A Double Standard of Convenience

A Sienna College Poll taken in March taken March 17^th shows the vast majority of New Yorkers oppose the New York Dream Act. Even so, Democrats in Albany nearly passed the legislation, and their plan now is to include it in the next budget.

Unsurprisingly, Governor Cuomo’s ratings have taken a dive, as did his push to use tax payer money to fund higher education for illegals. I’d like to see the Governor, along with those who want to pay for these educations to put their own money where there mouths are. Set up a voluntary fund.

It’s sad to see that people have moved here illegally, knowingly illegally, and have raised children here, hoping no one would get caught. Its upsetting to see people move here, knowingly illegally, and then demanding legal residents help them or their children.

From the left, the cry goes up, “You can’t make innocent children suffer for the sins of their parent or parents!” Ah, but we do. Everyday. And we make excuses for it.

“It was incest.”
“It was rape.”
“It was not planned.”
“It will hurt my career.”

In the case of the first two I mentioned, one parent is a criminal. And whether or not he is punished has nothing to do with his offspring.

Why the double standard? Many of the same people cry out, “How can you deny someone an abortion?” Where are the shouts from the left for the well being of the legal innocent child?

If Dream Acts are based on human rights, why are those same human rights denied to boys and girls whose only crime is to be an inconvenience?

Granted, there are rare incidences in which a pregnant woman’s life is threatened by continuing a pregnancy. I can’t begin to imagine how painful a situation that must be. But beyond those cases, it becomes a matter of convenience.

“I don’t want to suffer by carrying a child nine months for what a criminal did to me.”
What system of ethics informs us that its better to end the life of another in order to shorten the period of our own suffering? Does punishing the child make what happened any more palatable? 

“We just couldn’t handle a child with a deformity/severe autism/Down Syndrome.”   Less than 6% of children with forms of Down Syndrome make it beyond the womb. 

“A child right now would damage my career.” 

“We wanted a boy this time.” 

So what do we do for the children of illegal immigrants? Do we cast them aside, deport them to a country they've likely never been to? Perhaps the best answer is to grant them citizenship, and make sure no one else suffers as they have by enforcing our borders.

And for children in the womb? Do we continue to cast them aside, or do we grant them citizenship as well?

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/sri/SNY%20March%202014%20Poll%20Release%20--%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/27/only-5-3-percent-of-unborn-babies-diagnosed-with-down-syndrome-escape-abortion/

Credit where credit's due

World Vision has rescinded its decision to accept homosexual marriage. That they did so in a contrite manner speaks volumes. That they did so while maintaining a compassionate stance toward those practicing homosexuality speaks volumes as well.

Recognizing that Christ's love excludes no one while it cannot accept the sin of anyone is a biblical view that informs their decision.

A Lack of Vision from World Vision

As the Hollywood American Indian Stereotype would say, World Vision's U.S. President Richard Stearns "speaks with a forked tongue."

From one side of his mouth, Stearns insists

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support."

From the other side he says

"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage."

How does this decision "affirm and support" traditional marriage? By making this decision, what World Vision has done is exactly what Stearns claims not to have done: They have inserted themselves into the debate.

Stearns goes on to say that World Vision is simply "deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues."So World Vision is an organization that does Christian work, that claims to adhere to Christian principles, but those principles are in a fluid state, dependent upon the views of denominations?

The Bible says sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. If World Vision says it adheres to the biblical definition of marriage, then this decision is saying to the world that homosexual sex is the only sex acceptable outside of marriage.

World Vision says it is deferring to denominations. Where World Vision should be deferring to is biblical authority.





http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html

Horror wrapped in compassion

Much lip service is paid to women by those who support abortion on demand. Their position, they say, is a compassionate and humane one. Yet all too often women are hurt, or allowed to be potentially put in harm's way thanks to the efforts of these same compassionate, humane people.

So many attempts to have abortion mills regulated like other medical practices have been opposed and thwarted by Abortion supporters that it seems ridiculous at this point to list them. But there are a couple of things that haven't been addressed sufficiently.

First, the so-called War on Women. By liberal standards, the very thought of prohibiting any kind of abortion is an attack on women. Since many conservative Republicans do not condone late term abortions, or abortions for anything other than to save the life of the mother (excuse the term,) they are de-facto at war with women. In war there are casualties, and in the abortion arena there plenty of female casualties.

In an article from The Telegraph dated March 24th, 2014, the head of BPAS, the organization that conducts over a quarter of the abortions committed in the U.K. every year,Ann Fuerdi tells an interviewer that aborting a child because you want a boy instead of the girl in your womb is fine. Its no different, she says, than being permitted to abort in the case of rape or incest. Current British law backs her up, I'm afraid. And the practice of eliminating girls before birth in India and China is no secret. Are these practices not a war on women? Are such acts compassionate or humane?


Second, if we do not recognize the pre born infant as a human being then it must be nothing more than lifeless tissue. What happens to that tissue? British government officials were shocked to discover recently that a great deal of these remains were incinerated for energy creation at hospital facilities. Sound humane?

Again, from The Telegraph,

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

If I were to read about such practices in a dystopian science fiction novel set in a post apocalyptic future I wouldn't be as surprised. But this is happening now, in a civilized society. From a search query, Ask.com responded with "all tissue is disposed of in a sensitive way."

But if the remains are nothing more than tissue, what is all the fuss about? Why are officials from the Department of Health going on record as calling the practice abhorrent, calling for an immediate halt to such practices?

Britain's Channel Four says over 15,000 were incinerated at 27 National Health Service hospitals over the past two years. I don't need to read the novel. I'm living in a dystopian world now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10316715/Women-are-legally-free-to-abort-a-baby-because-of-its-sex-says-abortion-charity-head.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html

Show me your commitment to Church Doctrine

In the classic Humphrey Bogart Film, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Bogart is confronted by men on horseback who claim to be Mexican officers.

     “If you’re Federales, where are your badges?” He asks.

The reply is the memorable line, 

     “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!”

A few months ago, Rev. Frank Schaefer, a Methodist minister in Pennsylvania was defrocked by his denomination for officiating at a wedding of two homosexuals. His removal from the teaching ministry followed proscribed rules and guidelines set forth by his denomination for violating church doctrine and practice, doctrine which he no doubt pledged to adhere to as an ordained official of the Methodist church. His removal instigated volleys of condemnation from liberals within and without the church body.

The same thing was about to happen in the New York City area, when Rev. Thomas Ogletree officiated at such a ceremony. Same rules, same doctrine-Different outcome.*

Bishop Martin McLee declined to prosecute. Bishop Peggy Johnson from the Philadelphia area, said she was filled with "jubilation" over the decision.

     “If you’re the church authorities, show me your commitment to church doctrine.”

     “Doctrine? We don’t need no stinkin’ doctrine!”

The Methodist Church risks schism over the issue. There area many within the denomination who were outraged by the Pennsylvania ouster. There were many outraged over the Bishop’s refusal to adhere to Church ordnances and doctrine.

Other trials are pending. Several Ministers have refused to stop violating the 40 year old rules set forth in the Methodist Book of Discipline.

Rev. Steve Heiss (Binghamton, NY) refuses to submit to church discipline as he waits for his own trial. Following the decision to defrock Frank Schaefer, he told Religion News Service, 

     “The ambiguity of it was so awful and so painful.”

Heiss is right, though not for the reason I suspect he says this. The ambiguity is on the part of the denomination’s willingness to stand its ground on the biblical principals originally set forth as their standards of practice. At the heart of this is doctrine. In particular, the doctrine of inerrancy.

R. Dale Tedder, Jr. writing for the Florida Confessing Association regarding United Methodist Authority and the Question of Inerrancy wrote,

“Scripture is ultimately authoritative because it is inerrant. Authority has to do with the right to impose obligations. God, as the "author" of the universe, has the right to impose any obligation he desires. Any ultimate authority less than God is an idol. However, humanity could not know God and what he required were he to have remained silent. However, the Christian faith has always believed that God has revealed himself to his creation. To say that God has revealed himself to his creation is to confess that his revelation was successfully given and received. Though the recipients of such a revelation are by no means inerrant, surely the Revealer is. Therefore, United Methodism must claim that Scripture alone is the Church's final authority. To affirm this is to do more than declare allegiance to an amorphous doctrine of inspiration. Instead, the authority of Scripture can only be truly sustained if is grounded in the sovereign hand of the Lord who continues to exercise his authority over his Church through his inerrant Word.”

There really should be no ambiguity here. But the fact that Tedder felt it necessary to write in support of scriptural authority indicates that there is within the Methodist ranks.

*12 Mar 2014 The Philadelphia Inquirer

By Tricia L. Nadolny INQUIRER STAFF WRITER tnadolny@phillynews.com 610-313-8205 TriciaNadolny

No trial for cleric who led gay wedding Bishop overseeing Methodists in N.Y.C. area also suspends any future actions.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/41858-united-methodist-church-pastor-s-trial-shines-spotlight-on-denomination-s-ambivalence

http://ucmpage.org/fa_cm/cmfa_3.htm

Living in a Millennial Age

I suppose it’s a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

A recent Pew Research paper on Social and Demographic Trends suggests that Millennials, those people ranging from 18 to 33 years of age, follow along with the norms portrayed in Hollywood and television.

They are less likely than earlier generations to be affiliated with a particular church, less likely to be married, more often than not committed to a political party and more liberal than their elders. In their liberality they have more children out of wedlock, and are more accepting of homosexual marriages.

The argument can be made of course, that entertainment media simply reflects societal norms, mimicking current lifestyles to generate the most interest for ticket sales and cable subscriptions.

I suspect that it’s a bit of both, and more the former than the latter.

The research shows declining percentages from generation to generation in marriage and church affiliation. I remember a well known movie critic, writing back in the 1980s of a party he attended in Hollywood. The topic of conversation at the party came to the portrayal of ministers in film. The critic asked why they were being portrayed as buffoons and hypocrites. An actress turned to him and said “Aren’t they all like that?”

When asked if she had ever met any, she laughed and said no. The critic wrote that Hollywood exists in a vacuum, totally apart from the real world. But isolated from reality or not, entertainers are not shy when it comes professing their feelings in regards to social and political issues. And the soap box afforded them by their lofty status as icons gives weight to their words that many academics would give their right arm for.

The Pew report tellingly noted that Millennials are locked into a self created digital network,  that supplies them with the news that informs their world. While this may seem liberating, its also constricting. The report says that Millennials place less trust in government that previous generations. 

Frederick the Great said public schools would control the masses for the state. Better add the internet and social networking to that list.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/