God Helps Those!

I finally had my chance to find out what people meant by, “Don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.” On a liberal “Christian” blog, someone commented, “Those that do not accept contraception or abortion, should not use contraceptives or have abortions.”

The final impression I got from the commenter was:

(1) Way back when slavery was legal in the US (also Jim Crow), I would have sat back in my chair and thought, "Those poor black folk sure have it rough." Consequently, I didn't think it necessary to join the Abolitionists in their struggle for racial equality of blacks because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.

(2) Way back when ethnic cleansing of Jews was legal in Germany, I would have sat back in my chair and thought, "Those poor Jews sure have it rough." Consequently, I didn't think it necessary to join the German Jews, Catholics, Christians, Gypsies, and people of good will in their struggle for ethnic equality of Jews (and Catholics, Gypsies, etc) because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.

(3) Since abortion is now legal in the US, I sit back in my chair and think, "Those poor unborn children sure have it rough." Consequently, I don't think it necessary to join Atheists, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Libertarians (and Democrats), and people of good will in their struggle for developmental equality of the pre-born because God obviously doesn't want to bother either.

During the end of this exchange I was remembering that (American?) cultural Christian parable where the person in a flood was being rescued by a helicopter and then by a boat. When the person got to heaven, they asked why they weren’t helped. God said that He sent the helicopter and the boat.

But instead of thinking of the person that went to heaven, I was thinking about the people driving the helicopter and the boat. If the drivers never came, God couldn’t say that he sent them.

I was very sad that the person commenting above didn't seem to want to do the right thing because he felt that God was abandoning certain people to the evil aspects of the world.

But then I got to thinking, does God help those who only help themselves? Many preachers say that this is false: God helps those who can’t help themselves. I’ve come to believe it’s another false dichotomy. Why can’t God help those who help themselves and those who can’t help themselves? Doesn’t God just help in many good ways seen and unseen?

Who does God help? God helps those! (Yes, it’s “them”, but it just doesn’t work in the same dramatic way.)

God helps those who can help themselves because he bestows many talents on people. God helps those who can’t help themselves by granting unexplainable courage along with natural (rain in a drought) and manmade aids (boat and helicopter and speaking out on behalf of the helpless). In the end, God helps in all good things even though we might not understand how or why.

So, regarding the commenter above, he’s not going in a helicopter or boat, he’s staying at home to type away at his computer to write about how pitiful some people are (including the unborn).

May we all remember those who can’t help themselves and answer God’s call in our own individual way to do God’s will for the benefit of others. May we also thank God for the talents he gave us and that we use them for His glory.

Liberal or Conservative

I use the terms liberal and conservative all the time. I've recently been wondering what that exactly means.

In general (according to me), conservative is the description of a viewpoint that was originally conceived at the onset of a group. Liberal is the description of a viewpoint that has changed since the onset of a group.

(In general, I usually talk as if I'm part of the "United States Citizens" group unless otherwise stated.)

Example 1: Group: United States Citizens. Original concept: role of federal government. Conservative: limited federal government. Liberal: more power to the federal government.

Example 2a: Group: Christian. Original concept: Abortion. Conservative: Abortion is always a sin. Liberal: Abortion is not a sin.

Example 2b: Group: Ancient Romans (~10 AD). Original concept: Abortion. Conservative: Abortion is morally permissible. Liberal: Abortion is never morally permissible.

Example 3: Group: Ancient Romans (~10 AD). Original concept: infanticide is morally permissible. Liberal: infanticide is never morally permissible.

President Obama's Economy Stimulant

Yes, I'm being flip.

I'm all gitty about the almost imminent passage of the (790Billion$US+) economic stimulus package. Yes, it came down in price (from about 838Billion$US), but to what end?

President Obama ran on "Change" rhetoric. President Obama is pushing for an "Economic Stimulus Bill". What do they have in common? The biggest Beg to Question headache of the century.

We'll see if they're the biggest downer in US history.

(I actually pray that they won't be since none of my US congresspeople would vote against either; they're the biggest baddest liberal group of any state.)

Catholics Are Against Slavery

I was thinking about the fact that Jews were legally permitted to own slaves but that the Catholic Church since at least the seventh century taught that slavery was to be abolished.

The Jews were allowed to own non-Jewish slaves. (How can this be after they were enslaved by the Egyptians? It's probably a "hardness of hearts" law like those of divorce.) (Catholic) Christians are not to own slaves of any race or creed.

This got me to wondering: Is it true that Christians cannot own slaves because all of humanity is now grouped together as one family in Love (God is Love)? One nation is not chosen above another?

What do you think?

Sidebar:
I've been arguing with a liberal person at "Contextual Criticism" (liberal Christian) blog here. The issue of slavery and the Old Testament vis-a-vis Abortion (in connection with the Mexico City Policy/Obama) and Afro. Amer. enslavement came up. (Any comments on our exchange in the comments there?)

Porn Attorneys for Obama

I received the following email from The Maryland Coalition Against Pornography (a comment follows the email below):

Friends,

We have reason to be alarmed at the federal nomination described below.
To voice your concerns to the Senate Judiciary Committee, call them at:
Senate Judiciary Committee Majority & Minority Offices: 202-224-7703 & 202-224-5225

Marylanders, one of our Senators, Ben Cardin, sits on the Judiciary Committee. Call him at his DC office: 202-224-4524 or in Baltimore: 410-962-4436. He can also be emailed using a we-based form [sic]:
http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice -
David Ogden's 'Obscene' Record
CHICAGO, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.
"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and the ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The U.S. Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination," said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis. Ogden's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."
"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine -- at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch....
"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws."

For a full report on David Ogden's disappointing legal record, visit http://www.fidelis.org [or here].

www.mcap1.com

The Maryland Coalition Against Pornography is a volunteer based organization. Focused on the Nation's Capital Region, we work to protect children, families and communities from the devastating effects of pornography.

My comment:
David Ogden fought a measure that would keep porn from being viewed at public libraries (please correct me if I'm wrong; see here). I know someone who works at a library (not me) who has mixed feelings about this law since they are against censorship. However, this person thinks that children who are in the public library should not have to see pornographic material on someone's computer screen. This is a common sense law that should have passed (as many public indecency laws have). Instead, David Ogden successfully fought this law and succeeded. Now, a librarian is not permitted by the Supreme Court to force a person viewing pornography from ceasing to view it (many of these people supposedly get off from viewing it in public).

I wonder if he has any kids. If he does, may their guardian angels protect them.

Speaker Pelosi is for Soylent Green

Speaker Pelosi says that contraception will help the economy:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

(quote at 1:19)

What the liberal media doesn't want you to know is this: she wants to subsidize soylent green with the current stimulus bill.

She proposes that when senior citizens reach 75 years old and enter the hospital for any reason, they will be drafted for soylent green duty.

Behind closed doors, President Obama was asked his opinion. He said, "I don't know when human life ends. It's above my pay grade."

(This is obviously satire.)

The Wisdom of the Cross

Parts of the First Homily of the New Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron:

There are many ways in which this conflict between the true wisdom of the gift of self and the pseudo-wisdom of self-sovereignty are exemplified in our society. I will mention three of those that seem to me among the most lamentable. First, there is the conflict between those who base their decision about a state in life or their selection of a profession on discerning the will of God and those who make these choices on the basis of gaining wealth or security or the world’s esteem. Second, there is the conflict between those who judge it wise always to protect the right to life of others, even at a cost to themselves, and those who would be willing to violate that right, if that is the price to be paid to keep control of the circumstances and conditions in which they have decided to live. Third, there is frequently in our society a conflict between those who make the well-being of their spouses or children the first priority in their lives and those who are convinced that their families exist to bring them self-gratification.
...
And those of you who are parents, please teach this wisdom to your children by what you say, and most of all by the way you live. This wisdom of the cross is the greatest gift you can give those whom you love so dearly.

This speaks to me very personally in a strange way. Recently, I have met newly or just-to-be newly married couples that have been asking a bunch of questions about marriage. Specifically, they're asking about how raising kids is going.

My impression (from the myriad of questions and the pattern of questioning) is that they're asking because they're trying to figure out what the pleasure-pain ratio of having children is (is it easy or hard/is it worth it?). In other words, now that marriage has helped my life satisfaction, will children make it even better? Until I'm sure it will, I'll continue to contracept and keep my sweet dogs and cats with the other human sweetness.

When things don't go exactly as planned, when things get out of control, what will happen?

On the other hand, if they have the wisdom of the cross, perhaps they will totally give themselves to the other (and not artificially contracept). If an unexpected blessing (unplanned pregnancy) happens, perhaps they will welcome the preborn human person with open arms.

What is the wisdom of the cross? It's "the true wisdom of the gift of self."

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. John 15:13

Does any one know what I mean? Perhaps I'm sensing something that's not there? God only knows their hearts.

Save the Sheep From the Wolves!

I’ve been reading Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President's Council on Bioethics. In the essay “The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity” by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, in the footnotes it says,

It is worth noting that nonhuman animals themselves not only regularly engage in killing each other, but many of them (lions and tigers, for example) seem to depend for their whole mode of living (and so their flourishing), on hunting and killing other animals. If nonhuman animals really did have full moral rights, however, we would be morally required to stop them from killing each other. Indeed, we would be morally required to invest considerable resources-economic, military, even-in order to protect zebras and antelopes from lions, sheep and foxes from wolves, and so on.

Of course this military scenario is ridiculous, but why aren’t animal activists (PETA) trying to save Apes from each other’s militant advances in the wild or otherwise? In Spain (lifesitenews.com), the government has already resolved to equate great apes and humans.

If they can call great apes humans, why do they still deem that throwing humans in the trash is perfectly acceptable (moral) and legal (not the same thing)? It makes some people crazy. From lifesitenews.com:

"[Matthew Derosia of Cottage Grove] saw all these little babies that made it and he heard all these horror stories about the babies that made it in the trash can making noise. It made him sick," said Georjean [Derosia, Matthew’s mother]. "He worries about these babies that get aborted and he obsesses on it."

I’m not saying that driving an SUV into a Planned Parenthood like Matthew Derosia did is the answer. We just have to keep up the good fight for the preborn and their mothers like Pastor Luke Robinson is trying to do.

As African American pastor Pastor Luke Robinson from Frederick, Maryland (yes, Maryland; my state that has only one OTAAAC member in the federal Congress) said at this year’s March for Life,

Please Mr. President [Obama], be that agent of change that can commute the sentence of over 1400 African American children and over 3000 children from other ethnic groups sentenced to die every day in this country by abortion.

See blackgenocide.org for more on this genocide of African American children.

Save the Sheep From the Wolves? How about saving innocent preborn babies from the Culture of Death led by President Obama and the DNC (Destroys Unborn Children; lifesitenews.com)!