by JIM BEERS
Now President Obama says he wants to reduce abortions by nudging the argument "away from morality". Say what? If the "partisanship", "bickering", "dispute", "argument" (call it what you will) is not about the morality of taking a human life; what can it be about - cleanliness, doctor's training, parental v governmental control of children?
Suffice it to say that the pro-abortion folks have no moral qualms about abortion and they also refuse to recognize the precedent that abortion establishes vis a vis the elderly, the disabled, the terminally ill and all other citizenry ruled by a supreme government. A supreme government is one that does not recognize our rights as "unalienable" and "endowed by their (sic, our) Creator": such a government, as we have in Washington today, sees any rights as something they "endow" or deny as it suits their interests.
The Pro-Life folks have moral qualms about abortion in that they understand it to be the unjust taking (i.e. murder) of an innocent and helpless human life. They see abortion as granting government something to which it has no "right" that is the taking of human life that is of no danger to anyone; this perversion of the term "right" is clearly a precedent for such governments in the future to make similar determinations about the elderly and sick (National Medicine?) as well as the disabled, minorities, and 3rd World "natives" (Population Control, Minority Control, funding foreign abortions?).
Earth to President Obama, saying that you want to reduce abortions is unbelievable coming from someone that proclaims he would not want his daughter "punished with a baby". Furthermore, saying you want to shift the abortion argument from a moral one is like saying you want to shift relations with Russia from foreign relations. Babble all you will, our relations with Russia are and will remain "foreign" relations just as the debate about abortion will remain a "moral" argument.
To be blunt, the President's obtuse moral perceptions are not surprising. Like many Americans and Europeans of late, his "religious" record is one of attending a "club-like" assemblage of like-minded persons gathering on an regular basis to listen to a favored leader that makes everyone feel good. The President's, and many others today, sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral is somewhat relative and malleable as a result: hence the Anglican Bishop that left his family for a same sex "lover" speaking at the same ceremonies (Inauguration) as the anti-Prop 8 Pastor. Hence the doublespeak as the President protests his interest in decreasing abortions while he funds them internationally, appoints a plethora of pro-"aborters", plans to fund abortions nationally, and proclaims his willingness to sign a law enshrining Roe v Wade in federal statute.
So why is this relevant if abortion isn't on your radar? Because you are about to witness over the next two, at least, or four years an explosion of federal laws from this Congress and The White House that will advance the agendas of same-sex advocates, activist atheists, anti-marriage and anti-parental control activists, and pornography advocates. These supporters of the President and the Congressional leaders elections expect and will obtain rewards for their financial and public support for the election of these politicians. While the advancement of the foregoing agendas will cause considerable social disturbance, animal rights and environmental laws (banning horse slaughter, declaring the N. Rockies "Ecosystem" sacrosanct, Protecting Puppies, declaring more Wilderness, creating more Parks and Refuges, etc.) will serve as "soma"(see Ray Bradbury's, Farenheit 451 wherein the government TV "soothed" and "drugged" everyone) while paying those two groups for their support in electing the current Washington crew.
In all of these foregoing matters there is no right or wrong, no moral or immoral: there is only political expediency and the future hold on power and the expansion of personal power to consider. Take Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, and Daschle (please): they proclaim their Catholicity as they run for office and then advocate abortion and then "advance" to lecturing the populace on the questionability of when life begins in direct opposition to Catholic teaching and Papal mandates. They even ignore the tepid protestations of their Bishops. Most important though is to comprehend why they have come to this point. The Catholic Bishops were joining these power "worthies" at fundraisers and social events for years while making no public mention of their abortion stances. The Bishops mostly mentioned "social justice" as a sort of backhanded way of letting Catholics vote for these sorts of politicians that supported abortion so these politicians now lecture Catholics, their Bishops and others about abortion. For centuries, the Catholic Church exercised excommunication on, among others like heretics, kings and publicly respected persons that sinned publicly and were unrepentant. This was not because they were known to have committed a serious sin but rather because they were thereby creating a "scandal" that might well lead others to sin (i.e. "if it is OK for the King to do it, can it be so bad or why can't I do it" etc.). Today the Catholic Bishops have created an enormous scandal by tolerating the continued proclamation of these public "Catholic" politicians as eligible to claim membership in a Church whose moral teachings they actively oppose. If one young girl gets an abortion because of this permitted scandal, there is a very wide swath of responsible persons that must answer. This relative morality is seeping into all aspects of American life.
The "relative" morality or lack of morality in American life may affect far more than any of us will recognize:
- As yet another young girl "disappears" from her home in Florida and the papers are full of children abused and women raped do we ever mention the role of pornography in all of these sex crimes?
- As a New Jersey Governor and Anglican Bishop leave wives and children for same-sex "lovers", do we dare protest the increasing encouragement of such behavior in our schools when children are developing their sexual identities? Do we dare to object to same-sex demonstrations for marriage and same-sex adoptions and parenting?
- Where is the outrage at providing US taxes to foreign abortion clinics: to American abortion clinics?
Could some of our negative image in Asia and Africa or South America be because:
- An African father discovers that his daughter has "received" an abortion from an American Abortion Clinic paid for by America?
- A Moslem mother discovers that her son has been watching an American same-sex pornography computer site and is now seeking same-sex liaisons?
- A South American wife discovers that American pornography has encouraged her husband to seek other women and to eventually leave her and their children?
- An Indian husband discovers that his wife wants to abandon him and their family because American feminists use American international radio stations and American sponsored conferences to demean motherhood and the role of homemaker?
- An African parishioner discovers that an American missionary priest has abused his son or run off with his wife?
If these things are not wrong because they are "immoral" there can ultimately be no objection to them. If the moral dimension can be dismissed as the President and his fellow politicians say: what hope is there of lasting opposition and reform to these things that are eating away at our very foundation? If such issues are "amoral" then what hope is there to maintain any of the rights in the Bill of Rights from guns for protection to religion to speech? If such rights, based on "Life. Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" do not come from our "Creator" as declared in The Declaration of Independence: where do we allow that they do come from? The answer can only be from those in power and to accept that will prove our undoing.
Take a lesson from the Catholic Bishops and have no doubt where "get-along" acquiescence gets you: it gets you in the position of supporting a growing immoral society. Likewise acquiescing in this moral posturing of the President and Congress gets us not only in the position of supporting that which we know is wrong, additionally we are pictured to the rest of the world as an "evil" society that will destroy their society and culture. What would we think if France was financially supporting abortions in America or Russian pornography was swamping America as sex crimes and same sex license increased all around us? What if Venezuelan radio stations were beamed into America and encouraged women to leave their families or discouraged young people from marrying before having children? What if Chinese pamphlets were spread all over America and declared human "overpopulation" and the need for laws about only one child and the need for more abortions and even forced abortions? What would you think of those countries and their culture?
The President and our political "leaders" should stick to the Constitution and the specific wording that authorizes their position and their proscribed authorities. They should leave morality to Churches and specifically to those Church leaders that have the knowledge and courage to declare what is moral and what is immoral. In my case our current political leadership and my current Catholic Church leadership leave a lot to be desired. As with much of the immorality of the day, Church and societal issues often parallel each other and reforms are ultimately the responsibility of each of us to make our nation, our communities, and our Churches the best they can be. The hope for reforms, like our very society, depends on moral agreement as Our Founding Fathers knew well. Dismissing the moral dimension of these issues only leads us deeper into the spiraling morass of decay and ultimately destruction. Jim Beers 12 February 2009
U.S. Dodged the Paris Accord Bullet! - Paris Accord – TALKERS Topline: The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put Ameri...
2 days ago