Why not let the virus run its course?

Why not let the virus run its course?

This post is now available on my blog, Fwd: Thoughts.

Why I'm Not In Favor of the Death Penalty

I’ve stated on Facebook (and may re-post those arguments here later) that I do not see an inherent contradiction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty. That being said, while I am pro-life, I am not an avid proponent of the death penalty, even though I can affirm it in principle.

Here are some reasons I’m not generally in favor of the death penalty, or rather the implementation of the death penalty. These are not necessarily persuasive taken individually, and they are admittedly not equal in weight. The first three, for example, are more pragmatic to my way of thinking and so aren’t automatic game changers. But cumulatively, they make a difference in my mind.

1) The death penalty does not appear to serve as a deterrent against future homicides. The delay between conviction and execution can take decades. This doesn’t seem to be an effective strategy to me. And I’ve heard that studies don’t really provide evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent.

2) The way the legal system works today means that a lengthy appeals process will inevitably put off the day of execution into the far, far future. This creates an exceptional expense for society and burdens all parties involved. I’ve also heard that studies show it’s cheaper for prisoners to serve life terms than go on death row.

3) The death penalty (if its purpose is to remove a person from society) is not necessary (at least in the U.S.) in light of the life-in-prison option. No one in high security, supermax type facilities escapes (that I’m aware of) and life-without-parole effectively does the same thing as putting a person on death row (given that a number of inmates on death row die before their execution date).

4) More weighty in my mind is that the potential for an innocent life to be taken is ever present. In some (many?) murders, the murderer is obvious; the case is open-and-shut. But in some (many?) situations, there may still be reasonable doubt, yet the jury decides to convict. This is a troubling possibility and should be troubling to any thinking person.

5) Which leads to an uncomfortable, and immoral state of affairs. The wealthy in America can generally avoid the death penalty, while the poor cannot. This is just a fact and an indictment on our current system. Do we really want to entrust the process of deciding to end a person’s life to a system rigged in favor of the wealthy?

Now, for me, a strong reason to support the death penalty is that it is the government’s job to remove from society immediate threats to its citizens. In other words, execution is a form of protection and self-defense. Just like when a person defends him- or herself against an imminent threat to his or her life. I am, as a citizen, permitted to defend myself. This may result in the death of someone else. The goal is not to kill, but to keep one’s self, one’s family safe. 

By the same token, a government must keep its society, its nation safe. This perspective acknowledges that all life has value, even the criminal who is being convicted and executed. That person simply forfeited his or her right to life by perpetrating a crime.

That being said, while the ‘government’ has a right to execute such criminals, it really is not the government (a faceless, no person) that is injecting the drugs, flipping the switch, opening the valve, pulling the trigger, or dropping the rope. It is a person or persons doing each of these acts.

So a final (and for now, the last, but not ultimate) reason I’m generally opposed to the implementation of the death penalty (and so also against war itself) is the trauma it causes the executioner. This seems to be a terrible moral burden to place on another human being, the responsibility to end a person’s life. It is a grave matter, and one in which the dark humor of the pun involved is included reluctantly.

Well, I’m sure I have more to say but for now this will do. I’m not tied down to this position 100% - it’s a topic that I will continue to reflect on and develop. I’m interested in your perspective, but not interested in arguing back and forth. If you have rational reflections on this issue, feel free to comment.

Thoughtful regards, Lyn

===

Note: Some of the above points are addressed by Matt Walsh in a 30-minute podcast from 2015 (see link below). He also includes a few more points: a discussion of the danger of trusting the government with such absolute power, along with the argument that if killing itself is unjust, killing a killer is also unjust (‘two wrongs don’t make a right’). Plus, as a person committed to the pro-life position, Walsh sees an inherent conflict with being pro-death penalty. He tries to explain this biblically, but goes a bit off the rails when he starts talking about OT and NT scripture in the last 5 or 10 minutes. If you have time, take a listen and let me know what you think.

https://soundcloud.com/matt-walsh-theblaze/morality-of-the-death-penalty-52016

Another thought. Some people like to throw this one up as a kind of gotcha – how can you be pro-life and still be pro-death penalty?

Sure, it may be slightly problematic to be pro-life and pro-death penalty – to hold these views together. I don’t think it’s a logical inconsistency because I believe one can forfeit one’s right to life by committing murder. However, it must be admitted that there are opposing arguments to be considered. For example, if killing is unjust prima facie (as Walsh posits, correctly) then killing the killer is also unjust despite what the killer has done. My initial response to this is that there are differences between murder and killing. But still, I understand the point.

That being said, while pro-lifers need to carefully think through this issue, pro-aborts who are against the death penalty are in a far worse position – they have no leg to stand on and are in complete hypocrisy here. They can not explain how murderers should be saved yet babies can be executed. Theirs is a depraved position. So my response to their ‘gotcha’ is this: When they answer logically how they can be pro- guilty murderer yet anti- innocent child (they can’t), then we can take our turn to answer logically (we can) how one can be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time.

My Thoughts on Pronouns

My Thoughts on Pronouns

Words have meaning. This is because words are connected to reality – they represent something actual and thus convey what’s real, what’s true. Sure, words themselves (I’m thinking of nouns, especially) aren’t ontologically related to objects. A tree is real, the word tree is a mere representation. A tree could just as well have come to be known as a gigglypoo.

But over the centuries, definitions arise, standards are set. We recognize that words mean something. Now, I wouldn’t use the phrase ‘social construct’ (because of its current political and SJW connotations) but if you made the point that what we call things seems arbitrary, I wouldn’t argue with you. Why isn’t a tree a gigglypoo? I won’t go into language theory at this point, but the short answer: that’s how it is.

You can insist on calling a tree something else, but that simply causes confusion and discounts centuries of dictionary usage. I recall in junior high one of my friends had a running gag calling cows fish. On the bus to school we’d laugh at his juvenile (and nonsensical) joke, but we all knew his words were being twisted beyond meaning.

I think you see where I’m heading with this.

Pronouns, too, have meaning. He, him, his refer to the male of a species. She, her, hers refer to the female. They have done so (through various forms and via word/gender endings) for centuries. They represent biological reality. Pronouns (and words in general) adhere to standards that help society function smoothly, with clarity and precision. Meaningful words make communication possible.

Enter gender theory, which finds its roots in the writings of a French philosopher and novelist named Simone de Beauvoir. She was one of the first to popularize the conception that, “One is not born, one is made a woman.” (The Second Sex, 1949) I think she was arguing against gender roles (which is a separate and important topic), but extreme feminists have since proclaimed that we are ‘assigned’ gender at birth (which is complete nonsense, by the way, since our sex, also known as gender, is biologically determined at conception, no one assigns it to us).

The biological reality is that there are two sexes, two genders. And the words representing these realities have meaning insofar as we adhere to reality. Gender confusion has produced pronoun madness – people are insisting that they be referred to in fantastical ways. Women want to adopt he, him, his pronouns; men want to adopt she, her, hers pronouns. (Some even want to adopt they, them, theirs – as if a singular person can be a plurality!)

This is delusion. This is fantasy. This breaks with reality. This is untrue, incredible, and nonsensical. A man cannot become a woman; a woman cannot become a man. Chromosomes are what they are. We are binary beings. Talk of non-binary persons and third gender persons is simply a journey through the rabbit hole into absurd silliness.

Unfortunately, the situation we find ourselves in today is not silly. It is dangerous. The Evil One has cast a great deception on our culture with regards to gender and pronouns – and this has real world consequences.

For example, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are censoring views like this one from the public square. This post (or link to this post or tweet about this post) may be arbitrarily taken down for violating an ever-changing set of ‘community standards’ – which, by and large, defines opposition to the prevailing regressive left’s agenda as hate speech. One can be banned for simply pointing out biological reality (if that’s the case here, it’s been nice to know you). There is an admitted bias in Silicon Valley against conservative views.

[Case in point: https://www.dailywire.com/news/39803/franklin-graham-says-facebook-ban-was-personal-joseph-curl ]

Big tech companies aren’t alone in their attempt to suppress free expression. Mastercard and Visa have been pressured by the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to discontinue servicing groups the SPLC deems are hate groups. This is a very dangerous precedent and amounts to an attack on free enterprise.

[Case in point: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/credit-card-companies-reverse-attempt-to-blacklist-david-horowitzs-conserva ]

Back on topic – for NOT using a student’s preferred pronoun, a teacher in Virginia was fired. The teacher said he would call the student by her new name (she wants to be viewed as a male and has taken on a masculine name) and would simply refrain from using any pronouns at all with regard to this student. But that was not good enough for the trans-movement tyrants. He must be *compelled* to use untrue speech. This, too, is a dangerous trend.

[Case in point: https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-teacher-reportedly-fired-for-refusing-to-use-pronoun-for-transgender-student ]

And this is the issue. Pronoun madness is forcing people to use words that no longer align with reality. And communication suffers as a result. Now if you are going by a different name than the one you were ‘assigned’ at birth, great. Your choice. Your name was assigned. Your gender was not. If you want to be called Gigglypoo, wonderful. But if you want me to use gigg/giggly/poo as your preferred pronouns, then you are living in a fantasy land. I mean you’re free to do what you want, you’ve got free speech as well, just don’t expect me – or force me – to eat the mushrooms with you.

Happy New Year.

Addendum: There are many more words that have lost or are in danger of losing their meaning due to extended misuse, including phobia, gender, racism, privilege, Nazi, hate, marriage. And literally.

Some Thoughts on Capitalism & Freedom

Came across a thought-provoking post by Hugh Howey titled, "A Fan of Freedom," in which the author defends some basic tenets of capitalism against those who, in light of the extraordinary incomes received by those in the banking industry in recent weeks, are questioning its value.

Hugh states the problem (emphases his):

All capitalism means is that the people own their own stuff. We can possess our own land, we can start our own business, we can determine the price of goods we create, and we can enter into binding contracts with one another. That’s it. This is a system that creates economic freedoms of potential (if not outcome). How can people be against freedom? Because they don’t like the choices other people make and would really like to have complete control over someone else.

This makes sense. A lot of people are just plain envious of the wealth others have accumulated and prefer to bring them down to their level rather than do the work required to achieve similar levels of financial success. What capitalism allows is the opportunity for someone to drop out of college, build a business (or work in one), and become a billionaire. This is a good thing. What a country!

Hugh on money:

A side-note on what money is, for those that seem to hate or distrust it. Money is a token used to represent work. It’s the stand-in, the go-between, for a cobbler and a butcher. One man trades shoes for another’s sausage. Even when they don’t need each other’s wares at the exact same time. Hating money is like hating trade between two free peoples, or hating the idea that a person’s work has any intrinsic value. I usually find that people who hate money are misplacing their hatred of greed (or expressing their own envy and materialism).

Exactly. If people have a problem with others earning and accumulating money, they're really commenting on their own unwillingness (or laziness) to do the hard work of building their own fortune. That's the system we live in. If you or Michael Moore don't like it, move some place else.

Otherwise, here's what you're left with. Hugh again:

The current thinking on economic freedom seems to be this: Human liberty occasionally results in abuses of human liberty. Free people often use that freedom to trample the freedom of another free person. In order to make sure the latter has freedom from the former, we need to remove ALL human freedom. That is, in order to make sure nobody murders anyone ever again, we need to all be locked up in our individual cages. This is what’s best for mankind.

Freedom to build wealth means that someone will abuse the system through illegal means. They should be punished, obviously. But don't punish the system that allows all of us the ability (the freedom) to create wealth by legitimate means.

Marriage Is Not A Right

Subtitled: You Can't Legislate Morality!

Got off topic a few weeks ago in an American Lit class. We were discussing slave narratives in conjunction with early feminist writers like Margaret Fuller. The general point had to do with disenfranchisement - the denial of civil rights.

"This is what gays are going through today," one person said. "They're being denied their rights to marry." A general chorus of amens followed.

I raised my hand.

"I don't think gay marriage is analogous to disenfranchisement," I said. "No law is keeping consenting adults from cohabitating." I probably should have left it at that, but I went on to say, "Marriage isn't even a right." I guess that's how we got off topic.

So for the next 20 minutes we all shared our ignorance. The discussion ranged from efforts at defining marriage to personal testimonies of alleged discrimination against some third cousin's step-son's half-brother who couldn't visit his lover in the hospital.

I raised my hand.

First, no law is denying two consenting competent adults from entering into any legally binding or privilege providing contract. The power of attorney addresses health and hospital issues. Co-signing loans and property titles is done all the time. And one's will covers transfer of property after one's death. So what rights are gays being denied?

Second, marriage is a civic institution (albeit one ineluctably molded by religious values) that has inherent limits. It is between two people, for one. (Polygamy, at least the last time I checked, is still illegal, denying the "rights" of its advocates.) It is serial - at least for those who decide to have multiple marriages. (This, too, denies the "rights" of someone who wants to have multiple concurrent spouses - say in different states.) In other words, marriage is not an unrestrained right - it is an already legally defined and self-limiting concept.

So in an attempt to get back on topic, I concluded, "This is why I believe that the issue of gay marriage is not comparable to disenfranchisement of blacks and women in the 1800s."

Someone responded, "But you can't legislate morality."

To me this was a non-sequitur. But that got me thinking. Hmm - I thought - that's exactly what those in favor of gay marriage are trying to do. They are trying to legislate, and thus institute, a particular set of moral values upon/within the broader American culture. Isn't this what all acts of legislation attempt to do? The question is really, whose set of moral values best promote the welfare of society? (And this post is way too short to address that issue!)

Finally, one woman told an emotional story of how a person she knew of was forcibly removed from his home after his partner died because his name wasn't on the lease, etc. The story was a bit convoluted but there seemed to have been some legitimate legal issues that were violated. At the very minimum, human decency was denied this person.

I felt sad for that guy who lost his home. What happened to him was probably not right. Something should be done to change that, and prevent something like that from ever happening again.

But then, I guess you can't legislate morality.

I've Been (de)Classified

Checked out my referrers this morning and found a link from the Wonkosphere Directory where I discovered that Bloggin' Outloud has been classified as "Conservative."

Well, I don't have a problem with that. I probably am conservative. But I've never liked Bush, although I am not a Bush-hater. And I'm not like all those disgruntled Republicans who have given up on Bush . . . I didn't like him from the beginning. I think he's a moral leader (his stand on stem cell research and abortion are right on target) - I just think he's a weak leader.

Someone asked me if I'm a RINO - and I had to look that up. I guess I could be except I'm a registered Democrat. So that makes me more of a DINO, I suppose.

So you decide:
+ I like Bill O'Reilly for the most part but won't listen to Rush.
+ I support our troops but we should bring them home from Iraq.
+ I believe terrorists want to destroy America, so we should kill them first.
+ I think people who pursue homosexual relationships should be treated with respect, but not rewarded for it.
+ We better take care of our planet, it's the only one we got.
+ Abortion is the killing of babies and will one day be outlawed, like slavery was. And, like slavery, we'll wonder how we could ever have allowed it in the first place. Unless, of course, we go the opposite direction as a culture and start killing disabled babies, unwanted children, problem teens, handicapped adults, and nursing home geriatrics. Which could well happen.
+ Oh, and I believe Hillary Clinton will be our next President.

UPDATE: Like Mike Adams, I support Michael Vick.

So have you decided? Conservative or Liberal or Independent?

Bible in Georgia Schools? Teach It!

When it comes to biblical literacy, Georgia doesn't want any child left behind.

First the news...From Washingtonpost.com:

Georgia's public schools walk a delicate line as they decide whether to offer the nation's first state-funded Bible classes. . . . The state school board approved curriculum in March for teaching the Bible in Georgia's high schools.

According to the AP article, the implementation of the program is up to each school district and the classes themselves are elective. The guideline - teach it, but don't preach it! Classes are to be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students."

Critics claim the new law will open schools and teachers up to lawsuits for crossing the "Church/State" boundary while others fear that classrooms will become pro-Christian sanctuaries. Another concern is that Georgia's law does not give enough guidance on how to teach the bible since no additional training for teachers is required.

Now my opinion...From Bloggin' Outloud

While these concerns have some merit they aren't any different than what is currently the case in our public (read government run) schools. First, people are lawsuit happy and any perception of a violation of their rights gets some folks' dander up. Second, classes are elective. If Christian students want to turn it into a sanctuary, God bless them. And third, when has there ever been enough guidance on how to teach anything effectively? I say, give it a shot.

The Bible as Literature: Time Magazine's Feature on Bible Literacy Project.

On Trivial Matters

Victor Davis Hanson remarks in his column at today's Townhall.com that we are "hooked on trivia" in that we as a nation are focusing on the banal while ignoring the important - and dangerous - developments that should take priority as "news."

Issues such as Iraq & Iran, Russia and Oil, Korea and nuclear weapons almost overwhelm us. So we gobble up Entertainment Tonight; we seek diversion in trivial matters. Hanson gives an explanation:

So why then fixate on Anna Nicole, Rosie, Imus and Alec?

Simple - they are the modern equivalents of grotesque carnival freak shows that used to provide a perverse sense of escapism from what people dare not face. Yet as our dependency on such tabloid distraction grows, so, too, do the real dangers that we ignore.

The ghost of Anna Nicole, foul-mouthed Rosie and trash-talking Imus turn out to be the best friends Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin have.

A little "escapism" is fine (hey, I read Harry Potter). But to immerse ourselves in trivia at the expense of weightier matters is not just engaging in a little diversion or respite, it's a dangerous pastime.

In fact, our addiction to trivia is an indication of the strength or weakness of our national character. It is a barometer of our society. The question remains, what do we do about it?
<><



I'm Linking to:
Third World County's Linkfest
Samantha Burn's OTA Weekend
Woman Honor Thyself's National Pride OT Weekend
Cao's Blog's Friday Open Trackbacks
The Random Yak's Friday Reading List

Potter-Mania is Building

Looking for God in Harry Potter by John Granger (2004, Tyndale)

Why has Potter-mania reached fever pitch? Granger (no, not Hermione) makes a convincing argument that it's because this story simply echoes the Great Story (as all great literature does) of Humanity's Fall & Divine Redemption. While not intended to be a Christian story (as Narnia is explicitly) the implicit message of Harry Potter is Christian in it's structure, symbols, and overarching theme .

More on this at time permits...

House Committee Passes Thought Crimes Bill

1984 here we come.

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill recently that has some alarming implications. Chuck Colson writes at Townhall.com -

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This has already occurred in Canada, England, and Sweden. This bill, currently titled the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act", could come before Congress very soon. Contact your representative and urge him or her to vote against it.

For Orwell's sake.

Also...
See WashingtonPost.com for an article on why black pastors are concerned about their right to preach a biblical sermon on homosexuality.

This article quotes some doofus named Kwabena "Rainey" Cheeks (a Bishop? ha!) who said, "This legislation is needed because gay, lesbian, bisexual individuals are not protected under the law." What crap is this?

As Colson points out in his column, "In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals - far less than even 1 percent." We already have laws that protect people and property. And homosexuals are people, right? Then they deserve protection like everyone else. But not special protection.

Update ~ Visit Adam's Blog for a Podcast on this very topic.

Sound Off - NFL Draft

Pittsburgh Steelers picked a winner with Lawrence Timmons of Florida State.

Surprised Brady Quinn from Notre Dame went so late, and to Cleveland.

Steve Smith of SoCal should have been first round, but Giants are happy.

What do you think about K-State's Yamon Figurs? I figure he's a Raven.

The Children of Hurin

Just finished J.R.R. Tolkien's The Children of Hurin.

Tragic. With a thin sliver of hope at the end.

The story mirrors life. In our world, as well as Middle Earth, there exist flawed heroes, betrayals, heart-breaking misunderstandings, veiled truth, self-deceived leaders . . . and an occasional glimmer of hope.

This drama has all of that - plus the orcs, elves, a few dwarves, a dragon, and of course Morgoth, the original dark lord and master of Sauron, which are familiar to the readers of Tolkien. But the story also has Turin, the son of Hurin, the embittered protagonist of this portion of the western lands. I cheered for him and wept for him (okay, maybe not literally). But I struggled with him to make sense of it all - life, death, war, evil. And you will too. But you won't be satisfied with the conclusion.

If you're expecting a prequel to The Lord of the Rings you'll come away disappointed. But if you want to live in that prequel first age (6000 years before The Hobbit) and read a more accessible epic than The Silmarillion, then this story delivers. It's not perfect. Son Christopher Tolkien, now over 80 years old and very much the mantle bearer of his father, does a good job stitching together unfinished portions of this epic. But there is an occasional patchwork feel to the telling. Still, a tremendous addition to the opus.

One more positive note. The Children of Hurin is selling just as many copies as The Secret. There is indeed a glimmer of hope for this world.

~*~

"Tip a buck, get a book."

(via PayPal.Me - an e-book from Tule Fog Press.) 

This blog is reader supported. Thank you for your support!

He Done Did the Monster Mash

From Yahoo News:

Bobby "Boris" Pickett, whose dead-on Boris Karloff impression propelled the Halloween anthem to the top of the charts in 1962, making him one of pop music's most enduring one-hit wonders, has died of leukemia. He was 69.