I missed the Grammy Awards and I could care less. My apathy towards the Awards show or pretty much any awards show for that matter was solidified with the various reports I’ve been reading highlighting comments/reactions of AJ McCarron and Natalie Grant, a Grammy Award nominee.
Both of these individuals commented on what appears to have been explicit and even satanic/pagan performances from persons such as Jay-Z and Beyonce and Katy Perry. Couple that with the mass so-called wedding taking place during the show and you get a glimpse into the evils of relativism and secularism.
Thanks be to God that I know better now than I did before.
I wonder if these cats consider that cell phones, Google, Facebook, etc. work the same if not more effectively and with more permanence. Permanence I would argue is rivaled by only God Himself – if I can say that without being accused of anti-Christian comments…
The excerpt below, from a recent op-ed piece, is a perfect example of what is often referred to as “relativism.” One the one hand the anonymous author states correctly that being pro-life means that one respect the sanctity of life, they qualify the definition with an all or nothing approach that essentially pulls the rug out from under that sanctity.
(Just an aside, I pulled what I felt were the full nuggets of the piece, which deals with the issue of life. The remainder of the op-ed is a bit of a rant against conservative politicians…blah, blah, blah…)
In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”
Once we get past the ranting we get to the substance of this person’s opinion. I find it interesting that this piece remains anonymous as anyone who feels so strongly that their position is correct should stand behind it. I may put funny pictures as my profile and the like but it isn’t that hard to find me out.
Anyway, the author qualifies their vision of pro-life of being of their “world.” As such, the start of the relative begins. Relativism is one of those concepts that seems good on the surface but is essentially a mirage that disappears as one gets closer leaving you thirsty and worse off than before. That said, there are some interesting points such as the lack of effective gun, environmental and education regulation. But there is one major issue – the author lumps all of these issues in a manner that leads implies that each issue is equal to the other.
Willful abortion, the murder of children in the womb, is an evil that has no equal. It goes so far against the norm that its abolishment is a goal of importance that far exceeds that of any other listed here. And that is because every right that a human has stems from the right to life. Moreover, all of the other issues presented here are those that humans affect on each other and some are even self inflicting. Abortion on the other hand is one where the primary victim has no choice or even opportunity to remove themselves from harm.
“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s ovary, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.
The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.
While the author is correct that pro-life is a term where the identified or self-identified explicitly values all life (human life mind you) as sacred, their definition is one of their own design as it does not truly value human life as sacred. This is evidenced by their failure to elevate the protection of the most inalienable right of the most innocent as the number one priority.
Would they be so rash at comparing slavery and genocide (of native american, Jews, etc.) as being on the same level as the environment and health care? This makes no sense.
Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York CityMayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.
Again, there is truth to the author’s position but to qualify it with the work of Mayor Bloomberg is questionable and of poor understanding of the sanctity of life. Banning acts of the will like smoking, sugary drinks and the like, while well-intentioned and even beneficial, but not doing so with concern for the murder of children is reprehensible and contradictory. None of those items, including guns and climate change are as grave or have a direct impact on an individual person – as in an innocent person being the target each and every time – as abortion.
First, I would like to express my condolences to the family of this man and assure them of my prayers for the repose of his soul and the healing of his family. And I ask all who read this to please do the same.
With that, allow me to move on to what really caught my interest of this story – the headline.
Why am I spending time on this? Because I think the CSM is performing a disservice to all who read the story as presented on their site vis-a-vis the the same story on on SI’s site. The story on both sites originate from Associated Press. and it is my understanding that subscribers to the AP an edit the story and even change the headline. But in this case, I feel CSM goes a bit further than what the story itself supports and mostly likely does it in an effort to generate some interest through fear. On the flip side, SI seems to present the headline as dictated by the story with no “extra” desire to create commotion.
Seriously, questioning the safety of stadiums based on this or any other incident similar to this is like saying, that because one guy got sick from a batch of bad granny smith apples that all types of fruits are dangerous.
Think about it – the accident occurred on an escalator. How many places have escalators:
The following snippets provide a solid commentary on why companies such as Apple sue:
Apple’s critics generously assign a variety of motives to Apple for filing lawsuits.Apple sues because it wants to control the market, overcharge for its products, exclude competitors from the market or punish competitors for daring to not think different. It’s all part of Apple’s “quest for global tech domination.But these aren’t actual motives. These are appeals to emotion. They’re legitimate perspectives, but expressed to negatively encapsulate spectacularly complex technical, legal and ethical issues into sound bites that make you want to agree with the author that Apple is bad and wrong.Apple has only one motive for patent lawsuits, and I’m going to tell you what that motive is.
A few years ago, LEGO sued a Chinese company called Tianjin COKO Toy Co. because its Coko Bricks product looked too much like LEGO. They were incompatible — you couldn’t plug a Coko into a LEGO. And Tianjin innovated — they came up with slightly different colors and unique Minifig-like characters. But LEGO sued and Tianjin had to shut down the operation.
Coko wanted to commoditize the colorful plastic toy brick industry so it could win on price. LEGO wanted to de-commoditize the industry, so it could compete on brand and product differentiation.
The piece addresses the right of an organization to to take what actions it deems necessary to defend its lawfully owned property – so long as those actions are within the law. And the law provides one primary means and that is through the legal process in civil court.
For me, it seems hypocritical for persons who cry that actions like these are simply an attempt of one large organization to bully the marketplace and the consumer by exerting undue control over its assets in manner in which competition is squelched.
But this is a poor assessment as true competition comes through innovation and not through the illicit use of patented or proprietary technology. Illicit use of another’s property can be a grave sin for an individual and is certainly bad practice by corporations. Moves like this are those motivated by greed which often makes it okay for ends to justify the means.
Thankfully the Church teaches us as persons that the ends can never justify the means especially when those means are evil in nature as is stealing. Cases such as these provide for us secular examples of what is already written in to our hearts by the Creator.
So I hear that tomorrow there is another independently planned event at our favorite chicken place. This time, however, it would appear that those against true Marriage hope to disrupt or disgust more traditional Chick-fil-A goers by forcing people to witness some PDA.
What these cats haven’t learned is that us “traditionalists” have an advantage over them in this aspect – our relationships were designed for this very act and then some. I wouldn’t be surprised if just as many people show up this Friday (August 3) to out kiss the scandalizers and even end up going home to be blessed by a new life later that night. And this my friends is something no homosexual couple of old ever do.
See you at CFA tomorrow! I’ll be the dude passionately kissing his beautiful wife of nearly 11 years…
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 30, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Target is promoting their wedding registry with a focus on homosexual “marriage”. A new ad released last month depicts two men holding hands with the slogan, “Be yourself, together.”
The retail giant has angered both pro-family and pro-homosexual activists as they have apparently flip-flopped in their approach to same-sex “marriage”.
In 2010 Target faced some backlash from homosexual political groups after they gave $150,000 to MN Forward, a political group that supported Tom Emmer, the pro-life, pro-marriage Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota. More recently they have been criticized for their decision not to sell an album by Frank Ocean, who recently came out as homosexual.
But last month the chain began selling same-sex “marriage” wedding cards, and they have supported pride parades in Minneapolis for a number of years. In May, Target sold gay pride t-shirts ad gave the proceeds to the Family Equality Council, a homosexual political advocacy group.
So it seems that the irrational-rationals think it just fine for a company to go ahead and move forward with open support of controversial issues and would rightly decry any boycott action against said company based solely on the expression of free speech – so long as the company remains on this (see above) side of the fence.
Now bring in a company whose president offers a personal opinion and where the corporation itself affirms its own long-standing policy against discrimination and commits to remaining out of the controversial debate and we see public officials and a motley bunch of yokels running around calling them bigots – all because they exercised the same freedom of speech.
So what is the difference? Well, in the latter case the company is remaining out of a controversial debate thus separating the views of a person within the company while not compromising the tenants on which the company was founded. And in the former you have a corporation that decide to inject the opinions of its leaders into the same debate, doing so as flip-flop pros, thus providing strong evidence that it is hedging its bets on what is seemingly the more lucrative customer base – single adults with vast, disposable incomes (generally speaking as most homosexual persons are unlikely to be supporting a family).
Not only is this crap, it is an alliance based in pragmatism and greed rather than on honesty and integrity. Like many illicit unions, the “marriage” between Target and the gay “wannabe marriage” promoters will be fleeting – especially when money begins to flow from the company like a bad night in Vegas.
She has come to believe that life begins, not at conception, but when it becomes meaningful, when ensoulment is possible, when viability and taking breath is possible. The miracle of life occurs at birth, she says.
The author of this post on Live Action’s blog seems to come to the same conclusion as I have when thinking about the arguments in favor of abortion – the only “defense” is through relativism. And as many already know, relativism is inherently flawed as it holds to no absolutes.
For example, if it is as the abortionist is quoted above, then anytime I deem that the life of any person around me is meaningless, they can thus be done away with. This was the mindset of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and any number of mass murderers (abortion in the US has netted over 52 million deaths since 1973) and eugenists. I think most people would agree that at the very least, Hitler was not “right” in his actions let alone motives. But relativism, such as the one expressed above, can allow for that conclusion and hold true to itself.
So I ask a simple question. What is the difference between a child in the womb and a child outside of the womb?