Thoughts on Abortion

The following blog post was written by Paul Manring.

I know 1 in 3 Americans have either had an abortion or were in some way responsible for one.  I know it is a heart-wrenching and traumatic decision that no one wants to go through.  It doesn’t only effect the fetus or embryo or zygote…it deeply effects those responsible for the procedure. 

 

However, even if you have been through that process, it doesn’t mean that God cannot forgive a repented person over it.  It doesn’t mean a morally right decision was made because it happened. It doesn’t mean a continued belief that abortion is not really killing a person…a person who is not quite as developed as those outside the womb.  It must be a difficult personal conversation justifying what happened when people go through that procedure. 

 

I can’t imagine the endless, shameful, conversation that goes through a person’s mind rationalizing that decision…but eventually it can get to that point where it is rationalized.  I doubt it can ever get to the point where the shame and guilt is ever removed without literally divine intervention where a belief that God has removed that guilt by the work He did on the cross.

 

But my point isn't really to sympathize with those who have gone through an abortion, although I do sympathize.  I also sympathize with those whose circumstances drove them to that decision. My point isn’t even about a God who is able to forgive that decision or to even bring religion into this context.  My point is, and hopefully will develop into, if a person really digs into the issue of abortion, it is remarkable to me that we are even having this debate.

 

I am delving into this issue through a book “the Case for Life” by Scott Klusendorf and it is a book about equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.  But forgetting the fact it is a Christian book, I am about half-way through it and have decided this is not really a religious issue by itself.  This is a social issue regardless of religious orientation.

 

I once believed pro-choicers and pro-lifers will never have the capacity to really debate this issue; pro-choicers use logical techniques in the debate (it’s my body and my right), pro-lifers use emotional techniques (a baby is being killed).  In much the same way, I realized this sort of debate was happening in the 1800’s when I visited a civil war museum in Atlanta, Georgia last spring; slaves are my property vs. slaves are equal people.  That irreconcilable debate split the nation as it does now with abortion; logic vs. emotion moved the nation into a civil war until the nation was literally “forced” to believe that slavery is wrong. 

 

Slowly, now, our nation is going in a direction that says, in some way, abortion is wrong. Over 50% of the nation agrees that abortion has some immoral implication to it.  But again, my point isn’t primarily that abortion is wrong. My point is that the ability for pro-lifers to debate logically is available…regardless of how emotional the debate may feel.  My point is that once a person compares similar, historical, societal events to the current event of abortion, it may surprise you too this debate is occurring.  My point is that one emotional barrier that could exist for a person who has been involved in an abortion, and there are 30% of us who have, may not have the ability to objectively evaluate the issue in order to close the cognitive dissonance between a decision and the reality of that decision.  My point also is to suggest there is a spiritual outlet to a loving God who can close the gap between a decision over abortion and the reality of it, thus enabling an objective look at the societal struggle with abortion.

Conservatives and Liberals—Who Are They?

 I have been reading and thinking about a subject that many have discussed without fully appreciating. This subject has to do the definition of “liberal” and “conservative,” i.e., “Democrat” and “Republican.”

 The differences between “liberal” and “conservative” have varied over the years in American parlance; and I would like to review some of the movements that have impacted these concepts.

 The origin of the Democrat Party was a part of the heritage of Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned a small government with minimal regulatory powers; his opinion was, also, that slavery was acceptable for the new United States. The attitude of small government and racial segregation maintained itself in Democrat thinking up through the recent administration of Lyndon Johnson. The southern states were solidly in favor of such a definition, and thus—the eponym, “the solid South.” The Democrats were in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Democrats has largely conceded the field to the popular movement of civil rights in America for all people, regardless of race; and that Act was passed with wide bipartisan support.

 President Johnson got the Democrats to give up the idea of racial discrimination as the move toward civil rights gained momentum; and, today, the Democrats see themselves as populists, engaging the support and standing for the rights of the majority of the people; and, especially, of disenfranchised and disempowered people groups in the country. They certainly do not believe in slavery!

 The Republican Party, on the other hand arose from the disintegration of the Whig Party during the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. The Republicans organized under the theme of abolition of slavery. They were, at that time, solidly the party of the weak and disenfranchised. Of course, now, neither party is in favor of slavery. As a matter of fact, both parties believe that they represent the interests of the large majority of the peoples. Only…they think differently about such ideas as equality, liberty, general good, etc. In the idea of equality, the Democrats think of equality as “equal outcomes;” and the Republicans think of it as “equal opportunity.”

Early on, in the 19^th Century and the early part of the 20^th Century, both Democrat and Republican parties had the same ethical goal, i.e., to produce a better American. But…they had different ideas of how to do that—and different political methods and values for which they stood. Nevertheless, that was basically what they were both trying to do. As the 20^th Century wore on, the drive for improvement of the populace gradually waned; and the goal of American society became to increase the gross domestic product and to distribute it equally. That objective, undertaken, under the philosophical auspices of the concept of pragmatism, which I alluded to in a recent blog post about William James (August 30, 2013), was the touchstone of a remarkable development. America became the most economically successful nation the world had ever seen. Concurrently, we also became the most materialistic country the world had ever seen.

Another change occurred in the doctrine and method of the American liberal. As the 20^th Century wore on, liberals began to dismiss the moral distinctives that had characterized both Democrat and Republican parties. That was the part of the liberal metamorphosis that pushed me away from that ideology. Liberals introduced and pushed for such things as no-fault divorce, making divorce easier and more frequent; elimination of prayer in school, discounting the role of Christianity in our society; the gay agenda; liberalized abortion; free sex; multinationalism; and the women’s movement. Eventually, the liberal position morphed into such things as affirmative action and all the baggage attached to the idea of diversity. Some of these things were good; but some of them produced more disappointment than benefit. All of these changes culminated in a concept of civil rights that discounted the goods of classical Christianity. For these reasons, I could no longer call myself a liberal—I began to understand my position as conservative in the modern sense.

During the early part of the 20^th Century, a decided change occurred in the definition of what might be called the liberal/conservative mystique or philosophy of the people. It all began in Europe. Prior to that time, what is now called “classical liberalism” was the rule in most countries. Classical liberals still held the ideas of small government, entrepreneurism, and a hands-off government regulatory policy. Free enterprise was the order of the day. However, in Italy, these new 20^th Century liberals changed their tune—the group encapsulated the same people, i.e., young people, university students and faculty, powerful government officials, and union members. But…their views and methods changed drastically. They became dissatisfied with social conditions as they saw them; and they were enamored with the rhetoric of Mussolini. He taught that more government control could solve their problems—eventually, he convinced most of the Italian population that a totalitarian state was what was needed. That form of government is now called Fascism; and it is wrongly attributed to “right wing politics;” that form of government was brought into power by those who called themselves liberals.

 We have a group in America, now, that are called liberals. And…their goals and methods are not so different from the Italian liberals of the late 1930’s. Today’s liberals believe that big government and take-over of business by government is the best idea. The population groups that backed Mussolini are exactly the same groups that back Barack Obama, today, i.e., university people, statists, and unions. But…I am afraid that their methods and ideas might produce the same effect as the fascism of Italy nearly a century ago. That is the fear I have; and my fear of this kind of national effect is shared by many good-thinking people. That is one reason why I am a conservative.

 All this is not to say that liberalism has no place in the thinking of the patriotic American. Today’s liberal in America stands for open-minded thinking and the embracing of new ways. Surely, we need to consider these attitudes.  

Conservatism is a form of thinking that is not to be pushed down into the trash barrel. Conservatives are not dopes who think that every new idea is bad—we, conservatives, will adopt change and improvement in the society. But…we do not like to throw things away that have served well in the past. The lessons that our nation has learned and that have succeeded in producing a great nation and economy should be preserved.

One problem we have in accomplishing this is that liberals think that we don’t have any sense. To them, we seem like bigots who deserve no consideration from those of a progressive mindset. That conclusion is borne out by good research. If you don’t think so, I would refer you to the book, The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt. It is written by a self-proclaimed liberal; and he has very well pointed out that my opinion of the liberal mind is quite accurate. He also pointed out that conservatives, in general, do not look down on liberals in a reciprocal manner. Conservatives are much better at objectively evaluating the arguments generated on the left side of the aisle.

The upstart of this kind of development I have outlined above ought to make us consider well the constructive things we can derive in learning from one another about our society and the good things we each have to offer.  

The Artlessness of War

Twenty-five hundred years ago, a book was written by Sun Tzu, a Chinese man—The Art of War. In his book, the author stressed that in order to win a war or a battle, it is absolutely necessary to attack with direction and surprise. Without that, victory is very likely elusive.

Now, American armed forces are being directed by a president who has absolutely disavowed that basic principle of warfare. He has clearly notified our Syrian enemy of his strategy and his tactics, including targets he plans to hit and targets he intends to avoid. He has stated that he is not trying to unseat the government of Syria. And…he has said that he may attack tomorrow, next week, or next month! Apparently, there is plenty of time for an attack; and for the first time in wartime history, there is no urgency in making a military move. All this delay is only giving the enemy plenty of time to move all military targets out of harm’s way, so it can be employed later to kill more civilians and children.

 
This attitude is absolutely unbelievable for a military commander. These stupid moves are being backed up, apparently, by our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. General Dempsey seems to me just a mouthpiece for a president committed to a pointless and undirected symbolic move which is probably only going to be effective in promoting the president as one who decisively moves at a point of emergency—at least, that’s the way the president wants the whole situation to appear to the uninformed voter.

Pragmatism in America

I have recently finished reading a biography of William James, a philosophy professor at Harvard in the late 19^th Century. James was a molder of thought in our country; and his influence can be counted alongside of Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, and Jonathan Edwards in his influence on our present day world. He and his colleagues at Harvard, Charles Sanders Pierce, and Josiah Royce developed the “philosophy” of pragmatism, which has pervaded American thinking as a dominant driving force for well over 100 years. For reasons I will later explain, I doubt that pragmatic philosophy can legitimately be called a complete philosophical system. But, nevertheless, the core of the pragmatic thought process has colored and embellished North American thought and made the accomplishments of our society outstrip those of other nations. For example, compare our pragmatically oriented culture to that of our southern neighbor, Mexico. Mexico’s dominant philosophy, positivism, has remained mired in the mud of pure reason and logic. Positivism is only another name for enlightenment reason—the idea that all of mankind’s problems, including his search for meaning/significance can be obtained through science and reason. Mexican positivists believe that all mankind needs to reach moral, ethical, and religious satisfaction is ever increasing doses of science, the experimental method, and reason. I do not think that any self-respecting philosophers outside the editorial pages of Scientific American buy into that defunct philosophical belief system. At its apex of influence, enlightenment thinking was shattered by World War I and II. Reason and the scientific method only seems to produce progressively sophisticated methods for men to kill one another.

It is interesting to note that William James as far back at the late 19^th Century had more or less downgraded his opinion of enlightenment thinking, also. James had come from a family background of Puritan/Calvinism. He strove all his life with two great conflicts: The 1^st was to reconcile his Christian beliefs with the sciences of his world—which was mainly Darwinian evolutionary theory. The other striving of James mind was the apparent conflict between freedom of the will and the deterministic teachings about God that he had imbibed as a young man.

Pragmatism is the applied belief that the only important things in life are “the things that work,” i.e. if a thing can be caused to function, no matter in what field of action, and if it will produce the desired effect—then, it is true and worthwhile.

For William James the tangible fact at the root of all our thought-distinctions is that there is no thought so important or so strong as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice. For him, only the consequences of thoughts were important; and this dictum subsequently pervaded American thought. This belief became in the American mind something far more important than a philosophy; it became a habit of mind, a quality of the general public consciousness. And, as such, it has molded American behavior and belief for well over one hundred years.

As a result of this pragmatic attitude, more and more Americans relinquished their faith in “absolutes” and became ready to judge ideas by their consequences rather than by some abstract formula. In getting rid of the absolutes of the Christian religion, the American mind became more ready to adopt the principles of pluralism and tolerance. In common parlance, Americans became more inclined “to live and let live;” this brought on an erosion of dogmatism and a decline in religious and racial prejudices. These ideas also often produced a bewildering absence of certitude, a sense of confusion and even abandonment. So…pragmatism became something like a religion if one were to allow that religion could be pluralistic or merely something that would improve situations.

A true philosophy is a form of thought that searches for wisdom and knowledge through theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, and the nature of the universe. A true philosophical system cannot tolerate any internal contradictions.

Pragmatism does not always deal with the principles of a true philosophy; and it may, at times contain internal contradictions. For these reasons, I doubt that pragmatism can really be called a philosophical system. Neither can it be called a religion. A right religion must deal with questions of:

1.   Origin, i.e., where did I come from?
2.   Significance, i.e., why am I here?
3.   Morality, i.e. what is right and what is wrong?
4.   Loyalty, i.e., to whom I accountable?
5.   Behavior, i.e., how should I behave?
6.   Destiny, i.e., where am I going?

Only Christianity has those answers.

 

 

But, try as he may, James could not completely divorce himself from the fact that the Christian religion had produced some of the most beneficial effects on society. He tried, but never once in his adult life did he step inside a church. He wrote, “The problem I have set for myself is a hard one: first, to defend experience (of Christian faith) against philosophy as being the real backbone of the world’s religious life—I mean prayer, guidance, and all that sort of thing immediately and privately felt, as against high and noble general views of our destiny and the world’s meaning; and second, to make the hearer or reader believe…that, although all the special manifestations of religion may have been absurd, yet the life of it as a whole is mankind’s most important function.” So...this 19^th Century philosopher could not get away from the truths and manifestations of the true religion, which meant Christianity.

 

None of us should ever forget that the truth is not a set of man-made ideas. Truth is a person, i.e., the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We Must Do Something About the Middle East!!

The time for watching and waiting about the wars in the Middle East is over. America absolutely must ACT!! President Obama’s policy of “leading from behind” must quit. His empty threats have made American statements about humanitarian actions a laughing stock of the world, thanks to the president’s unwillingness to do anything about mass killing and erupting violence in the Middle East. His repeated statements about “keeping all options on the table” simply mean that there are no options on the table. He intends to do absolutely nothing.

President Obama should look at the history of how another Democrat president acted in the First World War. At first, President Wilson did everything he could do to stay out of the war. The American populace was dead set against entry into the war; but as Germany was not willing to seriously negotiate and when on March 18, 1917, German U-boats sank three American merchant ships, Wilson changed his mind—he decided on war.

Congress declared war on April 7, 1917. Wilson used the presidential “bully pulpit” to mobilize American motivation to fight the Germans. He took charge of raising American fury against the German leadership, and he even set aside the Constitutional rights of American citizens to do it. (Abraham Lincoln had set that example during the Civil War when he set aside the right of habeas corpus.) President Wilson convinced Congress to pass the Sedition Act in 1917, which outlawed draft dodging and legitimized censoring printed material including the mail. In 1918, the Sedition Act prevented private citizens from speaking out against the federal government in the war effort. Wilson created the Committee on Public Information, which distributed propaganda against Germany. He saw to it that taxes were raised to the highest level in American history in order to raise money to fight the war—taxes on the rich rose to an astounding 77% of income.

President Obama could mobilize America to do something about the deteriorating world situation if he only had the will to do it. If he really wants a favorable legacy, as most pundits say he does, he must act militarily against tyranny. He must get on his feet and convince Americans that we can, again, gain control of an almost hopeless situation. We must act to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians by the Syrian government using nerve gas!!

However, I am afraid that the legacy President Obama will leave will be a reputation as the President who presided over the greatest demise of American prestige and effectiveness in the history of the modern world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bbbb

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                                                  

 

 

 

Fault

xxxxFault

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

…………

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bbbb

Fault Lines Through our Religion and Our Society!

Most of us sense that there are dangerous divisions developing in our America—even among our churches. Morals and ethics of the society are changing; and those changes are seeping into our religious lives and our basic beliefs. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever; but…ideas and mores of the society, as a whole are changing.

Our attention has been drawn to these changes by a recent book by Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America. R. R. Reno has also pointed out the same thing in an opening article in First Things for August/September 2013, which he titled War on the Weak.

These writers and others are pointing out to us that there is a developing division among our people between the educated, socially prominent, administratively powerful, and (resultantly) wealthy on the one hand. And…on the other hand are the uneducated, the working class disenfranchised, the socially weak and administratively impotent. The first group is becoming richer while being able to avoid the pitfalls of social deterioration. The second group is falling victim to high-school dropout, single-parent homes, drugs, smoking, crime, and poverty. The first group lives in gated communities; the second group lives in inner-city ghettos and run down housing projects. The first group includes the politicians, university professors, and the media programmers. The second group can hardly find any kind of work.

The second class of people, whom I will call the underclass, used to be able to keep their life in order because of fixed social norms that told them how to behave. Examples: Boys play with toy guns; girls play with dolls. Clean up your plate. Don’t spend more money than you have in the bank. Always tell the truth. Working hard will get you ahead in life. Boys open doors for girls—etc., etc. Those simple rules have given way to relativeness, inclusiveness, diversity, affirmative action, and other varieties of political correctness.

The more fortunate, whom I will call the upper-class, have been able to keep these norms intact for the most part in their social lives; but they have come to espouse liberalized, “progressive,” allowances that disavow the old-fashioned admonitions. Now, so they say, “anything goes;” but…they still teach their own children to avoid these destructive ways of thinking and living. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies are rare in the upper-class; drug use is slight; and dropping out of high school is anathema.

This upper-class of citizens is the one that determines the mores of the society via their control of the media, the universities, and the judiciary. This class has developed an “enhanced morality” that can promulgate a free-living life style for anyone who wants it while, at the same time, preserving a chaste and self-controlled mystique for themselves. This class is the “strong,” as named by Reno.

The underclass, i.e., the “weak,” in the words of Reno, needs social and moral structure in order to avoid chaos in their personal and social lives. But…that structure is missing from our politically correct society. Our dominant culture refuses to meet this need. Indeed, it rejects it root-and-branch, consistently treating clear moral strictures with suspicion, seeing them as dangerous regressions back into Middle Ages morality.

I believe we will never get out of this conundrum until we get back to Christian principles as a society. Only Christ has the answer. Other religions fail to produce the goods that Christ can offer. Islam produces violence. Eastern religions fail the give personal significance, which is the source of human dignity. Atheism and western-style philosophy only lead to nihilism and its complete lack of human fulfillment. Christ is the answer.

Our way out of this morass of cultural relativeness is not better politicians, academics, economists, and other people planners. Our only hope is that our people (and especially our young people) will not retreat into a materialistic, self-seeking, behavior pattern, that idolizes sex and selfishness. We need real cultural and religious leaders who put Christ at the forefront of their life efforts. These kinds of people will never come out of our present “progressive” culture that only sees quick fixes to our social and cultural problems. We must get at the root causes of our social deterioration before any lasting correction can be obtained. The cure can only be found in Christ.

It must be noted that there is a subset of young people in America who come from the upper-class, but who have co-opted the morals and values of the under-class. You can read about these young people in an article in Imprimis about Sex at Harvard and in a book by Christian Smith, Souls in Transition. I wrote a review of this book on 4/10/2012; and if you are interested in this subject, you can access that review in the list of my blog posts.

Tax-Payers Now Subsidizing Liars!!

According to the Affordable Care Act, in order for a person to qualify for a taxpayer subsidized health insurance policy, he needs two things: The first is an affidavit stating that his employer does not supply adequate health insurance. The second is that he must show that he has a sufficiently low income that he cannot afford to buy health insurance on his own.

The Obama Administration has set aside the first requirement for one year, because it says that it is too onerous to enforce. Now, it is setting aside the second —because it is too difficult to verify at the present time. WOW! Of course, government health insurance is slated to take place on 1 October, right on schedule. The way that is going to happen is that the government is just going to accept the word of the buyer of insurance that his income is low—no verification needed, apparently. The government will dispense the insurance through the national health insurance exchanges.

IRS experience tells that 21%-25% of earned income tax credits go to people who are not eligible for those credits.  If that level of fraud is predictive of the amount of fraud anticipated by asking people to designate their financial qualifications for ObamaCare health insurance through the exchanges, then tax-payers will be picking up $250 billion in fraudulent insurance payments over the next 10 years.

This waiving of verification procedures seems like a transparent attempt to get many people to sign up for insurance through the exchanges; there by showing that government health insurance is the preferred vehicle for coverage. Of course, this will be done at the expense of the taxpayers. As usual, President Obama expects taxpayers to cough up the money.  

As you might expect, this arrangement is in violation of the Affordable Care Act’s specifications. President Obama just does not seem worried about enforcing the features of his own legislative measures.

(This blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 8 July 2013 page A16.)