October 26, 2008

An Open Letter to Christians Before the Presidential Election

I was recently listening to Issues, Etc. and learned a new word. I had to look it up to get its spelling – adiaphoria. If you were to define that word in biblical terms, you would discover that adiaphoria means anything that is neither specifically forbidden nor endorsed in The Bible. Adiaphoria.

Issues, Etc.’s host Pastor Todd Wilken gave a very valid aside when discussing this. Just because something is neither commanded nor forbidden doesn’t mean that other scripture cannot lead you to the moral and proper stand on an issue. He stated even more clearly that often there was a definite wrong position. In that vein, I would like to discuss abortion.

On Tuesday, November 4th, we will be asked to do our part in deciding the next President of the United States. As Christians, we are required to vote with prayerful reflection and to choose the candidate who best represents our values. So this morning before church I sat here thinking, "Do they really, really know?" about Senator Barack Obama’s extreme position on abortion. I often suffer from the fallacy of thinking that if I know something surely everyone else knows it equally well – that I have nothing to add to a matter. It’s why I stopped blogging for the most part. But seeing some of the Obama stickers on the vehicles at church, I decided that maybe "they don’t know." Roe vs. Wade is legal and has been so since right around the time many of us were born, and maybe some Christians believe that nothing can be done.

How wrong that stance is. Something CAN be done.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Psalm 139 v. 13-15. NIV

When is a baby a person? I’m asking you to decide. Because one of these answers is right. As you read these, read after it in your head "…but not until then."
  • An egg or sperm is a person.
  • An egg + a sperm at the moment of conception is a person.
  • A three-month growing fetus is a person.
  • A six-month growing fetus is a person.
  • A nine-month full-term fetus is a person,
  • A baby in the birth canal during labor is a person.
  • A newly crying, fully emerged fetus is instantly a person.
  • A one-month old baby is a person.
  • A three-month old baby is a person.
  • A baby is a person when he or she walks.
  • A baby is a person when he or she talks.
  • Some other time.
I’ll give you an easy one. An egg alone or a sperm alone isn’t a person. Throw out number 1. With The Bible and your Christian background, you can pick out the right answer from the other 11 (mostly obnoxious) choices.

I program software for a living. When good software encounters a situation where it has to make a decision, the programming has accounted for every possible answer. That’s what I have tried to do for you here. That #12 choice of "some other time" is a catch-all. Abortion supporters would have you always pick #12. They claim to be unsure and by being so that it doesn’t truly matter. Their DEFAULT CHOICE IS NOT LIFE. For the Christian, the DEFAULT CHOICE IS LIFE, and The Bible is clear on the importance of each human life.

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” Job 31:15 NIV.
Senator Barack Obama is the most adamant abortion supporter to run for President.

For example:
  • Senator Obama dances around the issue of when life begins, though he professes to be a Christian.
  • Senator Obama voted no on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.
  • Senator Obama voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
  • Senator Obama believes we can find "common ground" between those of our who disfavor abortion and those who embrace it.
  • Senator Obama in one of his own campaign booklets brags that he consistently earns 100% ratings from "pro-choice" groups.
  • Senator Obama believes abortions should be funded with taxpayer money.
  • Senator Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. It means what you think it does – botched abortion with living baby - that baby dies. We treat our dogs better in Missouri.
A presidential victory for Senator Obama would be a victory for abortion; certain abortion matters that are currently left to the states to decide would be federally mandated and standardized. Senator Obama has stated that the first thing he would do as President of the United States is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA. This would extend the "fundamental right" to abortion throughout all nine months of a pregnancy. In other language, you could go all the way up to #6 in my example as an abortable (rather than adorable) mass of non-human, non-important cells - at least legally.

Senator McCain’s record isn’t great. He supports the destruction of embryos in stem cell research - another life issue - even though great gains have been made with adult stem cells and pluripotent epithelial cells– gains enough, I believe, to suspend government funding on embryonic stem cell research - because that’s what’s really at issue with the word "support" - on embryonic stem cell research. Research using both of these latter types of stem cells does not destroy human life. But overall, when comparing Senator McCain with Senator Obama on this most important issue of life, there is a clear Christian choice to not further extend abortion "rights."

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you – beginning of Jeremiah 1:5 NIV.
So there you have it - thou shalt not murder, the fifth commandment. If you directly tie abortion to murder but still plan to vote for Senator Obama, I suggest you do some prayerful soul searching. If you're a Christian squishy on when life begins, I'd ask that you search the rest of The Bible on what is proclaimed about individual humans before birth. I've provided three examples in this essay. I pray they are enough to convince you not to extend the social and legal acceptance of already commonplace abortion. I therefore urge you to not vote for Senator Obama in this 2008 Presidential election.

Other info:
1) Silent Scream - the film of an abortion of an 11-week-old fetus.
2) Robert George's blog post, Obama's Abortion Extremism
3) On the Issues - Barack Obama.
4) On the Issues - John McCain.
5) The National Right to Life's Response to the Third Debate.
6) Left-of-center Time magazine - How Valid is Palin's Abortion Attack on Obama.
7) Obama and Infanticide

Posted by hln at 01:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 04, 2006


So just called to wake up the baby. Because that's all the stupid election recorded calls do is wake the baby.

So I looked them up to boo and hiss. And I found this little nugget. Hey, people at CommonSenseMissouri, we have this little company called Jeracor that does web work (development, QA, editing). We would have caught this little bit that Missouri is not Ohio. Just saying - I know they're both funky-shaped little states and all residing in the Midwest...

Common Sense!


Posted by hln at 07:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2006

Election 2006

So, elections a week from tomorrow. Heated times here in Missouri. Because the Cardinals have done so well in the baseball playoffs (and, let's face it, because I have three to four times a day when I flip on the television while feeding the child), I've been exposed to political ads like never before. How amazingly disgusting the whole process is, proponents and opponents of propositions, Democrats and Republicans. A sampling.

Senate Race
Ok, here we have Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill. First off, I'm disgusted with both of you. Attack the opponent instead of saying anything of substance is so junior high. Talent in his incumbency has brought us such lovely lifestyle changes as forcing me to get my Claritin-D by asking a pharmacy representative (because without that extra step my fellow fall allergy sufferers and I might be tempted to produce large quantities of meth?). And, ooh, pink my Arch. Without that, NO ONE WOULD KNOW BREAST CANCER KILLS. But that "awareness" thing is another post.

McCaskill - a Democrat - also purports to be a Catholic (if membership in a Catholic church satisfies that requirement). Yet she supports "stem cell research" (which I'll get to - in other words she supports embryonic stem cell research/application which requires the destruction of human embryos). Last I checked, the Catholics - the most vigorous pro-lifers on the pro-life circuit - don't favor the destruction of embryos for the promise of THE PANACEA that may be years off or may never come. But what do I know? I digress into the next topic.

These two individuals have spent millions flogging each other on picky points and almost non-sequiturs. Attack one's character with harsh music, praise the other with green grass, lots of natural light. Endorse the message. (And don't forget smiling senior citizens). Next. You have McCaskill beating up Talent on his record in the Senate. You have Talent slogging insults about McCaskill's nursing home audit record and her husband's property tax returns. I'm disgusted with you both and the money you spend on your opponent thrashing.

"The Stem Cell Initiative"
Crafty, crafty. That's what I have to say about this. The Post-Dispatch sums up the ads for me nicely. So I won't bother beyond conclusion. Let's play "deceive the public." Too bad the opposers of Proposition 2 are not clearer in their argument. Vote this thing down. If I have to sum it up in one sentence that doesn't divide the pols: "It's about funding."

The Tobacco Tax
If you've ever read this blog, you know where I stand. ANYTHING to get rid of/reduce tobacco products around non-tobacco users. So, yeah, hike it up. Brian, though, is good to point out the bad side of "where is government going to replace that money when smokers buy fewer cigarettes." And that is a good question. I don't care.

The ads: the proponent ad is actually quite good, but I'm tired of the attacks on "Big Tobacco." They're trite. The opponents use Brian's argument as a tactic - not a whole lot of tobacco mention, more attacks on governmental spending.

Minimum Wage Increase
Haven't seen much about this other than Claire McCaskill's ads saying she's for it (and how dare anyone morally oppose it, essentially) and a few articles in the newspaper about the issue making the Sunday pulpits and people's outrage and/or support for the combination of sermon and politics. The proposed minimum wage hike is to $6.50. Federal rate is $5.15. I'm not really keen about putting a state's minimum wage higher than federal, but at the same time, the federal hasn't been adjusted since 1996. That's 10 years. Don't know about this one. A factor to consider - cost of living in Missouri is pretty low. Another - raising the minimum wage doesn't help with personal responsibility.

So, there's the Missouri round-up of the hot contests (the ones with television ads). Please let this thing be over.


Posted by hln at 05:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 03, 2004

A Nation Divided?

Time this week mentions that on November 3rd the winner will need to unite the nation he helped to divide. I ask you, though, looking at the electoral votes that are locked in, perusing the red and blue, and then comparing that against 2000 and Bush/Gore, where's the the major change in these past four years. How do you define a "divided nation"?

The majority of the states that were Bush states in 2000 are Bush states in 2004. No real time to research the flippers, but I know New Hampshire is a Kerry state where it was previously a Bush state.

The middle of the country does seem to think - as a whole - differently than the coasts. Is this new? I'd say not. Perhaps a better argument would be that the vehemence with which we adhere to our respective standpoints as Kerry or Bush supporters may be heightened when in comparison to presidential political following in years past (voter turnout is a good metric for that), but dividing the country? Naa - I'm sure that happened long ago but was less in the front and center.

I offer the same thoughts to a Bush presidency as I would to a Kerry presidency. May the next four years be fruitful, peaceful, and full of growth and promise. May our enemies be fearful and silent.


Posted by hln at 12:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 04, 2004

Early Morning Eye-Rolling

Drudge Report states that Senator Kerry may have had "notes," specifically against the agreement for the debate.

Whether or not this is true (I'm going to stipulate it's a big no), this quote from the Kerry insider is equally bad.
"Kerry did not cheat," said the Kerry insider. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls."
Now allegations and accusations (even obnoxious ones) are lies. I'm not sure I'll be able to work today due to rolling-eye syndrome. Tomorrow a piece of chocolate cheesecake will be a lie.


Posted by hln at 06:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 02, 2004

The Single Best Line - Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney and his speechwriters sure got me to laugh last night.
On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and-forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement and against it. He is for the Patriot Act and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual — America sees two John Kerrys.
It's the mutual part that did it.

Text found on Yahoo via Outside the Beltway.


Posted by hln at 08:30 AM | Comments (4)

September 01, 2004

Yawning Conventioneers

The convention is C-SPANNING between Brian and me on our friendly eMac. I can't help but notice (I'm working, really I am) while working that the "filler" speakers aren't getting much response to their speeches, even in scripted supposed-to-be enthusiastic moments.

The last excitement I heard was when Lt. Gov Steele had the podium.

I believe it's a conspiracy. The protestors have drugged the delegates and replaced them in order to heckle and tomato VP Cheney when he takes the stage. Just you watch.

Can you spot the liberals in the crowd? I challenge you.


Posted by hln at 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 31, 2004

Republican Convention

Can someone explain to me the protesters of the convention? I just really don't get it. The Convention's part of politics and part of democracy as we know it, no? Are these people protesting democracy? I scratch my head at them. Can't they save their hard-or-not-so-hard-earned dollars to protest more worthy event if those protest needs are unfulfilled?


Posted by hln at 02:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 26, 2004

Cycling Forums Presidential Poll

I got an e-mail from Cycling Forums, a place I occasionally visit but don't post on, and one of the threads pertained to political leanings. The poll was of about 200 people, and, surprisingly, President Bush had 42.27% of those "votes."

Considering that all of my cycling friends appear to lean a bit or a lot left, I was surprised with how close this is. I remember once at a gas station rest stop on a ride, someone brought up gun control, and I pifflepoffled it and obtained lots of surprised looks. Probably mentioned something to the effect of knife control, and then the moment passed.

If the roadies are for the most part supportive of President Bush...


Posted by hln at 07:47 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 24, 2004

Headline News

I just walked by one of the muted big TVs at work, and the CNN headline flashed "Garrison Keillor backs Al Franken Senate run."


I can't find anything in the search engines about Franken and senate that's newer than May, though. CNN seems to be indicating a need to save your carpet scraps.

On the Keillor note, I guess I missed the release of this.


Posted by hln at 12:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 07, 2004

Gene McNary

Gene McNary is running for County Executive of St. Louis County. Who's he, you ask (well, some of you might)? He's the former St. Louis County Executive; he held the job before Buzz Westfall, who passed away last year or the year before.

Again, why is this important? Well, if you've done any recent work in the Human Resources field, it's likely you'll recognize McNary as the former Commissioner of the INS. Yes, immigration and naturalization services. He served from late '89 to '93, so all of those pesky employment forms bore his signature.

News about the candidates. McNary has unsuccessfully run for what the paper calls "Congress, Senate, and governor."
McNary, 68, makes an unabashed appeal to nostalgia at campaign appearances, reminding audiences of the good times during his 15 years as county executive from 1975 to 1989. Before that, he served two terms as county prosecutor.

"You have heard everyone, almost to a person, say St. Louis County is in bad shape," he said in May at a candidate debate in Webster Groves. "Maybe it's time for Gene McNary to be county executive again. We ran a tight ship. It was a good place to live and work and raise a family. It is still a great place."

Odenwald says, however, that McNary is trying to get by on platitudes alone.

"St. Louis County is a very different place in 2004 than it was in 1974, when he was first elected," Odenwald said. "I think Mr. McNary does a great disservice to the electorate when he says all we need to do to make things better is return him to office. . . . It was easy to be county executive in the '70s and '80s when there was thousands of acres of open land and people were fleeing the city."

He's done a good job campaigning - I've gotten a call and also a professionally done pamphlet.


Posted by hln at 07:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 09, 2003

Where I Stand

Good morning! I just took the Political Compass test again, and I scored very close to what I scored before, probably 4 or 5 months ago. (And thanks to Robert Prather for referring to the site on his blog)

I scored thus:
Economic Left/Right: 3.25 Libertarian/Authoritarian: -.31

I consider myself to be a bit more libertarian than that, but some of the questions that would score me that way, naturally, were a bit too narrow.

Why on earth am I posting this at 6:38 a.m.? Well, I got some interesting e-mail that pushed this post further up into the queue.

The e-mail states thus:

"I'm sure with the proper facts, you'd be a lot more's what happened to me."


First, it's horrible, I know, but it's such a hanging curveball, and I have a bat in reach. What are "the proper facts"? I'm puzzled.

Second, this put me into thinking mode quite early in the morning, and I penned a response, though, sadly, it was in Hotmail, and so I don't have a copy.

But, here's where I stand on eight different issues.

1) Environment - individuals should do what they can. Corporations shouldn't be given loopholes to circumvent laws. Lots of shoulds, no? Brian and I are recycling fiends, throwing away basically only non-recyclables and cat litter. I despise litterers, too. I have a whole post on litter waiting for merely the inspiration to offend a few people. It'll come.

2) Abortion - in all honesty, keep it legal. It's not morally right, in my opinion, but the simple fact remains that, despite its status as legal or not legal, it will continue to happen. And you cannot legislate morality anyway.

3) The war - I refer you to here since this is already written.

4) Racial issues - Yes, there is racism in America. No, I don't believe the attitudes that affect racism can be legislated. Ideally, treat everyone as individuals; get to know all you can about other cultures, and broaden your perspective. I have met racists of many races. None is right. I glossed over this; I know. I believe that some people are better than others - by their ACTIONS, not their origins.

5) Social Security - privatize it immediately for those who are willing to accept the responsibility for the money they pay into the system.

6) Legalization of drugs - I waffle on this and can see good and bad coming from it. I voted "no" on the question within the Political Compass test.

7) Personal responsibility/lawsuits - I am disgusted by people who make excuses for their bad actions instead of accepting responsibility. Good example: Chante Mallard. Just about anything on Obesity, blaming "someone/something else."

8) Gun Control - we have laws. We likely have too many gun laws, but not being too particularly interested in either direction, I don't have an exact number. The recent CDC survey stated that it was unsure the effect of gun laws on violent crime. I grew up with guns and know that they are merely tools. If guns were illegal, there'd still be guns on the streets in the hands of criminals. But not in the hands of the common man.

I know I just picked a few, but I do have to get to work. I am most closely aligned with the Republican party, though I do cross party lines and decide on an election-by-election basis for whom I vote.

I have some issues with the Libertarian platform. Basically, it fails to recognize that people (en masse) are sheep. Unthinking, but, thankfully docile at most times. Sheep don't take personal responsibility to better their lives and are poor examples of adult behavior. These are the people for whom disclaimers like "do not paint your face with house paint" are made. Go read if you're still skeptical.

The left is fond of taking responsibility away from individuals for their actions. Oh, person X "couldn't help himself" because of BLAH. And I can't stand for that. I've said it before - if you take away my responsibility, you take away my accomplishment.

And that's disgusting.


Posted by hln at 07:12 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 03, 2003

Johnny Depp, Come on Down

Johnny "Mouth Should Be Taped" Depp made some interesting comments recently, and they hit the news today. I was going to give my thoughts, but I find others have done a far better job than the post that I envisioned, so here's some linkage.

Rachel Lucas gives you the whole "news" story and then some goodies.

And, Big Arm Woman gives us 67 cents worth as well. My favorite part?

    I'm conflicted about the Deppster. I usually enjoy his movies, because he's very good at being someone else. I like the Else-Depp, and would be perfectly content to forget the Real-Depp, particularly when, every time he opens his mouth, something banal or inane or childish comes out. I mean, really, Johnny--"a dumb puppy?"
As I find more, I'll post more. This'll be the hot item for the day, I'm sure.

UPDATE: Deppreciated!

Venemous Kate's take.

Tim Blair's thoughts.


Posted by hln at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)