Like Button

Saturday, November 30, 2019

News Weakly - 11/30/19

Don't Bother Me With Facts
Last week Attorney Manfred Nowak's U.N. report titled "Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty" hit the airwaves and the world, us included, went crazy. According to Nowak, the U.S. currently has more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention. That's evil. Trump is evil. Except, of course, it's not true. That was the number held under Obama throughout 2015. Oops! Well, it doesn't matter. Trump wanted to, we're pretty sure. At least some of the outlets that ran the story retracted it, but you can be pretty sure that folks will be quoting the horrors of Obama's Trump's administration for some time to come, because once it's out there, it's out there, and too many cannot be bothered with facts.

Christmas Decoration Control
An 88-year-old veteran responded to a neighbor's plea for help. Her younger sister was being attacked by a dog. He rushed out the door and snatched up the first weapon he could find -- a plastic nutcracker, part of his neighbor's Christmas display. He mercilessly beat the pitbull until it released the 10-year-old girl. Neighbors are calling for his arrest for animal cruelty and the township is looking into extending Christmas decoration control to cut down on anti-dog violence. Okay, no. The man bravely defended the girl against a vicious animal and, somehow, today's twisted mentality (like "Save the dogs but kill the unborn babies") didn't mess that up.

More Fake News
There was a story out that mothers were binge drinking more than before. Turns out it's fake news. Turns out that between 2006 and 2018 mothers are binging on alcohol the same amount as women without children. Oh, sure, that number has been on the rise, but that it's just mothers is fake news. What disturbed me most about the story was that the medical world defines binge drinking as four or more drinks at once for women and five or more for men. That seems like a sexist standard suggesting that genders are not equal and there is actually a biological difference between men and women. I thought we'd banished that idea.

When Equal Treatment is Hate
An organization known as "Created Equal" did all the required steps and paperwork to get permission to put up a display at Georgia Tech, Georgia State, and Kennesaw State universities as well as the University of Georgia. Their aim? Their message is that "to treat the preborn in a way we’d never treat a born person is a grievous violation of human equality. College students deserve to see the victims of this injustice and to know the science and reasoning behind defending the preborn." They plan to show images of fetuses to show that they're preborn children. Georgia State warned students that it was coming and labeled such speech as "hateful or mean-spirited." The group calls the murder of preborn children "ageism" and opposes unequal treatment. Pro-choicers apparently consider "ageism" hate and equal treatment "mean-spirited." Otherwise they wouldn't care if someone showed pictures of a non-human, right?

Speaking of Abortion
So here's the story. According to "all statistics measuring abortion in the U.S.", abortions reached an "historic low" in 2016. Yippee! That's good. Like saying, "Fewer children were murdered in 2016 than in the previous years of murdering children took place." Being one who values human life, it's good that the number is down. Being one who values truth, it's misleading to fall into the trap. You understand that abortions were not tracked prior to 1969, that immorality in 1969 was on the rise (meaning that abortions before that were likely less), and that no one really knows how many abortions took place in prior years. (The CDC started tracking them in 1969, but since it was illegal, they had no reliable means of actually knowing how many there were.) (It should also be noted that Wikipedia reports that, according to the CDC, there were 193,491 abortions reported to the CDC with an induced abortion rate of 52 per live birth. Significantly less than 2016. Making the story itself a lie.) You understand that it is considered "good news" that "only" 623,471 babies were murdered by abortion in 2016, down from 638,169 in 2015. I'm glad the number is down. I'm sad that "only over a half million killed" is considered good news. That's more than the total number of Americans killed in World War II. That's more than the total number of Americans killed in the Civil War where every death was an American. Don't let them tell you it's "safe, legal, and rare," because it's legal, but it's still not safe and it's certainly not rare.

Going About It The Wrong Way
Wayne Grudem is a biblical scholar, conservative, complementarian, generally good things. Recently, it seems, he has been listening to sad stories of marital abuse and has decided to change his view on divorce. Originally he recognized only adultery or desertion. Now he has added ... well ... just about anything. (He lists verbal and physical abuse, drug or alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, and pornography addiction for examples.) Ostensibly, on the basis of the phrase "In such cases" found in 1 Cor 7:15, he has concluded that anything that destroys a marriage is included, and "destroys a marriage" is not defined. I say "ostensibly" because clearly he came to this conclusion not on the basis of Scripture, but on the basis of horrible stories of spouses staying in abusive marriages because they were told they had to just sit and take it. This is the same basis that others have used to change their view that homosexual behavior is sin. Because of Scripture? No. Someone in their family or someone close to them has come out as "gay" and circumstances -- their feelings about these people -- have dictated their position, not Scripture. We don't get to offer a "new and promising kind of argument" for God's Word. Not even Mr. Grudem. Sorry, Wayne.

17 comments:

Marshal Art said...

Don't Bother Me With Facts

Frankly, I get a kick out these kinds of stories where the left thinks it finally has something on Trump, only to find out they don't. I have more on Trump than they do! But what I have on him is not really something they oppose...his sexually immoral track record (which BTW hasn't been much of a factor during his presidency---no stained blue dresses, for example).

Christmas Decoration Control

I get in a lot of trouble reminding people that dogs are animals, and as such should not be afforded the level of concern that should be afforded people...such as the unborn. While not at all in favor of animal cruelty, the elevation of animals to human level is disturbing to me.

More Fake News

It's only sexist when center-right people do it.

When Equal Treatment is Hate

It's only hate when center-right people do it.

Speaking of Abortion

I don't even understand the point of reports such as this. If abortion is no big deal, what does it matter if there are more or less than the previous year. It's the same old story regarding if the unborn is human or not. Why would it matter if the unborn isn't a person? And yeah, some of us won't be doing a happy dance because there are only 623K babies murdered by their parents.

Going About It The Wrong Way

Sad to see old Wayne falling into this trap. Thought he was smarter than that. Maybe he'll reconsider. Hope so.

Craig said...

I’ve got to say that I’d be inclined to lean towards divorce in cases of abuse. I know it’s possible for people to change, and I know that it’s possible to keep the couple separated enough for protection, but that’s just where I find myself.

That’s not to say the the concept of excusing things because people we know go through them is appropriate, but I struggle with abuse.

Stan said...

Marshal, it always amazes me when you have a comment for every story.

Craig, the question is why you lean toward divorce for abuse. Is it because you feel bad for those who are abused or because you have a reasonable biblical position? (By the way, I do not believe that the abused need to remain in the abuse. I think there are alternatives that may not include divorce while not remaining in the abuse. I think "Remain in the abuse or divorce" is a false dilemma.)

Craig said...

Stan,

I’m not suggesting that my hesitation is based on the Biblical exceptions, and I’m acknowledging that there are ways to protect the abused. I’m saying that there is a point where I’d be sympathetic to an abused woman divorcing her husband. Hopefully I’m being clear that this is me being sympathetic, and I’m not suggesting that I’m right, just saying I have a hard time with abuse.

Stan said...

I, too, have a hard time with abuse. What I've never understood is why so many people -- women in the midst of it in particular -- have such a hard time with justice. There are laws about this. Why aren't they used?

Craig said...

While we’re hypotheticaling, where would you end up on a woman using deadly force if in the midst of active physical abuse.

Stan said...

I believe that the use of deadly force to protect human life is justifiable.

Craig said...

I agree that it seems there isn’t always the amount of follow through under current laws. I guess I’m having a hard time seeing a functional difference between prosecuting and sending the abuser to jail and abandonment. Seems like the abusee loses either way.

Stan said...

I'm not getting what you're saying. The abusee loses any way. She (or he -- it can happen that way, too) loses by having an abusive spouse. The only option from that point is ... to continue to lose. It might be by divorce or by force of law or by fleeing or by use of force or ... but any of them are, again, loss. (On the other hand, "abandonment" constitutes a valid basis for biblical divorce and at least wouldn't multiply the problem by adding sin on the part of the abusee, right?)

Craig said...

I’m suggesting that if your spouse ends up in prison for an extended period of time, that the situation is functionally the same as abandonment. The spouse loses any benefit of being married, income primarily, because of the behavior of the abusing spouse.

I’m not so much arguing for this as throwing out thoughts.

Craig said...

I realized this morning that this dialogue could sound like me/us wanting to pass judgment on the sins of others, when that’s not my intent at all.

I’m simply trying to come to grips with how to appropriately engage with someone going through a difficult situation.

Marshal Art said...

The perennial/cliche vows include "for worse", but it doesn't address "how worse". Indeed, the entire set of vows has a "good" side and "bad" side. No one has a problem when the good side goes to extremes...really, really, richer, better, etc., but when it comes to the bad side, people are compelled to bail. It's the same as the basic vow itself, "to love", which seems strange since who gets married these days who doesn't love their intended, right? When things get really bad...even those areas for which Jesus seemed to allow, would we not still be compelled to love and remain faithful? I don't necessarily begrudge those that end it after constant abuse, but it is the vow that was taken.

Marshal Art said...

"Marshal, it always amazes me when you have a comment for every story."

I'm amazed you manage a post every day. Impressed, actually.

Craig said...

Art, I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m more interested in how one shows love, support, and compassion to the abused when divorce is not an option.

I also think that we need to be careful in applying the standards for believers to nonbelievers.

David said...

No, the standards should be the same for believers and non, we just shouldn't expect them to meet the standard. I believe the best way to not divorce an abusive partner is to not marry am abusive partner. Just like I believe women have the right to choose whether they are going to engage in behaviors that lead to pregnancy. However, once the choice is made, biblically, there is no "out". If more people made better choices before they got into these no-win situations, we wouldn't be needing to worry about it. We have only been given 2 or 3 allowances for divorce (I only agree with 2) and only one of them absolves the believer of their marriage in the eyes of God. The other 2 are simply there "due to the hardness of your heart". I don't know about you, but I don't ever want to take a way out that is only there because I'm not loving enough.

Craig said...

David, you’re right about the standards for believers and nonbelievers, I didn’t phrase that as accurately as I should have.

Certainly I’d agree that marriage to someone you know is abusive is a mistake, but I’ve definitely known people who have been adept at hiding the negative aspects of their personality until they’ve been married for a while.

Marshal Art said...

While it's possible, it's more difficult to hide one's true self the longer one associates with another. As such, I'm an advocate for long courtships before marriage...especially with regards to having sex, if one intends to do so before marriage. That's where everything goes wrong in the first place...sex and/or marriage before one knows with whom one is dealing. Without actually intending to do so, my wife and I were together seven years before we married. We actually knew each other much longer than that before we became a couple. While seven years isn't the exact number of years everyone should abide, the result for us was that there was little about each of us that the other didn't know. Also, it was well passed the "bubble" stage of relationships; when the bloom was off the rose, so to speak.

Of course none of this matters to those already in a relationship that has become abusive, but I refer again to those vows. Do they mean anything at all, or are they just some romantic ritual just for show?