Broun vs. Board

Rep Paul Broun (R-GA) is campaigning to make 2010 the Year of the Bible. Politico reports that Broun has introduced the bill to the House of Representatives for history's sake. A commemoration, if you will.

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

Well, if you want to get technical, the Bible itself didn't have anything to do with providing that freedom of religion. The way that people were interpreting the Bible did. People were discriminating, killing, and marginalizing other people who had different beliefs about Christianity. That's just counting the Christian conflicts over religion in Europe. I'm sure there were other sects of religion that made the journey over to America.

I am not arguing the Bible does not provide solid doctrine for tolerance of other people, and brotherly love, ect., ect., because if I did argue that, I would be an idiot. I am saying that the way this argument is formulated, it makes one think that the Christians who came over here from England to escape persecution weren't running from people using basically the same Bible.

But the point is, most of our founding fathers were Christian. It was the dominant founding religion. So if Broun wants to argue that the Bible had influence over their thought process, lives, ect., and therefore had influence over how they started the country and made laws, fine. It probably did.

This whole "Year of the Bible" thing sounds a bit fluffy to me though, and doesn't seem like it's going to serve any particular purpose.

Is it going to be like Black History Month? Are Universities going to host seminars on the different sects of Christianity that developed or migrated to America? Are they going offer lecture series about Irish-Americans who were discriminated against for their Catholic beliefs? Will there be History Channel documentaries on The Faith of Our Fathers, discussing how Thomas Jefferson chopped up the Bible to remove any reference to Jesus' divinity and how George Washington stopped going to church on communion days?

Probably there will be all of these things, and then some, but those events would have taken place anyways without the help of the Year of the Bible.

While the bill probably won't ever pass (currently it finds only 15 co-sponsers), it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, and in the end probably won't be much more than a laugh, it still seems like it's being pushed forward only as a bone to Christian supporters of Broun. But I can't blame him. He is a representative of Georgia, and we do reside in prime Bible-belt real estate. Perhaps the reason the bill doesn't sound so monumental to me is, if you go to the right areas where I live, every year is the Year of the Bible.

War on Drugs

In the continuing wacky adventures of The Decider before he graciously steps down, MSN has decided to cover Bush's proposal of a bill that would "protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion".

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

This reminds me of a story that ran in USA today last August (coincidentally enough) about a lesbian couple who had been denied access to artificial insemination because the doctor objected on moral grounds. They sued, not because the doctor rejected the mother-to-be, but because he refused refer them to a hospital where the procedure could be carried out. The article also quoted single mothers who had faced a similar challenge.

As a Christian, I can understand that there are a lot of moral conflicts that could meet any person in any work environment, and for that reason, these proposed regulations could have their pros. However, I fear this:

The regulation would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."
Critics argue that the broad definitions of abortion and the types of workers who could object would cover everyone from the top doctor at a hospital to the janitor.

And this:

The regulation could trump dozens of state laws that require health plans to cover birth control, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and hospitals to offer emergency contraception to women who have been raped, critics said.

"You could imagine a group of people with less than honorable intentions seeking to get hired at a family planning clinic with the specific objective of obstructing access. Under this regulation, there is little you could do about it," said Jill Morrison of the National Women's Law Center.

Most importantly, this:

Others said the rule could have additional implications, including justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking health care.
"As soon as you have a definition in one part of federal law, it can become the inspiration for the reinterpretation of other statutes," said R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Because of this:

The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.

Here's where I try to make suggestions, knowing that drafting a bill that doesn't infringe on some person's rights is problematic at best, and that this particular government has been trying for ages to negate the rulings of Roe vs. Wade without thinking about the implications to women's health (see previous post on John McCain's view on current issues).

I'd like to say that if you work in a public institution, you should know that your duty is to serve the people in the best manner possible, and if you cannot provide a service, you should refer that person to someone who can. But I know that some people probably wish to get out of the public heath care system and into a private institution.

All I can say is that restrictions on contraception, abortion, and other things that apply to planned parenting should be limited to private institutions, who can make up their own rules and owe nothing to the public or the government. Governmental institutions should serve the people.

Though military workers may disagree with the war that is currently being fought, it is generally considered their duty to follow orders as long as those orders are lawful. Lawyers are expected to make inquiries into the guilt or innocence of their clients so that no guilty men or women are set free, and no innocents detained, and they are expected to do their best to uphold the law despite personal feelings. Medical workers are expected to uphold their duties, which is to help people solve their health concerns. This does not mean they always have to go against their beliefs, but if they work in a public location they should at least be required to give the people a resource for what they choose to do. The path to contraception should not be closed off for any one party's interest. That doesn't mean that consideration for each party's feelings can't be considered in full.

She's a Witch! Burn Her!

As time grows closer and closer for me to go to college, my concerns increase over whether or not I will be able to find a church that fits my needs. After all, I am in the perfect church for me right now. But Athens will be a different theological ballpark, and I wish to choose wisely.
So while leafing through an informational brochure I was given during orientation about the campus churches provided, I noticed one dedicated to Baha'ism. I had no idea what that was, so I looked it up. And while I still have more reading to do on the theological principal of Baha'ism, I was distracted by a radical "doom-and-gloom" Christian site preaching the different theological evils that threaten to rip our souls from our spinal chords. And while I was reading about how Baha'is were demonic forces, I happened to notice a link to another social heresy.
Can you guess what it was?

Feminism

On the Jeremiah Project's site, you can find out how every feminist leader has set forth an agenda to change the traditional Christian church to a New Age fellowship that worships the ancient goddess, how feminism is rooted in Satanism rather than the equality of the sexes, and how Christian women who advocate understanding and political/social equality really came from abusive homes, are equipped with weak wills/minds, and how women in the workforce are destroying American values and will eventually kill the country.
Yes. I'm a witch.
And with my Satan worshipping and magic brews, I will bring about the will of the goddess to smite the ignorance of this pseudo-Christian, who spreads hate and intolerance, rather than truth and Christ's love.
I'm sure that some of the people he has quoted, and some of the incidents he cites, have some sort of merit. I'm sure that in the Feminist movement there are radicals that wish for every woman to worship a goddess, or believe that patriarchal churches are indeed destroying women.
I also realize that, ironically, my anger over his intolerance is against the Christian doctrine. Which tells readers two things about me:
1) I am not perfect and need to continue my relationship with God.
2) I hate stupidity, which leads to number 1.

More than likely, I will be back later with more on the Jeremiah Project, right after I finish reading The Feminist Infiltration of the Church. Should be entertaining.

I'll Take That Bloody Slab of Fat with Some Bacon Please!!

I love reading columns. A well written, thought-out, and (in the right scenario) humorous column can cheer me up on the worst news day. And lately we've had several of those.
So while sorting through the news page on MSN, I stumbled upon this treasure. It entails a certain writer's experience with being a vegetarian, and (more-so than the meatlessness) the strange reactions he's received over the years.

In similar fashion, I have decided to disclose my past experimentation. Now, once I go to college, I plan fully to convert to leaf-eating. But as I live with my parents right now (born-and-raised deep Southern Baptist. The cow isn't sinful, but leaving it's fleshy carcass unchewed is) I wish to go without the normal conversation that revolves around whether humus or hamburger would win in a culinary competition.

Now, first let me give an expanation for my herbivore behavior. I have nothing against meat eaters. It has to happen. Hunting is fine, as long as you eat as much of the animal as possible. No hunting for sport. Want to eat a cow? Sure. Just kill it in a humane way. Same thing with all the other animals.

But me...well, I've lost my taste for meat. I start to chew it, and then the flavor suddenly falls. I suddenly think about how much better a Boca patty tastes. I blame this on the trip I took to the Holy Land when I was in third grade. You try seeing slabs of meat covered with flies hanging by Captain Hook's spare parts. Not pretty. And definently not sanitary.

And I have that flashback everytime my mom drags me past the meat department in the store. Besides that, the very concept of chewing on something else's carcass is disgusting. And do you know what a hotdog is made of? Do you know what jerky is? Gross...

But to each his own. However, that maxim is not exactly one that is frequently practiced in my home. So when my father found out that had gone sans meat for six weeks during my stay at the Governor's Honors Program, he nearly gave birth to the cow he aspired to eat. According to him, meat is God's gift to men, and if you don't eat it, you are a heretic and will go straight to hell.

I bet a Boca patty is tasty grilled over satanic fire.

Happy National Prayer Day!

Now, let me catch you up on some interesting news:

<< This picture is the subject of a Fox News report. A woman saw Jesus in her ultrasound. All I have to ask is...where is the kid? I mean, I see Jesus, but I'm thinking maybe the kid is breached? Head at the bottom, and that's his legs...and his, well, butt where Jesus' head is?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C353230%2C00.html

Erm...anyways.

In other ridiculous news...

Another good reason why Obama should win. Coffee fuels both politics and the media. If Hillary can't get the coffee, then Hillary definitely can't get the votes.
Side note: super delegates don't drink coffee.

This is a pointless post. Mainly because this is pointless news.

Oh, and go see Iron Man!!!

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, PRAY!!! Not just today, too, because you can pray other days besides the National Day of Prayer.

In Honor of National Prayer Day...

I'm not sure why it took me so long to find this article, but still, I found it extremely interesting.

There was a lengthy argument in the comment section saying that the girl in question lost her right to constitutionally express herself because when she witnessed about Jesus she witnessed to a captive audience. The debater said that had she said only that Jesus had helped her through school, she would be within her rights to sue, but since she witnessed to a crowd that had no choice but to listen, she was violating their rights.

If that is the case, I have had my rights violated in several boring classes during the school year. My rights were violated during an unusually long week devoted to Ralph Waldo Emerson. My rights were violated while I listened in a state of captivity to people in the back of the room bad-mouth Martin Luther King in my Psychology/Sociology class. My rights have been violated during several lengthy, droning speeches given out at various award ceremonies.

Free speech is free speech. Period. Senator Daniel Patrick was quoted saying "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." Unless someone is saying in public that humans don't need oxygen, or that the ground is made of cheese, or some other ludicrous statement that can not be logically debunked, then they are entitled to say it. God's existence can not be scientifically proven or disproven, and until either event occurs, the young lady in question was entitled to say whatever she felt.

I applaud her. I would like to say that in her situation, I would go a step further and not send out the apology email. But with-holding a high school diploma...that's heavy. That's four years of hard work, four years of top grades, thrown out the door. But at least she sued. And as soon as I can find a followup story, I'll tell you if she won.

Oh. And I'd like reparation for twelve years of violated rights, please.