this right...but not when it comes to choosing to murder our own children in the womb. I just recently watched the movie 'The Ides of March" and was struck by a line in the movie. When one character is attempting to apologize for making a mistake (one that cost him his job) to his boss, he specifically says that it was a mistake and he is sorry for it. To which his boss replies, "You didn't make a mistake, you made a choice."
Every time a person decides to engage in sexual intercourse with another person, he or she is making a choice. They are aware that this action could result in the outcome of becoming pregnant, regardless of whatever contraception measures are being used, there is still the possibility. Thus, their right to choose rests here...not in the aftermath of becoming pregnant and then needing yet to make another choice to keep or destroy the life inside them. For they already made a choice, and it's result could be pregnancy, which at this point, there clearly ought to not need to be a choice to make. I was under the impression that it was fairly obvious that it is wrong to murder your own child, but I guess this is a little foggy for President Obama (not to mention every other pro-"choice" advocate) to understand.
Or is it rather a willed ignorance, that is, the choice to ignore this initial choice of 'do whatever feels good' in the moment without having to think about the reactions that may result from our actions. I, for one, will choose not only to protect life in the womb to the best of my ability, but also to protect the desires of my own heart through a prayerful married life open to God's will with regard to children. I also will choose to educate my children on the great strength and power that lies in the mastery of self in a chaste life, one that dignifies the very existence that in our culture cannot be taken for granted as many of their peers are being aborted at this very second.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
To Covet or Not to Covet?
As I was soaking in some reading during my 7 month old son's nap time, I came across a wonderful line about how coveting is deeply connected to feelings of unhappiness with our lives.
Rob Bell writes, "Coveting is the disease of always wanting more, and it's rooted in a profound dissatisfaction with the life God has given you. Coveting is what happens when you aren't at peace." (Rob Bell, Love Wins, p. 41)
When I read this, my first thought was 'Wow, coveting is like a slap in the face to...God! How awful of us!'
How can we not covet, though, when there are billboards and internet ads constantly trying to convince us that we really do need the latest shoes, iPod, car, even...washing machine? It seems like everywhere we go there are little voices following us declaring that our life just isn't good enough as it is -- that we need more and then our life will be satisfactory...that is, until the next model comes out in a couple of months.
And they're right. Life isn't good enough as it is.
Our lives are missing something far more important than concert tickets or a cell phone case. Maybe the dissatisfaction about the life God gave us is deeply connected to a suffering relationship between us and God. Maybe we need more of Him and we know it except we turn the volume down on that news blast when we want to spend one more hour surfing the web for the best deal on a designer handbag. So, prayer gets forfeited another day and we get the product for what? So that someone will notice and tell us 'I love your purse!'?
What if we spent time, instead of money, working on our prayer life, resting in the quiet stillness of God or even rejoicing in his abundant grace? Preparing ourselves for happiness that lasts forever, instead of just a season.
It might just be the best investment we ever make.
Rob Bell writes, "Coveting is the disease of always wanting more, and it's rooted in a profound dissatisfaction with the life God has given you. Coveting is what happens when you aren't at peace." (Rob Bell, Love Wins, p. 41)
When I read this, my first thought was 'Wow, coveting is like a slap in the face to...God! How awful of us!'
How can we not covet, though, when there are billboards and internet ads constantly trying to convince us that we really do need the latest shoes, iPod, car, even...washing machine? It seems like everywhere we go there are little voices following us declaring that our life just isn't good enough as it is -- that we need more and then our life will be satisfactory...that is, until the next model comes out in a couple of months.
And they're right. Life isn't good enough as it is.
Our lives are missing something far more important than concert tickets or a cell phone case. Maybe the dissatisfaction about the life God gave us is deeply connected to a suffering relationship between us and God. Maybe we need more of Him and we know it except we turn the volume down on that news blast when we want to spend one more hour surfing the web for the best deal on a designer handbag. So, prayer gets forfeited another day and we get the product for what? So that someone will notice and tell us 'I love your purse!'?
What if we spent time, instead of money, working on our prayer life, resting in the quiet stillness of God or even rejoicing in his abundant grace? Preparing ourselves for happiness that lasts forever, instead of just a season.
It might just be the best investment we ever make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)