 |
"Poll Supports Taxing Rich for Overhaul," read the headline in my hometown paper on this story about health-care reform. "Americans Sour on Other Options for Meeting Costs," added the subhead.
In other words, same old, same old.
I have to wonder how many of the people who take the tax-the-rich line pause, even briefly, to ask themselves what gives them a claim on other people's money, and a pretty much limitless claim at that. Not many, I'm afraid. It's habitual by now.
But they should pause. And more to the point, we should. We, meaning Christians. We have it on good Authority that it's a sin to steal. Should we be quick to conclude it's not stealing if it's done by the state? Automatically? Should we blithely assume it's OK if the government is democratic? Might that not make it worse -- increasing the complicity, and the corruption, of the people?
Shouldn't we at least ask these questions?
Yes, I know: There are mitigating factors. Health care isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. (I really know: I've had major medical bills with no insurance.) But the issues remain, and we still need to wrestle with them. And we can't forget that the people always support making "the rich" pick up the tab. The spirit of the nation isn't "we're deeply sorry to take other people's money, but we're desperate." It's simply "We're entitled."
And yes, I know: Scripture has many warnings about attachment to wealth and many calls to care for others. But those words aren't just for the wealthiest of us: They're for all of us. When we feel we're entitled, we're not getting our spirits into harmony with God. We're only doing that when we're voluntarily giving, not forcibly taking.
I'm not entirely closed to ethical arguments for government programs of this sort, though I'm skeptical of them. The trouble is, few people seem to feel they even need to make those arguments. They just feel free to take the money.
So let's talk about this. A ground rule: Let's not talk about the details or the practicalities of health-care reform. We've done that a lot already on this site, and we may do it again, but it's not today's topic. Let's focus on the moral and spiritual issues raised above. There's plenty to chew on right there.
During a recent drive, I was listening to the radio. I awoke from my typical "glazed over" demeanor as my ears perked up to a pet store commercial. Between the specials and sales, it urged all "pet parents" to bring their pets along to the store.
Did I hear that right, I wondered? Then it came again. Don't forget, pet parents, that your pets are always welcome at our store.
Pet ... parents? Really? It just sounded odd to me.
Now, I think (or am hoping) that I got their meaning. Maybe they didn't exactly mean "parents," as though pets were equivalent to children. I'm guessing that they probably just wanted words that were a little more endearing than the rather stark "pet owner" -- a phrase that better evoked the care and companionship we often feel for our pets.
I'm hopeful that neither the store nor its customers would equate parenting (the raising and shaping of an eternal soul, an image bearer of God) with the care of a pet. But I wondered, too, if that phrase was a small symbol of a growing fuzziness, even among Christians.
Dr. Albert Mohler writes about that on his blog, as he comments on a recent Associated Press article about the increase of church "special services" for believers and their dogs.
Pointing out that such services represent a "deep theological confusion," he writes: ...As Christians, we are to see the glory of God in the diversity and wonders of the animal kingdom. We are to respect all animals as intentional creations of God and to acknowledge the gifts that these creatures represent. At the same time ... As the image-bearers of God, humans alone have the capacity to know and to worship the Creator. Animals reflect the glory of God, but only human beings can see the glory of God and know the Creator. Animals may possess consciousness, but they do not have souls. ...America is a pet-centric culture, and this reveals much about us. We have the wealth to spend billions of dollars on pets. The ownership and enjoyment of pets is a sign of wealth and plenty. We are also a society that is trading human relationships for the companionship of pets. We cut off our elderly from extended family and leave them alone with their pets. We see increasing numbers of younger people who decide not to have children, but instead to pour themselves into relationships with their pets. Restaurants, malls, and hotels are asked to allow pets even as they allow children. Professor Hobgood-Oster points to the pet-centricity of our society as evidence of "the changing family structure, where pets are really central." The woman who brought her two dogs to the "Canines at Covenant" service said, "I don't have any kids, so my pets have always been my children." Postmodern Americans see these statements as evidence of new lifestyle choices. Christians should see these statements as tragic.
Do you think Americans, and those around the world, are "trading human relationships for the companionship of pets"?
Whenever something explicit or vulgar shows up in public, and some people object, you can always count on other people to come back with one line: "If you don't like to see it, just don't look at it."
But, of course, it's not that simple. Because it's everywhere now. So much so that even jaded media types are taking note. And they're not loving what they're seeing.
Take today's Washington Post story on "second-hand porn" -- AKA "drive-by porn" -- which is getting worse now that everyone carries video screens in public. Reporter Monica Hesse can't contain her revulsion. A sample passage:
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
That, and the general haze of gross that seemed to descend on the public space, the filmy yuckiness that made them wish the sprinkler system would spontaneously activate.
That, and the feeling that came with knowing exactly what was on their neighbor's mind.
"At some point," Hesse quotes an English professor/mother as saying, "we've completely lost the ability to tell when it's socially appropriate and when it's not."
How did we get here? Go back to that earlier line: "Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment...."
Well, they should oppose it. (And without using euphemisms like "adult entertainment.") Because that's where the problem started -- with a collective refusal to be "judgmental" toward "private" behavior. Once a society abandons the very idea of binding moral standards, the rampant pollution of "private" vice inevitably gets into the public air, and it keeps building till we're all choking on it.
So let's start a clean-up operation. Yes, I know: It seems hopeless. So what? Do it anyway. There are a countless everyday ways to make a start. I once saw an obscene T-shirt in the window of a Spencer Gifts. I urged the clerk to get it out of the window. He did. This hardly took a herculean effort: It took two minutes.
That's just one example. Any other ideas?
Today is Veteran’s Day, the day we set aside to honor all those who have worn our country’s uniform.
We are engaged in two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The skill and dedication of our frontline medical personnel are saving more lives than ever, but the result is wounded veterans coming home and having to learn to live with horrific wounds that would have killed soldiers in earlier wars.
If a war might be said to have a signature wound, today’s would be missing limbs and severe brain injury due to these wars’ unique weapon: the improvised explosive device. The concussive violence of an artillery shell or a few pounds of C4 going off anywhere near you is unimaginable to those who haven’t experienced it. (Forget what you’ve seen in Hollywood.) Even for soldiers who escape without an obvious scratch, that concussion can do severe damage to soft tissues, particularly the brain.
The Veteran’s Administration, while often doing great work, has at times also shown scandalous neglect. Fortunately, the Washington Post exposé is improving the lot of our wounded warriors. But there’s more than needs to be done in terms of long-term care, and that’s where you come in.
Project Valour-IT raises money to provide wounded men and women with technology to help them heal and adapt to life after their wounds. Voice-controlled laptops, operated by speaking into a microphone or using other adaptive technologies, allow the wounded to maintain connections with the rest of the world.
Wii video game systems increase motivation and speed recovery when used under the guidance of physical therapists. And handheld GPS devices build self-confidence and independence by compensating for short-term memory loss and organizational challenges related to traumatic brain injury.
Project Valour is having a fund-raising challenge that runs through the end of today, Nov. 11, 2009. But even if you come to this page after that time, you can still donate. I know times are tough and money can be short, but if you want to say thanks to a veteran who was willing to give his or her life to protect your freedom, please consider sending a donation their way.
Thanks.
I'm not going to lie. It was my first thought after seeing the alleged gunman's name, Nidal Malik Hasan, appear in the initial reports of the murderous rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 dead and 30 wounded. I sort of expected to see news trickle in confirming my suspicions. But it didn't.
It seems the mainstream media (as well as Army spokespersons) would rather reflexively rule out Islamic terrorism than let anyone consider the possibility.
I don't know, maybe conjecture about motives is unwise when reporting on something like this. Though I saw a lot from the MSM about the gunman not wanting to be deployed and being teased because he was a Muslim.
The news is only now starting to trickle in about possible motives related to his Islamic beliefs. Eyewitness accounts verify that he praised Allah shouting "Allahu Akbar!" just before he opened fire on unarmed soldiers. And he was already under investigation from Federal authorities for comparing Islamic suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to give their lives for their comrades. (More here.)
I know that none of this means definitively that this was an act of terrorism. We should pause while all the facts are gathered. But I can't help but think that ignoring the obvious is reflective of a society still unwilling to face the fact that there are Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad.
And in case you think I'm being unfair to Muslims, consider the post-9/11 evidence of plots and attacks blogged about here by National Review's Victor David Hansen.
At the end of his of post, Hansen wonders how many more attacks against our soldiers and innocent civilians it will take before Americans begin resenting "the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of some evidence."
When you were a kid, maybe you declared some day to be Opposite Day. If you were feeling bratty, it gave you a chance to play gags like this.
These days, I often think, every day is Opposite Day. Take Saturday, when President Obama spoke to a well-heeled homosexual group, pledging support for various items on their wish list and reassuring them that he'd fulfill their goals in due course. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading," he promised, "and the destination we will reach." (I, for one, don't doubt it one bit.)
Yep, it's Opposite Day in America, all right. We're seeing a moral inversion. We've always understood heterosexuality as the social, cultural and (most important) divinely created norm, and homosexuality as a distortion — a corruption, in the proper sense of the word — of that norm. Now presidents pay homage to groups that celebrate that distortion and define anyone who upholds the old norm as a bigot. We're way past "tolerance" here. (That word inescapably implies disapproval.) We're into official endorsement.
This isn't the only area where we've seen moral understandings not just weakened, but stood on their head. Abortion — a vast evil enshrined as a "constitutional right" — is the classic example. As essayist Joseph Sobran puts it, "What could be more barbarous than the killing of an unborn child, by the choice of its mother, through the agency of a doctor, and with the blessing of the state?" Count the victims: the sanctity of life, the preciousness of the maternal bond, the heart and soul of the medical profession, the protective purpose of the government. If anyone really wonders why Christians pay so much attention to this issue, here's the answer.
I bring all this up because Christians are so often tempted to negotiate a peace treaty with the world — saying, in effect, "You do what you want; just allow us to hide out in our churches and wring our hands among ourselves." We'd like to imagine we can still be faithful in public life by stressing the parts of our faith the world doesn't mind (feed the hungry, no problem) while downplaying the parts that the world minds very much.
That approach, by any biblical standard, is a betrayal of our Lord. If we're faithful, we have to expect we'll find ourselves opposite the world — not just in our private life, but in our public proclamation.
Does that make you uncomfortable? Me too. All the more reason we need reminders of our calling. As it happens, Scripture is full of them. Like this one, which I heard in church yesterday (ESV translation): "They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth.... Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time, for it is an evil time." But we're not called to be prudent in this situation. We get the opposite message: "Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate."
For Christians in this world, every day really is Opposite Day.
As a famous philosopher once said: D'oh!
It's hard to pity these guys who attacked what they thought were transvestites but were in reality cage fighters on their way to a costume party. Considering the cage fighters could have done some serious damage, these clowns are lucky they got only a quick takedown. (For the uninitiated, a "yob" is a Brit-English word with no single-word American equivalent. Think low-life hooligan troublemaker.)
Then there are these luckless pirates, who might want to consider investing in a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships, especially considering this is not the first time this has happened.
In case you missed it, the Federal Trade Commission is now saying that bloggers should disclose freebies in their reviews. In other words, they want bloggers who say things like, "I'm enjoying the best Auntie Anne's soft pretzel I've ever had in my life," to fess up if someone from Auntie Anne's just gave them that nice pretzel as a freebie hoping they'd blog about it.
Having to admit freebies we've been given in light of our blog posts might make things a little awkward around here. Just consider a few recent posts.
In Ted's post Genesis Fun: Water, he opens with the line, "I really enjoy the book of Genesis." I'm afraid in this case, Ted would have to disclose that he was indeed the recipient of a freebie — that he was given a free copy of The Holy Bible as a child that contained the book of Genesis.
In the post A Small Case of Road Rage, Nathan talks about "S[h]ingles Vaccinations." Here Nathan would have to disclose that he lives in the Atlanta area, which is home to the Center for Disease Control. Surely, he got something from them to inspire this post.
Then we had this post called I'm here: Ellsworth, Wisconsin. After doing some Googling, I noticed that Ellsworth has been described as "Cheese curd capital of Wisconsin." Something just tells me that Holli, the submitter of this post, would have been pressured by the FTC to disclose that she has been the recipient of one, if not two, cheese curds in her life.
Just trying to do my job here, folks. Hope these disclosures were helpful as you think about rushing out and trying the products and services we mention here on the Boundless Line — such as those yummy soft Auntie Anne's pretzels.
The sordid David Letterman story is revolting on many levels. So are many celebrity scandals, and there never seems to be a shortage of them. Yet this one somehow feels a little extra-grimy, at least to me. But why?
Is it the fact that all these women worked for Letterman? Is it the fact that all this went on for such a long time, as he kept betraying his "long time girlfriend" (now wife)? Is it his familiarity -- the fact that he's someone you can see on TV every day, even if you don't go looking for his show?
Yes, yes and yes. But there's something more. It's the way we've been conditioned to respond to this sort of thing by people like, well, David Letterman.
Letterman has built much of his career on cynical snarkiness. He eats up scandals when politicians or other celebrities are involved: To him, they're comic gold. A lot of people will now be struck by his hypocrisy. But that should concern us less than our complicity. How many of us have watched Dave smirkingly zing his targets and snickered right along with him? Even many of us who don't like him haven't been above laughing when he went after someone we liked even less. (Exhibit A: Bill Clinton. I'm guilty as charged.)
If we follow Letterman form, we'll just transition from smirking with Dave to smirking at him. But cases like his -- and the cases of people whose sins he's exploited -- should feel like tragedies, not comedies. They should make us feel sad, not superior; appalled, not amused.
Let's try breaking the cycle here. Letterman's case calls for sincere confession of sins, repentance and forgiveness. Even now, it's not clear that Letterman thinks much in those terms, or that he'll be meaningfully humbled in the long term. ("I'll be darned," he joked with his audience, "Dave had sex.") But for the rest of us, let's work to react not as Dave has taught us, but as Christ has. And that includes praying someday Dave will react that way too.
This seems to be my week for obituaries. A few days ago I did one for John T. Elson, the journalist of "Is God Dead?" fame. Today it's John Wild, the founder of ultrasound imaging technology.
Wild always knew his work could save many lives: It's been widely used to detect tumors, for example. But when it first came along (late 1940s/early 1950s), no one could have guessed how many young lives it would save. No one even knew those lives would be in danger.
Ultrasound came to be known as the "Window to the Womb," letting us see the miracle of human life from its early stages. All the bloodless euphemisms of the "pro-choice" movement — "products of conception," "potential human" — have a way of melting in the face of the evidence of our eyes: It goes straight to our hearts, faster than the most solid pro-life arguments ever can.
How many lives have been saved directly by ultrasound, when mothers who'd considered abortion looked at their babies and knew they couldn't go through with it? How many have been saved indirectly, by hearts and minds moved by the images long before life-and-death decisions come up? We'll never know. Hundreds of thousands, surely. Millions, maybe. You? Someone you know? Someone you've met? Whatever the number, every one of them is precious to the Lord.
Newspaper obituaries give us no clue as what Wild thought about abortion. It scarcely matters: What matters is what God did through him.
So what can He do through you? A lot more than you imagine.
CBS News revealed yesterday that:
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
This information was not released freely by the White House, but was gathered through a Freedom of Information Act request.
This Cap and Trade bill, also known as Markey-Waxman, was purportedly created to combat alleged man-caused global warming. The thing is, even if it does go into effect, it will only affect temperatures by 0.05 degrees (Celsius) over the next 40 years.
This is one reason I keep blogging about global warming and its opportunistic alarmists: The ideas behind it have real consequences for each of us. Proposed global warming policies won't enrich the air you breathe; they'll only make you poorer.
The politicians pushing for this cap and tax bill don't care about that 0.05 degree change in global temperatures. They are simply using that as a smokescreen. What these bureaucrats really want is more control, and more of our hard-earned money.
Labor Day used to mean the end of summer when we were kids. School started the Tuesday after Labor Day and despite persistent weeks of hot days followed by Indian Summer, in my mind, it was autumn.
I'm not sure if it's the school buses that start running mid-August where we live, or the intense September heat (it's suppose to be in the 80s today), but for some reason, we've let our Labor Day traditions slip in recent years.
 But no more! Though it was hot and sunny most of this past weekend, we did have one day of clouds, drizzling rain and a little nip in the air. It was just enough to get our hopes up that autumn is truly just around the corner. And so I headed to the craft store for orange, brown, olive and red paper and started cutting out leaves. And I baked a pot of chili. And lit Yankee candles (Harvest, and Autumn Leaves and Mulling Spices). And Steve made an autumn mix for the iPod (think George Winston, Mindy Smith and September Song for starters).
For a family of autumn-is-the-best-season believers, it was heavenly.
-------------------
This year, Labor Day had more than one meaning. Not only was it the kick off of the fall season, it was the start of our broadcast on Family Life Today. The subject: babies. Hard to imagine a better topic for labor day. Not sure if that was intentional, but it was certainly timely. We spent yesterday and today talking with Dennis Rainey and Bob Lepine about the fears many newly married couples face when thinking about starting their families. Here's help for a culture that's often bearish on babies, and hope if you're ready to be bullish.
-------------------
Finallly, I was teaching our kids about Labor Day, talking about the power of unions to change horrific working conditions and how most people today don't remember such things (not in America anyway). We prayed for the people, especially children, still forced to work in sweatshops just to earn enough money to eat, and ended by memorizing Matthew 11:28. I came across that verse, in the New King James Version, while reading the Daily Light.
Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Unions that break the grip of unjust working conditions and worse are a good thing. Thankfully we're on the other side of that drama here (so much so that we have the luxury of arguing we're truly post-union here). Whatever your thoughts on unions, finding our rest in Christ is our ultimate goal.
I'm thankful for Jesus' words and what will now be an annual reminder of His call to rest.
One of my heroes died this week. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the 88-year-old sister of President John F. Kennedy, passed away on Tuesday, but in her long life she proved that you can bring about big changes without having to create a large government bureaucracy or by enlisting the rich and powerful.
In fact, Shriver went the opposite direction, aiming her social revolution at those who at the time were whispered about, hidden away or shunned, often the object of the cruel jokes of schoolchildren.
In 1962, Shriver started the Special Olympics in the backyard of her Maryland home, a move prompted by her love for her developmentally disabled sister, Rosemary. The beginning was small, just some backyard games. Through Shriver's dedication, the Special Olympics soon turned into a worldwide phenomenon giving tens of thousands of children the chance to learn that they had something to contribute, that they were good at something.
More important, she taught the world that children with Down Syndrome or other developmental disabilities were not to be scorned, pitied or condescended to. Winners got trophies; losers did not. They seemed fine with that. It pushed them to try harder. Compare this to so many coddled children today who play games of soccer where no score is kept and everyone gets a prize, where their school papers are graded with a purple pencil lest a red mark traumatize their tender psyches. There are types of disabilities other than physical or mental, some inflicted by misguided adults.
I have a special love for the Special Olympics. You see, my son, Joshua, is a former Special Olympian with a mean 3-point shot in basketball. (That's his team in the above photo. He's the tall guy, No. 20, in the center.) He was born with global developmental disabilities that include mental deficits as well as some physical problems. (That's why the term mentally retarded is often incomplete.) But, boy, you should have seen him as I whooped it up when one of his shots swooshed through the net. The pride and joy on his face as he ran down the court would melt the hardest heart.
Shriver's pioneering work also helped bring the developmentally disabled out of the shadows, opening the way for these children to be mainstreamed into school classrooms, where they could make friends and socialize like other school kids. Joshua, now about to turn 22, was one of the most popular kids in his high school. He holds a job at Chick-fil-a, something that would have been unthinkable when I was young.
I have another interest beyond my son. My younger sister, Amy, was born with brain damage. (That's her with Joshua at left.) She was born the year Shriver started the Special Olympics and by her teens was part of the first experiment in mainstreaming the developmentally disabled into public school classrooms. And then there's my niece, Rebecca, who has Down Syndrome. She performs in her church's children's choir, where her mom (my sister Mary) is the youth music director.
Eunice Shriver came from a well-connected, politically powerful family but never was elected to public office. Yet I believe she did more to better the world than any other Kennedy. We lost a kind, compassionate and tenacious lady this week. (Yes, you can be compassionate and tough at the same time.) We're all a little poorer for it, but her legacy remains.
Next time you see a Special Olympian, don't feel pity or condescension. Give him or her a high-five. That's all they really need.
Lots of people saw the story when the American Psychological Association (APA) declared last week that gays can't change their orientation.
OK, no surprise there. The APA has been moving for years against "reparative therapists" and others who help people wanting to come out of homosexuality. The task force that pushed this declaration is dominated by gay activists, and adopted the premise that homosexual "orientations" per se are "normal and positive variants of human sexuality."
If anything, the APA's actions could have been worse. They stopped short of labeling reparative therapists unethical, as some gay activists in their ranks wanted. And they conceded that religious clients are free to steward their sexuality in alignment with their religious values and ethics.
But the pity is that few people will have noticed the story buried deep within the Associated Press's long report: There's evidence to contradict the APA. Gays can change, researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse found. At least many of them can.
The people Jones and Yarhouse studied worked with programs connected to Exodus International, which combines Christianity with a knowledgeable approach to therapy. The results can't be summed up simply, partly because the measures of success varied: moving into heterosexuality, diminishing homosexual attractions, living in chastity.
The upshot, though, is that just over half of the long-term participants made major progress away from homosexuality.
Jones and Yarhouse state their findings with proper scholarly caution. They make no claim that everyone can change -- or, for that matter, that not everyone can. They simply go with the evidence that they've got, from a very thorough study.
And they certainly do present enough evidence to challenge APA's broad claim that efforts to change homosexual identity don't work and shouldn't be tried.
It's just too bad many media consumers won't look far beyond the headlines. They'll imagine that people who come out of homosexuality are mythological creatures whose existence has been disproven by modern science. The truth is, their existence has really been found inconvenient to modern culture.
At over 12 million YouTube views and counting, the JK Wedding Entrance Dance is the most popular trip down the aisle since Lady Di's.
What's your take on it? Fun and celebratory, or tacky and irreverent? Personally, I'm torn. Let's be honest, with my love of hip-hop, it's no surprise that I think stuff like this is awesome. In fact, friends from all over the globe have sent me this clip saying, "Lisa, I can totally see you doing this!" I agree. Somewhere in my head I picture myself staging some choreographed craziness for a processional, recessional, or whatever. Though I'd probably pick something even more ghetto, like Flo Rida's "Low." But at the same time, I believe that a wedding is a sacred event -- a worship service -- and the focus really should be on Christ, and not my ability to pop, lock or krump.
If I get married in my current church or by any of its pastors, my answer will be decided for me. At my church, stuff like this is a no-go. My friend got married in October, and actually wanted the song used in the vid above (it's Chris Brown's "Forever," for those who are wondering) as her recessional. The pastor said "no," citing our church's wedding policy. I understand completely. But the rebellious streak in me (which, not surprisingly, must be vigilantly kept in check) said, "This girl got a good man! She's another success story for single girls everywhere! Let her run out of this church with him to wonderfully styled electronica, vamping and a fierce back-beat!"
Maybe that's best saved for the reception. I rewatched Jill's and Kevin's dance as the entire wedding party was invited to recreate it on the Today show. I liked it even better here, outside and in no danger of overshadowing something more important, like, say ... making a lifelong sacred covenant with someone.
A few weeks ago, I blogged about Zac Sunderland, the 17-year-old who was the youngest person ever to circumnavigate the world alone. The feat took Zac 13 months.
Several of you commented that you don't have to take a voyage to prove your manhood. This is true. However, it is Zac's fortitude to see a project through start to finish that makes him stand out from among his peers.
Looks like Zac has been keeping some pretty good company since his return. He writes: "A lot of young people were fired up not to be limited by other peoples' low expectations." I like his 1 Timothy 4:12 attitude.
I've been staying out of the health-care debate on this site. It's not that I have no opinions, but so many other people have chimed in already—and so many are more knowledgeable than I am—that I haven't felt the impulse to jump in.
But there's one big issue we haven't really focused on yet: Will the health-care overhaul effort end up funding abortion? That question is finally getting attention the last few days, thanks to a group of pro-life Democrats in Congress. Here's the upshot, as reported by the Associated Press:
Abortion is not mentioned in the 1,018-page bill that Democratic leaders hope will be approved by the last of three House committees this week. Supporters of the legislation say that means the bill is neutral.
But abortion opponents say the bill's silence is precisely the problem.
Without an explicit prohibition on federal funding for abortion, it could be included in taxpayer-subsidized coverage offered through the health overhaul plan, abortion opponents say.
"We cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," a group of 20 Democratic representatives said in a June 25 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
When the legislation was unveiled last week, it failed to include language abortion opponents were seeking. Now they are going public.
Democratic leaders are trying hard to duck the question: They've got enough challenges as it is without entangling their plans with abortion politics. They're searching for a way to keep both sides of the issue happy. But there's no realistic way to split the difference here, as AP ably explains. A few more excerpts:
Not only do abortion opponents want to block funding, they also want to make sure that the procedure is not included in the benefits package....
Abortion rights supporters say prohibiting plans in the exchange from covering the procedure amounts to taking away a right that women now have....
[Some lawmakers propose] a compromise that would leave the decision on abortion coverage up to insurers doing business in the exchange, but forbid the carriers from using any dollars from federal subsidies to pay for ending pregnancies....However, it's unclear whether insurance companies could keep federal subsidies separate from other funds they receive from individuals and employers to cover premiums.
Like I said, no way to split the difference. One side will win here and the other will lose, and both sides know it. If abortion isn't clearly excluded by law, it will be included in practice.
Whatever you think of the health-care overhaul on the whole, you've got to worry a lot about this part. For those of us who are convinced that abortion takes a helpless human life, it's a matter of conscience.
Last week the Episcopal Church USA accelerated its drive to embrace homosexuality (gay bishops, gay weddings, etc.). It's been coming for a while in this church body, which has had a very public controversy over the issue since they ordained openly gay bishop Eugene Robinson. And not surprisingly, the church has been losing members even more rapidly than the other old liberal "mainline" churches.
As U.S. News & World Report religion writer Dan Gilgoff notes, "the churches most open to homosexuality are shrinking fastest." Gilgoff quotes a defender of the Episcopal trend, one Mark Silk:
In a word, the Episcopalians are moving with all deliberate speed to fully normalize the status of gays and lesbians within their church. More conservative religious bodies will of course regard this as surrendering to the culture, but the truth is that all religious bodies must slow march to the beat of the culture if they expect to remain relevant to the lives of their members — that is, unless they want to relegate themselves to sectarian status. The Episcopalians are more willing to own up to this than most; indeed, they are doing so precisely by citing the changes in civil law respecting same-sex marriage.
What revealing comments. The church must "slow march to the beat of the culture" — and take its moral authority from "changes in civil law respecting same-sex marriage." Thanks for the candor, Mr. Silk. You've just adopted a position diametrically opposed to the proper role of the church — to stand for eternal truth against the world, and to stand strongest precisely when the world most loudly demands the truth be abandoned.
I can hardly think of a better illustration of what this conflict is really about: Not only sexuality, not only marriage — important as those issues are — but whether the church will be the church at all.
Forty years ago today I sat in the back of my family's 1967 VW Minibus parked alongside the Intracoastal Waterway a few miles north of the Kennedy Space Center. My dad had awakened us at zero-dark-thirty to make the hour trek from our home to Titusville, and we'd gotten here well before dawn to join hundreds of other cars parked at this makeshift viewing station.
It was hot and sticky, even at this early hour -- normal for Florida in July. I was tired and really would rather have been somewhere else. My parents listened to a news broadcast on a static-y transistor radio, as did just about every other family around us.
I was only half paying attention. Hey, I was a bratty 13-year-old who was too cool to do things with his family. Suddenly, a ripple of excitement went through the throng. Then ... an incredibly loud roar from somewhere beyond the trees. Every head swiveled toward the sound. In a few seconds we could see the Saturn V rocket with a bright-orange flame propelling it skyward, arcing out over the early-morning Atlantic. A few seconds later a gentle whooshing of air passed over us -- the powerful rocket's shockwave.
We watched, mesmerized. This was Apollo 11, the first attempt to land a man on the moon. Here, all these years later, it's hard to imagine the excitement that ran through our country -- ran through the entire world -- at the thought of conquering the moon. A few evenings later, my family gathered around the black-and-white TV in my parents' bedroom, watching grainy images of a lunar module sitting on the moon. Nothing had happened for hours. We listened in on conversations between the astronauts waiting to step out onto the moon's surface and mission control back on earth, a conversation full of technojargon, lots of "uhs and ahs," always accompanied by the distinctive beep when the speaker unkeyed his radio.
Then a bulky human form stepped out and clumsily made his way down the module's ladder. It was hard to tell what was going on because the image was very poor, lots of sharp blacks and whites with little contrast. One final hop at the bottom, and then came the famous words: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Huh!? What did he say? It makes no sense! We now know that Neil Armstrong managed to flub what was probably the most rehearsed line in history. But let's give him a break. Neil was one brave guy, as were all the astronauts. They rode what was basically a very large bomb into outer space and traveled thousands of miles from the tiny planet that sustains human life. Yes, scientists and engineers had worked out all the probabilities and determined it was relatively safe to be an astronaut, but nothing was guaranteed. Armstrong and his fellow astronauts, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins and Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin, were there because President John Kennedy had challenged us as a nation to do great things during a September 1962 speech at Rice University.
Why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? ... We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do those other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
(I still chuckle at Kennedy's pronunciation of de-CADE and "The Simpsons" dead-on parody of it in Mayor Quimby.) Yes, there was some politics behind that speech. We were engaged in a space race with the Soviet Union, with bragging rights at stake. (We as a nation were mightily embarrassed when the Soviets beat us into space with Sputnik.) But there was also the sense of challenge behind Kennedy's speech. We as a nation were meant for greater things.
How different things are now. We seemingly have become a nation of whiners. Our "challenge" is to benefit ourselves, not do great things. Yes, I exaggerate, but not by a lot. Can you imagine a president today challenging us to do something as hard as building a space program almost from scratch and landing a man on the moon -- all within seven years? No, politics today seems nothing but me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme.
I'm reminded by this anniversary that it's good to do things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. How about you?
Interesting piece here by columnist Ross Douthat. He picks up on a papal encyclical released last week ("slightly overshadowed," he notes, "by a celebrity funeral of some sort") that he thinks deserves attention from Catholics and Protestants alike.
Called Caritas in Veritate ("Charity in Truth"), it covers a range of social issues from a standpoint that -- like many papal messages over a period of many years -- doesn't fit the standard left-right categories.
"'Caritas in Veritate' promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism," says Douthat. "It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos."
Douthat welcomes the message for its sheer provocativeness. It reminds all of us "that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable," he writes. "For liberals and conservatives alike, 'Caritas in Veritate' is an invitation to think anew about their alliances and litmus tests."
I welcome it too. I've got some differences with "Caritas." (Redistribution of wealth -- dicey stuff, that.) But it's serious moral argument, all of it, and it deserves serious consideration. Familiar labels -- liberal, conservative -- have their uses, but they can't capture the scope of it. Christians should have a bigger picture.
Any reactions, either to the (short) column or the (long) document? Let's hear 'em.
Here's a news item for word lovers: The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary has added its 2009 entries. Nearly one hundred new words have now been made Webster official.
So what's new? Here's a sample: - earmark: "a provision in Congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program, or organization" (who knew this originated with those tags my father-in-law puts in his cattle's ears?)
- locavore: "one who eats foods grown locally whenever possible" (I thought it meant someone who ate large trains)
- green collar: "of, relating to, or involving actions for protecting the natural environment; as in, green–collar jobs" (or someone who doesn't do laundry well)
- missalette: "a shortened form of a missal published periodically for congregational use" (I didn't know what a missal was, so I had to look it up. It's "a book containing all that is said or sung at mass during the entire year." Does that mean we Protestants will soon be getting "bulletinettes"?)
- staycation: "a vacation spent at home or nearby" (formerly known as "a day or two off")
There's lots more. You can learn why you can have a shawarma for lunch, but why a pescatarian wouldn't join you. You can learn about how you can snack on a goji and an acai if you ever go to a flash mob.
And you can ponder the questions: "Hmmm, is BoundlessLine technically a vlog? Are there any sock puppets on BoundlessLine? And, if there are, are they frenemies?
Oh, and Tom will be happy. Mondegreen made the cut too.
Apparently someone was confused and decided to sue because she realized that Cap'n Crunch's Crunchberries cereal contained no actual berries. Her complaint before a California court alleged fraud, breach of warranty, and a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
A wise judge quickly put an end to the suit, noting that "while the challenged packaging contains the word 'berries' it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term 'crunch.' This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a 'crunchberry.'"
Imagine my disappointment when I found out that Kellogg's Froot Loops contains no actual froot.
What do you do when you have several little mini-topics bouncing around in your head -- none of which is worthy of an entire blog? Why, you just stick them all in one. Let's jump in, shall we?
National Spelling Bee: Congrats to 13-year-old Kavya Shivashankar, of Olathe, Kansas (shout out to a fellow Bible Belter!) for becoming the new national spelling champion. She won on the word "Laodicean." After looking up the word here and here, I thought that would be a great word to ponder today. Far too many of us, me included, have grown far too Laodicean.
Cell Phones Beat Out Land Lines: For the first time, more American homes have cell phones only (20 percent) than land lines only (17 percent). Huh. There are still a ton of us in the middle with land lines and cell phones. I'm not sure why. Perhaps so when your charger breaks (as mine did yesterday) and your cell phone is dead (which mine was) and you are freaking out a little too much for the situation (Me: "My cell phone is dead. What do I do? Can I leave the house? What if I get in a wreck? What if ... ad nauseum.."), then you can still get a hold of someone on your land line to talk you down.
I really have no biblical insight on this topic. It just seems to me that two things are going to be happening more. One, more public five-second pauses. You know, when you are sitting in church or a movie or someplace that is supposed to be quiet and where people are supposed to have turned their cell phones off, and then you hear one. Then everyone waits patiently for five seconds until you hear the "Oh! That's me! Sorry!" Then everyone resumes said sermon or movie or whatever.
Second, I'm going to feel more judged for not having that oh-so-clever personal ring tone. It's getting downright depressing to hear someone's ringtone and watch them heaped with praise for how doggone cute/clever/hip it is. Yeah, they don't do that for me.
Hardcover Dictionaries: I just realized that I don't have a hardcover dictionary anymore. I always look up words online. This can be bad when you are trying to come up with a word that starts with an "F" and goes with "Friday" for the title of your blog. Foibles? No. Fancies? No. This is when an actual, physical dictionary would have come in handy. Anyone have one and want to improve on my title? Or just having a slow Friday like me and want to talk about Laodiceans or cell phones?
When I entered the world of media relations ten years ago, I never dreamed that at some point in the future I'd spend several days of my professional career discussing underwear. But after Focus on the Family invited Miss California 2009 Carrie Prejean to appear on our daily broadcast, that changed.
Days after she visited our studios and was interviewed by Dr. Dobson, photos of her appeared on the internet -- photos from a modeling shoot done when Carrie was 17 years old. Photos that showed Carrie topless (though turned away from the camera, PTL). The debate began.
Should Christian girls model for barely-there photo shoots? Where should they draw the line? What if they're selling swimsuits? Or underwear? Or maybe Christians shouldn't model or be in beauty pageants at all?
As if one photo shoot weren't enough, more photos of Carrie were released yesterday. In them, she's standing on a cliff in a bikini bottom and vest. In some shots, the vest isn't quite, um, doing its job. Carrie attributes this to the windy conditions during the shoot, and said the wardrobe-malfunction pics were never intended for publication.
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe her. Hundreds of frames are taken in any given modeling gig, and it's obvious and accepted that most of them will be unusable. A girl on a cliff in the wind wearing next to nothing is going to have a hard time keeping herself covered up the entire time. As my coworker said, "We all know there are photos from Jennifer Aniston's GQ shoot where that striped tie was askew." It's the nature of getting good angles while moving around on a set, having a fan blowing in your face and trying to keep yourself and your wardrobe (what there is of it) together. But contractually, those "bloopers" are usually not allowed to be released.
I may question the wisdom of Carrie Prejean posing provocatively. And really, ladies, if you want to avoid exposure (and you should), wear enough clothing to ensure that anything short of a cyclone will leave you covered. But did Carrie's photog in a sense betray her? Has she been unfairly singled out and attacked because of her faith? And should Carrie's modeling choices -- right or wrong -- undermine her defense of marriage? What about her Christian testimony? Can sincere Christians disagree on these issues?
Christians and underwear: discuss.
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments