Life is Sacred

     Today is Sanctity of Life Sunday in many churches.  It is supposed to be a time when we pause to remember the tremendous number of babies killed (“aborted”) since the ruling in Roe v. Wade.  But, it got me thinking about the broader application.  All human life is sacred. 

                 Please don’t misunderstand.  We need to be concerned about protecting the lives of babies unable to speak for themselves.  The numbers are staggering.  Over 40 million lives ripped from the land of the living.  These are the most innocent of lives, never having had any opportunity to mess up anything.

                I am continually dismayed at the growing number of people in our society who make no attempt to base their beliefs, and therefore, their actions, on anything remotely objective.  The argument, for instance, that I and the rest of the voters in this country have no right to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body is disingenuous at best, and selfish at worst.  This defense fails to answer the most important question in the debate, “When does life begin?”  Once that question is objectively determined, the legal, if not moral, debate can be over. 

                I believe life begins at conception.  It is the moment when the DNA from both parents collide to form a new, unique set of DNA.  That is my answer to the question.  Now, what is the pro-choice answer?  There are many.  A number of legal opinions depend on the “viability” of the fetus.  That is, when the fetus is able to live outside the womb, it is a human life.  When is viability reached?  The standard answer is twenty-two weeks.  But there are circumstances and medical advances that make this point in the fetal development more than a little spongy.  I still want to know exactly when life begins, because if an exact moment can’t be determined, we could be killing a human being.  So, at what week, day, hour, minute and second is the fetus “viable,” and therefore, a human?  I have yet to hear or read any pro-choice person give me a straight answer.  I, on the other hand, know exactly when life begins. 

                But, “It’s my body!” the pro-choice woman shouts.  Is it?  If she were carrying a baby in her arms, would it still be considered part of her body?  If the first question is answered, and the point of the beginning of life is determined, then at that point forward, the woman is carrying another human being, and she does not have the right to take that baby’s life any more than anyone else has.

                But, I have digressed.  What about the rest of the human race?  If that unborn baby is sacred, so is every human being.  I certainly applaud all who will fight for the most basic rights of the unborn, but challenge all of those same people to extend that fight to the rest of the human race.  It is so easy to think about others as less than human, especially when they have done something harmful to us or to others.  It may not be quite as easy, but no less a problem, to treat others with something less than respect.  And when I hear the way people talk to each other, or scream at each other, I wonder if they have any notion of the idea of sanctity of life. 

                Again, please don’t misunderstand (I’ve been getting a lot of that lately), I believe people who do bad things need to be counseled, rehabilitated, punished; whatever is appropriate for the circumstance under the law.  But even when these actions must be taken, it should be with a heavy heart, because a sacred life, as defiled, wretched, and seemingly hopeless as it may be, has lost its holy glow.

                And what about me?  I struggle with some of those same challenges to see the sacred form of God in others.  It is much too easy to demean them in my mind.  True, I don’t treat people poorly.  I try to help people when possible.  I don’t call people names to demean them.  But I am disturbed by the way I think about others sometimes.  And what I think is as important as what I do.  I am what I think.  That’s quite scary to ponder.

                So, this week I will change my attitude, even if it is just a little bit.  I will remember that all life is sacred, and should be treated as such. Care to join me?

Apathetic Apologetics

                The history of Christianity records periods of great enthusiasm, extreme hostility, and steadfast faithfulness.  But I’m not sure there has ever been a period of profound apathy.  If the researchers of our time have it correct, we may very well be in or near such a period in our society today. 

                Recently, USA Today reported on a modern upswing in spiritual apathy.  The journalist, Cathy Lynn Grossman, examined responses to survey questions developed by various organizations, including Baylor University, LifeWay Research, Gallop, and Pew Forum.  She also researched various blogs, and interviewed a number of experts in the field.  The findings generally revealed that many Americans have adopted a “So what” attitude concerning any form of spirituality, not just Christianity.  This does not translate to an increased number of atheists, just apathetic people. 

                I found a blog entitled Church of the Churchless (url below) where the blogger wrote on June 30, 2011, “…from my present churchless perspective I couldn't see any point to what the author [of a book he was about to throw away] had written about.  As with my general reaction to religion now, I wasn't so much opposed to the book's theme as apathetic.”  He goes on to list a number of “So whats”: So what if people have souls?  So what if some mystic or sage is enlightened?  So what if some god wants me to act in a certain way?  He lists many others, ending each with a phrase similar to “I can’t know for sure.  And there is nothing I can do about it.”

                The USA Today article quotes one man who explained his position this way, “…we might as well be cars.  That, to me, makes more sense than believing what you can’t see.”  A woman in New York is not only apathetic, but resents being asked to explain or debate her view.  The bottom line seems to be that we live in a society populated by a significant number of people who believe all claims to truth are equally valid.  “Personal experience and personal authority matter most…Instead of followers of Jesus, they’re followers of 5,000 unseen ‘friends’ on Facebook or Twitter.”

                The hard numbers revealed in this article are that 46% of those surveyed never wonder whether they will go to heaven.  44% don’t spend time seeking “eternal wisdom.”  18% don’t believe God has a purpose or plan for everyone.  28% don’t make finding a deeper purpose in life a major priority. 

                I must admit, I was not very surprised by the findings.  The so-called Generation X, people born between 1965 and 1980, have been characterized as “independent, resourceful and self-sufficient,” valuing individual freedom, distaining authority, and disliking most forms of societal structure.  They were the first generation to be nurtured on computers, feeling very comfortable with all sorts of new technology.  They are tolerant of alternate lifestyles.  They are ambitious to succeed, but only on their own terms.  Drawing on their own experiences, they have faith in themselves and believe they can adapt to overcome all obstacles.  Who needs God (or even “god”) if there is no absolute truth, if they can take care of all their problems themselves, if they can retain their personal freedom without submitting to any kind of higher authority?  So what if there is a spiritual reality?  If they can’t experience it themselves, there is nothing they can do about it. 

                I have a different world view.  It revolves around the belief that the world is much too complex to be an accident.  It recognizes the organized structure of the universe and the intricate design of the human being.  And it acknowledges the existence of a spiritual realm that is experienced by all of us, but which cannot be explained by any dissection of the human body.  So what?  So, everything I think and feel exists in this realm!  So, the only reason there is for living is the purpose that is derived from that part of me that is not capable of being examined under a microscope.  That part of me that cannot be explained by the presence of flesh, blood and chemicals.  So what?! 

                Spiritual apathy seems to be just another form of selfishness, or maybe laziness.  It hurts to think about something they can’t see.  It makes them uncomfortable to ponder something they can’t control.  It irritates them to consider the existence of some power that has absolute authority over their destiny, believing their destiny somehow depends on their own will and actions.  Well, just because they refuse to take it seriously, doesn’t mean they don't possess a spirit/soul, or that God doesn't exist and love them in spite of themselves.

                Give me a raging atheist, or a devoted pagan, but save me from the apathetic.  Give me someone who is able and willing to defend whatever it is they believe, but spare me the ignorant “So what?” of the apathetic.  Give me a lively discourse with the errant religious soul, but keep me from the cold shoulder of the intellectually devoid apathetic.  Life matters.  It deserves more than a “So what?” dismissal.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/06/best-response-to-religion-so-what-.html

http://legalcareers.about.com/od/practicetips/a/GenerationX.htm

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: New California Laws

                Well, it’s January again, so it is time for us to take a look at some of the new California state laws that went into effect on January 1^st.  They are like an old spaghetti western.  Some are good.  Some are bad.  And some are downright ugly.  Like it or not, they are now the laws of the land. 

                Let’s begin with the new laws concerning children.  SB 929 requires children to be restrained in a vehicle booster seat until they are eight years old or 4’ 9” tall.  This is because vehicle shoulder harnesses are designed for taller people.  If used on children, the straps could damage children’s necks in accidents.  SB 514 prohibits the sale of medicine (usually cough medicines) containing dextromethorphan to children under ten years of age.  In one study, it was found to be no more effective for children than a placebo, yet could cause severe and dangerous reactions in children.  AB 25 requires schools to take specific steps to protect student athletes who sustain possible concussions.  SB 746 keeps anyone under 18 years of age from using a tanning bed.  All of these laws are designed to protect children, with the understanding that children are incapable of making decisions concerning their own health and well-being on their own.  Why then, one may ask, was AB 499 passed?  This law allows children twelve and older to procure their own medical care for the prevention of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).  No parental notification or consent is required.  In fact, a physician cannot notify any adults that such treatment was sought.  Therefore, your 12-year-old daughter can go into any doctor’s office and request a vaccination against HPV, for example, in addition to seeking treatment for any SDT she may have contracted.  So, we have four new laws enacted based on the assumption that minors are incapable of making important medical decisions on their own, and one new law which completely disregards that assumption.

                Four new laws deal with people who are in this country illegally.  Yes, I know this is only a misdemeanor, but the impact of these new laws on safety and government finances is significant, and raise the issue of fairness as well.  AB 130 makes “undocumented” immigrants (read “illegal”) eligible for privately funded scholarships if they meet the criteria of a paying resident tuition.  State-funded scholarships will be available to them next year.  This is an addition to the Dream Act, passed in 2001, allowing illegal immigrants resident status, thus affording them the privilege of in-state tuition.  Legal residents of the 49 other states still have to pay out-of-state tuition and are not eligible for the scholarships now available to those in this country illegally.  AB 207 bars school districts from demanding proof that a student is a legal resident of this country.  A simple statement by the parent is now acceptable.  AB 844 allows illegal immigrant students who hold student government offices in state colleges to be paid for those duties on the same basis as legal residents.  Finally, AB 353 prohibits law enforcement officers at a sobriety checkpoint from impounding the vehicles of anyone driving without a valid driver’s license.  This affects people of any legal status, but was enacted due to the high incidence of vehicle impoundments of illegal immigrants who cannot legally possess a California driver’s license.  Therefore, people who are in our country illegally and have not proven they are knowledgeable of our traffic laws, nor have proven they are physically able to operate a motor vehicle, nor have proven they can safely operate a motor vehicle, and therefore, likely to not possess the insurance required of the rest of us, must be sent on their way, driving their vehicles on our streets, unless the officers have other reasons to detain them.

                Finally, AB 144 prohibits the carrying of any handgun, loaded or unloaded, in public.  Previously, a person could carry a sidearm in most unincorporated county areas in this state.  Now, none of us will be allowed to carry a sidearm openly.  We will have to seek a concealed weapons permit, and hide our handguns, so law enforcement officers will have to guess.  Oh, I didn’t mean “none of us.”  There are a few exceptions.  Off-duty law enforcement officers in a myriad of circumstances will be allowed to openly carry, of course.  And so will quite a few other people, including: 

                                “A person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining and furnishing information as   to the financial rating of persons.”

                                “An attorney…performing his or her duties…”

                                “A collection agency or an employee thereof…”

                                “A charitable philanthropic society…”

                                “Admitted insurers and agents and insurance brokers…”

                                “Any bank…”

                                “A person engaged solely in the business of securing information about persons or property from public records.”

                                “A licensed insurance adjuster…”

                                “Any secured creditor engaged in the repossession of …property…”

                This is an interesting list.  Notice the absence of “any citizen of the United States who has not been convicted of a felony and who would like to protect himself, his family and his property by exercising his 2^nd Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms.’”  Somehow, that exception didn’t make it into the law.

                Here’s an interesting side note:  Every one of the laws listed above, and most of the others enacted but not mentioned here, were authored by Democrats.