It Isn’t Porn: :Villain Lawyer Smears Judge

From the decrepit pages of the LA Times comes a story of prurient interest.

In an obscenity case trying whether the “art” films of a pornographer and fetishist qualify as criminally obscene (they feature explicitly sexual bestiality and other extremely demeaning and disgusting forms of sexual perversion), the defense attorney Cyrus Sanai has called into question the presiding judges ability to preside over the case due to potential conflict of interest.

Citing the judge’s own “website” as the source of conflict and stating that said website contained sexually explicit images and others of disgusting fetishism, Cyrus has started a potentially ruining fire storm against this judge.

However, as is often the case, the story presented to us by the media is not the whole story.

Cyrus is a bad guy.

But then again, in this enlightened post-modern era of moral relativism, he is for his own good serving his own absolute deity: himself. And who can gainsay that?

Cyrus is a significant (spoken in the statistical sense) part of the 99% of lawyers who give the rest of them a bad name. His actions speak very loudly indeed.

Reading his actions we see he has no concern for integrity or honesty or recognizing actual and glaring conflict of interest when it does not benefit him.

Read these long articles to see how he and the judge he is currently smearing have tangled before (nemesis?): The Kozinski Challenge

So they’ve tangled before, and with multiple judges up and down the west coast commenting how the Lawyer Sanai is an unscrupulous and conniving villain of the court room, tying up justice hand and foot, hounding judges into recusion, and generally making a joke of the judicial system of America (not that the 9th Circuit Court has not done a lot of that itself without his help), it is little wonder Cyrus Sanai is coming back after Kozinski.

Kozinski’s wife sets forth the facts of the case from her perspective.

And that video she mentions about the man running around the field in his underwear while a donkey chases him? It was an underwear ad that played on public TV not too many year ago. It was hilarious.

Really, Scott Glover ought to be slapped, then sucker punched. The LA Times And Sanai ought to be… well, I’ll leave that up to you.

And Kazinski ought to find a different job. What he did was assume the decency of people when in his position he ought to have known better than most how ugly people can be, even the “good” ones. He deployed a technologically complex system without sufficient effort to set up even the most basic of security or authentication. And the media, while not nearly the level of smut one would assume based on the opportunistic germ Mr. Glover’s description, indicate an interest in prurient humor beyond what we expect from a solemn justice of our legal system.

Yes, the expectations for judges are different. Alex may be a brilliant mind and may be the victim of bitter jealousy and malice and yes, evil. But we expect more, and to preserve the respect of the bench he has served, he ought to recognize his best course of action is to step down.

His wife has some good arguments to make in his defense:

Mr. Frey:

My name is Marcy Tiffany. I have been married to Alex Kozinski for over thirty years and we have raised three sons together. First, let me thank you for making the effort to discover the truth about what happened, and for giving me an opportunity to respond to the stories that have been circulating about Alex.

Turning to the facts of the matter, the LA Times story, authored by Scott Glover, is riddled with half-truths, gross mischaracterizations and outright lies…

Read on at Patterico’s Pontifications…

Dead Sexy

In a previous article, Priorities Of Preservation, I discussed the importance Christianity puts on the entirety of an person: body, mind, and spirit.

While the world, in a misguided and myopic view constrained by sin, only really cares for the preservation of the body. And through ignorance, loses the whole person.

In a report released last week which most have already heard of or commented on, it was noted that 1/4 of the US Teenage Female population is infected with one of several Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

The immediate cry was that Abstinence Education must be completely abandoned and further explanation of the ins and outs of safe sex be taught to every child.

I find those making that argument to be their own worst enemies, and I am determined to sit and watch them tear themselves apart trying to make sense of what they’ve said.

Better have a good belt to hold these sides in. The problem is, this is no laughing matter: peoples lives are at stake.
At the blog dbTechno (”Providing Science And Technology News Since 1996″) under the headline “Teens Having Sex, Getting STD’s Due To Lack Of Knowledge” (strongly caution) there is a small picture of three bikini-clad young women shaking their derrières before the camera. This was the picture Google had selected on it’s news aggregator to highlight the several articles on this topic this morning.

In our sexified culture it is considered “emancipated” for a woman to be so “comfortable” with her sexuality that she feels willing to flaunt her body either scantily clothed or free of clothes before the whole world.

I don’t think that it is a sign of a healthy self-image that women are willing and even choose to clothe themselves that way.

I am not for arbitrary requirements in clothing, but it is saddening that, younger and younger, we are compelling out daughters and sisters to choose between frumpy and scandalous.

Removing their modesty with bits of lycra and spandex.

Revealing their bodies for the eyes of all the world.

And then we worry that too many of them are having sex.

I think a healthy self image will result in true self-worth, where the woman will not feel compelled to dress “sexy” to get the approval and acceptance of others.

When a woman is dressing revealingly they are revealing their insecurity, not their assuredness.

The Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board this morning published an article titled “Abstinence-Only Education Needs To Go” (no scandalous images here) in which they completely demolish their own claims, twice.

First, early in the article they lay claim to the moral high ground:

From here, it would be easy to play the blame game. But that would be unproductive. It doesn’t matter if you’re the pro-sex education or abstinence-only type, the statistics speak for themselves, and what matters most is that something be done to make our children more sexually responsible and safe.

And then, in the very next paragraph:

Let’s start with re-tooling the failed abstinence-only approach backed by the Bush administration. Let’s teach teenagers about contraceptives and other precautions that could help protect them if they are sexually active.

Yes, lets avoid the blame game, and lets look at the facts. The Bush Administration has indeed backed and supported an abstinence-only education approach, because no one who practices abstinence contracts an STD, no one. It make sense to back a winner. But how many education programs has the Bush Administrations policy actually affected? Good question.

I would be willing to bet that with state policy, and NEA policy, and DoE policy, there is precious little abstinence-only education going on in the public schools of America.

The article then goes on to make an astounding statement. I very nearly cheered, at work, when I read this:

Abstinence teaching has its merits. It not only promotes a sure-proof defense against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but also the idea that sexual activity requires a high level of maturity and understanding. An adolescent who engages in “protected” sex prematurely may not run the risk of physical infections, but could be exposed to long-term emotional and psychological damage.

And then gets to the…

BOTTOM LINE: Place more emphasis on contraceptives and STDs in sex-education classes.

And they reached that how?

With this simple caveat they have attempted to justify their entire tortured argument, and by extension, rationalize their continued support for the torture of young minds and bodies with illness both physical and psychological:

Like it or not, half of the teenage girls in this country are already sexually active, according to the study. Something has to be done to make them wiser in their choices, or we soon could have an even bigger public health crisis on our hands.

Do they not see the cruel irony?

Because we’re a bunch hapless, helpless dolts who’ve bought the lie that children are capable of making their own informed decisions regarding sex and mature relationships.

Because we’re a bunch of laissez-faire non-present parental units who feel no particular responsibility to counter the culture’s claims that boys are animals and girls are meat.

Because we’re a bunch of lazy do-gooders who value intentions over actions and outcomes and are willing to allow our children to do whatever they please so long as it makes them feel good.

We will complete ignore what we already know to be true: that premature involvement in adult relationships, emotional and physical, will not only harm the body but will also damage the mind.

So long as we tell enough of them to use condoms, we are perfectly willing to let them hop into bed with any yahoo or floozy who comes along.

Yea, that’s advanced society and parental love for you.

See also:

The Condom Conspiracy: Sex, Lies, STIs and Teenage Girls - the evangelical outpost

While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.

STD Data Comes As No Surprise, Area Teenagers Say - Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver in the Washington Post

The Marrow girls offered several reasons why teenagers have sex.

“It’s to fit in, peer pressure,” Christine said, noting that virgins are often mocked. Also, “sex sells on TV.”

Khadijah chimed in that some young girls found their inspiration in the popular R&B singer Rihanna, whose latest album is titled “Good Girl Gone Bad.”

But Christina suggested something closer to home. “Write this down,” she said. “Bad parenting.”

Superdelegate Spitzer And Moral Responsibility

It is not a normal thing, by any means, for IPandora to link to the DailyKo(ok)s and it’s assortment of nutroots, but truth, wherever found, is still truth.

BarbinMD wrote today:

Spitzer’s actions are in no way a reflection of Clinton’s judgement or character. But it does put an open letter sent out this weekend by super delegate Steven Grossman, the former Chairman of the DNC and Clinton supporter, in a whole new light.

And BarbinMD’s excerpt from that letter:

…our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party–and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it–

“What they do in the bedroom is no business of mine” is a common refrain in cases of moral failure by elected government officials of all stripes and parties, usually by those who’ve invested effort in getting those officials in their positions.

If we really believe that, why are not Spitzer’s actions dismissed out of hand?

Because we don’t believe that.

What is done in the bedroom matters very much outside the bedroom.

If a man cannot honor his wife and family in his own home, his word cannot and ought not be trusted in any other part of his life.

And we know it.

Tellingly, BarbinMD completes their commentary with this gem:

All things considered, perhaps Mr. Grossman and his ilk should spare us their experience and morals and instead respect the will of the voters.

UPDATE: Roger Simon asks for a reality check-up on Alan Dershowitz who apparently doesn’t think it’s such a big deal.

And points Spitzer has made it a signature part of this platform putting prostitutes in jail.

What about the johns? And Spitzer?

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt highlights an article by Carol Platt Liebau “Will Spitzer Resign” in which she makes the following statements:

…(Spitzer) may not plan to resign.  If that’s true, it’s part of a new and troubling pattern in American political life.  It’s not a partisan thing; Larry Craig’s refusal to resign was another manifestation of it.

The whole idea, pioneered by you-know-who and enabled by you-know-who-else, is that illicit sexual behavior and the scandals resulting therefrom can be brazened out by the insistence that they are irrelevant to the discharge of public duties.

…it’s all part of a new ethical calculus concluding that – uniquely in the constellation of virtues — sexual morality is a subjective and purely personal matter that’s of relevance only to “religious” people (or else prurient and “judgmental” ones), even when it impacts the public.

IPandora is ashamed to say we did not trumpet the call for Mr. Craig’s resignation. In defense, I thought there was a lot of condemning going on and not a lot of proof or evidence at the time.

Nothing against the condemning, just when I wasn’t convinced of the burden of proof I wasn’t ready to condemn.

10,000 Lies

Does the truth we find in this humor scare anyone else?

I’ve had the following images floating around on my computer for a while, waiting for me to actually post them. It seems to me, in their attempt to paint the liberal and Democrat as the loving, caring, truly human leadership, anybody with a mind will recognize the fallacies and dangers of the blanket statements made in this children’s book.

Children reading this book will be cursed with the feeling there is actual truth to be found in the ideas. They will accept without thinking the lies of socialism and liberal socio-political theory and practice.

Read and weep for America.

What parent wants their children to hurt?

What parent tries to protect the children from the pains of life?

What parent can?

Laudable.

But given the current state of Political-Business relations, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say: “Democrats give the Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Unions the tools they need to keep dead weight and stupid policies in place hampering the heroes efforts, abilities, skills, and desires to serve as they are called”?

And I would want my children to go to those war-zones, indoctrination facilities, stupid-makers, great-levellers of the people they call schools?

I know what they mean is that we can all go to college. But 1) where is that a constitutional right or a universal requirement, and 2) aren’t there plenty of great colleges for cheap?

There are plenty of jobs in which one can work their way up to a comfortable level of pay which require no college. And the government has neither interest nor right to take money from those who aren’t going to college to give to those who are.

Maybe if there were less “free” money floating around from the government, the cost of education would come down, and only those dedicated and intelligent people would stay in teaching as it became less of a lucrative career option.

Democrats are government, not Mommy. This is a legitimate role for Mommy, not government.

To the extent that Democrats seek to usurp this role, they confuse the nature of society and culture. This is immoral.

Pompous, self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal do-gooders!

Show me someone who believes this and I’ll show you someone certifiably insane.

First, there is no proof the Earth is “sick” with Global warming. There is proof there are regular and natural cycles of warming and cooling, and there is not proof we are even in a warming cycle.

Second, the temerity of the writer and those who agree with him in assuming a political party which has existed a mere 200 years has the might to enact significant change in an entire planet which they believe has existed 4.5 Billion years.

Someone call the nice men in white coats.

False.

The truth is, Democrats make sure schools cannot fire bad teachers. Democrats make sure children know all about condoms and how to have sex with each other, leaving it to the parents to teach reading and writing and true morals.

Individually, Democrats are generally caring people. But are they busy loving people to hell?

UPDATE:

These are not parodies, these are selections from one of two books for children:

Why Mommy Is A Democrat & Why Daddy Is A Democrat

How To Win The Culture War

Romans 1:18-32 (ESV):

(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

(24) Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to (25) because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

(26) For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (27) and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(28) And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to what ought not to be done. (29) They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (32) Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

This passage is contains the litany of sin from it’s roots, to it’s inception, to it’s fruition. Of particular importance is the fact that this litany is particularly applicable to a lifestyle of sin.

The process of temptation described in James 1:14-15 (ESV) is more universal in it’s application:

(14) But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. (15) Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

James’ process applies to all in that even we as Christians are prone to temptation, lustful desires, sin, and spiritual death or dormancy.

Paul’s process and description is more applicable to the sin of lifestyle. From a consistent denial of God and His attributes, God will cast them down into degrading passions. If they will not exalt Him, He will deny them even ‘human’ decency.

But in our sinful state, the heart of man seeks approval, approbation, and acceptance. As our sins have crawled out of the closet and been accepted by others, they have gained courage and through courage, further acceptance. Eventually, and this is the state of our nation today, sin and acceptance reach critical mass and breaks out into the mainstream, demanding recognition as something other than what it is.

But how do we deal with this? The lines have been drawn, the gauntlet thrown down, our children are being indoctrinated in school and our cities are being cajoled into hosting sex-fests in their streets in the form of “gay pride parades”.

We’ve confronted them, attacked their ideology, beaten back their growth at times, but bit by bit they seem to be winning as people stop caring and say to themselves: “what’s so wrong about it, they aren’t hurting anybody”.

A key fact in any war is that those fighting FOR something have a distinct advantage over those fighting AGAINST something. A positive goal inspires confidence and wins allies, while a negative goal works against the human spirit bringing discouragement and desperation.

So far in our culture war, we’ve been fighting against the encroaching forces of multi-culturalism, sexual deviancy, and other forms of social decay. At times we remind ourselves that we’re fighting for our families and children and nation, but overall, it is a war of defense.

We have lost the high-ground though. The momentum is with the enemy. We are being backed into walls in nearly all fronts of this war. This is a good thing.

Yes, this is a good thing.

We now have something to fight for.

But what are we fighting for, and how do we wage that battle most effectively.

In the last year of blogging here at I, Pandora, I’ve come to realize the futility of forcing political change. Bringing about a political change may bring temporary gains, but we have to compromise. We force ourselves to accept less-than-optimal options in our leaders.

Political change is still important, very important. Those who stand in the gap for us are heroes who ought to be protected, and prayed over, and supported. But unless the hearts change, the same people will keep coming back with the same goals: to wipe out the influence and effectiveness of God’s word in the world.

Don’t be misguided, the people who champion the wrong ideas’ personal goals may be the forced societal acceptance of some deviance. But they are only the faces, they are not the enemy. They need true love, God’s love, as much or more so than any other.

No, the enemy is Satan. The deceiver. And it is in his impending and sure doom that we have our strength.

His goal is not acceptance of homosexuality, it is destruction of individuals in any way possible.

Our counter is the reaching of individuals in any way possible. And just as when Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, and it brought healing to those who saw it, and as Jesus, when He was lifted up on the cross, drew all men to Himself. Lifting God’s standard once again will draw men and women to Him.

The root cause, according to Paul, of the sin lifestyle is a refusal to recognize God, His attributes, and His truth. So we need to place God, His attributes, and His truth before them in an unimpeachable, undeniable, and undeniable way.

This is not done necessarily with posters and signs, slogans and shouts. But with lives lived wholly for Him.

The mission field is not just in Zimbabwe or Zambia, China or Croatia, or India. It may be in Indianapolis, or Sacramento, or Dallas, or Boston. For you it is wherever you are, whenever you are there. And if you’ve not started yet, it starts right now.

Your mission: to live your life wholly for God.

This does not mean perfection or even the illusion of perfection. God’s law and God’s love balance each other and provide guidance for us through our struggles and our triumphs.

The family is under assault, so shore up the breeches. Starting with as solid a foundation as can be found, Christ’s love, build your family with hard work and constant prayer. Grow it as large as God will give, and share and spread.

It is humorous, but conservative, loving, Christianity enjoys a distinct advantage over all alternate and deviant lifestyles even if only through the “Rabbit Method”: where we out-grow the deviant by means of procreation. (Soberingly, this is exactly how Muslims are taking over much of the world, by having large families).

Large families are not required, and I know many good people who choose a single life of service, or if they cannot have children, use their additional freedom to free energy to wage mighty war against the enemy.

The important thing is not that we have large families, but that we follow God’s call for our lives.

In our stable and strong, God-fearing, and God-glorifying relationships, we have something the rest of the world, including every religion and worldview and mythos, envies: peace.

Not a hypnotized, brainless, mind-numbing peace. But an despite-the-world-falling-around-us peace which comes from having the Master and Maker of all creation caring for us and promising that He’ll work everything together for our good.

That peaceful life, lived on ever lane and at each corner, in the car and on the roads. Lived in public and in private, at the grocery store and the lumber mill and the cannery. And yes, even on the battlefields around the world. Will draw all people.

So don’t beat your plowshares into swords or your rakes into Uzis. Using your plowshares and rakes to God’s glory will bring a far greater, far more lasting, and far more effective harvest.

American evangelicals are the wests best hope (American Thinker).

It Aint’ No Gay Disease

Update: Bumped, Will and I have been going at it for a few days. Read the comments…

The Study:

In the UCSF study, researchers found that men in a clinic for HIV-positive patients who had a history of having sex with men were 13 times more likely than other HIV-positive patients to get a particular form of community-associated staph infection called MRSA USA300. But this does not mean that there is a new “gay” form of MRSA, the study’s authors say. USA300 has been around since 2002 and has appeared in at least 38 American states among heterosexual and homosexual patients. What is new is the rapid rate the bacteria spread among this particular population of gay men, studied between 2004-2006. Why these men are more vulnerable than the heterosexuals studied is still a question. Researchers stopped short of labeling USA300 a sexually transmitted disease, but they did note that the infections in the men they studied were commonly found on parts of the body where skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activity.

The Rebuttal:

Gay men’s health advocates point out that MRSA can be spread through any kind of skin-to-skin contact, either sexual or nonsexual, without regard for sexual orientation. And they have been very critical of the media for its focus on the sexual aspects of the story. “It’s very unfortunate,” says GMHC’s Stackhouse. “It’s very stigmatizing, it’s alarmist, it’s homophobic and it’s just unnecessary.”

There you have it. Just because the disease can be transmitted by other forms of skin-to-skin contact, the fact that it is 13 times more likely to occur in those who engaged in homosexual relations than in those who didn’t means it’s homophobic to consider homosexual behaviour an increased risk for MRSA.

Read it all on Newsweek.

Republican Politics

In the race for the Republican nomination, there’s something for everyone.

There’s a liberal who’s principled and experienced but still liberal.

There’s a populist who tickles ears and yet is Christian, courageous, and popular.

There’s a fiscal conservative with serious experience and a very public track-record who wore a dress (once, on camera), supports homosexual marriage, and is not in favor of criminalizing mothers who have abortions (a slight but significant difference from actually being pro-choice).

There’s some dude with two first names and some good ideas, but with serious inconsistency, and serious stupidity concerning international affairs and national security harking back to pre-WWII Republican isolationism.

There’s a conservative business leader and governor with a funny first name and movie-star looks who’s been consistent, if not amazing.

And there’s a movie star without the looks who’s been amazing, if not consistent. If only he acted like he wanted to win.

There are others, but they are also-ran’s or sometimer’s and not worth consideration at this stage in the game.

I don’t much care for the liberal, the populist, the fiscal, or Mr. Two Names. Though I could stomach the fiscal, were he to, by some stretch of imagination, win the nomination. The others I abhor for various reasons.

The liberal is neither a man of honor nor a man of principle. He has convenient and far-sighted-sounding reasons for his liberal attachments and accomplishments, but his willingness to sell the farm, ideologically speaking, is not the measure of a man. Personally, I admire and honor his courage in his past. But I fear to many years within the beltway, and those who have spent those years with him not recommending him in the droves we’d expect, are very indicative of a lack of character and ability.

The populist is just that. He uses his sincere (and I do not doubt, genuine) Christianity to excuse and/or support and champion decidedly non-Christian policies. God did not institute a welfare state (for individuals or corporations) in Theocratic Israel. Instead He instituted laws and policies which protected individuals from each other’s harm and sin. Claiming that “green” science is correct in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary does not lead me to believe he is either “wise as a serpent” or “harmless as a dove”. In fact, I would submit the populist is the inverse: He is wise as a dove and harmless as a serpent (taken ironically, of course).

Mr. Two Name needs no rebuttal as he is his own best revealing mirror. Dismissed out of hand is the best response to the majority of his supporters.

I’d like the movie star to catch a fire, but his lack of consistency heretofore is troubling, and I believe, more accurately indicative of who he’d be in office that what he’d be if he did catch a fire.

The man I voted for in my last election (for some time at least) in California is the leader. A realization I came to after considering what he does when there’s not supposed to be a camera around.

Here are a few articles from across the web which seem to me to be particularly salient and and appropriate to the candidates in this race.

•  The Trouble With McCain
  Jay Cost, Wall Street Journal

  Thirty-four Republicans have endorsed Mr. Romney, while just 24 have endorsed Mr. McCain. Furthermore, Mr. Romney’s supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for Mr. McCain’s supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states. In light of Mr. McCain’s résumé, this is consequential. He should have locked up most members of the Republican caucus, but he has not.

• Hillary And MLK
  John McWhorter, Wall Street Journal

  …[T]here she was on “Meet the Press” Sunday, having to defend herself for simply saying that while King laid the groundwork (which she acknowledged), another part of the civil rights revolution was Lyndon B. Johnson’s masterful stewardship of the relevant legislation through Congress. She was arguing that she is more experienced in getting laws passed in Washington than is Barack Obama — which is true.

• Barak Obama And Israel
  Ed Lasky, American Thinker

  One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama’s career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism.

• Where They Stand
  Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal

  …[T]he political ups and downs of the candidates and the electricity of the campaign–”I am promising change!”–matter much less than the substantive policies the next president would implement regarding the five most important challenges facing our country.

Abortion Kills Humans

[myspacetv 13614928]

I wrote this back in August in response to a comment thread on an article on Dawn Patrol blog of Dawn Eden, author of The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On!

L, according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives, both very Pro-abort centers, around 1% of all US abortions are in cases of rape or incest, and around 6% are in cases of medical necessity.

Should the other 93% of children be killed because of “lifestyle” decisions, ie. the child is not convenient or wanted, in order to to protect 6 mothers from the CHANCE that there may be life threatening complications and 1 mother who may not have had a choice?

I recognize this is very personal to you, L, and I respect that. You may not accept my arguments because I’ll never bear children, I’m a man. But you must respect my arguments as we have respected yours because I am a human, and someday I intend to be a father.

The root issue here is, as has been noted before, responsibility. In your case it may not be, but for 93% of women in the sample it is. This does not negate your need, and others have mentioned that it is highly unlikely there will ever be a blanket law making all abortion illegal, especially in cases of medical necessity.

The purpose of sex is procreation, the pleasure is a byproduct, not a direct result. This is why I disagree morally with the homosexual act, but that is a whole different issue and can of worms that ought not be opened here. Once again, the purpose of the sex act is procreation. The more responsibility that is stripped away from the sex act, the more cases there will be of men taking advantage of women and the more cases there will be of single mothers facing the decision. This is demeaning to women, in it’s root, as men do not have to buy the pills or deal with the pain, or face the decision.

Abortion not only destroys life, it destroys good. Do you know for sure if that beautiful child whose very existence threatens your health is not destined to become a great artist or scientist?

Further, we all die sooner or later. There is no promise that we are to live until we are 80 or 90. We have no right to assume we are to live to any age. There is no promise the sun will rise for any of us tomorrow. Today some fatal accident may occur and some life may be snuffed out as quickly as that.

We cannot assume life but we must protect it, and take reasonable measures to prevent it from being taken. It is a sacred charge that I take very seriously that if I am to have children, as I hope to one day, my health, safety, and very life is considered secondary if their’s is in jeopardy. As a grown person who knows that each day lived is another day less that I have left, and comparing that to a child who may very well still have many years of immeasurable potential, their own life is of greater importance than mine. This is not an animalistic or tribal approach. There are only very limited chances, and it is reasonably unforeseeable that I will be called upon to in such a way give up my life for my children, but I am willing if I am faced with such a decision, to do this.

Harkening back to the Titanic disaster, when in that benighted era when abortion was most definitely illegal, and yet the children and those who bore them are considered so very much more important than the men in society. The call went out as the ship sank “Women and children first”. The captain, in an act of supreme cowardice and selfish avarice, pushed his own way onto a lifeboat and was publicly shamed the rest of his natural life for that act.

Children ought not run our lives out of their selfish ambition, but we are be called to subserve our wishes and desires and comfort when we have voluntarily taken upon ourselves the mantle of parenthood. And it is possible we may be called upon to subserve even our safety to them as well.

A very good family friend has been in the same situation as you, she had medically necessary c-sections for most if not all of her children. And her doctors told her much the same thing you’ve intimated you were told. Yet she chose to continue having her children when they came, and her children are intelligent and special every one.

Who would she be to play God and decide that this one or that one did not need to survive only to allow her to have one more day, which might not have even been hers to have?

Way Of The Master: How To Witness To Gays

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of the Way Of The Master visit San Francisco and make some excellent points which each Christian should hear regarding Homosexuality.

Of particular interest is there advice that you are to witness to a person with homosexual desires the same way you witness to anybody else. To God all sin is the same. There are physical, emotional, psychological, and most importantly, spiritual consequences to all sin.

The solution is the same for all sin too.

So why should our tactics change?

Wealth Begets Religious Apathy, Except In The U.S.

Over at the Acton Institute’s Power Blog, Jordan Ballor mentions a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finding that the wealthier a country, the less citizens’ lives revolve around religion. The one country bucking the trend? The U.S., but why?

Ballor gives a somewhat lengthy and ambiguous answer.

Ballor theorizes that it is America’s heritage and the “penetration of the Gospel message into people’s hearts and minds.” As an example, he notes that Satan’s attacks American’s differently than others. He quotes a John Piper column, “Gutsy Guilt:”

“The great tragedy is not masturbation or fornication or pornography. The tragedy is that Satan uses guilt from these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had or might have. In their place, he gives you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures, until you die in your lakeside rocking chair.”

Interesting thoughts and worth a read, if nothing else, for the mental exercise.