No Kidding
You might think I've accessed an extreme right Christian news source for this. I haven't. George Washington University is offering a course on how to combat "Christian Privilege." That's right. While more people were killed for being Christians in the 20th century than in all previous centuries combined, and while more than half of Americans believe that Christian freedom of religion is in decline, the problem these days is "Christian privilege." Like the Christian who said that she couldn't assemble flowers for a gay wedding, but she could offer alternative sources, and lost her business for it. Or the photographer or the baker or ... you get the idea.
Do I think there should be "Christian privilege"? Not at all. Do I think that the Bible argues for the "free exercise of religion"? Actually, no (Acts 4:19-20; Acts 5:29). That is purely a constitutional question. But we appear to be tossing that out ... and teaching how to in college.
Lincoln's Logic
Okay, normally this is news items of the week, but I am making an exception in this case. This article talks about Abraham's logic in debating the slavery question of his day and applies the same logic to the abortion question of our day. I wanted to commend it to you; excellent article.
Compare and Contrast
Contrast the extraordinary story of Mekhi Johnson, a Baltimore student, who was just accepted to all eight Ivy league universities with poor David Hogg, a "self-appointed spokesman for a generation" who is demanding gun control to put an end to school shootings, who was rejected by four University of California schools because, he believed, they didn't want to support him in changing the world. Then consider that Mekhi hadn't told anybody. As opposed to Mr. Hogg. Two different stories.
Heart Control
Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law the legislation that will offer such rules as raising the gun buying minimum age limit to 21, banning bump stocks, limiting rifle magazines to 10 rounds, and requiring background checks.
All good stuff, but I have a question. Every school I've walked by in the last year has had a sign by the entry that said, in one way or another, "No weapons allowed." Why didn't that stop the tragedy in Parkland? Could it be that people who commit crimes do so in violation of the law?
That is, it's not a bad step to limit guns and such, but don't think it's an answer. Sinful humans need more than good laws to make them good.
When Sci Fi becomes reality
I've seen science fiction stories about societies that allow Facebook-like environments rule them, where you're social status ("Likes" and "Dislikes") determine your actual status. In 2014 China issued a "national reputation system" that would offer incentives based on their citizens' credibility in commerce, society, etc. The word is out now that they plan to expand by 2020 to one (using current technology that can actually do it) to offer rewards or negative consequences for social behavior. Do a good deed? Positive points. Watch something unacceptable on their version of YouTube? Negative points. If you do well, you get favorable interest rates or better jobs or the like. Do poorly and you could end up with travel restrictions, slower internet, and so on. It looks like China is aiming for an actual "Big Brother" system to control their people.
It's murder, but let's not get radical about it.
I don't know how much you are up on this. Last week conservative commentator Kevin Williamson was fired by The Atlantic a month after they hired him. Conservatives might think it was because they just couldn't stomach a conservative on the typically "less than conservative" Atlantic, but that's not the case. No, they fired him "over his views on abortion." And the conservative webosphere goes wild.
Of course, the fact is that Williamson was fired because of a podcast he did that came to light in which he suggested that women who got an abortion ought to be hanged for murder. An organization called Media Matters for America hunted it down and complained about it. I think it is suspicious that a left-wing organization built for the purpose of "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (their words, not mine) managed to dig out a 2014 podcast like that. It suggests that Williamson was indeed a target by virtue of being conservative. But, hey, who am I to say?
My point is not to exonerate Williamson or to complain about his firing or to demand "Free speech!" That "free speech" thing in the Constitution is 1) not biblical and 2) not about the public -- it's about governmental limitations. I only ask you, the pro-life folk, to consider. If you (like me) use the term "murder" when referring to the legal execution of the most vulnerable humans on the planet if a mom wishes to do so, you will eventually have to ask yourself, "So?" Williamson answered it. He thought killing babies ought to be treated like killing any other human being. He did not fall for the insanity that the federal government has. (They made it murder to kill the unborn ... unless you wanted to.) What about you? Whether you agree that execution is the right thing or not, you should ask yourself, "If I believe that killing the unborn is murder, what do I think should happen to those who commit it?"
13 comments:
Lincoln's Logic- But, but, hoes need abortions.
Compare And Contrast- So, Hogg is going to complain about not getting accepted into 4 colleges, even though he was accepted by 4 other colleges? He really wanted to be able to go to Disneyland that badly? (The 4 rejections were from California schools) Disney World just isn't good enough for him? It is stuff like this that makes older generations dislike Millennials.
No Kidding- apparently it's not just Christian Privilege in view, but White Christian Privilege. Of course, if you deny having it, you must be a white Christian.
No Kidding
Because being white and a Christian has gotten me so far (sarcasm alert). Can you imagine a child of yours taking a class like that, after working hard to provide the funding for their higher education? Wouldn't you just beam with pride (sarcasm alert)?
Heart Control
If it isn't the answer, then it is indeed a bad step, as well as a complete waste of time and money. It might just be me, but I prefer legislation (if we must have more legislation) to actually accomplish something positive and beneficial. Raising the gun buying minimum age limit to 21, banning bump stocks, limiting rifle magazines to 10 rounds...all examples of infringements...won't make any difference. Background check systems are already in place, and despite it possibly being a worthy move to review them and see if they can be improved, doing so won't matter if those tasked with using them to prevent the wrong people from having weapons don't do the job properly. You subtitle is the key to real solutions.
It's murder, but let's not get radical about it.
I don't see why most abortions shouldn't result in similar penalties as taking the life of anyone fortunate to have made it through the birth canal. It's like a contact killing, with the mother putting on contract on her own child and hiring the abortionist hit man to do the job. What generally happens in those cases? Why not in this one?
There is much about the Williamson situation that reeks of left wing hypocrisy. I agree with his point, and might have responded in a similar way if given the chance. But, I’m not sure that suggesting the death penalty for a mother who kills their child helps the discussion very much.
Maybe I’m being inconsistent, but it just seems like there’s a better way to communicate a totally valid point of view.
There are way to many on the left calling for death to those on the right and their children for disagreeing with the current narrative that maybe it would differentiate us from those out for blood if we showed a different approach.
Perhaps, Craig. But that's really not considering how the left operates. If we take a different approach, they will surely point to the inconsistency of not treating women and their doctors other contract killings are treated. I think it's better to push the point of what abortion really is, what it is in most cases and force the abortion proponents to defend their support for it as it now stands.
Well, it IS true that calling for the death of someone who calls for the death of a murderer is a bit two-faced, but, hey, who am I to judge?
On the Williamson question, I note that in America not all (actually very few?) states give the death penalty for murder. I don't know what "hang em!" is the only possible answer even if I do believe that abortion is, indeed, murder.
I agree that abortion is murder, but I’m still not sure it’s helpful to have hanging as the default punishment.
Question 1. If a stranger walked up to a 13 YO and jabbed a pair of scissors into his scull because the child’s mom payed him to do it, would we thing hanging him to stiff a penalty?
Question 2. What’s the difference?
I agree that abortion is murder and killing a 13-week-old is the equivalent of killing a 13-year-old. I don't know that the only correct penalty in today's legal system is execution. (It happens so rarely as it is.) I do know that the correct penalty should NOT be "Well done!!!"
1. Yes, in our legal system, presuming hanging without specific charges, a trial, and a conviction is inappropriate.
2. That’s why you’d want to go through the legal process.
3. Who should be hung? Should extenuating circumstances be considered? Should we just hang everyone?
I’m simply suggesting that “Hang ‘em all.”, is not going to be particularly effective in furtherance of the pro-life cause.
I don’t see anyone suggesting any form of the death penalty for every single instance of homocide.
I still think the point being made was/is valid, just not particularly helpful in how it was expressed.
Capital punishment for the unjust taking of human life is reasonably regulated according to certain mitigating factors. There are very few in the typical abortion that isn't akin to most any murder that results in a capital punishment. For those states that have done away with CP, then the next best thing is life in prison or something very close to it. This is as reasonable as it can be given the unreasonable banning of CP in those states.
But any deviation from treating abortionists and mothers who hire them the same way any others who engage in contract killings are treated means that the life taken is not of equal value to all other victims of contract killings, and then we're in the same boat as the pro-aborts who insist the unborn isn't worthy of the same recognition as those born.
Art, I think your getting hung up on my saying that I’m not sure advocating for automatic hanging for abortion isn’t a great starting point.
I’m not suggesting that abortion isn’t homocide, and that an argument for criminalizing it can’t or shouldn’t be made. Merely that advocating capital punishment for something that is currently legal, might not be the best starting point.
Post a Comment