"Die! Die! Die!"

Yes, I enjoyed that wholesome family sit com Home Improvement.  It was one of the few contemporary family sit coms that still acknowledged common sense in everyday living instead of rationalizing ostentatious behavior as normative.  But I digress...in one episode the Taylor family goes to open mic poetry night at a local restaurant(?), and the first poem read is by a woman in Goth regalia.

"Die!"
"Die!"
"Die!" she poeticizes into the microphone.  Everyone looks around as it is apparent that that is all there is to this poem.

"You first," mutters Randy.  And that response is about as common sense as it gets.

Just two states over from where I live, a chilling high school banner reads:  "ZERO POPULATION GROWTH; IT'S UP TO YOU - NO MORE THAN TWO."  Wow.  So few words; so lengthy a message.  Apparently, zero is a good thing, and "you" must limit yourself to having two children (that's the unstated indirect object) in your lifetime.  Pretty heavy for high school, don't you think?

The one wrong thing to do about this poster is to give credit for any of the words on it.  First, zero population growth is not "zero population growth."  It is population stagnation, and if that is the goal, it would be similar to sloganing "Zero Economic Growth; It's Up To You - No More Than [insert arbitrary income level here]."  What the slogan does not recognize is that there is such a thing as an already declining birth rate, and that there is such a thing as a death rate.  As it stands, every major developed country is experiencing non-replacement birth rates.  I attended a conference last weekend, and the esteemed speaker, Dr. Craig Mitchell, had related to the audience that Japan in 2012 was the first year that purchases for adult diapers exceeded the purchases of baby diapers.  The irony of zero population growth is that it is not a controllable data point.  Populations cannot be controlled; they either rise or they fall destructively due to artificial stresses on society.  A birth rate equal to that of the death rate is unattainable through effort, because there are too many variables.

But that isn't the real goal, is it?  If you've been around the pro-life block several times like I have, you know that zero population growth isn't about balance.  It is not even about the environment as often touted.  No, environmental concerns are a smokescreen for gaining greater control by the powerful over the less powerful.  It is about instituting mass manipulation as fulfillment of a marginalized ideology that would never gain popularity if not for a generous bit of sophistry and fascism.  Every tyrant and dictator to have come into power since the 20th century has launched a campaign to reduce their local population to a "manageable" size.  The killing fields of Tuol Sleng, the failed agriculture scheme of Mao, the mass executions of Stalin--all done in the effort to stamp out dissent and the distasteful ideas that people should be free to earn and reproduce as they see fit, not as a central planner sees fit.

So "IT'S UP TO YOU," is not a word of encouragement.  It's a demand.  And given that there is absolutely zero context given to this poster, we can assume that all methods of meeting this goal may be implemented:  carcinogenic contraception, abortion, sterilization, gendercide.  Of course, these things done voluntarily is preferred, I'm sure.  Involuntary methods, however, are just one refusal away.

Sure, we'll get to the point where there are more elderly people to care for than there are caretakers.  Oh, but don't worry, the anti-humanitarian laws being introduced today will make executing them easier tomorrow by labeling it a "GOOD DEATH; IT'S UP TO YOU - ONE AND DONE."

You first.

Addendum: I find it ironic that those who advocate population reduction and control never include themselves in that population that must be reduced or controlled. Of course, they justify that kind of elitism with implying that no one would spread their message if they would volunteer to leave the land of the living first. But I would remind everyone that the ideology that has spawned their protests has come from people long dead now, and they should fear not for the immortality of their worldview. After all, in the words of Margaret Sanger, "there is nothing they do that hasn't been done before," so to be consistent, these population bombers should lead by example and be the first to improve the state of the earth by throwing themselves into the ovens. With popular support of euthanasia among them, why delay?

Abortion, The End of Science

The nerd in me finds this stuff fascinating.  Towards the end, scientist Drew Barry says that scientific discovery is just part of the goal of eradicating disease and poverty.  Now, please think about that:  science is useful for discovering ways to cure disease (and by "poverty," I assume he means physical disabilities that prevent people from being able to work to provide for themselves).  Who thinks that is a bad thing?  No one, right(?)...we think...except that the idea of using science to cure disease and to make people well runs directly counter to the prevailing indoctrination that abortion is used to cure disease and eliminate poverty.  Why pursue scientific discovery for the purpose of advancing medicine when the most efficient method of eradicating disease and poverty is abortion?

Not only that, abortion is touted as a right and classified as a right by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Notice what has happened here--scientific medical treatment is not a right.  Therefore, no one has a right to demand a cure or treatment for disease.  As much as liberal politicians talk about health care being a "right," the truth is that has not been established by a court decision.  But abortion has.

Now we come to a certain dilemma.  If abortion is a right, then there is nothing about it that can be criticized.  In fact, being a right means it is a state-sanctioned, superior practice to all others, including medical science.  Abortion removes a major impetus for medical scientific discovery, because it is doing a much better job at eradicating disease and poverty by eliminating those that are diseased and/or poor (supposedly).  Has medical science cured 90% of all Down Syndrome children from ever walking on the earth?  I submit it has not.  Has it successfully removed from the American population 57 million individuals who would have come into the world diseased, poor, unwanted, or otherwise useless to society?  No to that too. Abortion has had numerically more success at its advertised aims than medicine, I believe (and not just in the U.S. but globally).  If we took seriously all the reasons in favor of abortion, we should come to realize that abortion alone is the solution to all afflictions (be they medical or social) that can be detected early enough.

At this point, many will want to argue with me saying that medical scientific discovery cannot be compared to abortion.  They will, hopefully, arrive at the conclusion that medical science seeks to cure the individual of disease, while abortion seeks to kill the individual with a disease.  This is a very important distinction that dismantles the notion that aborting babies who are diseased or might be born into a life with few material resources is a necessity and a right for the sake of the ones who are not being aborted.  If we want to respect the field of medical research and discovery properly, we cannot continue to accept the view of abortion as the solution to disease and poverty.  Abortion for reason of disease or poverty is a logical farce.

Adult SCR - 80+++. ESCR - 000

US News &World Report just reported yet another potential success using adult-donated stem cells in research.  Adult stem cells have been induced with antigens to multiply and become neural-like cells, which researchers confirmed resemble mature brain cells.

From the story,

"The cells proliferated, but also started becoming long and thin and attaching to the bottom of the dish," which is reminiscent of behavior of neural cells, Jia Xie, a research associate on Lerner's team, said in a released statement. Further tests confirmed that they were neural progenitor cells, which are very similar to mature brain cells.

Good news on the ethical front.  As more and more successes are seen on the side of ASCR, the need and desire for ESCR becomes fainter and more irrelevant.  Of course, the scientific cannibalism of fetuses for their parts has never been ethically acceptable for those of us with problems with murder or that sort of thing.  With each ASCR success, perhaps scientists and politicians will decide not to give any more public funding to the legacy of Dr. Moreau.  But I'm not holding my breath yet.

It's not "rape" unless you say it twice in a row.

The obvious denial of the circumstances by outspoken celebrities in support of movie director Roman Polanski cannot be starker than Whoopi Goldberg’s televised “rape-rape” statement on The View a few weeks back. Apparently, many Hollywood celebs say that the judicial system should overlook his physical, emotional, and psychological assault on a little girl (a crime) just because he happened to successfully run away from his trial sentencing (another crime) for 30 years.

But what can anyone say in defense of the obviously indefensible? Redefine harm? Make lame excuses? Indeed, like marrying a rich ailing widow for her fortune, there is no cliché that gets more repeat performances than the classic movie star wave-off after being caught in sexual immorality.

Just in case anyone is wondering, "pleading guilty to having sex with a minor" equals statutory rape EQUALS rape-rape-rape-rape.

Think government-controlled health care is here to help you?

Think again.

Most critics of private health insurance (especially the President) have tried to make the case that government-controlled health insurance will avoid the drawbacks of denied and/or limited coverage, exemptions, and well, corporate greed. But will it? Reality says no.

Just take a look at this video of the chairman of the Oregon health plan as he explains why the state-run "public option" can deny life-saving medication to cancer patients yet approve the cost of receiving doctor-assisted suicide.


Credit YouTube user AlreadyKnownAsX2

His answer to the question "is it cheaper?" to pay for ($$$) end-of-life care rather than pay for ($$$) cancer treatment is astounding. He ultimately affirms that the issue is about ($$$) money while denying that it is about money. Ohhhh. Heads up, people, the bottom line is still the bottom line whether it be public or private insurance no matter what the motivation.

If it be not corporate greed, it will be some other rationalization. Brilliant.

(Many thanks to Frank Beckwith at WWWTW for the heads up on this one.)

ADDENDUM 9/2/2009:
When private health insurances deny a patient some medical procedure, it's called corporate greed. When govt health insurance (socialized medicine) does it, it's called "saving money." At the end of the day, if you're that patient, do you care WHY you're being denied or BY WHOM? Tell your politicians not to implement the 'public option' that screws the public's options.

Atheism, the Cure for Inalienable Rights

A few months ago, I was kicking the euthanasia question around with a few of my fellow churchgoers at Theology at the Bottleworks. The issue of rights, specifically the right to legalized euthanasia became part of the topic. Underlying that question was the question, "what does God have to say about it?" was not directly discussed, but I could sense the strain that many of the attenders were under keeping it out of the discussion. Philosophically, the question of euthanasia comes down to the classic premise, 'If God does not exist, then all things are permissible.' In this case, if God does not exist, then euthanasia is permissible.

At face value, I agree, but does that give anyone the right to commit suicide, the right to euthanize someone else, or the right to legalization? If it is a question of rights, I don't think so. The consequence of the idea that God does not exist is that objective judgments (neither morals nor rights nor any claims to truth) do not exist.

My argument caches out like so:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral rights do not exist.
2. The claim that anyone has an objective moral right to euthanasia is a claim to an objective reality that does not exist if God does not exist.
3. Therefore, a claim to an objective moral right to euthanasia does not exist.

Any atheist rallying to legalize euthanasia has two problems here. In terms of legalization, it's a non-starter. Atheism negates any objective right to anything (i.e. euthanasia), which means no one can make it incumbent upon other people to allow or approve of euthanasia. Second, the atheist is guilty of a philosophical incoherence at this point between atheism (to justify the non-objectivity of morals) and the claim to an objective moral right to euthanasia. If anyone wants the argument for legalized euthanasia to go forward, then the argument must reach beyond the limits of atheism for something else, and God only knows what that is. /smirk

One woman there, I think, captured the essense of the issue perfectly. She said in effect, if you want to end your own life, why do you need a law and a mechanism (vis-a-vis a lethal drug) to permit you to do that? Very simply, stop eating and drinking.

No, Really, I'm Not an Object...

even though I'm selling myself like a fresh slice at the corner deli.

A few weeks ago, I listened to a radio interview of the now famous Natalie Dylan. I hadn't heard of this young woman's story until then, but what I heard has caused scenes of Army of Darkness flash through my mind since. My latest Google search for Natalie (thankfully not her real name), who's gotten bids on her virginity of up to 3.7 million nasty little dollars, didn't yield any new developments, but really, I'm okay with not knowing anymore details right now.

I found the striking statements Natalie made in defense of her actions incredulous. When asked why putting her virginity up for auction did not objectify her in her mind, she compartmentalized the issue, giving allowance for objectification only in the context of selling her virginity--she fully wants to be treated as a person otherwise. If the issue were eating habits, I'd find this funny. Instead, here is a woman who first is pathetically naive and second has the same good sense as a piece of meat carpet.

So, Miss Dylan wants people to treat her like an object in a context that suits her and then treat her as a person in another context when that suits her. Hm. It's unfortunate that she said that she intends the money to pay for graduate school, because admissions administrators probably won't like Miss Dylan to treat them with such disrespect. Future employers of businesses that don't deal in the buying and selling of the human body probably won't like being treated with such disrespect. And any good guy out there worth marrying will definitely dislike being treated with such disrespect. One does not and cannot control another in this way, beginning with the situation at hand. If Miss Dylan thinks that money will be enough to control the 'winner' of her auction and everyone in the world that comes after him, I sincerely fear for her in the most anxious way.

The reality of the matter is that one can never divorce personhood from the body. Why not? Because if we could, rape victims--hey, any victim of violence--could never seek legal reparations against their perpetrators. Any defense attorney would argue that victims weren't persons at the time of the crime. This side of death, there is no such thing as a personless body, at least if you're not a fetus and especially if you are a woman. We can thank the U.S. Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood for nailing that one down.

Way to go, Miss Dylan. Your brilliant rationalizations have pushed womanhood backwards. In a breath, you have turned females into objects...again.

(Why the Army of Darkness imagery? "Gimme some sugar, baby...")

Toward More Justice at NAPAWF

Having an Asian heritage naturally makes me curious as to what Asian-focused organizations exist around the country. My latest internet surf has yielded my own discovery of the National Asian Pacific American Womens Forum (NAPAWF). On the surface, NAPAWF touts a decade of seeking justice for Asian women and girls around the world who have been abused. They promote awareness of human trafficking and sex slavery. They advocate legislation for improved access to adequate medical care for Asian women, especially those with difficulty understanding English.

All of this sounds terrific. However, all of this is not all there is. Alongside their efforts to help Asian women lies the open support and promotion of abortion, using a more commiserating term, "reproductive justice." As much as the other efforts receive attention, any casual look at their website shows that pro-abortion activism is a mainstay of this organization. For example, the last paragraph of their organizational statement says, "[NAPAWF] is where a longtime pro-choice activist finds young women ready to learn and keep the struggle for reproductive justice alive." Under the Programs & Projects tab, the very first item listed is their Reproductive Justice Program.

But I have found something very interesting about their causes that shows me a glimmer of hope in an otherwise tainted agenda. As much as it sounds like NAPAWF is a rank and file pro-abortion group (which it is on the surface), embedded in their literature and policy agendas is a value for human life that I believe NAPAWF might have simply overlooked in constructing their overall position on reproductive justice. Realizing this value and taking it to its logical end will truly give NAPAWF the solid ground on which to promote its causes.

First, the 2005 publication, RECLAIMING CHOICE, RECLAIMING THE MOVEMENT: Sexual and Reproductive Justice and Asian and Pacific American Women; A National Agenda for Action, states that "between 1994 and 2000, abortion rates fell in the United States for all groups except Asian and Pacific Islanders" (API) and suggests that (1) abortion rates remain higher because legal abortion in many of these women's country of origin (namely China and Korea) means greater acceptability for use of abortion as a method of birth control. Also, (2) lower use of prescription contraceptives than other ethnic groups contribute to increased pregnancy rates. The publication goes on to cite that 35% of pregnancies among API women end in abortion compared to 18% among White women, nearly double the rate.

Why cite such statistics? Why point out the disparity in abortion rates between Asian women compared to all women in the U.S? That Asian women are not having fewer abortions is an issue of concern within the publication. Intentional or not, this suggests something wrong with a steady abortion rate in API women against a falling trend among other ethnicities. In other words, just by calling attention to the disparity, NAPAWF is implying that API women should be seeking fewer abortions when everyone else is also seeking fewer abortions. That they continue indicates some cause for concern.*

Second, NAPAWF Organizing Director Yin Ling Leung points out a gravely critical issue in the abortion debate that I believe American pro-abortionists have intentionally suppressed--the glaring problem of abortion as a method of sex selection, particularly in Asia. In her article, "The Backwardness of Sex Selection Technologies," Leung reiterates the meagerly publicized fact that gender-based abortion/gender abortion is the reason for the disparate ratio of males to females in countries like India and China as ultrasound technology allows parents to know the gender of their fetus prior to birth. But while preference for the male gender is a defining feature of Asian culture, she believes we should not fool ourselves into thinking that the issue leaves us untouched here in America. Current biotechnologies have made much more than gender something to be considered on a consumer level. Leung writes,

"Commercialized sex selection poses several important risks for women and civil society. Gender is one of the most significant determinants of life experiences, and if we are willing to open the door to engineering this characteristic, where do we draw the line? Recently a research project documented that the vast majority of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are male, heterosexual, light-skinned and 6 feet tall. Will couples wanting to give their children an edge in life select for such traits? Today we select for gender. Tomorrow will we select for homosexuality, skin color, eye color, IQ, height and muscles?"

"Sex selection challenges feminist and social justice activists nationally and internationally in significant ways. Much of the women's reproductive rights movement is based on a pro-choice paradigm of a "woman's right to choice" and the right to privacy. We need to grapple with and draw some lines about what "choice" and "privacy" mean in the context of the new reproductive and genetic biotechnologies. Certainly it cannot mean the unfettered right to a market-based eugenic future. The political climate in the United States is ripe to debate the language of "choice" and consolidate a framework that takes on these ethical challenges." (I checked the NAPAWF site this morning and, apparently, this article has been removed. Their opposition to sex selection still exists on their Sex Selection Factsheet.)

Leung, I believe, hits the target dead on. Instead of criticizing merely the occurrences of sex selection via abortion, she expands her consideration to the entire paradigm of abortion, specifically to the definition of choice. In effect, she is asking "The choice to do what exactly?" acknowledging that not all abortion choices are valid. The issue is simple to understand: gender abortion is a form of eugenics.

Taken together, these statements from NAPAWF are implicit and unmistakable admissions that abortion is intrinsically bad for women, even if NAPAWF supporters do not realize it. I believe Asian women are in a uniquely advantageous position to criticize and challenge the practice of abortion on demand. Our reckoning of the continuing cultural tragedy of gender abortion and gender infanticide as the moral failings that they are should serve to challenge the world into reconsidering abortion as an approved legal practice for widespread use.

Of course, more than a spoonful of sugar will make this medicine go down. Abortion advocates in the U.S. have been especially silent on reproductive technologies that hail the creeping of eugenics back into American society. From their perspective, abortion advocates know that "unfettered" rights keep the moral considerations against abortion at bay. The moment the public has a chance to deliberate reasons for limiting abortion even in any small way is to open the floodgates of conscience over whether killing the unborn is even acceptable. In other words, pro-abortionists must tolerate or even support eugenics if they don't want to end up eroding their own pro-abortion position, because all defenses of human life begin with the idea that life has intrinsic value without discrimination against race, gender, or age (even gestational age). NAPAWF must somehow succeed in convincing the reluctant U.S. pro-abortion power base that female fetuses killed by 'gendercide' should receive protection, even though such arguments contradict the doctrine of privacy and choice of a woman to determine the manner and reasons by which her baby should die.

I think this would be an obviously futile effort. We simply have no good reasons to curb the practice of sex selection or to even prevent it from spreading through biotechnology unless we first argue that the intentional killing of any fetus is a violation of her intrinsic right to life and self-determination. This, of course, is not a pro-abortion position but a pro-life position.

I would hope that this ethical dilemma will cause the leaders of NAPAWF and other Asian-based womens organizations to carefully consider what the pro-abortion position has really done to women across the world. If we reflect on the outcome, women in countries where females are devalued suffer the most as abortion and eugenic technologies advance and people use them to actualize their preferences. Here, I believe the pro-abortion position MUST fall apart. If the right to abort rests on a right to choose, then a woman has the right to choose the gender of her baby and the right to abort when her her baby fails to meet her preferences. This is the logic that maintains the injustice of gendercide.

We can do better. NAPAWF can advocate true reproductive justice by recognizing that support of abortion is a capitulation that injustice still has power over us; leaders can end the cycle of death and injury that destroys millions of innocent Asian girls and women by refusing to allow it to destroy the next generation of women while they are yet in the womb. If one views this 'right to life' as an extension of what it already advocates (fighting human trafficking and sex slavery), the affirmation of life dovetails seamlessly into NAPAWF's raison d'etre. Only in this way do we act as a sisterhood of human flourishing that rises above and seeks a more triumphant way to serve and value the rights of our Asian sisters everywhere.

*A strong pro-abortion stance needs no such concern, however; if API women prefer abortion as a primary method of birth control, then why not congratulate them on utilizing and maintaining abortion services here in the U.S?

Ourobouros -3-: Rethinking Choice

Reflections stemming from the anniversary of Roe v Wade

Pro-abortion advocates call themselves "pro-choice." The question we need to explore about choice is "The choice to do what?" For 95% of women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, they have already made a choice. A child that is conceived is a natural, biological, and healthy consequence of that choice.

Most, if not all, people find this statement uncomfortable. Almost instinctively nowadays, we think "I signed up for a sexual relationship, not pregnancy and/or motherhood." Why is that? Though we know all about the birds and the bees, we commit cognitive dissonance on an incredulous level when it comes to babies being the result of sex! Our postmodern society speaks out of both sides of its mouth (as postmodernism typically does).

Postmodern Double-Speak
While social experts preach "personal responsibility" more than ever, many lawmakers and policymakers, media personalities, and celebrities speak just the opposite. They seek to remove natural consequences of personal actions, speak of rights and of privacy, and patronize the public into thinking that emotional impulses are preferable to prudential actions. For example,

1. We have separated sex from procreation.
Again, the cognitive dissonance is so loud it's screaming. Babymaking, mating, and even our obscene words are vulgar expressions of the mating act--all these terms refer to sexual intercourse. Under the right conditions, sexual intercourse can and does make babies. Sex is procreation. Duh. So why do some people and some groups spend so much time convincing the public that the two do not go together? Activist sex education programs in public schools dispense condoms (and in Maine, birth control pills), giving children (yes, children!) the message that sex can and should be experienced without the possibility of pregnancy or sexually transmitted consequences.

2. We have made pregnancy and birth into a medical condition.
Instead of looking at pregnancy as a natural biological process, everything in our culture has redefined pregnancy into a near medical condition that afflicts females. Nowhere is that reflected more than in today's routine of hospital birthing. I find it no surprise that this mentality has spilled over into our common understanding of pregnancy, especially when it concerns unplanned pregnancies.

3. We have elevated our sense of self over others.
In our culture of supercharged self-gratification, we can no longer understand true sacrifice of personal goals for the benefit of others, not even temporarily. Pro-abortion feminist groups preach an inflexible doctrine that fundamentally nothing and no one is worth laying aside one's ambitions or personal achievements or benchmarks in life. In fact, not only should women avoid obstacles, we should eliminate them, no matter if they happen to be people. This is ruthlessness in its ugliest form.

4. We have denied our children their personhood and their rights.
Since Roe v Wade, abortion supporters have intensely denied personhood to the developing fetus in the womb. They have redefined an unborn child as a "clump of cells," "conceptus," "blob of tissue," and so forth. This is really unjustified. Rabbits make rabbits; people make people. If an unborn baby is a blob of tissue, then her mother is a bigger blob of tissue, yet for mothers, we don't deny them their humanity.

The fault of many Christians is having put too much emphasis on shaming the young woman who gets pregnant and/or ignoring her true needs rather than giving her the grace and support she needs (from birth!) to avoid making a bad decision which results in pregnancy. I once listened to a speaker and pastor who said that if every professing Christian couple in America would adopt a child from a woman who might seek an abortion, we would effectively end the primary excuses for abortion in this country, that such children are unwanted and can't be cared for properly.

The fault of other Christians is in exercising silent disapproval for fear of social reprisals. What a shame that fear of hurting the feelings of someone dear stands in the way of truth and true liberation. True friends intervene in a case of endangerment to one's life. Abortion is worse, for one innocent individual definitely dies and the other puts her life and health at risk. It's time these believers find a way to speak the truth in love. Christians helping to rescue and preserve mother and child--what a concept!

For those who support abortion, I urge a rethinking of the idea of "choice." "Pro-choice" is not a pro-woman position especially if a majority of abortion's victims are female, as is the case worldwide. Neither is it pro-woman if it is intolerant of pro-life women, as it is most of the time. And finally, neither is "pro-choice" very pro-woman if it is in reality an encouragement to abandon the idea that every life is important no matter the gender, race, origin, or even present location.

It's time to rethink how, ever since Roe v Wade, we have turned life into an arbitrary thing, something we supposedly have a right to decide for some others. We have made the unborn into a class of people that only exists at the will of another who has more power. And most of all, we must rethink how such a state of mind that accepts the deprivation of rights of some can ever progress the rights of anyone.

This post is written in memoriam of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009), who dedicated the years since Roe v Wade to the defense of life at all stages of development.

Dear Mr. Skeet

Every so often, I receive Christian chain e-mail from a dear aunt of mine. Most of them are innocent sentimental stories. Some are twit-filled propositions from the mines of Christian subculture. And some, like this one, just beg for a bulldozer.

The e-mail that I received actually comes in two parts. The first part is commentary from a secondary, tertiary, or quaternary sender (I am unable to discern which applies). The second part is a letter from "Skeet," recounting his (or her?) impressions of a recent trip to Egypt and Israel. About 3/4 through the letter is a paragraph about how Barack Obama is really a Muslim.

Now, I believe the matter of the religious affiliation of Sen. Obama has sufficiently been laid to rest for most Americans. But that doesn't prevent outside influences from reviving and sustaining a low level of Christian gossip chatter about a worse case scenario electing a potential closet Muslim to the Presidency of the United States.

Here is the first part of the e-mail, followed by my reply:
From: voloz@juno.com
Subject: Israel/Egypt
I don't know how much of this is true, but I still do believe Obama is muslim. This is a note from a person from Lubbock who just returned from Israel / Egypt . Certainly gives us lots to think about.

Dear voloz@juno.com,
My aunt has been sending me chain e-mails for years now, and while most of them go directly to the trash, I do occasionally open them. This is one such e-mail, and I am disappointed by its contents. I am fully aware that this e-mail did not originate with you, so you should send this on back up the chain to its author, Skeet.

The e-mail message is unethical and misguided. However, you are guilty of promulgating it, even if you did not write it. I do not appreciate you trying to mislead her, and in turn, mislead anyone else she forwards the message to, including myself. Please do not forward any such e-mails to my aunt again.

Thank you,
*Letitia (last name withheld)*

This is the letter from Skeet, followed by my letter in response:
Dear Friends,
We are home. I am home with this flu that is going around. I had it before we left and got it again in Eygpt. I have really been sick. Sure is a waste of time.

Our trip was physically very hard. I lost 10 pounds and got sick. I am glad I went, but would not go back to Egypt . It is a dirty, ungodly country. The smog in Cairo Egypt was terrible. There are 17 million people in that city and they just throw their trash in the streets. The Nile River is polluted. I don't know how such a people who built the pyramids regressed like they have. If the Arabs take over America , we will be a slum. And the noise pollution was terrible. They chant their muslim prayers all day.

Our tour guide was a Christian, and he was a fine young man, but the ungodliness of the population is everywhere. It was a real example of the difference of 'light' vs 'darkness.' Jesus is truly the Light!

Israel was clean and wonderful. We could eat the food and drink the water. They were kind and loved us. They may not believe in Jesus but you can tell that God is in that land. It snowed in Jerusalem while we were there and it was cold, but we still toured. The Sea of Gallilee was stormy and we went out on a boat a short distance, but came back to shore. The Bible is absolutely true about the fact that you cannot be out on the Sea of Gallilee in a boat without the danger of dying. We were amazed at the big waves and wind on that Sea or lake.

The weather cleared in Israel at the end of the week and we went to the Temple Mount on a beautiful morning. It was a time with the Lord. We stood at the Golden Gate where Jesus will return. It is sealed because the Muslims are concerned He will return! They even have one of their graveyards outside the gate thinking no King will come through a graveyard. But Jesus is coming! It shows the muslim are concerned and may believe there is a possibility He will come. I stood and looked at that Gate,and was very moved to think I was standing at the very place where Jesus will enter Jerusalem again!

We did go into Bethlehem . We had to let our Jewish guide out of the bus, and our Arab bus driver drove us through the security gate. That high wall that you have been hearing about on TV is there, dividing Palistine and Israel . We then got a Christian guide when we got into Bethlehem . I was there twice before, once in l980 and again in l999 and there is a stark difference in Bethlehem since the arabs have taken it over. There were hardly any tourists. We ate in a cafe on the square where I ate before which was packed with tourists, but today it was vacant except for us. They have killed their tourist trade. The Christians in Bethlehem asked us to pray for them, because they had no income now. The Arab men on the manger square glared at us. We did not feel safe and clung together. There were begger boys everywhere. They hate Americans and Israel !!!!

There is so much I could say about this trip. It has changed my life in some ways. I look at the lostness of the arabs and the darkness. I look at Israel ; that tiny country amidst such turmoil. If America does not continue to support, Israel I believe God will judge us severely as Americans. The Israelite soldiers were such fine young men and women. They are clean and disciplined and have great love for their land which is something that is missing in America among some of our youth. I rode back to Lubbock from Dallas on airline with an American Air Force career soldier. He said the Israelite pilots were the best in the world. They can fly planes like no one else!

Lastly, we were asked everywhere about the Presidential race in America . There was great interest. The Jews came up to us and asked us many questions. They said they do not want the Clintons again. They warned us that Obama is a muslim, not a Christian. In Egypt , the Arabs said the same thing to us; they said Obama is muslim and they are amazed that Americans would consider electing a muslim President of America!!

I came home loving America even more! Our country is a 'light on a hill.' Our streets are clean. There are no chants all day. People are kind and take their turn. People over there pushed into line and were rude. They have never heard of the Golden Rule. They will stomp all over you if they want to get in line. I can see now why Jesus' words of loving your neighbor and doing unto others, what you would have them do unto you, were strange words to the lost. We take our Christian heritage for granted here in my opinion. We have sanctity of human life. In Egypt , the Arabs don't have any hope so I can see why they would bomb people and commit suicide. They smoked cigarettes everywhere! I could not breathe in Egypt and I think that is why I came down with the flu again. The smog was so bad at the pyramids, I could tell I was getting sick. I would gag on the fumes.

We need to pray for America and this election every day.

God bless, Skeet

Dear Mr. Skeet,
Welcome home from your trip to Egypt and Israel! I found your assessment of life in the Middle East both fascinating and troubling at the same time. I urge you to think aboutthe impact of what your words have on all those who have had it forwarded to them from a friend or family member. Your letter does double duty. It serves to both accuse Barack Obama and disparage the Arabs you encountered on your trip.

First, I do not believe for one moment that Barack Obama is a Muslim, for the simple reason that he is not a Muslim. You might make a better case branding him as a black liberation Marxist, an image that he seems unable to reject.

If people in other countries believe that he is Muslim because there are Muslims in his family and that he lived in Indonesia for a time, they have a right to be mistaken. But we do not. It is decidedly a very unethical (and hence, un-Christian) thing to do to bear false witness about any person, especially to mislead another to vote a certain way. The truth is enough to warrant alarm about Barack Obama's aspiration to be President. We do not need to add falsehood to bolster the chances of his defeat at the polls. That is another politician's realm, and she is doing a fine job of lying without anyone's help.

Next, while I appreciate your observation of the poor living conditions and what I interpret as visible spiritual depravity in Arab-controlled territories in the Middle East, you assign motive for bombings as "Arabs don't have any hope so I can see why they would bomb people." That is very poor logic indeed, and erroneous, as the primary motivation for terrorist bombings comes from a particular understanding of jihad, a far cry from hopelessness.

As Christians, we ought to see that their greatest problem is not that they smoke cigarettes, pollute, and hate Israelis. They do not know the love and grace of God. Aside from the shock and disdain for the Arabic parts of your trip, I detect little pity or compassion for the Arab people in your letter. While they may look as depraved asthey are, we must not forget but for our external trappings (generally clean streets and orderly public behavior, as you have pointed out) we are equally as dark and depraved and in dire need of grace ourselves.

Finally, I hope during your days overseas that you were able to show some kindness to a Muslim man and give him a reason to rethink the general attitude toward Americans. I would hope that no illness, fear, or hostile looks from Muslims would prevent your great faith and evangelistic zeal, if not for their sakes, for the Lord's. What a shame it would have been to miss so many potential opportunities to be Jesus to people in such need of Him.

Remember that the comfortable life you now appreciate to a greater extent is by blessed circumstance only. Consider if God were to send you to Egypt to live for the remainder of your life. Would you love it then?

Yours truly in Christ,
*Letitia (last name withheld)*

Now, I did consider that "Skeet" is possibly trying to punk me, in which case, I would not have bothered to restrain myself from unleashing the satirical monster in me. Note that even the sender also expressed doubt in its authenticity. Nevertheless, there are many unsuspecting Christians like my aunt who would take this e-mail seriously, and so I felt I must keep a reply on the level as much as possible.

Feel free to discuss.

I Can, Can You?

I Can, Can You? Written and photographed by Marjorie W. Pitzer. ISBN 1890627577 (board book)

Although this book was mainly put together for babies and toddlers (and six year-olds learning to read), it's a great book for adults to look at and think about. Every page is a photograph of a young child with Down's Syndrome doing everyday activities, like playing, swimming, and even learning sign language. Anyone who doubts the human worth of such kids has a greater congenital defect than they, Peter Singer.

Making Feminists Cringe. Oh Well. -5-

N.O.W. Silent on Inhumane Treatment of Women

Chalk another one up for N.O.W.'s failures to stand up for better treatment of women everywhere. This morning, news broke that British teacher in Sudan, Gilliam Gibbons, has been arrested and faces 40 lashes and possible jail time for allowing a teddy bear to be named Muhammed in a classroom activity. The charge: insulting Islam.

I'm not going to run the gamut of how ridiculous this situation in Sudan is; there are too many obvious points about how wrong the authorities in Sudan are. They should release Ms. Gibbons and apologize for threatening to give her 40 lashes (which is potentially fatal).

At any rate, the real beef on this end is that N.O.W. again has failed to even make a statement criticizing this arrest and potential inhumane treatment of an innocent women. It is a no-brainer that N.O.W. should defend Ms. Gibbons. According to Fox News,

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women said the situation
"is definintely on the radar, and N.O.W. is not ignoring it. But she added that
the U.S.-based organization is "not putting out a statement or taking a
position."

Well, if they bothered to say anything at all, why not make a statement? Unless, of course, they aren't really about the business of helping women out after all.

Food On the Nude (Yes, ON)

Talk about losing one's appetite...

The movie Kill Bill introduced me to "naked sushi" for the first time. I naively thought, "well, they sure were creative to think of that for the movie, however nauseating it is. Barf." That is, I didn't realize that they actually do this naked sushi thing in Japanese sushi restaurants. Now, some sushi bars on the west coast are featuring naked sushi as well. Mercy.

I cannot think of a finer example of the objectifying of women than to use them as plates.

Teri Rhodes Multiple Choice; "D," None of the Above

After this news story, I scoured blogs for commentaries on the following:

August 12, 2007: Teri Rhodes, 18, college student at Mercyhurst College in PA, gave birth to a baby girl in her bathroom and used a plastic bag to suffocate her while taking a shower in the bathtub where she laid the baby. The baby literally died at Rhodes' feet. Rhodes is now charged with murder and conspiracy to hide a death of a baby. The handful of blogs that have written about this incident have been disapproving of Rhodes committing murder, but not one blogger has placed the final blame on this woman for the death of her newborn baby.

Instead, I perused blogs and comments about that poor girl needing psychotherapy, education, yada yada, and how poverty increases the infanticide rate. I also read blogs that chastised society for not providing better prenatal and postnatal care with counseling, chastised pharmacists for refusing to dispense morning after pills, and even suggested that Rhodes should have had gotten an abortion, as if that were a more preferable method of disposing of her daughter. I also caught comments that the physicians in charge of Rhodes care were incompetent to diagnose her pregancy (this deserves a "no duh!"), and thus absolving Rhodes of some of the blame.

Excuse A: Infanticide is common among young, poor, uneducated females anywhere in the world. We might consider Rhodes young for being an American, but at 18, she's legally an adult and way older than what's considered young by the world's stats. Poor and uneducated at a private Catholic college majoring in Biology and Medical Technology? Hardly.

Excuse B: Pregnant women need care and counseling and sex ed to make rational decisions about pregancy and birth and...I guess murder as well. Last time I checked, there are pregnancy resources everywhere, especially on the internet, where Rhodes spent lots of time net searching for ways to kill her unborn baby in the months leading up to birth. Rhodes had ready access to all of the above, so her actions seem perfectly rational to me. Placing additional blame on the incompetence of the college's sports physician for not detecting what should have been an obvious pregancy does get a nod (Rhodes received a physical two days before giving birth in which he did ask her about, and she denied, pregancy). The doctor may have dropped the ball, but it doesn't remove any blame from Rhodes.

Excuse C: Rhodes could have gotten an abortion or taken the morning after pill. Granted, those options are legal and would have spared Rhodes a murder charge. Even if she opted for either alternative, however, the result would still have been the same: death.

I have a deep compassion for Rhodes being alone in her ordeal and for what her emotional states must have been throughout her pregancy. She does need counseling, and lots of it...while she's in jail. She's a rebellious, irresponsible, lying murderer.

She's rebellious for thinking that having sex before marriage is a good idea (against her Catholic upbringing);

Irresponsible if she thinks that sex doesn't produce a baby that she has obligations to;

Lying for denying her pregancy and any help related to pregancy;

And murder, for all the obvious reasons.

Legally and morally, Rhodes is a mess, and because she chose to go it alone, she alone should bear the blame, not all the other people above who might have somehow changed her circumstances for her. That is the point, missed and ignored as it is.

In case you're wondering, this hits home for me. I have a daughter who one day might get pregnant before marriage, God forbid. I pray for Rhodes, that the severity of her actions impacts her, that she realizes some truths about herself, and finally, that she learns of redemption in the person of Christ. There's more to this story that I have to express...I'll have to put in another post.