Archive for August 2008
This past weekend, Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a giant leap over the ACLU’s glass wall of separation of church and state. Speaking with the moderator on Meet the Press, Ms. Pelosi made the spurious claim:
[A]s an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.
It must have been above their pay grade too.
Sensing the misunderstanding of Catholic theology, Tom Brokaw meets Ms. Pelosi where she has “studied for a long time,” saying, “The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that [life] begins at the moment of conception.” Naturally, this clarifies much for Ms. Pelosi, who answers:
I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.
There you have it. From the mouth of the Speaker of the House, abortions should be “safe, rare, and reduce[d].” Has Ms. Pelosi become a pro-lifer?
In response to Sen. Obama’s answer to the question, “When do babies receive human rights,” President and General Counsel Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. points out that, in West Virginia, the answer may be never.
From today’s Charleston Gazette:
No one should be allowed to decide whether one innocent life is worth more than another. Not someone as poor as a college student or as powerful as a United States senator.
Jill Stanek, a nurse-turned-blogger, can describe this in real terms. She should know. If you go to her Web site, you can hear her tell of how she held a discarded Down Syndrome baby for 45 minutes as the child lay dying in her arms, the baby’s undeveloped lungs finally succumbing to an intended demise.
But this is as personal for you as it is for Ms. Stanek, because West Virginia law permits this passive infanticide.
To read the rest of Dys’ column, click here.
The video requires no commentary, but merits your viewing.
Say what you will about Rick Warren and Saddleback Church, but how many churches in America have stepped up and asked each candidate for President……well……anything?!
Last weekend, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama were given an identical slate of questions to answer. While it is not our intent here to judge the “winner” of the debate, we do wish to highlight the candidate’s answers on several very important questions. Below, you can watch the candidates respond to those questions on life, marriage, and religious freedom.
Please note: all attempts were made to find identical clips of both candidates. However, some where not cut up as neatly as others. Thus, in at least one instance, Sen. Obama has several questions combined into one clip, while Sen. McCain has those same questions over a period of clips. Nothing is intended with this, it is just the options available to us on YouTube.
We began this past Monday by taking a look at the institution of marriage (to read the post click here). I compared the historically and universally accepted meaning of marriage to foundations that undergird houses and buildings. The post was concluded with the following words,
These commonalities of marriage can be considered the foundational tenets of marriage. If they are to be tampered with or redefined, then the institution of marriage itself will crumble and fall, as well as the society around it.
Yesterday we considered the foundational importance of marriage to the well-being of society (to read this post click here). We observed how the strength of marriages have such a tremendous impact upon the well-being of children, which then leads to either a positive or negative impact upon local communities, states, and our country.
Today we will consider the foundational importance of marriage upon the furtherance of society. I will briefly argue that we as citizens should strive for the protection and definition of marriage, not only because children – who are our future– need fathers and mothers, “but also because societies need babies” (Gallagher, pg. 16). Commonsense tells us that societies which do not reproduce do not survive.
In my last post (which can be read by clicking here), I compared the institution of marriage – as the foundation for our society – to the foundations of structures. With this post I attempted to prove that,
[Redefining] marriage as anything other than its historical and universally accepted meaning would be to shift and weaken a societal foundation that must remain solid.
The institution of marriage serves as the foundation for each and every society. Everyone in America comes from a union of some sort; all people descend from couples, who descended from previous generations. Therefore, the nature of that union will have an impact on America’s future citizens, workers, business owners, fathers, mothers, leaders – in fact, on everyone.
With the remainder of the time that I have with you, I would like to address the importance for couples to limit sexual intercourse to marriage and the importance of the nuclear family upon the well-being of their children and society.
On August 9th, 1173, construction began in Pisa, Italy on a building that is known today as The Leaning Tower of Pisa. The original design for this 8 story tower was for it to stand vertically, and not leaning as it is today. The reason that the tower is leaning is due to the meager three-meter foundation that was laid in weak subsoil (Wikipedia). You see, the foundation of a building – whether it is for a house, tower, or office building – must be large enough to sustain the entirety of the structure.
For foundations to be strong enough to support the structures erected over them, they need to be able to withstand erosion and damage, and they must be solid and not shift. If extensive damage or shifting occurs, then the structure that is supported by them will ultimately fall.
In the same way that foundations support and sustain structures, so too does marriage sustain and support societies. To define marriage as anything other than its historical and universally accepted meaning would be to shift and weaken a societal foundation that must remain solid. James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire, said that “marriage represents the very foundation of human social order. Everything of value sits on that base. Institutions, governments, religious fervor, and the welfare of children are all dependent on its stability. When it is weakened or undermined, the entire superstructure begins to wobble” (pg. 9).
Since marriage (which also leads to the creation of families) is of such foundational importance, it is my desire to define what marriage is and why it is foundational for societies and their furtherance.