I haven’t written as of late because my heart is very heavy each time I try to put words together without being outraged and therefore, not making any sense to anyone. There are two things that are causing this type of outrage within me. First is Terri Schiavo and the second is the killings in Red Lake MN. Basically that in my backyard and I have many connection through Pastor friends who are directly involved.
As to the first, Terri Schiavo. I recommend a book to you titled “The New Medicine: Life and Death after Hippocrates” written by Nigel M. de. S. Cameron. It is an excellent treatment of history mixed with basic philosophy and medical ethics. The reason I sought the book out was to quote the Hippocratic oath. Yes, a little simplistic but as far as I know still a very real and formidable oath that any medical professional swears to as they enter their chosen field. Below you will find the section of the oath titled, “Duties to Patients.”
“I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them.
I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan. Similarly I will not give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion. But in purity and in holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife either on sufferers from stone, but will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.
Into whatsoever house I enter, I will do so to help the sick, keeping myself free from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from fornication with woman or man, bond or free.
Whatsoever in the course of practice I see or hear (or even outside my practice in social intercourse) that ought never to be published abroad, I will not divulge, but consider such things to be holy secret.” [pg. 25]
Do no harm is what the first phrase often gets boiled down to but it says so much more. A great deal of medical judgment has been going on in the Schiavo case and we have been inundated with expert after expert in the mainstream liberal media as well as those conservative outposts that offer us balance. Regardless of what we assume to be medical expert judgment the condition upon which that judgment is used is stated clearly at the end of the first phrase. “Never use it to injure or wrong them.” Terri is a living breathing human being. She is not on any life support. She breaths on her own. She reacts to her surroundings. She is not in such a state physically that any medical professional would call her “not alive.” And yet the medical community has taken orders from the judiciary and removed a feeding tube that sustains life. In effect they have forsaken their oath and let someone else, a judge or three, tell them how to actually cause a living person injury and therefore wrong. Shame on those medical professionals who followed the order of a court and have forsaken their oath. Kind of makes a person wonder about their own medical professionals. I am not an alarmist but the more I see medical professional not act according to their oath the more skeptical I become. In all fairness just because there are a few bad apples in the medical profession I do not lump them all together. Just like anyone shouldn’t lump all evangelicals together based upon the actions of a few bad apples that get a lot of press. Still my heart is heavy right now concerning the medical professionals in this case.
Second my heart is heavy because of the lack of character in Terri’s husband Michael. Regardless of his motives and his communications with his wife about extreme methods of life support etc…which, I grant are very important issues to discuss, the single thing I can’t get out of my mind and heart are the vows that one takes the day of their wedding. “To love, honor, cherish…in sickness and in health…forsaking all others…” These vows make my heart heavy. I assume Michael and Terri had such vows which so easily seem to be a footnote in the blogosphere and nowhere deemed worthy of discussion in the media. How can we expect to uphold family, the institution of marriage as prescribed by God, and the cornerstone of society when the very vows, stronger than a promise, are daily assaulted without even so much as a mention. Out of a heavy heart I pray for Michael because it is always right to do what’s right. Can you imagine what a message it would send to his two children if he would just do the right thing and let his wife live not to mention the impact of not forsaking her now?
[gotta end for now getting to the boiling point]
Peace
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Retroactive Abortions
That tears it. I can see the headlines now, "Defense Attorney will argue that death of six year old was a retroactive abortion."
In the UK a child was aborted because it had a cleft lip and palate. Two Doctors, because of a 38 year old law, must agree that a late term pregnancy can be terminated if the child will be born with a "serious handicap." Let's call a sapde a spade people this child was going to be an inconvience to the parent(s) and so they sought an abortion and were granted one from two Doctors. The case was dropped for various legal reasons but Vicar Jepson has brought the case to national {UK} attention...bravo. Fight the good fight Vicar. Still I can't help but wonder when the ability of human reason will move outside the womb and allow for parents to terminate the life of children that are an inconvenience. God have mercy on us all.
Peace
cleft lip abortion
In the UK a child was aborted because it had a cleft lip and palate. Two Doctors, because of a 38 year old law, must agree that a late term pregnancy can be terminated if the child will be born with a "serious handicap." Let's call a sapde a spade people this child was going to be an inconvience to the parent(s) and so they sought an abortion and were granted one from two Doctors. The case was dropped for various legal reasons but Vicar Jepson has brought the case to national {UK} attention...bravo. Fight the good fight Vicar. Still I can't help but wonder when the ability of human reason will move outside the womb and allow for parents to terminate the life of children that are an inconvenience. God have mercy on us all.
Peace
cleft lip abortion
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Judge Kramer vs Reason
For an excellent commentary on the issue at hand I would direct you to byron-harvey's blog
I have read the 27 page tentative decision and would just add my two cents worth. If the basis for a decision of jurisprudence is the "rational test" in such cases then I would have expected the decision by Judge Kramer to include some discussion of the meaning of words like marriage and the role of associated words as the cornerstones of living societies and legal systems. Maybe I'm just being too simple but the cornerstone of our judicial system is the Ten Commandments, [yes I know another issue entirely] but last I checked the Word of God didn't read "do not covet thy neighbors significant other." Marriage as a word means something to American Heritage, Webster, and to God....does it to you?
Peace
just for fun
California's Constitution
US Constitution plus
US Constitution
I have read the 27 page tentative decision and would just add my two cents worth. If the basis for a decision of jurisprudence is the "rational test" in such cases then I would have expected the decision by Judge Kramer to include some discussion of the meaning of words like marriage and the role of associated words as the cornerstones of living societies and legal systems. Maybe I'm just being too simple but the cornerstone of our judicial system is the Ten Commandments, [yes I know another issue entirely] but last I checked the Word of God didn't read "do not covet thy neighbors significant other." Marriage as a word means something to American Heritage, Webster, and to God....does it to you?
Peace
just for fun
California's Constitution
US Constitution plus
US Constitution
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Same "Gender" Matrimony
"'No rational basis exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,' wrote San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. 'Same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before.'"
That's a quote from ABC news' The Note. I have downloaded the judges written decision and will read the 27 page document and post shortly. What I am most interested in, thus far, is to see how he came to the conclusion concerning the nature of prohibition based upon precedent. I was under the distinct impression that "the courts" were supposed to draw upon precedent. I can, therefore, understand why this guy is being labeled an "activist" judge. There wasn't any real doubt in my thinking about that but what I really want to see is the hoops he jumps through to get there. I'm no legal scholar but I'm going to dig until I'm satisfied.
Oh and another thing let's read the Constitution just for the sake of argument.
Peace
That's a quote from ABC news' The Note. I have downloaded the judges written decision and will read the 27 page document and post shortly. What I am most interested in, thus far, is to see how he came to the conclusion concerning the nature of prohibition based upon precedent. I was under the distinct impression that "the courts" were supposed to draw upon precedent. I can, therefore, understand why this guy is being labeled an "activist" judge. There wasn't any real doubt in my thinking about that but what I really want to see is the hoops he jumps through to get there. I'm no legal scholar but I'm going to dig until I'm satisfied.
Oh and another thing let's read the Constitution just for the sake of argument.
Peace
Friday, March 11, 2005
He's Here
Congratualtions to my brother and his wife, Derek and Judi. On the morning of March 10th 2005 Judi gave birth to their fourth child Dawson Jeremiah. Dawson joins his older siblings, Brandon, Jacob and Bethany Rose. We love you all and if I coded it right you should see his picture below...if not I'll try again when I get a bit more time...Thanks
Peace
Peace
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your visit. I just added a counter to let you know I appreciate your time. If you want to leave a comment anywhere I promise I'll read it. If not no worries.
Thanks again...Peace
Thanks again...Peace
Monday, March 07, 2005
Will the real evangelical Christian please stand up?
I live in the upper Midwest and generally life is quite calm. There is an overarching belief in God and the importance of religion. That having been said, there are also often conflicting views and statements from people that claim the label "evangelical Christian." I would suppose this to be true across the board but I don't live across the board. I live here.
In this Sunday's Grand Forks Herald, see upper Midwest, an editorial appeared that provoked some thought. It was submitted by Milo Mathison. He lives in a community very near to mine. I do not know him personally nor what his denomination of choice is but in his letter to the editor he states a few things that peaked my interest.
The general content of his letter concerned the national and state budget proposals. He bemoans the fact that the cuts that are proposed are not good ones because those cuts are aimed at social programs that benefit the poor. "Our priorities are revealed by those we leave behind" is the last statement in his first paragraph. Skipping down a few well intentioned paragraphs he writes, "As an evangelical Christian, I am deeply concerned about the course our nation is taking. Neglecting the poor and vulnerable, which may be economically justified, is morally indefensible given the abundance of Scripture mandating care for the poor. To assure sufficient revenue to restore quality of life for our vulnerable citizens, taxes must be put on the table."
To most of his argument I will agree and cheer him on especially when he brings God's Word into his thinking with respect to living out the teachings of Scripture with respect to the poor. However!!! he makes a giant leap that cannot be allowed to stand in the same realm of "evangelical" thinking. Mr. Mathison readily turns to Scripture to secure his benevolence but then does not consult or quote or even tip his hat to it when employing government assistance through taxation to the poor. Screeching halt noise.
The Scripture are clear and abundant in their command to help the poor and needy but they are as equally clear on two other issues that effect Mr. Mathison's argument. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that it is the role of government to "provide welfare" to it's citizens. As a matter of point governments are in charge of very little in Scripture. Basically they have legal jurisdiction over criminals in order to keep people safe and military jurisdiction to keep people safe. That's it in a nutshell. The other point that Mr. Mathison et. al. need to consider is that those statements of Scripture that command care for the poor are directed at the Church. It is the Church's responsibility to care for the widows and orphans etc.
Now I agree with Tony Evans when he said, "You can't replace something with nothing" with respect to the hypothetical possibility of discontinuing welfare. The Church, and that includes "evangelical Christians" is woefully unprepared to care for the poor. Why that is true is a matter for future discussion. But Please Mr. Mathison and "evangelical Christians" everywhere if you employ Scripture as your basis for argument please be consistent in your use of it. Thanks.
Peace
In this Sunday's Grand Forks Herald, see upper Midwest, an editorial appeared that provoked some thought. It was submitted by Milo Mathison. He lives in a community very near to mine. I do not know him personally nor what his denomination of choice is but in his letter to the editor he states a few things that peaked my interest.
The general content of his letter concerned the national and state budget proposals. He bemoans the fact that the cuts that are proposed are not good ones because those cuts are aimed at social programs that benefit the poor. "Our priorities are revealed by those we leave behind" is the last statement in his first paragraph. Skipping down a few well intentioned paragraphs he writes, "As an evangelical Christian, I am deeply concerned about the course our nation is taking. Neglecting the poor and vulnerable, which may be economically justified, is morally indefensible given the abundance of Scripture mandating care for the poor. To assure sufficient revenue to restore quality of life for our vulnerable citizens, taxes must be put on the table."
To most of his argument I will agree and cheer him on especially when he brings God's Word into his thinking with respect to living out the teachings of Scripture with respect to the poor. However!!! he makes a giant leap that cannot be allowed to stand in the same realm of "evangelical" thinking. Mr. Mathison readily turns to Scripture to secure his benevolence but then does not consult or quote or even tip his hat to it when employing government assistance through taxation to the poor. Screeching halt noise.
The Scripture are clear and abundant in their command to help the poor and needy but they are as equally clear on two other issues that effect Mr. Mathison's argument. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that it is the role of government to "provide welfare" to it's citizens. As a matter of point governments are in charge of very little in Scripture. Basically they have legal jurisdiction over criminals in order to keep people safe and military jurisdiction to keep people safe. That's it in a nutshell. The other point that Mr. Mathison et. al. need to consider is that those statements of Scripture that command care for the poor are directed at the Church. It is the Church's responsibility to care for the widows and orphans etc.
Now I agree with Tony Evans when he said, "You can't replace something with nothing" with respect to the hypothetical possibility of discontinuing welfare. The Church, and that includes "evangelical Christians" is woefully unprepared to care for the poor. Why that is true is a matter for future discussion. But Please Mr. Mathison and "evangelical Christians" everywhere if you employ Scripture as your basis for argument please be consistent in your use of it. Thanks.
Peace
Friday, March 04, 2005
The PAC Cable giants and their contributuons...aka watch out Peter
Ok I'm over a month behind...blah. I did the checking online at oprnsecrets.com and they have numbers listed there for the contributions to Dem and Rep candidates for 2004. I looked at three cable companies and threw Disney in for the heck of it. INFO: Adelphia Cable- total Dem contribution in House=$500; total Rep contribution in the House=$0; Total Dem contribution in the Senate=$0; Total Rep in the Senate=$3,000. National Cable & Telecommunication Assn- Total Dem contribution in the House=$344,409; Total Rep contribution in the House=$542,862; Total Dem contribution in the Senate=$109,996 Total Rep contribution in the Senate=$105,000. Comcast Corp- total Dem contribution in House=$109,450 Total Rep contribution in House=$168,050; Total Dem contribution in the Senate=$66,300 Total Rep contribution in the Senate=$62,300...ok and just for fun Disney- Dem in House total=#99,000 Rep in the House=$91,500; Dem in Senate=$53,000 Rep in Senate=$49,000.
The only result for the Presidential candidate was from Comcast= $5,000 to Bush, $250 to Kerry.
Number are numbers right? They don't lie right? Please!!! Nowhere did Peter or ABC mention that the twp Democrats that gave the rebuttal to the Presidents State of the Union Address total #9,000 in contribution by Comcast or their link to pornography on demand. [Boxer = $4,000, Reid = $5,000] And just to add insult to injury the failed re-election of Daschle in ND cost Comcast $10,000...whatever.
The point is that the bias of ABC and Jennings isn't a surprise what is a surprise is that they continue to fail to understand that for a significant portion of the American public a two minute hatchet piece on the Bush Presidency just doesn't wash anymore. Peace
The only result for the Presidential candidate was from Comcast= $5,000 to Bush, $250 to Kerry.
Number are numbers right? They don't lie right? Please!!! Nowhere did Peter or ABC mention that the twp Democrats that gave the rebuttal to the Presidents State of the Union Address total #9,000 in contribution by Comcast or their link to pornography on demand. [Boxer = $4,000, Reid = $5,000] And just to add insult to injury the failed re-election of Daschle in ND cost Comcast $10,000...whatever.
The point is that the bias of ABC and Jennings isn't a surprise what is a surprise is that they continue to fail to understand that for a significant portion of the American public a two minute hatchet piece on the Bush Presidency just doesn't wash anymore. Peace
To Blog or not to Blog?
This is probably a question that most bloggers ask themselves...well those who one might consider serious about the venture. A friend of mine, a blogger, byron-harvey.com, is a serious blogger and sent me some very helpful information that I have been going over and deciding about the best course of action. Basically I have decided to be "a bit" more serious about this blog and work my way into the blogosphere. Now this may leave me eons behind those like byron, whom I envy a little...his mind is sharp and I have great respect for him. And so please allow me to apologize for my delay with the next post which is late but still important in so far as it follows through on what I said I was going to look into. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
