Posts tagged Abortion

Killing Babies No Biggie


I will be discussing and posting some awesome stuff from our road trip this weekend. But now it’s time for a heavy Monday. Sorry.

Here is a truly disgusting development. According to this article:

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

Sounds made up doesn’t it? Or something in some pseudo-civilized futuristic movie where every aspect of everyone’s life is controlled by the elites (like in Gattaca). Unfortunately, this is true.

These ‘medical ethicists’ published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

They call it an “after-birth abortion.” I suppose this makes them feel better, since it is nothing less than murder.

Regarding the most vocal objections, the journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said these are “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

So this is what a ‘liberal’ and ‘enlightened’ and ‘civilized’ society comes to? No, we don’t eat our young. We just kill them because they are a bit too inconvenient for the level of luxury we desire for our lives.

Disgusting. Lord forgive us for entertaining these ideas.


White Says Catholics Should Listen To The “Enlightened”


There is a disturbing new development between the Catholic Church and the White House and what religious freedom will mean in America in the future. This is something that hasn’t gotten much attention for obvious reasons.

A couple weeks ago I wrote about Catholics who are standing against the healthcare mandate that forces employers to cover contraception and morning after type medication (specifically, sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception).

Although I have no particular problem with birth control per se, I do not support the morning after medications. Like Catholics, I believe this to be defacto abortion.

Either way, I support the right of Catholics to religious liberty. They should not be forced to cover these things if they feel they conflict with their own religious convictions. For the government to mandate this, is a violation of the First Amendment.

>In this issue, we Christians are all Catholics, as they say. 

Last week, the White House had a private meeting with Catholic Leaders. In a letter released by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, he communicated the nature of this meeting as the White House wanted to allegedly “work out the wrinkles” on this issue.

Dolan reveals in his statement that the White House staffers, “advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation…”

Wow. There it is.

You principled religious folks are ‘unenlightened.’ That’s how it always is. Frame your opponents and detractors as evil or idiots (or both) in order to bully them. It’s a common tactic. People of faith are often unfairly labelled as sexist, racist, bigoted, or homophobes. That’s not the case here. It’s a matter of funding not access. Women still have access.

>This is simply a moral objection–a matter of conscience. It’s why the freakin’ Pilgrims came here people!

Far be it from the White House to lecture Catholics on caring for women and children. Catholic organizations and churches care for more woman and children than anyone else.

Just thought you should know what’s going on. If this gets a hold, it sets a precedent for undermining religious liberty in many other ways.


Couple Awarded 4.5 Million For Wrongful Birth Of Son


From the land of the absurd comes a horrific tale. Unfortunately, this story is real.

A West Palm Beach jury awarded a couple 4.5 million dollars for the wrongful birth of the their son. That’s right. You read that correctly. The wrongful birth of their son. The West Palm Beach Post writes:

During a roughly two-week-long trial that ended Wednesday, Mejia and Santana claimed they would have never have brought Bryan into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.

Now, I do not claim to know how this feels. It just seems backwards and upside down. I mean, what the heck are they going to tell their son as he gets older? I mean what do you say?

“Dear son. We love you how you are, but we would have aborted you had we had the chance because of the hassle your disability has caused us all, including you. Luckily we got millions for your accidental birth to make this all better. Nighty, night. Kiss, kiss. Sweet dreams tonight!”

Ouch. Sad. Very sad.

This will only end bad. How do you live with all this? They need prayer and mercy. And that child is valuable to God. I hope he understands that one day.

That’s really all I have to say about that. What else is there?


Michelle Obama Invaded My Church


First Lady Michelle Obama is invading my church (North Point Community Church) today. Okay, that was a bit of an overstatement (and it sounds like I am trying to stir up controversy). Today is the 1-year anniversary of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative and she asked if she could come talk about it and celebrate the program at our church. From their own website it is: America’s Move To Raise a Healthier Generation of Kids. Of course, our church said yes. I probably shouldn’t comment on this, but, well, you know me…

Am I going? No.

And it’s not because I have to work today. I am home doing stuff getting ready to welcome our new son (#4) on Friday. And it’s not because I am a fatty or that I feel guilty about raising fat kids (I’m not, by the way. Raising fat kids, that is. But I am a bit of a fatty myself). I could go. So that no is an emphatic one.

I’m not going because I am very uncomfortable with the decision. Now, I love my church. My family has been serving and giving there for 6 years. And we are not going anywhere (ie. not leaving because of this). So this is not a detrimental decision. I am not going to talk trash. I support my church in all their decisions and trust them. It’s probably the right decision, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some cautionary thoughts or opinions of my own. In fact, this is the first time I’ve ever said anything like this because I love “all things North Point”.

I just don’t like the idea of government officials or representatives coming into churches, especially those with a philosophy of big, centralized government. It creates too many contradictions, too much hypocrisy, breeds corruption (since power attracts the corrupt and the corrupt seek more power), leads to blatant opportunism (since it seeks to sustain it’s control/power) and often not principled (which is built on core values, and if opportunism and control is your desire there is no room for core values).

For example, you know what’s really unhealthy for children? Abortion. That kills kids 100% of the time. In fact, it kills about 1.4 million children every year and has killed about 43 million since it became legal in 1973. I’m just sayin’. [source:]

I also don’t like government officials or representatives coming into churches who come from a philosophy that is constantly trying to secularize and sanitize religion from the public square or sector (unless it is politically beneficial, of course).

For example, I wrote about a person in my small group (community group, Bible study, discussion group, or whatever you want to call it) that teaches at a public school up the street. During the holidays the school had to take the decorations off of the Christmas tree because a parent complained. I don’t really get that one (being that Christmas trees are actually pagan and not Christian, or leaving it up bare being an amicable solution). And then there are the anecdotal stories of public school teachers warned not to hand out Christmas cards or say “Merry Christmas”.

So let me get this right, we can’t say Merry Christmas in the public sector more and more, but Michelle can come into churches and say Merry Government? Woo-hoo!

Beyond that, there is often criticism of religious groups trying to affect public policy (like with abortion)–you know, allegedly trying to create a ‘theocracy’. For some reason, faith is an illegitimate source for values. But there is no problem with government coming into churches to influence public policy? Let’s be honest, that’s what this is. I guess government is a legitimate source for values?

You might be thinking, “Jason, you’re so judgmental and jaded. Isn’t this neutral ground? You’re making a big deal out of nothing. We can all agree on making our kids healthier, can’t we?”

Sure, then let’s meet on truly neutral ground–like an event center or something (there are plenty in Atlanta). Then Washington could ask local churches to partner and support the agenda. That way we have a real choice. I mean, how much of a choice do you have when the President’s wife asks to speak at your church? You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

There’s really nothing neutral when it comes to politics. And that’s the point: Politicians use political power to promise policies that will benefit certain people in order to harvest votes. Make no mistake, this initiative is about increasing government regulations and spending. As it is, speculations are that there will be more sin taxes on certain foods, salt limits in food production, and portion control for restaruants. Either way, the government is set to spend over half a BILLION dollars EVERY year on this initiative (and related ones). Read that again…$$$HALF A BILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR$$$

In general, this is not a legitimate use of tax-payer dollars (which is in reality being borrowed from China, by the way, so it is not even payed for), especially when we are all broke. It’s not the government’s job to tell us what to eat or what to do. I’m sorry there are so many fat kids sitting around and eating Doritos while playing X-Box. If we’re going to spend money on kids, let’s spend it something useful–like literacy, English, science, math, technical programs, marriage and family classes, etc.

I can’t help but also think that Michelle is trying to indirectly muster support for her husband with one base that is not supporting him all that much right now. Who’s that? White evangelicals. I’m just being honest, because that’s the main demographic at my church. It seems manipulative. Make no mistake, the election cycle has begun.

Our church is now officially on the radar of the government. That makes me uncomfortable. It should make everyone uncomfortable, both the religious and irreligious. This all begs the question, what will my church say when President Barack Obama calls and asks to speak when he is campaigning for president again? It probably won’t happen. But if it does, what do you say? Again, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Plus, I can’t help but worry if this is a jump-the-shark moment for my church with regard to political influences. It’s hard to resist the exposure, for sure.

And this tension is really what the First Amendment was all about:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It was meant to protect the religious citizens from government, not to sanitize the government of religion or religious citizens.

Just some thoughts from a ‘religious’ fatty.


Quote of the Week on Children


“We live in a society today where these children can be wanted children. Even if you don’t want to keep this child after you’ve had it, there’s plenty of young couples out there, that want children.”

-I know it’s Friday, but I thought this quote was appropriate considering my post earlier this week “Is Pro-Choice Ever Pro-Death?” These are words from Norma McCorvey. She once used the alias Jane Roe in the landmark court case Roe v. Wade, regarding abortion. She has since had many regrets. I know it’s an uncomfortable subject, but it is worth thinking about considering some recent statistics from the New York City Health Department.

Is Pro-Choice Ever Pro-Death?


I’m about to get serious. I’m not sure if you’re pro-choice or pro-life, but what I do know is that bringing it up makes some people angry instantly. Some recent statistics came out that SHOULD SHOCK you no matter what your position is.

This issue is always a conflict to me. Certainly I don’t want to tell people how to live their lives. Then again, there is a certain ‘social contract’ that we develop as a society in order to maintain a civilized and orderly culture–so everything doesn’t become relative and we no longer value important virtues necessary to sustain a society.

I must admit that I have a high value on life. And although abortion is often defended in the context of reducing poverty, reducing unwanted pregnancies (and abuse by default), protecting the health of the mother, protecting the rights of society in general by ensuring the rights of the individual, not objectifying women but, instead, liberating them, the truth is, over the last 30 years, none of these ‘selling’ points have proven to be true. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

A few weeks ago a tragic statistic came out. It revealed that 41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion (here is the Department of Health Report). Did you hear that? Let me repeat it:

41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion!

You don’t have to be religious or pro-life to understand that statistic is horrifying, disgusting, and even foreboding. And when this breaks down by ethnic group it gets even worse. It doesn’t count abortion with all the other death-rate statistics. That’s because it would affect the overall death-rates to such a degree that people might really start paying attention and wondering about the practice. That would bring attention to the issue that would demand some changes. At least that’s how I see it.

This all begs some thought provoking questions:

Is this what it means to be a civilized society? And is this really liberating to women?  How can we as a society say we value rights and ‘the law’ when we don’t value life?

I just don’t think that works in the long run. It breaks everything down because it’s as if every value starts and builds from there. It’s kind of an unwritten mantra that is playing out in our society.

If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we certainly won’t value life in the end stages.

If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value it when it comes to considering going to war.

If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value making relationships work.

If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value making marriages work.

If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value honoring the relationships built in business on contracts and ethics (which are built on values).

If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we don’t really value life.

We aren’t really all that civilized, are we? We aren’t really so enlightened as a society after all. It’s sad. Bummer.


Abstinence-Only Programs…Work?


I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the television interviews. I have seen several. And I hate them.

There are a lot of agendas that people and organizations want to push on to our children via the public school system. Be it evolution vs. intelligent design or Marxism vs. Laissez-faire (Free-market) Capitalism.

And there is the abstinence-only debate.

There are those who want to teach children safe sex education from an abstinence-only base to our youth. Here is an interesting article on some statistics from a study that shows some favorable results of teaching abstinence-only.

I can remember watching one interview. The anti-abstinence panelist said something to the effect of:

“We shouldn’t teach kids not to have sex until marriage because studies show that [such-n-such] number of teens still have sex…”

By that logic we shouldn’t:

*tell kids to tell the truth because they all eventually lie a time-or-two

*teach kids not to drive safe because everyone eventually gets into a fender-bender

*train kids to eat healthy because studies show that 10 out of 10 people eventually die anyway (that’s a little joke)

Arguments against abstinence-only programs say they don’t teach kids comprehensive safe sex education, thereby spreading more sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy. That is a straw-man argument and simply not true. Abstinence-only programs contain all of that information…but they teach it from a base of NOT having sex as the best approach.

So what is the real deal in arguments against?

Did you know abstinence works every time it is used? We should always teach our children what is best. Studies show that people who wait to have sex are happier, have more long term relationships, less disease, and overall better health.

I believe this is really an argument about religion by proxy: abstinence implies morality which implies religion. I think that’s why people get so mad and are against it. No one likes the implication that they aren’t moral (or moral enough). I get it, but we should still do what’s best (and true) for our children.



How Dare the President! [Part 2 of 2]



Yes, I think healthcare reform needs to happen. But it better do two things: 

1) Actually improve and expand healthcare 

2) Not break the back of the economy 

This is the true moral imperative. 

Upon a cursory read of certain portions of proposed legislation (HR 3200), I have made some simple observations. By the way, you can read the legislation here: If you do, you will have one up on your Representatives. For some reason, they don’t think they have to read the Bills they vote on, even though they sign an affidavit stating they have. Here’s what I’ve noticed:

  1. Our Representatives will be exempt from this legislation. In other words, they won’t be subject to what they want to subject us to. How can this nation stand if our Representatives vote for things that they don’t have to abide by? (And by the way, they do it all the time.) This is like old-style monarchy, and we are the peasants.
  2. A public option will drive out the private market. Why? Because by law the government can pay up to 30% less than its private competitors. In fact, this is one of the reason healthcare is so expensive now. Because doctors and hospitals have to make up the cost for the low reimbursement rates of current Medicare and Medicaid patients. No one can compete with that. In any other context, these practices would be considered illegal or monopolistic. But because it is gov’t, it’s A-OKAY. This will actually decrease the standard of health care in the long run as competition unavoidably lessens. This will lead to the socialization of healthcare. Now there are rumors of the public option being removed from the legislation. I don’t believe. Provisions for it will be tucked away in there somehow hidden with fancy and confusing legal jargon. Besides, there are about five versions of this Bill floating around. And the final versions on Bills are never read anymore. So how would anyone really know?
  3. Federal funds will go to cover abortions. You may say it won’t, that abortion isn’t even in the Bill. But laws and legislation are based on precedent and the precedent has already been set. Since abortion is legal, it will be considered a simple medical procedure in the context of this Bill and will be covered.
  4. In the end, bureaucrats in Washington (not you, me, or our doctors) will oversee and decide on health care costs, coverage, and procedures. 
  5. This will be the biggest social program in history because of the size of the US. We are given promises that this will be revenue neutral, but there is actually no plan in place to back that statement up. We are told that funding will be figured out after the fact. This is obviously a gross misstatement. It will break the bank. In fact, the health system will eventually become the biggest employer in the world by some projections. Nothing that size that doesn’t answer to anyone (accountability), have to perform well (competition), or be sustainable (pay for itself) can be effective or efficient. Is there anything you can think of that the government has taken over that has become cheaper or better?
  6. The government will have access to all your tax records to assess what your cost for care should be. And if you don’t like it, they will have access to your bank account so they can deduct it directly. Yes, that is in the legislation too. Want to do rock-climbing on the weekends? Well, you’ll pay a little more for your healthcare. Are you a roofer by trade? That will cost you more. Drink Coke and eat chips? Pay up. Drive an SUV o
    r have a house that is too big? That will cost you since you’re ‘hurting the planet.’ It can happen.
  7. This will NOT be FREE. That may be the biggest distortion of all.

I don’t believe this legislation will or can accomplish the goals it purports too. It is a logistical impossibility. That’s what makes me so suspicious. It’s more like radicalization of the healthcare. If you think about it, under the auspices of health reform the gov’t will have access and control of every aspect of your life (in one fell swoop). This is politics as usual and I think citizens are waking up to it. The President’s approval numbers consistently trending down might be evidence of this. 

The argument is often made that no one should die because they don’t have coverage. Not sure I get that one. Anyone is able to get care in the ER by law already. The argument is also made that no one should go broke because of medical expenses. Some simple changes in the system could be made to alleviate that (more on that in a moment). But let’s be clear, HR 3200 will not increase coverage or access. And it sure won’t cover experimental procedures.

As a result of the debate here in America, some recent information has come to light about healthcare in other countries with gov’t run programs. There’s a ton more information that could be uncovered too, if the media wasn’t so biased.

Did you know?

  1. 4,000 babies were born in toilets, elevators, and halls in the UK because there weren’t enough beds.
  2. Also in the UK, a recent investigation has revealed more than 1,000,000 cases of cruel and regretful care. Keep in mind the population is 60 million.
  3. In addition, the UK is telling doctors to help their suspected terminally ill patients to die sooner to save costs.
  4. In France health care is being rationed because the price is crippling.

But enough with the problems. Let’s talk about some ideas that would bring true reform. These ideas would bring down healthcare costs, increase the quality of it, and not strain the economy beyond the point of no return:

  1. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
  2. Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
  3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
  4. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
  5. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
  6. Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
  7. Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

You can read these ideas in more detail here. They aren’t mine, but I believe they would work immediately. Of course, they’ll probably never happen because these ideas put the power in the hands of the individual citizens, rather than the large vacuous unaccountable government.

Everything, in regard to my political leanings, stems from my belief in limited government. It’s strange to me. We as Americans know that the early settlers battled circumstances and hardships to come to this land to flee the heavy hand of large and oppressive government. They wanted to live free and pursue opportunity—to create their own destiny, you might say. 

For some reason, today we are willing to vote in (and for) leaders with philosophies (both Democrats and Republicans) that openly and proudly tout large and authoritarian views of government, all the while professing a sense of morality and principle. Unfortunately, these two ideas are mutually exclusive historically. People are never truly free while living under big government. The current world community also proves this. Big, strong, centralized government is hardly ever principled or moral because it is unaccountable and greedy by nature. 

Big government ideas are always framed in the context of being ‘helpful’. This is dangerous. Historically, people always let liberty die, all the while applauding and cheering the very things that bring its demise. Too many times citizens have been willful, or at least ignorant, accomplices to liberty fading. 

I mean, think of going to the DMV, Post Office, or to the city to pull a permit. Not a pleasant experience. Now imagine this in respect to your medical needs. No thanks!

Do I believe in unity and building bridges with people who aren’t like me or believe what I believe?

Of course! 

I really want to see healthcare reform in this country, but not at the expense of quality, reasonable costs, and the economy. Everyone will suffer in this context. Take it from the son of a Swede, socializing healthcare will fundamentally change this country. And it won’t be for the better.

That’s my moral imperative.

*UPDATE: The President is scheduled to give a speech on healthcare this Wednesday to clarify his plan. Still, I suspect it will mostly be anecdotal, if not entirely. Either way, I look forward to hearing it.

How Dare the President! [Part 1 of 2]


Although most of my conversations here are usually regarding faith, current events come up from time to time (but just so you know, I don’t go into them in my book). I am frequently fixated on the idea of whether my worldview is affecting my faith or if my faith is affecting my worldview.

This all comes together as I consider the world that my children live in and will inherit.

I am a person that gets tired of pretense and hidden agendas. As I read the news, there is a cautioning in my heart. It seems to detect things below the surface of what’s being reported. Sometimes it’s just plain obvious, though. I don’t need to detect anything.

That’s what happened about a week ago and it’s been chewing at me ever since. I couldn’t just keep quiet.

Recently, President Obama spoke with more than 1,000 religious leaders in two conference calls regarding his healthcare agenda. He was hoping to promote said agenda to their congregations, by default. In the conversation the President called his agenda a “moral imperative.”

Furthermore, he also said expanding healthcare fulfills a “core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another …that I am my brother’s keeper, my sister’s keeper,” and “We are partners with God in matters of life and death.” Al Gore and former President Bill Clinton (who didn’t want to endorse my book for some reason) just came out with similar sentiments. This is what I like to call invoking “the popular Jesus”:

“We all know the popular Jesus—the one who said so many generous, patient, tolerant, and graceful things. Everyone loves the popular Jesus. Everyone likes to quote him in speeches to support personal causes. At Easter and Christmas, the popular Jesus helps sell merchandise and fill churches. Many forward-thinking people quote the popular Jesus to resolve problems. World leaders tackle current events relying on the words of the popular Jesus.” (see chapter 8 of my book)

What the President said really made me angry for three reasons.

First, the tactic implies that if I don’t wholeheartedly subscribe to the President’s agenda, I am, by default, immoral—or at least not moral enough in my thinking on this issue.

That’s what I like to call a cheap shot. To vilify the opposition is what people do when they are on the ropes and/or can’t deal with the content of opposing ideas presented in the overall discussion. Strong-arm tactics also make me suspicious, like there is some type of hidden agenda they are trying to distract people from. Plus, it also smacks of pretense. As if I shouldn’t question him or his ideas because of who he is, how smart he is, or how moral he presents himself to be.

Is this the type of open and civil debate this self-proclaimed unifier promised during the campaign? Where is the openness? Where are the C-SPAN discussions for us to voice our concerns? Where are the informational websites to post our comments and questions? Or is this just guilt, fear, and manipulation repackaged as reform as politicians are so fond of doing? Wasn’t this supposed to be the most transparent administration in history?

Secondly, why is it that Democrats can interject God into their political conversations and no one says word one? The TV news, papers, and bloggers are all silent. Do you know what happens when anyone else does this? Say, a more conservative candidate that is not a Democrat and is white? They get pounced on for weeks in the news cycles for trying to shatter the “wall between church and state” or trying to create a theocracy.

So where are my media peeps on this?

Thirdly, and most importantly, what about abortion!

I am unapologetically pro-life. That’s right. I said it. It doesn’t mean I hate people who aren’t. But don’t lecture me about morality or that I am my brother’s keeper, Mr. President (or Clinton or Gore, to a lesser degree), when you’ve voted on several occasions to protect late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, and, even worse, not protecting born-alive failed abortions (when the abortion goes wrong and the baby actually survives, the doctor can kill the baby). I am physically sick even writing that last one.

Plus, what about the Hippocratic Oath? Is it, “Sorry fetus. You’re not legally a ‘person’ yet, so we’ll be just fine disposing of you. You are a ‘being.’ But that’s not good enough. And even though most physicians, biologists, and scientist agree that life begins at conception, apparently that’s not good enough either. You are a mistake.”

If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant, right? Sounds absurd, doesn’t it?

A baby is truly helpless and innocent. This is shameful. It is also a violation of the Constitution (The principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, specifically. You know, the whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness we are all endowed with?), if you ask me.

At the core of my being is that life is sacred. In fact, I believe that every society, nation, and culture is defined by how they view and treat life at its early stages and the twilight years.

Out of curiosity, how has this administration treated the elderly so far?

Last week they also revealed Social Security recipients will not receive the automatic cost of living increases for the next two years.

Really? We can’t cut the bike paths or sidewalk projects from the ‘Stimulus Plan’ tucked away in there to make up the $8 billion? Besides, bike paths and sidewalks don’t stimulate anything (except heart-rates). I think we can make the sacrifice and redirect some pork in the Stimulus Plan toward the elderly, can’t we? Especially considering only 10% of it has been spent so far.

As a follower of Jesus, I am all for healthcare reform. So tomorrow I will talk more about that. But for today, how dare the President talk moral imperatives when he won’t protect the truly innocent.

With all due respect, I am outraged. And it makes me very suspicious of this legislation.


I Hate Christians Who Protest


Yesterday in town there were some Christians protesting in front of an abortion clinic. They were chanting and holding up all kinds of homemade signs. Some of these people even brought their children with them.

I hate when Christians do this crap. I mean, is anyone about to walk in to such a place really going to see the sign that says “Abortion Kills Children” or hear some stupid rhyme going to change their minds? Are they really saying to themselves, “You know what? Those people picketing care about me so much I realize I don’t want to do this.” No! Most people will drive right by and come back the next day.

Are these rallies doing any good?

Can’t Christians do something more productive?

It seems to me, if they really cared, they might get involved with  some teen crisis center. That would show more love. That would be more helpful. To say nothing of the fact that they are bringing their own kids to these rallies. At least get a babysitter.

And let’s not forget, at least in my opinion, they give God a bad name. Good intentions do not always have good results.

Go to Top