Wednesday, March 2, 2016

The Lesser of Two Evils: The 2016 Presidential Election

American flag

If you’re like me, you have been taking the candidates for the 2016 presidential race with a grain of salt.  In the past I was never really into politics.  Ironically, political science was my first major in college.  My entire first year of college I spent convincing myself that I hated to read.  Once I changed my major to theology, I realized that I hated to read politics.  Before I could vote, I had absolutely no interest in politics.  I honestly felt that once I reached adulthood and could vote I still wouldn’t because I had no interest whatsoever.  However, I did find myself voting as soon as I could.  That didn't change my interest though.  I never sat down and watched any debates.  I didn’t watch the news or read the newspaper. Basically, I started to consider the election about two weeks before I had to cast my vote.  By that time, all of the sub candidates had been whittled away and we were left with two potential presidential nominees.

The first time I voted was in 1996, less than two months removed from my 18th birthday.  I voted for Bill Clinton, and looking back, I think the only reason I did was because of Dana Carvey’s impression of George Bush on Saturday Night Live.  I based my vote on the caricature of a person rather than anything that that person legitimately had to say.  Unfortunately, I didn’t quickly learn my lesson, and in 2000 I voted for Al Gore.  The main reason I voted for Al Gore was because I thought there was no way we should elect someone who came across to be as dumb as George W. Bush.  I just couldn’t stomach the thought of voting for someone who pronounced it nuke-you-lar instead of nuclear.  When 2004 rolled around, I was even more convinced that George W. Bush had 3 to 4 screws loose. I'm struggling to remember who I voted for.  I think it was John Kerry, and I’m too tired to look it up see if I’m right.  In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama.  I know what you’re thinking.  Every single vote I cast was for a Democrat. My votes were cast based on my perception of how intellectual a person was, not on the content of what he was actually saying.  All that changed in 2012.  I voted for Mitt Romney.  At the ripe old age of 34, I had finally reached adulthood and was actually listening to what candidates had to say.

I had taken a close look at American Society and the factors that have contributed to its recent decline.  With that election, I found myself taking hard-line stances on certain issues.  While the “money for everyone” and equitable share rhetoric of the Democratic Party are wonderful ideas, I couldn’t get past the broken welfare system, the government’s hands in everything, and, above all, that pesky abortion thing.  My faith had finally kicked in and became the source from which all politics would flow.  In one election, I turned from an unknowingly solid Democrat to a staunch Republican.

Actually, I claim to be an independent because I think the fact that we have only two political parties means that we are always choosing the lesser of two evils.  In a perfect world, we could have a third-party that would value the dignity of every human life and destroy the abortion industry like the conservative party would like while at the same time upholding social justice issues for which the liberals are well known.  I feel like the 2012 election was going to be that identifying moment where I would become a Republican voter regardless of the nominee.

That brings us back to 2016 and the current circus that the Republican Party continues to throw on the national television and news media.  I was really hoping that the conservative party would learn the lesson of vetting quality candidates after the debacle of picking Sarah Palin as a running mate.  Apparently not.  Despite my insistence that time would take its toll and eliminate Donald Trump as a viable candidate for the nomination he continues to make headlines and climb up the rankings.  This time I don’t need SNL to offer me a whimsical look at political candidate.  The man himself is a walking caricature.  And so I found my relatively new and staunch conservative status in limbo because of who is leading the charge of the conservative party.  Watching the conservative’s battle each other has been nauseating.  Yet, I realized I hadn’t even looked at the liberals.

So the other night I clicked on the Townhall between Sanders and Clinton.  To be honest, I’ve never really listened to Bernie Sanders so I thought I would give him a chance to it least say something to me.  I listened to him for five minutes.  He talked about social justice and the elite billionaire class and I found myself nodding in approval.  Then he hit me with the closer that “every woman has a right to be in control of her own body.”  For those of you new to politics, that’s liberal speak for “go ahead and kill a baby because its human value isn’t the same as the person it’s in.”  He lost me.  So I, again, return to the lesser of two evils debate.  I have really been struggling so I thought I would seek out some guidance.  It was so short and so simple that I’m really kind of embarrassed I didn’t think of it myself.  I was told to look at the nonnegotiables.  I needed to look past the candidate as the party would attempt to do.  I would also need to hope that the party would surround the president with the right people to help make quality decisions.  Again, to decode, if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee I may have to vote for him and hope that he has a quality Cabinet.

So what are the nonnegotiables?  Here’s a short list for brevity’s sake: abortion, marriage, family.  Actually I probably could’ve made it simpler; it all comes down to love.  Pope Francis puts it very succinctly in his latest encyclical Laudato Si (paragraph 65):
Red Scribbled Heart “The Bible teaches that every man and woman is created out of love and made in God’s  image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). This shows us the immense dignity of each person, “who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”.[37] Saint John Paul II stated that the special love of the Creator for each human being “confers upon him or her an infinite dignity”.[38] Those who are committed to defending human dignity can find in the Christian faith the deepest reasons for this commitment. How wonderful is the certainty that each human life is not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos, in a world ruled by pure chance or endlessly recurring cycles! The Creator can say to each one of us: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jer 1:5). We were conceived in the heart of God, and for this reason “each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary”.
I am capable of love because I was created out of love and for love.  This love requires that I see that every single human life has value.  It is for that simplest of reasons that I will vote against the Democratic Party again.  If it turns out that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, and he is the least objectionable of the pro-life candidates remaining then he will get my vote.  If that happens I pray for two things.  First, when the new president, whoever that may be, places his/her hand on that Bible and he swears that oath (which requires swearing to GOD by the way.  Seriously, it isn’t an oath unless you swear to God) that he really means it at the very end when he/she says “so help me God.”  And second, that God helps him.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Why Are People Really Attacking Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of its services are abortions. Recently, pro-life activists claim that number is as high as 94%. If you want to read the full explanation on how both of these numbers can be correct, there is an article at the Washington Post called "For Planned Parenthood Abortion Stats 3% and 94% are Both Misleading."

For those that don't want to read the full article, I propose an alternate percentage. Planned Parenthood says it services 2.7 million people in 2013. In the same year, it provided 327,653 abortions. Simply put, 12% of the people that walk in that door, get an abortion. The goal of this simple math is not to say that PP needs to be de-funded, or close its doors, or is a horrendous monster. The goal is to just simply say that at a minimum 12% of what it does is abortion related.

The Pivot of Civilization by Margaret SangerLet's move on to talk about the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Again, there are a variety of articles that paint her as, both, a saint on one side and Satan himself on the other. Many of her quotes are taken out of context on both sides so I intend to list 2 quotes that give a window into her mind regardless of the context in which they are given.

"(Our objective is) unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children...    (Women must have the right) to live...to love...to be lazy...to be an unmarried mother...to create...to destroy. The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order."
Regardless of the context, it's clear that Margaret Sanger wants to sever the link between sex and love. Sex has nothing to do with children and even less to do with a marriage.  The saddest thing about this quote is the fact that every TV show, movie, book, liberal arts college, public high school, mainstream newspaper, etc. endorses this concept.   Let's move on to quote number 2.

"The fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty stricken classes should not be held up for emulation. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective..."

Couple that with her saying, "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying..demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism..."
In the first quote, Sanger implies that not only should sex rarely lead to children.  In the second, she goes so far as to say it should never lead to one who is mentally or physically disabled. (Nazis anyone?)

One doesn't have to take too much of a leap to suggest that PP was not founded to "help women be healthy."  It was founded to decrease the amount of undesirable people either by contraception or abortion.

Finally, I want to close with a quote from the current CEO of Planned Parenthood. In a recent YouTube video responding to the chargers that PP profits from selling fetal tissue, the CEO made the comment about pro-life activists: "They have never been concerned with the health and safety of women.  Their mission is to ban abortion completely and cut women off from care at Planned Parenthood and other health centers."
I don't think I have ever heard a pro-life activist say a woman should not have access to a pregnancy test or cervical cancer exams. If that's all that PP did, then pro-life activists wouldn't have a problem with them. But, PP is the country's largest provider of abortions. I hope the CEO is just misspoken and not feeble-minded. Otherwise, the founder of the company would not think too highly of her.

In conclusion, people are against PP because of the large number of murders that they commit. It has nothing to do with women's healthcare. PP continues to claim that it is only protecting a woman's health.  According to Ms. Sanger, PP is also protecting a woman's right to "unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children."  This is the disconnect. News flash... SEX LEADS TO CHILDREN.  If you don't want kids, don't have sex.  No woman, regardless of her desire to remain childless should have the right to murder an innocent person.  I have always been in favor of abstinence over murder.


Monday, January 11, 2016

Which Interpretation is Correct?

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY...Just let those words sink in. You got it? Now, what does that mean exactly? Whether you know it or not, that sentence can mean five entirely different things. Place the emphasis on each of the words separately. Now I ask again. What did I mean when I said it? Which interpretation is the correct one? The answer is “I never said you STOLE money.” I said you simply hadn’t paid back what you borrowed yet. Okay, I have to give credit to Pat Madrid for that exercise. The purpose is simple: to understand that sentence, you would need to have access to certain information. You might need to know me or the circumstances surrounding the event about which I am speaking. You might need to know if I am sarcastic or a compulsive liar. Now apply this same exercise to the Bible.

The Bible presents a vastly more difficult test than my single sentence. There are thousands of sentences in that book. Sometimes those sentences give “seemingly” conflicting information. One may cite the commandment “though shalt not kill” found in Exodus. But that is followed up with reasons that you can kill as a punishment in Deuteronomy. In Exodus, again, we get another commandment “You shall not create a graven image,” followed just a few chapters later with the command to create images of angels for the Ark of the Covenant. If you want a New Testament reference, how about Romans 2:6 “who will render to every man according to his deeds” followed quickly in Romans 3:28 with “for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”  The point of all this is interpretations. To be honest, recent debates between Protestant and Catholic scholars largely show a general agreement on the contextual application of these verses. While there is much theological agreement between Christian subgroups, the fact that there are thousands of subgroups should be cause for concern.
There are over 35,000 Christian denominations today. That means that there are at least 35,000 different interpretations of Scripture. All of these different groups splintered off from something that was already there. The first major split came around 1100 A.D. when the Orthodox churches broke off from the Catholic Church. There are very few dogmatic differences between those 2 distinct Christian traditions. Nevertheless, they have a different interpretation regarding some issues. It must be noted that the Catholic Church will allow its members to take the Eucharist at an Orthodox church if necessary because they hold the same belief about the real presence of Christ. The next major split came with Martin Luther, Calvin, and others in the form of the Protestant Reformation almost 500 years later. The Protestant battle cry was two-fold: Sola Scriptura (Bible alone-meaning that the Bible is the only place to look for the Truth of God) and Sola Fide (Faith alone-meaning that we are saved by faith rather than our merits; which the Catholic Church also teaches even if it hasn’t always done a great job of teaching it). Martin Luther and the other Reformers led the revolt, which basically said that each person can decide for him or herself what the Bible teaches. Interestingly, when followers of the Reformers started to break off, which happened almost instantly, Luther and the rest had no problem telling those people that they weren’t reading the Bible right.

So how are we to know? Do we get a warm fuzzy feeling when we read it? Do we know we are interpreting correctly when we get a large number of “Amens” from the congregation? I, for one, believe that if Christ wanted Scripture to play such an important role in evangelization, that he would have given us some assurances that we could trust the interpretation. In Matthew 5:15 Jesus says “Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and It gives light to all the house.” Why would Jesus establish a church and give it as its only tool, a book that, as history has shown, can be interpreted at least 35,000 different ways without some sort of protection from false interpretation? Again in Matthew 28:18-20 we hear: “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”  Jesus promises to be with his church forever. In John 16:12-13, we get the promise that the church will be guided by the Spirit into all truth. “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak and He will disclose to you what is to come.” Finally a Catholic apologist would be remiss to omit Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Peter means rock so the quote should read: “you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.) Even renowned Protestant scholars agree that Jesus is pointing to Peter as the rock. They just differ in their interpretation of what that means. (I know. Shocking. Right?)
If the Bible can be interpreted in countless ways, why even believe in the Bible at all?  I guess the short answer is that we believe that Christ is God and that Scripture is his revelation to us.  But lots of people have claimed to be God.  Many people have claimed new revelation.  Islam and Mormonism immediately come to mind.  The founders of those religions made it perfectly clear that their revelation came directly from God.  But the vast majority of Christians wouldn’t buy it.  What makes the Bible so different?  Since we don’t believe the claims of Joseph Smith, why would we believe Matthew, John, Peter and Paul?  Just because a book claims to be inspired hasn’t helped me to get on board with Islam.  I have chosen to believe the Truth of Christianity based on the answers it gives me to the most fundamental questions.  Why are we here?  Where are we going?  What does it all mean?  Since there are over 35,000 options within Christianity, what would lead me to believe that the Catholic position is correct?  To quote Jennifer Fulwiller, (whose conversion story from atheist to Catholic is very illuminating) “Either the Catholic Church is guided in its teachings by the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then why put any stock in any of its claims, including the claim that it chose the correct books for the cannon of the Bible.” She has it spot on. This is the crux of the argument.  I believe that Christ founded a church with apostolic succession. I believe that the church developed Scripture (inspired by the Holy Spirit) to assist in the evangelization of the whole world. I believe that church was entrusted with a protection by that same Spirit to interpret that Scripture faithfully. I guess you could say Jesus lit a lamp (Scripture) and placed it on a stand (Catholic Church) to give light to the whole world. The Reformers put a basket over it.