Warning: this column contains religious references and expresses such dangerous and tyrannical ideas as believing in God, refusing to consider all christians (who are not liberals or progressives) as theocratic tyrants, and the idea that the state tries to be a god (or THE god).
Culture wars: Government’s war against religion
Not Our Job to Avoid Offending Governments, Says Religious Freedom Watchdog
Nathan: Indeed, it seems to me from about the time of King David and the prophet Nathan (no physical relation), the job of preachers and prophets and watchdogs is to OFFEND government: a highly-honorable profession.
Culture wars: “homosexual”marriage(2 stories)
Mark Levin: It’s Not A Matter of Equal Protection, So Why Should the Courts Intervene? To the Plaintiffs, It’s All About ‘Equality’
Nathan: Which makes them liars as big as the “messiah” and all his minions and the rest of the Tranzis. This isn’t about equality: ending prohibitions on mixed-race marriages did that – another example of government sticking its nose into something for evil purposes. Equality is that a man is free to marry a woman, and a woman is free to marry a man. Regardless of race or class or nationality or color or any of the other reasons governments have tried to prohibit marriage in the past. This is about redefining common terms: Shakespeare’s rose or the “calling a tail a leg doesn’t mean dogs have five legs.”
Mama’s Note: Why does it matter? Whatever people want to call their relationships is nobody else’s business, and certainly none of the government’s business. The only real issue is government recognition and permission, so those so “married” can collect the perks and loot handed out by the permitting politicians. I don’t care if someone wants to marry their poodle… I’m just not prepared to pay for it.
Cultural wars: Polygamy and Homosexual “marriage”
Ted Olson: Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage
Nathan: PLEASE, someone read what this idiot said and explain to me exactly what he is arguing. It makes no sense. Not even when translated out of lawyerese.
Mama’s Note: Who cares? It’s none of my business if someone wants to marry their Shetland pony, or a whole herd of them… again, as long as I’m not forced to support them.
Culture wars: Killing babies NOT
North Dakota: Dalrymple signs “heartbeat” abortion ban
Source: (BBC News) “North Dakota has banned abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected — as early as six weeks — in the most restrictive law of its kind in the US. Governor Jack Dalrymple signed a second law banning abortions based on genetic abnormalities. He approved a third law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital-admitting privileges. Correspondents say the laws are in part an effort to close the state’s only abortion clinic, in the town of Fargo. The measures, which take effect on 1 August, make no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.” (03/26/13)
Nathan: I’m sure to rile many “libertarians” who insist that the baby is just a “parasite” or a “lump of flesh” or an “aggressor/trespasser” who can be killed at the will of the mother. But if we lovers of liberty believe that aggression is wrong, then how can we not agree with this: you don’t kill a trespasser who is out of the womb just for being on your property: virtually all libertarians believe in that case that there is a certain appropriate level of force. Especially when the trespass is NOT the result of the will or decision of the trespasser. The baby didn’t choose to be formed in the womb: that was (at least partially) the decision of the mother. (Yes, I realize that rape and incest are generally NOT “voluntary” on the part of the mother, but they are a voluntary act BY SOME PERSON OTHER THAN the child within. Nor is rape or incest a moral justification for killing the child: just because the father is a scumbag aggressor who deserves to be killed, how does killing an innocent child resolve anything? The child had nothing to do with the father’s aggression: it is as much a victim as the pregnant woman. Genetic abnormalities? Is a Downs Syndrome person less than human? Assuming that diagnostic science is “perfect” (I’ve seen a lot of imperfect diagnoses on unborn children in the past several decades), is that any more a reason to kill a human than senility or Alzheimers or brain cancer is? We don’t execute murderous scumbags and rapists and those who send thousands to their deaths needlessly, but we are just fine with killing a child because they have a genetic defect or their parent was a rapist? Please. As for health of the mother: the laws mandating (or allowing such) have been seriously abused: health is so broadly defined as to include “economic wellbeing” and “undue mental stress” as being excuses for killing the child. If there is truly a case where the choice is the life of the mother or the life of the child (and I know that there are some), then the doctor and (assuming she is alive) the mother must be willing to face a jury to answer. And we know that a jury HAS the power to declare them not guilty just as if someone was charged with homicide when trying to rescue someone and having to decide who lives and who dies in a fire, an accident, or a flood. The business about “hospital admitting privileges” strikes me as common sense: it is also a way of getting the state out of the business of deciding who is and who is not qualified to perform certain procedures. North Dakota is clearly considering the hideous nature and “professionalism” of the mass murders in Wichita, Kansas and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In our very imperfect nation, can we expect the state government to stop meddling?
Mama’s Note: A miscarriage is also called a spontaneous abortion. It is often difficult to tell the difference. Do we truly wish to subject bereaved mothers to a trial for this? How does one prove a negative? In addition, how is another layer of prohibition, bureaucrats and politicians going to help either the babies or their mothers? Will the usual corruption and persecution of select targets suddenly vanish?
No, this should have nothing to do with non-voluntary government at any level. It is a matter for the family and the community, and in many cases, only God can judge.