Wednesday, April 02, 2014
A Newsmax.com headline reads “Pollard’s Ex-Wife: He’s In Terrible Health.” The story goes on to point out that the spy convicted of turning secrets over to the Israeli government is Jewish? So what to both of these claims? If Pollard was given a life sentence, why shouldn’t he serve out the term behind bars? Should Aldrich Ames be released should he befall ill health? Richard Hansen flaunted what were supposedly profound Catholic beliefs. Should that descriptor be invoked in every press account about that turncoat if religious affiliation is somehow worthy of additional sympathy now in espionage cases?
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Former Archbishop Blames Global Warming On The White Devils
So while he jets around the globe informing everyone of his noble principles, you are suppose to live in a mud hut suffering from a terminal case of diarrhea.
Click On The Headline.
Monday, March 31, 2014
On 3/27/14 broadcast of Generations Radio, Kevin Swanson cautioned against the cult of celebrity and the usual downfall into immorality that such figures often fall into. Interestingly, he was just as critical of detailed exposes pertaining to such as gossipy in nature. Must be trying to brush over whatever scandal his former sidekick Dave Buehner was caught in since that broadcaster’s abrupt dismissal from the broadcast.
Balancing Parental Authority & Childhood Well Being
As a religious sect adhering to a legalistic view of salvation, the Jehovah Witnesses believe that it is a matter of eternal importance to avoid blood transfusions at all costs, even at the price of health and life itself. It is generally accepted that parents have the right to raise their children in compliance with the beliefs of the respective family’s faith. To adherents of the Watchtower Society, this means they ought to be able to refuse medical treatment for their children requiring blood transfusions. However, as the institution charged with overseeing the physical well being of those residing within its boundaries (especially for those unable to do so for themselves), the state might have other priorities as to whether or not an ailing child receives a blood transfusion.
What makes such an example so compelling is the variety of ethical issues of the most visceral variety involved. Foremost among these is the freedom of religion.
Here in the United States, citizens are allowed to believe what they want and pretty much permitted to live according to these principles so long as they do not infringe upon the well being and liberties of others from an activist standpoint. Relatedly, it is believed parents have the right to raise their children in accord with these principles and overall children are better off under the care of parents that genuinely love them than under detached bureaucracies. That said, the state has the obligation to protect the physical well-being of those that cannot do so for themselves. Unfortunately, this may often include small children unable to defend themselves against parents that do not have their priorities in order.
Fundamental to the American conception of human rights is the phrase contained in the Declaration of Independence of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Without life, the other two are essentially meaningless.
As such, in most instances life must take precedence, especially in cases where the individual for whom the decision is being made is unable to make an informed one on their own. If the Jehovah Witness child was a teenager or an intelligent adolescent that refused medical treatment with the consent of the parents, the state should mind its own business and refrain from interference. It is generally considered improper to force treatment upon someone that does not want it since is their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that is at stake. However, two year olds are unable to make such decisions on their own and it would not be right for parents on their own to deny liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a child whose life is in need of direct emergency medical intervention.
While the state has the imperative and obligation to protect the lives of its most innocent members, that does not mean its agents should eagerly rush in to break up families as is the mindset of many in so-called “child protective services” in a manner akin to Janet Reno bursting in with guns blazing into the Branch Davidian compound. Rather, the notion that one may lure more flies with sugar than vinegar may be a more appropriate strategy.
First, hospital officials should assure the parents that everything is being done to treat the child initially with procedures that do not necessarily involve a blood transfusion. Secondly, in discussions of this kind of case, Roe notes that in certain circumstances an appeal to Watchtower officials might be able to persuade them to permit the transfusion even though it is not in compliance with the sect’s normal policy (120).
Such an instance might also be better handled by the hospital chaplain or Christian acquaintances since it might make the parents even more defensive if confronted by hospital personnel or child protection bureaucrats that hand down edicts with all the compassion of the IRS or DMV. As fellow theists though of a considerably different persuasion, the chaplain or Christian friend could discuss the passages from which the prohibitions against blood transfusions are drawn and explain in a kind and understanding manner how they do not necessarily apply and how God forgives those that ask and that no deed other than the failure to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins is beyond redemption by His blood.
The bond between parent and child is strong. Under normal circumstances, a loving parent is not going to allow harm to come to that child without taking action.
However, in rare instances where the child is in danger of imminent loss of life and is not competent as to consent to their own medical treatment and parents forbid intervention on the part of physicians, authorities from the various spheres overseeing medical services may be required to use their assorted forms of influence to persuade the parents that it is in the best interests of the child to allow treatment. At first, this should be done in a friendly and conversational manner. However, if they do not relent, higher authorities such as the courts and social services may need to be consulted in a judicious manner that preserves the physical well being of the child as well as inflict minimal damage to the integrity of the parent/child relationship.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Often, criticism is raised about people piddling away on their smartphones and not interacting with others around them in public. Interestingly, the same ones fawning all over themselves as to how much they relish on the spot social interaction are more than likely the same ones that wouldn’t give the more withdrawn and reclusive the time of day. So, in other words, the more introverted are obligated to surrender what is perhaps one of the few ways they might be comfortable engaging with the world in order to merely assuage the communitarian inclinations of those that don’t give a flip that they otherwise exist.
Wrinkled Hag Declares War On Pleasingly Plump Chicks
If Joan Rivers saw herself in the mirror, she'd probably turn to stone like Medusa. But she's so old at this point she'd probably just collapse into a pile of dust.
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Regarding the downfall of homeschool guru Doug Phillips, it is being admonished that Christians should not put so much faith in those in positions of leadership. Likewise, it is because such figures are fallible that Christians should not allow these figures have so much direct control over their individual lives. Beyond the weekly sermon and casual acquaintanship, it is best not to grant anyone in pastoral leadership control over your private affairs.
It was asked online how America can condemn other nation’s that allow polygamy when this country allows people to marry, divorce, and marry again and often for any reason whatsoever? For starters, the American serial marriages are not occurring all at the same time. Secondly, in these countries that allow the practice of polygamy, often the woman or women have very little say about whether or not additional wives are brought into the household. Furthermore, often these polygamist marriages are imposed upon girls that barely have an awareness of the birds and the bees. Seldom do you see these gerontological perverts eager to get it on with those around their same age. In America, hardly anyone is forced to wed a divorced spouse. American woman go into these less than optimal partnerships of their own choosing. They are not sold off like cattle in these dirt pile countries. Thirdly, just because a government or popular consensus might allow for a particular practice does not mean those holding to a contrary perspective cannot vocalize opposition. It is that these days that there are so many debaucheries going on at the same time that the critical mind must prioritize. At least the divorced and remarried are striving towards the monogamist ideal.
Albert Mohler Analyzes Fred Phelps
Click On The Headline
Redskins owner Dan Synder is establishing a foundation to benefit so-called “original Americans”. So apparently worth ought to be determined by the color of skin rather than the content of character. Would a similar program on the part of the Minnesota Vikings targeting handouts exclusively to the descendants of Scandinavians and related Nordic peoples be as applauded or even permitted? Even those categorized as American Indians migrated to these shores at some time or the other. If not, they would not be part of our human species. Either way, since that event occurred millennia ago, none of them are alive now anyway. As such, the descendants of that particular group of settlers are no more original than those who are as pale as the proverbial Dutch baby’s backside.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Michelle Bachmann Inserts Her Nose Into The Dead Corpse Of Fred Phelps
“Fred Phelps was hated for speaking the truth about the militant homosexual. The militant homosexual is no friend of God, and no friend of America. I'm not saying I agreed with Fred's methods, I'm just saying I agreed with Fred.”
Usually, Bachmann is more insightful than this.
So you should go around telling parents that their children died in car wrecks because your states wasn't tough enough on the sodomites?
Furthermore, it was doubtful that the Amish school children slaughtered by a deranged gunman that the Phelps cult insisted got what they deserved were preparing for a gay pride rally.
The problem with Fred Phelps was not his stance against homosexuality.
Where he went off the deep end was blaming everyone else for things over which they had no control.
And would Michelle Bachmann so eagerly insert her nose into the rectal cavity of this religious lunatic if her own personal tragedies were ridiculed and exploited for the sake of ecclesiastical showmanship?