What fond memories of Thanksgiving - how can one not be thankful for having the charmed lives we lead ?
I am with you all in spirit, and I wish I could break bread with you as well...
Interesting article in the Times today (titled "A French Connection", how can I resist...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/opinion/26davis.html
Love to you all, say hello to Grandma for me.
Jeffrey
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Overdue response to Jeff
Jeff,
Great picture- sounds like everyone had a good visit.
Monica already gave some answer to your questions, but I would like to add a bit of my own perspective.
The most thought-provoking to me was the question about pre-birth baptism, because it was something I had never considered before. Coming at it from a pure-reason standpoint, here's what I think: The purposes of Baptism are two-fold- the child is both born again into God's kingdom and welcomed as a contributing member of Christ's body on earth, the Church. Logistically, it is hard to be a contributing member when one hasn't been born yet! But, spiritually, I believe the child is already a member. In fact, I would say that an unborn child is closer to God than any of us are, having just been created, i.e, having just been with the Creator. This might start to sound a little hokey, but many believe that children are more aware of the presence of angels, whether from their comparitve innocence or from not having blocked such possibilities from their minds by worldly reason. (In Scripture, we are told that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice.) In any case, a child floating in his mother's womb with nothing but her heartbeat and the recent memory of God's loving gift of life to keep him company knows nothing but life, and so knows God very well, indeed, without having been baptized.
I think Monica presented the case for the soul being born when life begins at conception, so I won't add to that. I do believe this, not only because I believe the logic to be sound, but also because in areas that it is hard to understand with the limitations of human perception I find it helpful to trust the words of those with better prayer lives than me. For the sake of argument, though, let me back-track slightly and say: even if you cannot 100% prove that life begins at conception, can you say with 100% certainty that it does not? I do not think anyone can claim to KNOW that it does not. Supposing that Christians are wrong and that human life begins at, say, the first breath of air, the price of our error will have been the emotional trauma, social ostracization, and yes, occasional death, that accompanies unwanted pregnancies. I do not take these things lightly. However, they pale in comparison to the price of the error of supporting abortions if life does, in fact, start at conception. 48 million lives is more than the estimated 47 million civilian deaths in WWII- and the number of abortions is still growing. From a "utilitarian" perspective, if you cannot say with 100% certainty either way, would it not be best to play it safe?
As for the Church's view on artificial insemination, my understanding is that fertility methods are not discouraged as long as they handle life responsibly. My lay understanding is that in many methods they intentionally overshoot the number of eggs they need to fertilize to increase the odds that one "takes". The extras are then left to die in test tubes or, once inside the mother, aborted. So, what may seem like a beautiful development at first glance can actually be quite dark upon further inspection- one life coming at the cost of ten. If the 48 million aborted were allowed to live, thus making adoption more available, infertility would not be as traumatic as it is now.
In the Church's eyes, the goal is not rampant promulgation of the species, believe it or not. With regards to life, the Church hopes to treat every life that God has created with respect and dignity. It is true that Christian families are often larger because of our understanding of sexuality, but with regards to abortion issues, it is not in our agenda to push this understanding of sexuality onto unbelievers. The "get your rosaries off my ovaries" slogan highlights the misunderstanding- I really could care less about her ovaries; it's the life that they have produced and she is threatening that forces me to act.
As for forced baptism, I don't think there is anyone in this family who would say that's a good idea. For one thing, it's hard to imagine this happening without it being militant. Although the past is pocked with shameful aberrations, at her purest the Church never promotes violence. Also, I see respect for the differing conclusions that non-believers reach as part of the respect for life. It is a Christian's duty to make the Word available to as many people as possible, but never to force the Word upon someone. Monica's reference to the catechism help explain how this does not exile people who earnestly seek God outside of the Church.
It is well past my bed-time, so I will stop there. A few of your questions are left unanswered, Jeff. It's a large can of worms you opened!
Great picture- sounds like everyone had a good visit.
Monica already gave some answer to your questions, but I would like to add a bit of my own perspective.
The most thought-provoking to me was the question about pre-birth baptism, because it was something I had never considered before. Coming at it from a pure-reason standpoint, here's what I think: The purposes of Baptism are two-fold- the child is both born again into God's kingdom and welcomed as a contributing member of Christ's body on earth, the Church. Logistically, it is hard to be a contributing member when one hasn't been born yet! But, spiritually, I believe the child is already a member. In fact, I would say that an unborn child is closer to God than any of us are, having just been created, i.e, having just been with the Creator. This might start to sound a little hokey, but many believe that children are more aware of the presence of angels, whether from their comparitve innocence or from not having blocked such possibilities from their minds by worldly reason. (In Scripture, we are told that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice.) In any case, a child floating in his mother's womb with nothing but her heartbeat and the recent memory of God's loving gift of life to keep him company knows nothing but life, and so knows God very well, indeed, without having been baptized.
I think Monica presented the case for the soul being born when life begins at conception, so I won't add to that. I do believe this, not only because I believe the logic to be sound, but also because in areas that it is hard to understand with the limitations of human perception I find it helpful to trust the words of those with better prayer lives than me. For the sake of argument, though, let me back-track slightly and say: even if you cannot 100% prove that life begins at conception, can you say with 100% certainty that it does not? I do not think anyone can claim to KNOW that it does not. Supposing that Christians are wrong and that human life begins at, say, the first breath of air, the price of our error will have been the emotional trauma, social ostracization, and yes, occasional death, that accompanies unwanted pregnancies. I do not take these things lightly. However, they pale in comparison to the price of the error of supporting abortions if life does, in fact, start at conception. 48 million lives is more than the estimated 47 million civilian deaths in WWII- and the number of abortions is still growing. From a "utilitarian" perspective, if you cannot say with 100% certainty either way, would it not be best to play it safe?
As for the Church's view on artificial insemination, my understanding is that fertility methods are not discouraged as long as they handle life responsibly. My lay understanding is that in many methods they intentionally overshoot the number of eggs they need to fertilize to increase the odds that one "takes". The extras are then left to die in test tubes or, once inside the mother, aborted. So, what may seem like a beautiful development at first glance can actually be quite dark upon further inspection- one life coming at the cost of ten. If the 48 million aborted were allowed to live, thus making adoption more available, infertility would not be as traumatic as it is now.
In the Church's eyes, the goal is not rampant promulgation of the species, believe it or not. With regards to life, the Church hopes to treat every life that God has created with respect and dignity. It is true that Christian families are often larger because of our understanding of sexuality, but with regards to abortion issues, it is not in our agenda to push this understanding of sexuality onto unbelievers. The "get your rosaries off my ovaries" slogan highlights the misunderstanding- I really could care less about her ovaries; it's the life that they have produced and she is threatening that forces me to act.
As for forced baptism, I don't think there is anyone in this family who would say that's a good idea. For one thing, it's hard to imagine this happening without it being militant. Although the past is pocked with shameful aberrations, at her purest the Church never promotes violence. Also, I see respect for the differing conclusions that non-believers reach as part of the respect for life. It is a Christian's duty to make the Word available to as many people as possible, but never to force the Word upon someone. Monica's reference to the catechism help explain how this does not exile people who earnestly seek God outside of the Church.
It is well past my bed-time, so I will stop there. A few of your questions are left unanswered, Jeff. It's a large can of worms you opened!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Big Dog in town
My father arrived here today around 2pm. After a long flight (NY-Barcelona), and a long (3 hr, Barcelona-Marseillan) drive - I was expecting to see him in worse shape than he turned up in - he looks good and it's pure joy for me and my brood to have him here.
The kids were here when he got home - there was a teacher's strike today, and Constance's and Eleanore's teachers were on strike, so I didn't send Henri to school (partly an act of solidarity with the teachers who did strike, partly so he could spend an extra couple of hours with his Grandpa who is just on a short visit...
(to close out on the strike anecdote, the teachers are striking because of proposed budget cuts to the national education budget, notably budgets for children in difficulty)
Anyway, I was working from home and managing the three kids as best I could until Grandpa showed up to take care of them (the kids have the Wii, and other than fighting over which game to play, that occupies them pretty well so I can get my work done). "Uncle Doug" as most of you know him did take a little (well earned) nap towards the latter part of the afternoon, but then he took the kids into town (Constance needed a book from the book shop that was ordered by her French teacher). On top of getting the book, they came back with rillettes (kind of a porc paté, but I've never really had anything like it in the states), brie, a nice cantal - I think it was a cantal, it could be a tomme - (those are cheeses) and a couple of baguettes. We popped open a bottle of and ejoyed the start of our evening, until I started cooking that typically French meal - Moussaka. :-)
Either way, I'll try to post some pictures all that tomorrow.
The kids were here when he got home - there was a teacher's strike today, and Constance's and Eleanore's teachers were on strike, so I didn't send Henri to school (partly an act of solidarity with the teachers who did strike, partly so he could spend an extra couple of hours with his Grandpa who is just on a short visit...
(to close out on the strike anecdote, the teachers are striking because of proposed budget cuts to the national education budget, notably budgets for children in difficulty)
Anyway, I was working from home and managing the three kids as best I could until Grandpa showed up to take care of them (the kids have the Wii, and other than fighting over which game to play, that occupies them pretty well so I can get my work done). "Uncle Doug" as most of you know him did take a little (well earned) nap towards the latter part of the afternoon, but then he took the kids into town (Constance needed a book from the book shop that was ordered by her French teacher). On top of getting the book, they came back with rillettes (kind of a porc paté, but I've never really had anything like it in the states), brie, a nice cantal - I think it was a cantal, it could be a tomme - (those are cheeses) and a couple of baguettes. We popped open a bottle of and ejoyed the start of our evening, until I started cooking that typically French meal - Moussaka. :-)
Either way, I'll try to post some pictures all that tomorrow.
edit - here's a picture...
Jeffrey
Trees Falling
Jeff,
There's still life on Earth. I enjoyed the pictures- and got a good laugh from "it's okay to be politically incorrect in France." I didn't realize they trick-or-treated in France. Or do they not, and people were merely handling over candy because they felt bad for the poor children being paraded around by the man in blackface? Just kidding.
I would post a picture of Elizabeth and I (we are currently living together in Boston), but I doubt anyone would find it quite as cute.
As for the blog traffic, I'm afraid a large number of people couldn't make the technological leap. But, I still think it is a good thing to write on it as opposed to emails. I feel like people will only come to the blog when they are in a stable mindset, whereas emails might catch you at your worst moment. I think making it a conscious decision to come to the blog and participate in the discussion has to help keep things from getting out of hand.
I also plan on responding to your questions (you know, just to get the traffic flowing again). I am currently in the middle of both trying to find a job in NYC at the worst moment in job history and studying for my first architectural board, thus the delay. Sounds like a good weekend activity, though.
Glad to hear Melanie is doing better. The little guy looks great!
There's still life on Earth. I enjoyed the pictures- and got a good laugh from "it's okay to be politically incorrect in France." I didn't realize they trick-or-treated in France. Or do they not, and people were merely handling over candy because they felt bad for the poor children being paraded around by the man in blackface? Just kidding.
I would post a picture of Elizabeth and I (we are currently living together in Boston), but I doubt anyone would find it quite as cute.
As for the blog traffic, I'm afraid a large number of people couldn't make the technological leap. But, I still think it is a good thing to write on it as opposed to emails. I feel like people will only come to the blog when they are in a stable mindset, whereas emails might catch you at your worst moment. I think making it a conscious decision to come to the blog and participate in the discussion has to help keep things from getting out of hand.
I also plan on responding to your questions (you know, just to get the traffic flowing again). I am currently in the middle of both trying to find a job in NYC at the worst moment in job history and studying for my first architectural board, thus the delay. Sounds like a good weekend activity, though.
Glad to hear Melanie is doing better. The little guy looks great!
Infotainment
I guess there's not much traffic to this blog, except when a prairie fire of good natured controversy is blowing through the family over controversial topics like healthcare, Roe v Wade, the election, or some other hot button topic. A real microcosm of the cable news shows - partisianship sells, shock and awe sells, a family picture album - nice, but doesn't fan the flames.
I'll still post here from time to time, but if a tree falls in a forest.... I'm used to talking in a vacuum anyway :)
I'll still post here from time to time, but if a tree falls in a forest.... I'm used to talking in a vacuum anyway :)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Just to keep content fresh here
I have a dinner tonight with a VP of technology and engineering from the parent company that acquired my company in May. Apparently he's from Alabama, and according to people who have met him, he's a gun-totin, born-again, Palin-lovin kind of guy. I'm going to have to do my best to stay away from any political commentary. But we'll see how it goes...
At least it's a free meal :-)
At least it's a free meal :-)
Saturday, November 15, 2008
I'm enjoying this...and some photos of our family
I'm really enjoying the intellectual dialogue. One thing I want to point out--if I'm not mistaken--is that it's Kateri who wrote the first post of November, the political commentary. Monica joined thereafter. Jeff, Dad, Monica and Kateri, this is great stuff. I don't have much to contribute right now, but I really enjoy the read as well as the respectful tone of the communication. That's impressive considering the weight of the topics and the variety of viewpoints! Great to see.
Our love to Melanie, Rob and cutie Benjamin! We welcome the baby and are so happy that Melanie is on the mend. Of course, our hearts go out to them that they had such a difficult start. Athletic Mel will rise to the challenge! We wish her a speedy recovery.
Here are some recent photos.
Maryanne, Teresa, Mike; Peter and Joe; Mae, Max, Jerry. 10/11/08
Peter and Mae decorating pumpkins, 10/08.
Nana and Grandpa with Max on his 4th birthday, 10/11/08.
Teresa and Eleanor (Steve and Maura's oldest) at Halloween visit to Grandma Brown. 10/30/08.
clockwise from left: Jerry, Mae, Grandma B., Teresa, Maryanne, Joseph, Maura, Stephen, Ellie and Max. 10/30/08
Our love to Melanie, Rob and cutie Benjamin! We welcome the baby and are so happy that Melanie is on the mend. Of course, our hearts go out to them that they had such a difficult start. Athletic Mel will rise to the challenge! We wish her a speedy recovery.
Here are some recent photos.
Maryanne, Teresa, Mike; Peter and Joe; Mae, Max, Jerry. 10/11/08
Peter and Mae decorating pumpkins, 10/08.
Nana and Grandpa with Max on his 4th birthday, 10/11/08.
Teresa and Eleanor (Steve and Maura's oldest) at Halloween visit to Grandma Brown. 10/30/08.
clockwise from left: Jerry, Mae, Grandma B., Teresa, Maryanne, Joseph, Maura, Stephen, Ellie and Max. 10/30/08Answers to Jeff's first two questions
Hi all,
Here's a rushed, off the top of my head (with a little help from the Catechism) response to the first few questions Jeff posed. I am grateful to Jeff for the opportunity to help explain these tough questions, because they are questions that arise in the context of the class I teach at my Church for adults who are preparing to become Catholic. This is helpful training for the class on life issues that I'll give in a couple of weeks.
Jeff: If a mother loses her unborn fetus due to natural circumstances, can that fetus be baptized
No. The fetus is already dead so cannot be baptized, but this doesn’t mean the soul of this child is not with God in heaven. By your question and the one below, I take it that you have an antiquated (and widely held!) idea of the Church’s view of the role of Baptism in salvation, so I’m going to elaborate. The position on the possibility of salvation for all people, whether or not they have had the opportunity to hear the Good News of God coming into the world to save us, was clarified at the Second Vatican Council. I will quote you from the Vat. II documents on this, because I run into people all the time who reject Catholicism based on the injustice of the idea that heaven is closed to people living in remote regions of the Earth who’ve never met a Christian, children who die before Baptism, people like Gandhi, etc. In fact, the Church (at least the Pope and orthodox, informed, humble members) does not presume to know who will be and will not be saved.
The Magisterium (bet you love that word :-) declares:
“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.” Lumen Gentium, 16
In other words, Baptism is the only way we KNOW of to become capable of communing with God in heaven, but God is not limited by the Sacrament of Baptism. God can prepare souls for heaven any way God sees fit. However, this doesn’t suggest a relativistic idea that all paths are equally good or equally directed toward heaven. That is, all Christians must necessarily profess that EVERYONE who is saved is saved through the death and Resurrection of Jesus, whether or not he/she has had the gift of knowing Christ while on this Earth.
Jeff: If so, from which point after conception can that fetus be baptized? Does a fetus have a soul? Is that soul present at conception?
Only a child who is born can be baptized, but see the Catholic Catechism on the possibility of salvation for children who die unbaptized:
This answer is grossly simplified. I apologize if it is unclear. I am not a philosopher. I just take great interest in studying Church teaching, because I love the Church and I love my faith and I take to heart the command of St. Peter "Always be prepared to give reason for anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is within you." And hope is what I have ! :-)
No time now to answer the other questions, but they are intriguing, and I am happy to continue this discussion.
Love, Monica
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Browns in France...
At this time next week I'll have "the Big Dog" with me and my kids, you can imagine how much I'm looking forward to that. Since Uncle Ken asked how my little family is doing over here, let me say "great", and here's a picture of us going out to trick or treat. (One of Eleanore's friends came out with us, and Constance is hiding a little behind Henri).
I know it is considered to be in poor taste to go "black face", even more so with "ball and chains", but I couldn't resist juxtaposing what real change can happen in just 150 years (hence the Obama Tshirt)... And you're allowed to be politically incorrect in France...
And here's a picture of them from last week, at the beach in Grau D'Agde.
I'll bring more "commentary" from time to time, but I just wanted to share a couple of pictures, since Uncle Ken gave me a good excuse to do so...
Cheers to you all as you gear up for the holiday season.
Love,
Jeffrey
(edit) PS - I just learned that Constance finished first from her middle school and second overall (there were 7 middle schools and 50+ runners) in a 2KM cross-country race this afternoon. Anybody who has ever seen me run (or smoke a cigarette) knows that she doesn't get that talent from me.
I know it is considered to be in poor taste to go "black face", even more so with "ball and chains", but I couldn't resist juxtaposing what real change can happen in just 150 years (hence the Obama Tshirt)... And you're allowed to be politically incorrect in France...
And here's a picture of them from last week, at the beach in Grau D'Agde.
I'll bring more "commentary" from time to time, but I just wanted to share a couple of pictures, since Uncle Ken gave me a good excuse to do so...
Cheers to you all as you gear up for the holiday season.
Love,
Jeffrey
(edit) PS - I just learned that Constance finished first from her middle school and second overall (there were 7 middle schools and 50+ runners) in a 2KM cross-country race this afternoon. Anybody who has ever seen me run (or smoke a cigarette) knows that she doesn't get that talent from me.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
hi again
Hi again,
I'm just checking in to say that I haven't forgotten and want to answer the theology questions, but I also want to do them justice and I have been so behind in my work that I haven't had a chance to get to it yet. I know you are all waiting on the edge of your seats...
Congratulations to Melanie and Rob!
Happy Armistice Day/Remembrance Day/Veterans Day!
Love,
Monica
I'm just checking in to say that I haven't forgotten and want to answer the theology questions, but I also want to do them justice and I have been so behind in my work that I haven't had a chance to get to it yet. I know you are all waiting on the edge of your seats...
Congratulations to Melanie and Rob!
Happy Armistice Day/Remembrance Day/Veterans Day!
Love,
Monica
Priorities and perspectives
Jeff did very well to post picture of Benjamin. It serves to remind one of what is truly important. We banter and dialogue, have our fun and sometimes we are all guilty of trying to be clever, but scary and horrific happenings such as what Melanie and Rob (and the whole Brown clan) went through bring us back to earth and we end up being thankful for what we still have and that things weren't worse.
May I add that I was very moved by Jeff's humble (yes humble) and sincere posting about spirituality and faith. Know Jeff that you are held in high esteem by many and that we too enjoy your contributions and have not lost "faith' in you. BTW, how are your lovely children doing? I understand that Le big chien is to see you and them soon. Hope those plans can still go on. Love to all, U. Ken
May I add that I was very moved by Jeff's humble (yes humble) and sincere posting about spirituality and faith. Know Jeff that you are held in high esteem by many and that we too enjoy your contributions and have not lost "faith' in you. BTW, how are your lovely children doing? I understand that Le big chien is to see you and them soon. Hope those plans can still go on. Love to all, U. Ken
Monday, November 10, 2008
Benjamin Shea O'Keefe
(born 3:26 pm, Friday Nov 7th, 2008)Can't resist posting a picture of Melanie and Rob's beautiful baby boy !! You may have heard Mel had a bit of a rough go after labor, but is no longer in any danger... and she's now able to spend quality time with her beautiful bundle of joy.
Congratulations to Mel and Rob
Yep, it's me again !
Unkle Ken,
Thanks for getting your blog on with us.
I am guilty as charged on both of your accounts - trying to be too clever, and jaded towards organized religion.
My rejection of religion does not mean a rejection of God, or Jesus, or Christianity (or any other faith or belief system). I try to live my life, and raise my children, in the respect of all our fellow men, and the acceptance that we as individuals are part of something that is greater than any one of us. I consider myself to have spirituality. Often I envy those of you with true faith.
As far as me being too clever, (to address the issue of the “tipping point” of 48 million lives) - even to a heathen like me it seems obvious that there can be no tipping point of "righteousness by the numbers”. This is such a slippery slope, and you are right to throw it back in my face, (ever so respectfully, thank you).
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even the intention of right can’t erase something that is “wrong” done to accomplish a goal.
I hope you all have a nice week.
Peace and love to all
PS - Tomorrow, November 11th, is Armistice Day, I’ll have the day off as it is a holiday in France. It will mark the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I.
The War to end all Wars.
Lol
Thanks for getting your blog on with us.
I am guilty as charged on both of your accounts - trying to be too clever, and jaded towards organized religion.
My rejection of religion does not mean a rejection of God, or Jesus, or Christianity (or any other faith or belief system). I try to live my life, and raise my children, in the respect of all our fellow men, and the acceptance that we as individuals are part of something that is greater than any one of us. I consider myself to have spirituality. Often I envy those of you with true faith.
As far as me being too clever, (to address the issue of the “tipping point” of 48 million lives) - even to a heathen like me it seems obvious that there can be no tipping point of "righteousness by the numbers”. This is such a slippery slope, and you are right to throw it back in my face, (ever so respectfully, thank you).
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even the intention of right can’t erase something that is “wrong” done to accomplish a goal.
I hope you all have a nice week.
Peace and love to all
PS - Tomorrow, November 11th, is Armistice Day, I’ll have the day off as it is a holiday in France. It will mark the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I.
The War to end all Wars.
Lol
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Short answer to Jeff
First, may I say I am awed at the eloquence and the level of education that is being displayed in this blog by the "younger generation". But there is a but. Me thinks that sometimes the ability to be clever works against arriving at the truth. We can sometimes make rather simple things so complicated that we never do arrive at solutions, and the truth. I will now take issue with one of Jeff's erudite questions, that being essentially is there a tipping point whereby saving lives or creating them by modern technology somehow can offset the loss of say 48 million lives lost (in this question there seems to be an acceptance that the 48M were lives BTW). The answer Jeff is really not hard to find if one but accepts that there is a moral order that accepts the concepts of right and wrong. That discernment is not derived from taking a poll or counting numbers. Were we not all taught in our families that taking drugs was wrong, even if we were the only ones in the group not taking them? As to whether artificial insemination is thought wrong by the Church hierarchy, keep in mind that we believe that only defined articals of faith are infallible.
Another thing that you seem to think is that we believe the Culture of Life is paramount. I would suggest that it goes way beyond that. The truth is what matters the most, and , if I may, I bemoan the fact that you seem jaded about religion. Hopefully you do have a spirituality and recognize the existence of a power greater than we poor humans. As for me, I rejoice in believing fervantly in Jesus Christ as my God and saviour and in Him being the Way, the Truth and the Life. I do so recognizing as you point out so well that horrible things have been done and are still being done in the name oif religion--so stupid are we poor human beings. Love and peace to all. Uncle Ken
Another thing that you seem to think is that we believe the Culture of Life is paramount. I would suggest that it goes way beyond that. The truth is what matters the most, and , if I may, I bemoan the fact that you seem jaded about religion. Hopefully you do have a spirituality and recognize the existence of a power greater than we poor humans. As for me, I rejoice in believing fervantly in Jesus Christ as my God and saviour and in Him being the Way, the Truth and the Life. I do so recognizing as you point out so well that horrible things have been done and are still being done in the name oif religion--so stupid are we poor human beings. Love and peace to all. Uncle Ken
Friday, November 7, 2008
Clarification
Jeff,
I don't have time at the moment for a larger response, but I did want to clarify before anyone is whipped into a frenzy that the "compromised shell of a man" actually referred to McCain. The larger quote was a "compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide", referring to how I (and many people from what I have heard) respected McCain and his accomplishments more before he lost much of his credibility in cowing to the base. The "smooth talking radical" did mean Obama. My point was that America could have been- and should have been- represented better on both sides. Maybe it's the result of the two-party system, maybe it's the fact that only millionaires can run for president these days, maybe it's the unwillingness of good people to throw themselves into the pit- I really don't know. But, no kool-aid was consumed by this girl on either side this time around. I can best describe my voting attitude as looking for the lesser of two evils. (Not that I think either man is evil- I do believe they are both well-intentioned.)
See, this is how wordy I get in even short clarifications! That's why I'll leave it to Monica and her theology-know-how to respond to the questions. I can't rule out jumping back into the debate, though. If there's one common gene in the Brown family, it appears to be the impassioned letter-writing one!
-Kateri
I don't have time at the moment for a larger response, but I did want to clarify before anyone is whipped into a frenzy that the "compromised shell of a man" actually referred to McCain. The larger quote was a "compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide", referring to how I (and many people from what I have heard) respected McCain and his accomplishments more before he lost much of his credibility in cowing to the base. The "smooth talking radical" did mean Obama. My point was that America could have been- and should have been- represented better on both sides. Maybe it's the result of the two-party system, maybe it's the fact that only millionaires can run for president these days, maybe it's the unwillingness of good people to throw themselves into the pit- I really don't know. But, no kool-aid was consumed by this girl on either side this time around. I can best describe my voting attitude as looking for the lesser of two evils. (Not that I think either man is evil- I do believe they are both well-intentioned.)
See, this is how wordy I get in even short clarifications! That's why I'll leave it to Monica and her theology-know-how to respond to the questions. I can't rule out jumping back into the debate, though. If there's one common gene in the Brown family, it appears to be the impassioned letter-writing one!
-Kateri
Y'all have a nice weekend
Monica,
I regret that I didn’t point out the parts of your last blog post which make me reflect on your beliefs above and beyond the fact that we are family.
I really do appreciate the way you preface all of your arguments – and let me quote from your text – (I had started this writing as a personal email, but it deserves to be shared with all), I am far from ashamed of my appreciation of your rational presentation of your arguments, that is why I am encouraged to participate in this dialogue, or debate. No judgment, no judges, those who come with an open mind will recognize reason. I admit I do not have an "open mind" to change my mind, but I do not refute your strength of reason. (I do not have a closed mind either... think of it as a soft boiled egg...)
(and no, this is not your brain on drugs)
Your opening personal statement in your previous blog post starts with « By my standards ». When I read that, I knew that I could read the rest... It is a humble but confident opening. For most of my life I've only been able to acheive one of those two attitudes. And it is not the one that starts with H.
Most other statements in your post use the 1st person singular pronoun… you present things as your opinion, and give supporting facts or supporting opinions to support that position, you do not present your opinion as the only option of truth.
I acknowledge and applaud the fact that you may and do agree with President Bush on certain points, while at the same time stating that he is not automatically a “good president” for passing this bar of personal similarity on certain issues. I agree that you are entitled to a personal litmus test to determine if our current president is worthy of your support and admiration. I will not consider you unpatriotic if you cannot support Barack Obama because of positions he holds, any more than I consider myself unpatriotic for not supporting George W Bush for actions he and his administration have undertaken (and you write about some of those issues).
Although there are some statements in your post that for me seem to go overboard (kool-aid drinking levels of overboard) such as – “is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide”....I will admit to using the same “shock and awe" strategy to incite reflection from those who don’t share my opinion in my own post. It makes for good television. Or blog banter. Whatever.
I did also state that I don’t believe an anti Roe Vs Wade opinion is equivalent to support of Taliban or “charria” type attitudes (in order to distance myslef from kool-aid level rhetorical), but I HOPE you don’t believe that Barack Obama is a “radical and a compromised shell of a man” just because of his difference of opinion on Roe vs Wade…
I chose not to address your comments on federal funding of abortions, because I NEVER received any emails from the culture of life elements in our family, church, community, or our society at large about federal funding for cruise missiles bunker busters and other armory that have killed hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi civilians over that past five years. I therefore find your notion of “control of the checkbook” to be VERY morally compromised. (different debate, sorry, must be addressed when we agree on Roe vs Wade :d)
But I REALLY do not want to address the checkbook issue - because the $$$ questions are intimately linked to the “faith and politics” questions that I posted in my earlier email.
But I am REALLY very happy to interact with you, and anybody else on these matters. I do not want to change your opinions.
I mostly want to test my own “opinions”, and be able to separate the comfort kool-aid of following “my kind” of talking points from the ambrosia of understanding. And there are not many better forums for talking about his than with my uncles, aunts, cousins, and other family members that I love and respect.
Jeffrey
(just to let you know that I am not on my high horse of pseudo-intellectualism, I will admit that it is 4:57 pm on Friday afternoon, and by the time anybody reads this, I will be half way into my “two for one” Friday happy hour special.)
lol
I regret that I didn’t point out the parts of your last blog post which make me reflect on your beliefs above and beyond the fact that we are family.
I really do appreciate the way you preface all of your arguments – and let me quote from your text – (I had started this writing as a personal email, but it deserves to be shared with all), I am far from ashamed of my appreciation of your rational presentation of your arguments, that is why I am encouraged to participate in this dialogue, or debate. No judgment, no judges, those who come with an open mind will recognize reason. I admit I do not have an "open mind" to change my mind, but I do not refute your strength of reason. (I do not have a closed mind either... think of it as a soft boiled egg...)
(and no, this is not your brain on drugs)
Your opening personal statement in your previous blog post starts with « By my standards ». When I read that, I knew that I could read the rest... It is a humble but confident opening. For most of my life I've only been able to acheive one of those two attitudes. And it is not the one that starts with H.
Most other statements in your post use the 1st person singular pronoun… you present things as your opinion, and give supporting facts or supporting opinions to support that position, you do not present your opinion as the only option of truth.
I acknowledge and applaud the fact that you may and do agree with President Bush on certain points, while at the same time stating that he is not automatically a “good president” for passing this bar of personal similarity on certain issues. I agree that you are entitled to a personal litmus test to determine if our current president is worthy of your support and admiration. I will not consider you unpatriotic if you cannot support Barack Obama because of positions he holds, any more than I consider myself unpatriotic for not supporting George W Bush for actions he and his administration have undertaken (and you write about some of those issues).
Although there are some statements in your post that for me seem to go overboard (kool-aid drinking levels of overboard) such as – “is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide”....I will admit to using the same “shock and awe" strategy to incite reflection from those who don’t share my opinion in my own post. It makes for good television. Or blog banter. Whatever.
I did also state that I don’t believe an anti Roe Vs Wade opinion is equivalent to support of Taliban or “charria” type attitudes (in order to distance myslef from kool-aid level rhetorical), but I HOPE you don’t believe that Barack Obama is a “radical and a compromised shell of a man” just because of his difference of opinion on Roe vs Wade…
I chose not to address your comments on federal funding of abortions, because I NEVER received any emails from the culture of life elements in our family, church, community, or our society at large about federal funding for cruise missiles bunker busters and other armory that have killed hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi civilians over that past five years. I therefore find your notion of “control of the checkbook” to be VERY morally compromised. (different debate, sorry, must be addressed when we agree on Roe vs Wade :d)
But I REALLY do not want to address the checkbook issue - because the $$$ questions are intimately linked to the “faith and politics” questions that I posted in my earlier email.
But I am REALLY very happy to interact with you, and anybody else on these matters. I do not want to change your opinions.
I mostly want to test my own “opinions”, and be able to separate the comfort kool-aid of following “my kind” of talking points from the ambrosia of understanding. And there are not many better forums for talking about his than with my uncles, aunts, cousins, and other family members that I love and respect.
Jeffrey
(just to let you know that I am not on my high horse of pseudo-intellectualism, I will admit that it is 4:57 pm on Friday afternoon, and by the time anybody reads this, I will be half way into my “two for one” Friday happy hour special.)
lol
Response to Jeff
Hi all --
The blog is back!
Jeff, thank you for posing those questions. Maybe they are questions on other people's minds also, and I am happy to offer answers that are consistent with Church teaching and my personal understanding of the issues. In my study of Church teaching and theology since undergrad, I am continually comforted and impressed by the phenomenon that every moral value and doctrinal belief my parents instilled in me from my earliest memory has deep groundings in an abundantly rich and sophisticated intellectual tradition that has withstood 2000 years of challenges from philosophies and moralities that have emerged and disappeared and re-emerged in new forms.
In the course of "getting educated" I've found that it is not necessary to set aside my reason in contemplating or attempting to defend my beliefs. On the contrary, in recognizing God as my Creator, I acknowledge that God is the creator of my capacity to reason, and God is certainly not threatened by my reason. In fact the Church teaches that Faith and Reason together bring us to contemplation of Truth. So, it would in fact be misguided and do a disservice to our religion to check rationality at the door and preface all our religious beliefs, not to mention our political ones, on a claim that "The Bible says ..." or "The Magisterium says..."
With that preface, I am happy to respond to your individual questions this weekend, drawing upon my faith AND reason.
Thanks once again to Jeff for keeping the conversation going and for valuing other view points.
Monica
The blog is back!
Jeff, thank you for posing those questions. Maybe they are questions on other people's minds also, and I am happy to offer answers that are consistent with Church teaching and my personal understanding of the issues. In my study of Church teaching and theology since undergrad, I am continually comforted and impressed by the phenomenon that every moral value and doctrinal belief my parents instilled in me from my earliest memory has deep groundings in an abundantly rich and sophisticated intellectual tradition that has withstood 2000 years of challenges from philosophies and moralities that have emerged and disappeared and re-emerged in new forms.
In the course of "getting educated" I've found that it is not necessary to set aside my reason in contemplating or attempting to defend my beliefs. On the contrary, in recognizing God as my Creator, I acknowledge that God is the creator of my capacity to reason, and God is certainly not threatened by my reason. In fact the Church teaches that Faith and Reason together bring us to contemplation of Truth. So, it would in fact be misguided and do a disservice to our religion to check rationality at the door and preface all our religious beliefs, not to mention our political ones, on a claim that "The Bible says ..." or "The Magisterium says..."
With that preface, I am happy to respond to your individual questions this weekend, drawing upon my faith AND reason.
Thanks once again to Jeff for keeping the conversation going and for valuing other view points.
Monica
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Questions
Preface :
I am sorry to equate a woman’s right to choose (in the case of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy) with horrible acts of terrorism or female genital mutilation. Please understand that I am only comparing the logic used to justify those positions, and not saying there is anything close to a moral equivalence between the two! I have stated in the past how much I admire your family’s achievements, generosity and dedication to the culture of life – (for what is faith without works?).
I ask the following questions not to put anybody on the spot, or to play “gotcha”. I ask these questions because I respect the divergent opinions - I know that you arrived at your positions with much reflection, and I’d like to understand better. I do not question your intelligence in holding positions different to my own.
Questions -
If a mother loses her unborn fetus due to natural circumstances, can that fetus be baptized?
If so, from which point after conception can that fetus be baptized? Does a fetus have a soul? Is that soul present at conception?
What is the church’s attitude (and your own) towards artificial insemination and other means of combating a “natural” inability to conceive or carry a child?
How would one weigh the value of lives “created” or "saved" by our modern civilization and technology against the 48 million abortions (quoting number from earlier email) practiced since Roe v Wade? Can there be a moral break-even point in the evolution of society and its norms, if the culture of life is what is most important?
Is an aborted fetus any different from the soul of someone who hasn’t been baptized in the eyes of God? If I remember church doctrine correctly, an un-baptized soul cannot enter into the eternal kingdom of God. In the notion of “saving lives” (eternal lives in any case), wouldn’t obligatory Christian baptism save more souls than the quoted 48 million abortions over the past 40 years?
Wouldn’t it be a better “return on political engagement” (in the eyes of God) to fight for a constitutional amendment making Christian baptism obligatory in the USA rather than fighting to over-turn Roe v Wade?
Wasn't this type of thinking used to justify the crusades, and couldn't it be done again?
Honest, intelligent people who believe they are doing God’s work are fervently opposed to abortion rights (or personal choice, depending on how you want to frame that). I am personally opposed to abortion, but not personally convinced that life starts at conception, and therefore support a woman’s right to choose, although if that person came to me for advice, I would argue in support of life. The logic behind the pro-life position (using an arbitrary defintion of when life starts) strikes me as eerily similar to the justification for female genitalia mutilation in Somalia, Jihad in Iraq, suicide bombing in Israel, the obligation for females to wear a burkha in areas controlled by the Taliban… All of these horrible things are done by people who believe they are doing God’s work. It’s a different scripture, different interpretations of that scripture, a different culture – but all in the name of God. If we disagree on when “life” starts, who wins ? For me, “God” and religion have no say in our secular democracy. I’m pretty sure a lot more than 48 million people have been killed in the name of “God” throughout history. I’ll take my politics anyway you like, but please hold the religion…
That last paragraph is a bit long and blustery, let me resume the “questions” :
How can you have the right to define for others when life starts?
What empirical evidence can you use to support your position?
Is it not a slippery slope to introduce YOUR FAITH into political discourse, would you accept to have your genitalia mutilated if ever you were obligated to live in a country where that act is considered “God’s way” ? What’s the difference?
Once again, please don’t confuse my disagreement with some of the logic used to support the desire to over-turn Roe v Wade as insinuating ANY moral equivalency between what you believe and some of the barbaric fundamentalist Islamic positions… I am only trying to make the point of the slippery slope of introducing faith into the political discourse.
I love you all…really, I do, and always will
I am sorry to equate a woman’s right to choose (in the case of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy) with horrible acts of terrorism or female genital mutilation. Please understand that I am only comparing the logic used to justify those positions, and not saying there is anything close to a moral equivalence between the two! I have stated in the past how much I admire your family’s achievements, generosity and dedication to the culture of life – (for what is faith without works?).
I ask the following questions not to put anybody on the spot, or to play “gotcha”. I ask these questions because I respect the divergent opinions - I know that you arrived at your positions with much reflection, and I’d like to understand better. I do not question your intelligence in holding positions different to my own.
Questions -
If a mother loses her unborn fetus due to natural circumstances, can that fetus be baptized?
If so, from which point after conception can that fetus be baptized? Does a fetus have a soul? Is that soul present at conception?
What is the church’s attitude (and your own) towards artificial insemination and other means of combating a “natural” inability to conceive or carry a child?
How would one weigh the value of lives “created” or "saved" by our modern civilization and technology against the 48 million abortions (quoting number from earlier email) practiced since Roe v Wade? Can there be a moral break-even point in the evolution of society and its norms, if the culture of life is what is most important?
Is an aborted fetus any different from the soul of someone who hasn’t been baptized in the eyes of God? If I remember church doctrine correctly, an un-baptized soul cannot enter into the eternal kingdom of God. In the notion of “saving lives” (eternal lives in any case), wouldn’t obligatory Christian baptism save more souls than the quoted 48 million abortions over the past 40 years?
Wouldn’t it be a better “return on political engagement” (in the eyes of God) to fight for a constitutional amendment making Christian baptism obligatory in the USA rather than fighting to over-turn Roe v Wade?
Wasn't this type of thinking used to justify the crusades, and couldn't it be done again?
Honest, intelligent people who believe they are doing God’s work are fervently opposed to abortion rights (or personal choice, depending on how you want to frame that). I am personally opposed to abortion, but not personally convinced that life starts at conception, and therefore support a woman’s right to choose, although if that person came to me for advice, I would argue in support of life. The logic behind the pro-life position (using an arbitrary defintion of when life starts) strikes me as eerily similar to the justification for female genitalia mutilation in Somalia, Jihad in Iraq, suicide bombing in Israel, the obligation for females to wear a burkha in areas controlled by the Taliban… All of these horrible things are done by people who believe they are doing God’s work. It’s a different scripture, different interpretations of that scripture, a different culture – but all in the name of God. If we disagree on when “life” starts, who wins ? For me, “God” and religion have no say in our secular democracy. I’m pretty sure a lot more than 48 million people have been killed in the name of “God” throughout history. I’ll take my politics anyway you like, but please hold the religion…
That last paragraph is a bit long and blustery, let me resume the “questions” :
How can you have the right to define for others when life starts?
What empirical evidence can you use to support your position?
Is it not a slippery slope to introduce YOUR FAITH into political discourse, would you accept to have your genitalia mutilated if ever you were obligated to live in a country where that act is considered “God’s way” ? What’s the difference?
Once again, please don’t confuse my disagreement with some of the logic used to support the desire to over-turn Roe v Wade as insinuating ANY moral equivalency between what you believe and some of the barbaric fundamentalist Islamic positions… I am only trying to make the point of the slippery slope of introducing faith into the political discourse.
I love you all…really, I do, and always will
This was written in response to some of the reactions I got to the first piece when posted on facebook, so there may be some sentences that don't quite make sense without the context:
First, let me address the most electric of Nick's assertions- that by my standards, George W. Bush is a good president. It's an effective flourish, but upon a closer look, you will find that my argument is not a simple "if, then" logic equation. The respect for human life and dignity is not the defining characteristic of a good presidency. It is the most basic prerequisite for having the capacity to lead a nation. Many other factors, which have been frequently discussed throughout these elections, are considered after this when judging the success of a presidency. Respect for life does not have the ability to make a presidency successful, but a lack of it is an inherent betrayal to the position.
By my standards, the denial of habeas corpus in Guantanamo, inaction on the environmental crisis, and the embarkment of a pre-empitve war on false premises are just a few of the reasons why I would not classify Bush as a good president. I am not writing this to bash Bush, though- many others have taken care of that for me. My point is that Bush had the propensity to be a good leader and subsequently failed. He did not fail in all regards, and I am very grateful for the pro-life strides that were taken under his guidance and will continue to be taken by his court appointees. But, on far too many other important issues he did fail. I would like to say that he is not alone in holding responsibility for these failures, nor are those who voted for him. I also hold the entire Democratic party responsible for Bush's inadequacies, because they failed then, as they fail now, to put forward a candidate who met the basic prerequisite of a leader- a respect for the lives of those they lead.
The true tragedy is that respect for human life has become so rare that it must be a defining issue. In an ideal world, I could focus on the economic plans being put forth by the candidates, like so many Americans. Out of this fine country, is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide? I refuse to believe that it is. But, they are all we have to work with this time. In the lack of a pro-life president whose other ambitions I share, I have no choice but to support the one candidate whose position on this issue demonstrates a greater degree of moral fiber and hope, no, pray, that he will lead well from there.
On the other assertion, that legalizing abortion actually reduces the number of abortions (and, some people add, deaths from home-made abortions), I believe that there is enough evidence to refute the truth in this, as is discussed in that Newsweek article I posted. However, I am going to put forth what will probably be an unpopular argument that whether or not this is true does not change the fact that legalized abortion should not be tolerated by humanity. Laws exist not only to provide the necessary letters to govern but also to define a society, to define what a society will, and will not, tolerate. Some people might argue that laws should not be based upon a particular religion's precepts. I agree that freedom or religion is of the utmost importance. However, all laws are based off the concept that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong", which inherently implies a governing moral order. In our society, in particular, "equality for all" was an explicit governance and one of the most precious inheritances we Americans have. Which laws we uphold and which we abandon, regardless of their immediate consequences, defines the legacy that we leave to future generations.
Let me also add that religious freedom is at stake in this particular election. When Barack Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, he supports eliminating the rights of Christian doctors to abstain from participating in abortive procedures. He also supports federal funding for abortions, which means that every tax-paying Christian is financially complicit in abortions. With the economy where it is and the extra burden that universally paying for abortions would cost the tax-payer, I sincerely doubt that much money will flow towards crisis pregnancy centers, which actually do reduce the numbers of abortions.
Since I used the comparison to slavery last time, let me use it again. The argument that legalizing abortions reduces the actual number of abortions is eerily familiar to me from the justifications used to perpetuate slavery. Abolishing the abhorrent practice of slavery did have some immediate negative consequences as slavery supporters had warned- society was not yet set up to offer equal opportunities to freed slaves, the consequences of which are still being felt. However, who today would deny that regardless of repercussion our country could not afford to perpetuate this trampling of human rights?
It is only by warped intellect that we have come to convince ourselves that murder of the innocents is an acceptable way to purchase freedom, just as it was by warped intellect that our forefathers came to convince themselves that forced servitude was an acceptable way to purchase their own comfort. Our country cannot afford leaders who are willfully blind to this suppression of rights. Neither can it afford its conscientious voters to shrug this issue off.
First, let me address the most electric of Nick's assertions- that by my standards, George W. Bush is a good president. It's an effective flourish, but upon a closer look, you will find that my argument is not a simple "if, then" logic equation. The respect for human life and dignity is not the defining characteristic of a good presidency. It is the most basic prerequisite for having the capacity to lead a nation. Many other factors, which have been frequently discussed throughout these elections, are considered after this when judging the success of a presidency. Respect for life does not have the ability to make a presidency successful, but a lack of it is an inherent betrayal to the position.
By my standards, the denial of habeas corpus in Guantanamo, inaction on the environmental crisis, and the embarkment of a pre-empitve war on false premises are just a few of the reasons why I would not classify Bush as a good president. I am not writing this to bash Bush, though- many others have taken care of that for me. My point is that Bush had the propensity to be a good leader and subsequently failed. He did not fail in all regards, and I am very grateful for the pro-life strides that were taken under his guidance and will continue to be taken by his court appointees. But, on far too many other important issues he did fail. I would like to say that he is not alone in holding responsibility for these failures, nor are those who voted for him. I also hold the entire Democratic party responsible for Bush's inadequacies, because they failed then, as they fail now, to put forward a candidate who met the basic prerequisite of a leader- a respect for the lives of those they lead.
The true tragedy is that respect for human life has become so rare that it must be a defining issue. In an ideal world, I could focus on the economic plans being put forth by the candidates, like so many Americans. Out of this fine country, is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide? I refuse to believe that it is. But, they are all we have to work with this time. In the lack of a pro-life president whose other ambitions I share, I have no choice but to support the one candidate whose position on this issue demonstrates a greater degree of moral fiber and hope, no, pray, that he will lead well from there.
On the other assertion, that legalizing abortion actually reduces the number of abortions (and, some people add, deaths from home-made abortions), I believe that there is enough evidence to refute the truth in this, as is discussed in that Newsweek article I posted. However, I am going to put forth what will probably be an unpopular argument that whether or not this is true does not change the fact that legalized abortion should not be tolerated by humanity. Laws exist not only to provide the necessary letters to govern but also to define a society, to define what a society will, and will not, tolerate. Some people might argue that laws should not be based upon a particular religion's precepts. I agree that freedom or religion is of the utmost importance. However, all laws are based off the concept that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong", which inherently implies a governing moral order. In our society, in particular, "equality for all" was an explicit governance and one of the most precious inheritances we Americans have. Which laws we uphold and which we abandon, regardless of their immediate consequences, defines the legacy that we leave to future generations.
Let me also add that religious freedom is at stake in this particular election. When Barack Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, he supports eliminating the rights of Christian doctors to abstain from participating in abortive procedures. He also supports federal funding for abortions, which means that every tax-paying Christian is financially complicit in abortions. With the economy where it is and the extra burden that universally paying for abortions would cost the tax-payer, I sincerely doubt that much money will flow towards crisis pregnancy centers, which actually do reduce the numbers of abortions.
Since I used the comparison to slavery last time, let me use it again. The argument that legalizing abortions reduces the actual number of abortions is eerily familiar to me from the justifications used to perpetuate slavery. Abolishing the abhorrent practice of slavery did have some immediate negative consequences as slavery supporters had warned- society was not yet set up to offer equal opportunities to freed slaves, the consequences of which are still being felt. However, who today would deny that regardless of repercussion our country could not afford to perpetuate this trampling of human rights?
It is only by warped intellect that we have come to convince ourselves that murder of the innocents is an acceptable way to purchase freedom, just as it was by warped intellect that our forefathers came to convince themselves that forced servitude was an acceptable way to purchase their own comfort. Our country cannot afford leaders who are willfully blind to this suppression of rights. Neither can it afford its conscientious voters to shrug this issue off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)