Blessing on the Class of 2012

This benediction/blessing was given for The Class of 2012 at the Baccalaureate service for Camden Hills Regional High School, June 4, 2012:

The English word “benediction” comes from the Latin word meaning “to bless.” So Men and Women of Camden Hills Regional High School Class of 2012, as we close, receive this blessing:

Having acquired knowledge, may you now go into the world and gain wisdom.
Having built friendships, may you now go into the world and create community.
Having been lifted by others, may you now go into the world and lift the downtrodden.
Having known pain, may you now go into the world and practice healing.
Having been loved undeservedly, may you now go into the world and love the undeserving.
Having risen from failure, may you now go into the world and attempt boldly.
Having achieved your goals, may you now go into the world and achieve the impossible.

Go – trusting
God the Creator to make your path straight,
God the Savior to redeem your missteps, and
God the Spirit to put strength in your every stride
both now and forevermore. Amen.

World Water Day 2012

"We shall not finally defeat AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, or any of the other infectious diseases that plague the developing world until we have also won the battle for safe drinking-water..."

~ Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, in the World Health Organization advocacy guide

"I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink...whatever you did for one of the least of these you did for me."
~ Jesus (Matthew 25:35,40)

About 10,000 children will die TODAY because of unclean drinking water. Unclean drinking water kills more children daily than AIDS, Malaria, Measles and Warfare COMBINED.

Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision, famously said, "Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart of God."

On World Water Day, let this truth break your heart and together let us make a difference.

Humankind Water (www.humankindwater.org) donates 100% of the net profits from the sale of their bottled water to dig wells and install filtration systems in communities around the world, that lack access to clean drinking water.

WalMart, is having an "American Idol"-like competition (Get On The Shelf). The product which receives the most votes will win a spot on WalMart's shelves; this could mean millions of dollars for the cause. It doesn't cost any money and anyone can vote twice a day: 1) Text 4829 to 383838 and 2) Vote online @ http://bit.ly/hkwVOTE

You can learn more Humankind Water:

• by visiting their website at HumankindWater.org
• by following @HumankindWater on Twitter and looking for the hashtag #HkW
• by liking Humankind Water on Facebook
• or more about the voting process by texting HKW to 50500

Make a difference.

Logically Consistent

A paper was released February 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled: After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva.  I am absolutely elated to have such a logically consistent 'pro-choice' position articulated.

The authors argue:

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

and their conclusion:

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. 

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’... Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

Refreshing to read something so consistent!  After all, there are only four differences between a fetus and a newborn:

• SIZE - a newborn is usually bigger than a fetus.  Do bigger people have more right to live than smaller people?
• DEVELOPMENT - a newborn is more developed than a fetus.  Does a fourth-grader have greater right to life than a third-grader, or a middle-schooler greater right to life than a pre-schooler?
• ENVIRONMENT - the fetus is in the womb; the newborn, by definition, is not.  Does a person's right to live change by changing location?  Has your right to live increased or diminished by your journey from the driveway into the house?  How could a six-inch journey down the birth canal bestow greater right to live upon the fetus?
• DEPENDENCY - the fetus is dependent upon the womb to survive; the newborn is less dependent (but still dependent upon parents/guardians/society for survival - see the point the authors make below).  Does level of dependency determine right to live?

The authors of this article are moving us past all the emotionally manipulative arguments to logically show that there is no magical event or change that grants a newborn more right to live than a fetus already possesses!  If we can dispose of it within the womb, we should be able to dispose of it immediately following birth.

The authors further point out the obvious - since the newborn is not an "actual" person, its right to life cannot outweigh the rights of its parents (or society at large).  As the authors point out:

...having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus...

AND

But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

AND

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise [sic] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.  (all emphasis mine)

If the rights and conveniences of the parent (or "society as a whole") outweigh any potential right to life of the fetus within the womb, how could "being born" tilt the balance of that equation in favor of the newborn?  A burden to the parent (or society) in the womb is just as much a burden after being born.  If we have the right to destroy that burden while still in the womb, logically we should be allowed to destroy the burden immediately after being born.

Some bleeding hearts might argue that it would be better to give up the child for adoption rather than kill it.  However, as the authors correctly point out, such arguments are wholly insensitive to the feelings of the mother:

...among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief...What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

Since a newborn, like a fetus, has no right to life, it would be better to kill it than potentially subject the mother to the "psychological distress" of giving up her child for adoption.  We must turn a deaf ear to the emotional manipulation of the bleeding hearts that would ask us to value the "potential" life of the fetus or the newborn over over the real and immediate rights and conveniences of an "actual" person.

I applaud the authors for their courageous logical consistency and for not giving into crass emotionalism or sentimentality. Their brave conclusion - are you inconvenienced, burdened, or stressed by the baby in the picture at the top of this post?   Kill it.  After-birth abortion is exactly the same as abortion.  The fetus and the newborn are morally equivalent - either they both have a right to life or neither has a right to life.

Which is it?

Who draws the line?

Father forgive me, I'm about to defend Rush Limbaugh.  Well, NO.  I'm NOT going to defend WHAT he said, I'm going to defend his RIGHT to say it.

Just came across a petition on change.org titled The FCC: Remove Rush Limbaugh from the air!, which over 3,000 people have signed so far.  The petition's page says:

Rush Limbaugh's recent attacks on Ms. Fluke and the women of America have crossed the line. His comments surpass the "freedom of speech" we, as Americans covet. We need to tell the FCC we are no longer going to allow Rush Limbaugh into our homes to taint our minds with his evil rhetoric.

This is not a political issue. This is an issue regarding womens health, freedom of speech and defemation on charector [sic]. We need to send a message that we aren't going to put up with the blatant disrespect of the American people, all while this man gets rich off of endorsements and sponsorships.

"Crosses a line"?  Whose line?  Surpasses the "freedom of speech"?  By whose definition?

Right now it is Rush who is making the offensive statements.  But what happens when YOU are making a statement that I personally find offensive?  Do I have the right to demand you are censored simply because you crossed my line or surpassed the "freedom of speech" by my definition?  Who draws that line?

The same freedom of speech that protects you also protects Rush.  I cannot diminish Rush's rights without diminishing my own rights.  No matter how vile, ignorant, misogynistic, or just plain wrong I personally find Rush's words, I defend his right to say them.  (I also defend my right not to listen to his bile and to boycott his sponsors.)

It is that same freedom of speech that allows me to say that Rush Limbaugh is a pompous, arrogant, asinine, vapid ignoramus.  Please don't censor me.

Examining Santorum's Vomit

Santorum recently vomited: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute... [T]o say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up" (see his words and a "fact check" here: Fact check: Santorum's take on JFK, religion).

Santorum was referencing JFK's famous words, spoken Sept. 12, 1960: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him."

So what is Santorum advocating?  There are many countries in the world today with NO separation between church and state.  Countries like Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman and Iran are theocracies - imposing Sharia (Islamic) law upon their people.  Is Santorum ready for: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is NOT absolute; where a Muslim Imam would tell the president — should he be Muslim — how to act, and would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where Mosques and Islamic schools are granted public funds and political preference, and where man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him."  He must take his words to the logical conclusion.

Santorum completely misunderstands and misrepresents the concept of church/state separation (and also President Kennedy's statement).  People of diverse religious faith, and of no faith at all, have always been welcome to participate in the public square. In fact, it is both impossible and un-American to demand anyone "check his or her religious beliefs" before entering the public square or the voting booth. The political process will never be (and should never be) completely void of religious influence because we are religious people.

However, the government should not play favorites and should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression).  Moreover, for those who serve in government, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (U. S. Constitution, Article Six).

It is appropriate and permissible that religion participate in the public square for yes, religion influenced the founding of our nation.  However, while the U.S. may have been founded on Biblical principles and ideals, that does not mean the U.S. was founded as a "Christian Nation."  George Washington was President when the Treaty of Tripoli was signed on November 4, 1796 but it was our second President, John Adams, who signed it into effect on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of that treaty clearly states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Santorum also spoke about the intentions of our founding fathers. The chief architects of the Constitution, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, were neither eliminating religion from the public square nor were they founding a Christian Nation. James Madison, drafting his preliminary proposals for a Bill of Rights, wrote in 1789: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged because of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or in any pretext, infringed." Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Our Constitution guarantees that the voice of religion cannot (and should not) be silenced from the public square but neither should any one religion be the only voice in the public square.  As Martin Luther King Jr. so eloquently said, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state."

It is rhetoric like Santorum's that personally makes me a little nauseous.

Funerals for 16,000 this Saturday

This Saturday, funerals will be live-streamed on the internet for the 16,000 children reported to have died on February 11, 2012 from hunger-related causes. "That's one child every five seconds" according to Bread for the World.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has strongly defended his decision to have flags flown at half-staff Saturday, despite receiving emails and other messages criticizing him.

However the outpouring for these children on Twitter and Facebook has been unprecedented.  Among the celebrities tweeting their memorials:

• Mariah Carey: "Heartbroken and in tears..."
• Justin Bieber: "just heard the news. so crazy..."
• Katy Perry: "So devastating. We will always love you..."
• Ricky Martin: "...Sending my love and deepest condolences..."
• Khloé Kardashian Odom: "...So sad... RIP."
• Kourtney Kardashian: "Wow! I just heard... Very tragic."
• Ryan Seacrest: "At Grammys rehearsal... Everyone here is absolutely stunned."

At the Grammys, the tributes to the tragic and untimely death of those so young poured in from the performers and presenters. "We've had... death in our family," said LL Cool J, Grammycast host, "And so at least for me, for me, the only thing that feels right is to begin with a prayer for... our fallen ..."

Then LL Cool J introduced a clip of the children; the crowd got up on its feet and roared its approval.

In tribute to these children who died so unnecessarily, the host rightly concluded, "This night is about something much bigger than any one of us..."

So much bigger than any one person.

Funeral arrangements are still being made for the 16,000 children who died of hunger-related causes on February 12th, and 13th, and 14th...

Deli Reform

Rabbis and deli owners across the nation are warning that new rules implementing President Barack Obama's deli meat reform law are making them "hog wild."  Jews are fired up because the regulations force all delis, including kosher ones, to provide ham and other pig products for their customers and employees - even though that violates the Torah Law (Leviticus 11:7-8; Deuteronomy 14:8).

The fury started when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) ruled that virtually all private delis will be required to include ham and other pig products because of the excellent protein they provide.

Pressed on the matter this week, the White House responded, "the administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs while increasing access to the important proteins available in pork products."

The administration argues that one report last year found that a majority of Jews have tried, or even eat regularly, ham or other pork products despite the Torah's teachings.  Moreover, not all employees or customers of kosher delis are Jewish.  Since most employees are entitled to a free lunch while working or other discounts on deli products, is it fair that their access to free or discounted ham be so restricted?  And since equal access to ham is a fundamental American right, guaranteed by our meat-loving founding fathers, what would happen if a kosher deli was the only one in town?

However, as one kosher deli owner said, "This ruling essentially says that freedom of religion pertains only to freedom of worship and religious teaching but not to the practice of religious faith in the commercial sphere."  Asked his opinion of the new regulations, he emphatically responded, "BOLOGNA! ...which now we're going to have to start offering."