Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Libyan Christians – All Foreigners: Leader Says Sharia Law is Law of Libya: What Do You Know About Noah’s Grandfather? | Maggie's Notebook
According to the following article, "Libya is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, and missionary activity is not allowed, though clergy say the regime has respected Christians’ freedom of worship."
How will this change now that Libya has said the main source of their new legal code is Sharia Law?
Libyan Christians – All Foreigners: Leader Says Sharia Law is Law of Libya: What Do You Know About Noah’s Grandfather? | Maggie's Notebook
How will this change now that Libya has said the main source of their new legal code is Sharia Law?
Libyan Christians – All Foreigners: Leader Says Sharia Law is Law of Libya: What Do You Know About Noah’s Grandfather? | Maggie's Notebook
The great population debate: too many carbon footprints?
I've watched about half of this video so far. It's around an hour. I think it's important for Catholics to watch who take their faith seriously, even though it's not a religious video. The video concerns the idea of overpopulation, and there is a debate between two men in their respective fields.
The first man, in my opinion, is rather annoying. He represents a group which believes people are having too many children and that the Earth is overpopulated. He believes in using contraception to reduce the population of the planet. But the thing that struck me about him is his enormous arrogance. He speaks about those who do not believe in overpopulation as if they are very stupid. He talks down to anyone who disagrees with him. In fact, in one part he refers to "rednecks". This all comes back to a form of elitism, where certain people feel they must tell others what to do and use the government to back them up, or else those people will not know. He thinks he can plan out the whole planet.
And something else he says is actually kind of shocking. Without any prompting whatsoever, he mocks the idea of salvation and God. I have no idea why he tried to bring religion into the debate, but he does. Also, he seems extremely critical of the pope.
Feel free to skip the first guy. He does seem rather intelligent, but you can strongly sense what the second man calls "misanthropy". Basically, the population control people seem to view human beings as viruses of the Earth.
Anyway, the second guy who speaks does present some very good arguments. He is great to listen and will provide ammo to anyone debating against the myth of overpopulation.
The first man, in my opinion, is rather annoying. He represents a group which believes people are having too many children and that the Earth is overpopulated. He believes in using contraception to reduce the population of the planet. But the thing that struck me about him is his enormous arrogance. He speaks about those who do not believe in overpopulation as if they are very stupid. He talks down to anyone who disagrees with him. In fact, in one part he refers to "rednecks". This all comes back to a form of elitism, where certain people feel they must tell others what to do and use the government to back them up, or else those people will not know. He thinks he can plan out the whole planet.
And something else he says is actually kind of shocking. Without any prompting whatsoever, he mocks the idea of salvation and God. I have no idea why he tried to bring religion into the debate, but he does. Also, he seems extremely critical of the pope.
Feel free to skip the first guy. He does seem rather intelligent, but you can strongly sense what the second man calls "misanthropy". Basically, the population control people seem to view human beings as viruses of the Earth.
Anyway, the second guy who speaks does present some very good arguments. He is great to listen and will provide ammo to anyone debating against the myth of overpopulation.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Occupy Rome Protesters destroy Statue of the Virgin Mary
I saw a video today which was very disturbing. I don't want to post it here because it is rather offensive, and I think a lot of people would prefer not to see it. Basically in the video, a protester in Occupy Rome finds a large status of Our Lady, takes it out to the street, lifts it up, and the smashes it onto the ground. It is basically destroyed or at least badly damaged. Some people then kick it or do other actions. This is absolutely deplorable and very sad. Let's say a special prayer of atonement.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Canadian Anti-Catholic Bigotry Kills African Women | Blogs | NCRegister.com
Canadian Anti-Catholic Bigotry Kills African Women | Blogs | NCRegister.com
This is another article about Dr. Walley and his crusade to save women's lives. He is in charge of MaterCare, an international organization whose goal is to prevent the deaths of women during childbirth. Unfortunately, the so-called Conservative government refuses to fund MaterCare because it does not provide abortion and contraception, which as Dr. Walley points out, is very irrelevant when it comes to maternal deaths.
Other organizations are being sponsored by the government, which is really our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. These include abortion-loving organizations like Planned Parenthood. Apparently it's okay to want to save the life of women as long as you're also open to killing babies.
My solution to this problem is not to fund MaterCare with taxpayer dollars, but rather to defund all other institutions, give us back our tax money and let people decide for themselves who they want to sponsor. It's sickening to think that tax money goes to slaughtering babies, but a pro-life organization is summarily dismissed even though there are plenty of pro-lifers out there.
For anyone in doubt, think about this: right now we have a Conservative government at least in name. All the other parties are more liberal and even more in favor of abortion and contraception. But even with this government, we are forced to pay for abortion. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the Canadian Government will ever use its power to provide funding to pro-life organizations. The best course of action is to reduce the government. There is a huge movement toward this in the United States, but we are a little behind the times in Canada. We still see the government as our maternal care-giver. But remember, once the government has the power, it can use it for good or evil. Give the power back to the people!
This is another article about Dr. Walley and his crusade to save women's lives. He is in charge of MaterCare, an international organization whose goal is to prevent the deaths of women during childbirth. Unfortunately, the so-called Conservative government refuses to fund MaterCare because it does not provide abortion and contraception, which as Dr. Walley points out, is very irrelevant when it comes to maternal deaths.
Other organizations are being sponsored by the government, which is really our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. These include abortion-loving organizations like Planned Parenthood. Apparently it's okay to want to save the life of women as long as you're also open to killing babies.
My solution to this problem is not to fund MaterCare with taxpayer dollars, but rather to defund all other institutions, give us back our tax money and let people decide for themselves who they want to sponsor. It's sickening to think that tax money goes to slaughtering babies, but a pro-life organization is summarily dismissed even though there are plenty of pro-lifers out there.
For anyone in doubt, think about this: right now we have a Conservative government at least in name. All the other parties are more liberal and even more in favor of abortion and contraception. But even with this government, we are forced to pay for abortion. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the Canadian Government will ever use its power to provide funding to pro-life organizations. The best course of action is to reduce the government. There is a huge movement toward this in the United States, but we are a little behind the times in Canada. We still see the government as our maternal care-giver. But remember, once the government has the power, it can use it for good or evil. Give the power back to the people!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Pray for Copts
Coptic Christians are being slaughtered in Egypt. It's a very sad situation. Now that the dictator, Hosni Mubarak is gone, these Christians have no protection from the violent mobs and military. First, their churches were being destroyed by the violent mobs, then while they were peacefully protesting, the military opened fire on them killing 26 people, and injuring over 200 more. It's truly shocking and terrible. I can't believe this is happening.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Taxation Immorality
Michael is picking up on the idea I've been talking about in my blog, but from a somewhat different angle.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Mention of Dr. Walley from Newfoundland
This is Catholic News Roundup, a service of RealCatholicTV. In this episode, they mention Canada and Newfoundlander Dr. Walley, who is the founder of MaterCare. Sadly, but unfortunately not surprisingly, Canada is not going to fund a pro-life organization, which provides maternal care for mothers giving birth.
I believe the reason is that the organization does not provide abortion or contraception, but as Dr. Walley pointed out, women who are about to give birth do not require any of those things.
It's kind of cool that Dr. Walley is mentioned, but too bad it has to be in this way.
I believe the reason is that the organization does not provide abortion or contraception, but as Dr. Walley pointed out, women who are about to give birth do not require any of those things.
It's kind of cool that Dr. Walley is mentioned, but too bad it has to be in this way.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Archbishop Currie and Poverty
The Archbishop of St. John's, Martin Currie, a man whom I respect greatly, has taken on the laudable task of reducing poverty in our province. It's interesting that I'm writing this article now because just yesterday I wrote a similar one, but this morning I was made aware of a religious coalition in the province which aims to reduce poverty, of which Archbishop Currie is a member. Unfortunately, I think he may be barking up the wrong tree when it comes to solutions.
The archbishop is a member of the multi-religion group called "Religious Social Action Committee". Its stated goal is to reduce poverty, but I'm afraid its solutions are off-base and need to be seriously re-evaluated. They basically come at poverty from the tired old perspective of the NDP and other socialist groups which claim the reason people are poor is because other people are far too rich, that we need to "spread the wealth around". That's essentially the idea behind communism. On the surface, it sounds like a fantastic idea, but history, and economics shows it is intellectually bankrupt.
One of the big themes these people constantly harp on is the "growing gap between rich and poor". At first, that sounds fine, but when you scratch the surface a little, you realize it is somewhat illogical. If the average poor person at Time 1 has $10,000 per year and the average rich person has $100,000, but then at Time 2, the average poor person has $20,000 per year and the average rich person has $500,000, then the gap between rich and poor has grown substantially. But the poor are far better off than before. The rhetoric of the gap between rich and poor is thus invalid. It has gone from concern for the poor to envy or hatred toward the rich. I have not accumulated too many statistics, but in our province, the median income (which counters the effects of outliers like very rich people) shows an increase in income from $19,400 per year in 2005 to $24,550 in 2009, for the median person, which means your typical Joe. If the rich are indeed getting richer in Newfoundland, it seems so are the "poor".
What this underlies is a misunderstanding of wealth? Most people conceive of wealth as a zero-sum game, where if one person gains, someone else loses. So if a person becomes a millionaire, that means lots of people lost that potential money. But this is demonstrably false. 100 years ago, there was far more poverty than now, and also far fewer millionaires, even after accounting for inflation. But everyone rose in wealth. That's because wealth is created. As a good example I heard one time, most people conceive of wealth as a pie, where if one person receives a larger piece, everyone else must make do with a smaller piece. But in fact, new pies are created all the time, and real wealth is created.
So what solution does the Religious Social Action Committee suggest for reducing poverty? Of course, they propose the old canard of raising taxes on the people and companies who have "too much" money. They have decided, by the way, that too much money is people making more than $250,000. They say they should get a higher tax rate and people making more than $500,000 should get an additional surtax on top of that. Sounds lovely, but doing this will probably not result in the intended effect. Thomas Sowell, a preeminent economist, notes that tax rate and tax revenue are two different things and often they are negatively correlated. He points out that the Bush tax cuts that everyone is up in arms about actually increased tax revenue in the country. The same with the Reagan tax cuts and the Kennedy tax cuts.
The knee-jerk reaction to "tax the rich" is faulty on other levels as well. Many companies, such as those offering certain services, or even manufacturers, etc are not geographically bound. They set up shop in favorable business environments. If Newfoundland raises taxes, these companies will decide to locate elsewhere and thousands of jobs could be lost. The key to economic success is increased productivity. By pushing away large companies, the province is reducing the potential of people to earn money. Also, because productivity is the key to economic success both individually and for society as a whole, simply redistributing wealth will not add any value. What we need is an influx of money, not redistribution.
The problem with this anti-poverty group is that they are unable to see that what they are advocating is exactly what got us here in the first place. Too much government is the problem, and they just want more government. Political parties are all too willing to use this point of view to their advantage. Even the theoretically more fiscally conservative group, the PCs, never speak about the role of government or how much government is necessary, but instead focus on what the government will do for "you". How it will spend more and more money on countless programs. The problem with government programs is that they are awash in bureaucracy and red-tape. They are inefficient and there is no incentive or mechanism to improve.
So, let's get back to basics. What makes a company successful? A company is successful if it provides products or services more people want and creates more value. The executives who create companies that do this best are also compensated the best. Bill Gates became a billionaire by providing billions of people with technology that improved their lives. No one forced anyone to buy any of Microsoft's products. People willingly chose to buy them, and because Mr. Gates satisfied more people, he received remuneration for that. By doing what he did, he created tens of thousands of jobs, and by increasing productivity, he increased the wealth of the entire country.
Many executives receive very high salaries, but that is because they are creating many multiples of that in value for the company. If they are not creating value for consumers, they don't earn as much money. We should be attracting these people who know how to create business and increase wealth. By doing so, we can employ more people and improve their lives. Why then, is there a knee-jerk reaction to tax them to the hilt which will ultimately force them out?
But let's stop for a second and ask what the logical conclusion of this anti-poverty group would be. They want everyone to earn the same income. They want huge government control, high taxation, etc. This is basically the definition of socialism. So we are really comparing socialism and capitalism. It would be interesting to see what would happen if half the country ran on socialist concepts and the other half ran on capitalist concepts. This would be a good experiment. Fortunately, it has already been done! After World War II, Germany was divided into East and West, Socialist and Capitalist. The results are quite obvious. While East Germans were starving, and risking their lives to escape to West Germany, West Germans were far more successful, and their economy improved dramatically. How many people each year put build a rickety boat and risk their lives to escape the capitalism of Florida to enter the socialism of Cuba? None. But the route the other way is quite busy.
As Nobel Prize Winning Economist Milton Friedman once said, "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."
Let's remember that as we try to fight poverty.
The archbishop is a member of the multi-religion group called "Religious Social Action Committee". Its stated goal is to reduce poverty, but I'm afraid its solutions are off-base and need to be seriously re-evaluated. They basically come at poverty from the tired old perspective of the NDP and other socialist groups which claim the reason people are poor is because other people are far too rich, that we need to "spread the wealth around". That's essentially the idea behind communism. On the surface, it sounds like a fantastic idea, but history, and economics shows it is intellectually bankrupt.
One of the big themes these people constantly harp on is the "growing gap between rich and poor". At first, that sounds fine, but when you scratch the surface a little, you realize it is somewhat illogical. If the average poor person at Time 1 has $10,000 per year and the average rich person has $100,000, but then at Time 2, the average poor person has $20,000 per year and the average rich person has $500,000, then the gap between rich and poor has grown substantially. But the poor are far better off than before. The rhetoric of the gap between rich and poor is thus invalid. It has gone from concern for the poor to envy or hatred toward the rich. I have not accumulated too many statistics, but in our province, the median income (which counters the effects of outliers like very rich people) shows an increase in income from $19,400 per year in 2005 to $24,550 in 2009, for the median person, which means your typical Joe. If the rich are indeed getting richer in Newfoundland, it seems so are the "poor".
What this underlies is a misunderstanding of wealth? Most people conceive of wealth as a zero-sum game, where if one person gains, someone else loses. So if a person becomes a millionaire, that means lots of people lost that potential money. But this is demonstrably false. 100 years ago, there was far more poverty than now, and also far fewer millionaires, even after accounting for inflation. But everyone rose in wealth. That's because wealth is created. As a good example I heard one time, most people conceive of wealth as a pie, where if one person receives a larger piece, everyone else must make do with a smaller piece. But in fact, new pies are created all the time, and real wealth is created.
So what solution does the Religious Social Action Committee suggest for reducing poverty? Of course, they propose the old canard of raising taxes on the people and companies who have "too much" money. They have decided, by the way, that too much money is people making more than $250,000. They say they should get a higher tax rate and people making more than $500,000 should get an additional surtax on top of that. Sounds lovely, but doing this will probably not result in the intended effect. Thomas Sowell, a preeminent economist, notes that tax rate and tax revenue are two different things and often they are negatively correlated. He points out that the Bush tax cuts that everyone is up in arms about actually increased tax revenue in the country. The same with the Reagan tax cuts and the Kennedy tax cuts.
The knee-jerk reaction to "tax the rich" is faulty on other levels as well. Many companies, such as those offering certain services, or even manufacturers, etc are not geographically bound. They set up shop in favorable business environments. If Newfoundland raises taxes, these companies will decide to locate elsewhere and thousands of jobs could be lost. The key to economic success is increased productivity. By pushing away large companies, the province is reducing the potential of people to earn money. Also, because productivity is the key to economic success both individually and for society as a whole, simply redistributing wealth will not add any value. What we need is an influx of money, not redistribution.
The problem with this anti-poverty group is that they are unable to see that what they are advocating is exactly what got us here in the first place. Too much government is the problem, and they just want more government. Political parties are all too willing to use this point of view to their advantage. Even the theoretically more fiscally conservative group, the PCs, never speak about the role of government or how much government is necessary, but instead focus on what the government will do for "you". How it will spend more and more money on countless programs. The problem with government programs is that they are awash in bureaucracy and red-tape. They are inefficient and there is no incentive or mechanism to improve.
So, let's get back to basics. What makes a company successful? A company is successful if it provides products or services more people want and creates more value. The executives who create companies that do this best are also compensated the best. Bill Gates became a billionaire by providing billions of people with technology that improved their lives. No one forced anyone to buy any of Microsoft's products. People willingly chose to buy them, and because Mr. Gates satisfied more people, he received remuneration for that. By doing what he did, he created tens of thousands of jobs, and by increasing productivity, he increased the wealth of the entire country.
Many executives receive very high salaries, but that is because they are creating many multiples of that in value for the company. If they are not creating value for consumers, they don't earn as much money. We should be attracting these people who know how to create business and increase wealth. By doing so, we can employ more people and improve their lives. Why then, is there a knee-jerk reaction to tax them to the hilt which will ultimately force them out?
But let's stop for a second and ask what the logical conclusion of this anti-poverty group would be. They want everyone to earn the same income. They want huge government control, high taxation, etc. This is basically the definition of socialism. So we are really comparing socialism and capitalism. It would be interesting to see what would happen if half the country ran on socialist concepts and the other half ran on capitalist concepts. This would be a good experiment. Fortunately, it has already been done! After World War II, Germany was divided into East and West, Socialist and Capitalist. The results are quite obvious. While East Germans were starving, and risking their lives to escape to West Germany, West Germans were far more successful, and their economy improved dramatically. How many people each year put build a rickety boat and risk their lives to escape the capitalism of Florida to enter the socialism of Cuba? None. But the route the other way is quite busy.
As Nobel Prize Winning Economist Milton Friedman once said, "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."
Let's remember that as we try to fight poverty.
Catholics and Political Parties
Ok, as usual I guess, this isn't really a scientifically researched document, but I think it's something that needs to be said.
Catholics usually try to do the right thing. So they can get confused by political rhetoric. Many are falsely led to believe if they care about the poor and less fortunate, they have to support the NDP. Little do they realize the NDP is a strong advocate for most of the moral issues Catholics must object to, including abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. It's what Catholics Answers calls the non-negotiables.
But some Catholics support the NDP because of its declaration that it will help the poor and less fortunate, and tax the greedy corporations to pay for all the social programs. I say, don't be fooled.
Do some research and you will find that you do not have to compromise between morals and helping the poor. In fact, more right-wing parties are generally better for both.
I came to realize that when government gets involved, it doesn't help the poor in the long run or in any real way, but very clearly makes things worse. The list of things is almost innumerable. Suffice it to say more freedom means more prosperity for everyone, and conversely, more government control usually makes everyone worse off.
For example, we spend so much on education in this province, but we don't consider ways of improving it or getting more bang for our buck. The way it is now, the government have a complete monopoly on education. Because of this, there is no real mechanism for improvement. If the schools are terrible or wasteful or doing a terrible job, they continue to be funded. School choice would improve things.
Minimum wage sounds wonderful, but it actually prevents lower-skilled workers from entering the work-force because their skills do not justify a wage at or above the minimum, and they become unemployed. While unemployed or on welfare, they do not improve in experience or skill, so they never increase in value. They are then permanent members of the welfare program.
I could go on with many more examples.
But look at the properity brought to many Asian countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, etc. which used to be poor, but they employed capitalism and the lot of the everyman increased.
Anyway, the basic point I'm trying to make here is that a conservative or right-wing party can be the best of both worlds. Don't be fooled by vague references to "helping the poor", etc.
Catholics usually try to do the right thing. So they can get confused by political rhetoric. Many are falsely led to believe if they care about the poor and less fortunate, they have to support the NDP. Little do they realize the NDP is a strong advocate for most of the moral issues Catholics must object to, including abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. It's what Catholics Answers calls the non-negotiables.
But some Catholics support the NDP because of its declaration that it will help the poor and less fortunate, and tax the greedy corporations to pay for all the social programs. I say, don't be fooled.
Do some research and you will find that you do not have to compromise between morals and helping the poor. In fact, more right-wing parties are generally better for both.
I came to realize that when government gets involved, it doesn't help the poor in the long run or in any real way, but very clearly makes things worse. The list of things is almost innumerable. Suffice it to say more freedom means more prosperity for everyone, and conversely, more government control usually makes everyone worse off.
For example, we spend so much on education in this province, but we don't consider ways of improving it or getting more bang for our buck. The way it is now, the government have a complete monopoly on education. Because of this, there is no real mechanism for improvement. If the schools are terrible or wasteful or doing a terrible job, they continue to be funded. School choice would improve things.
Minimum wage sounds wonderful, but it actually prevents lower-skilled workers from entering the work-force because their skills do not justify a wage at or above the minimum, and they become unemployed. While unemployed or on welfare, they do not improve in experience or skill, so they never increase in value. They are then permanent members of the welfare program.
I could go on with many more examples.
But look at the properity brought to many Asian countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, etc. which used to be poor, but they employed capitalism and the lot of the everyman increased.
Anyway, the basic point I'm trying to make here is that a conservative or right-wing party can be the best of both worlds. Don't be fooled by vague references to "helping the poor", etc.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Principles
Just wanted to talk briefly about principles and how I think they are lacking in much of our society. This is not necessarily an overt religious article, but our religion informs our morality, so in that sense it is.
I find all too often, people sacrifice principles because a subjectively "good" end has been achieved. One such example is from the US, where Obama ordered the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen. Many people believe he was an evil person bent on the destruction of the United States, and I'm not here to argue whether or not he was.
The problem with the scenario, is that as an American citizen, Al-Awlaki is entitled to a trial before he is executed, regardless of where he is located in the world. Obama chose to ignore this and decided this man was better off dead.
What I'm talking about is principles. Many people rejoice at the death of a terrorist, and I'm not here to talk about that. I'm not a pacifist and believe countries have a right to defend themselves, but I find people are far too comfortable with saying that what happened was legally wrong, but oh well, we killed a bad guy so there's nothing wrong with that.
But this violates the entire purpose of due process and the law in the first place. The legal system was established not to treat our friends properly, but to uphold the rights of our worst enemies. Once we start ignoring the law and arbitrarily deciding who is protected by it or not, then it ceases to be a "law", and becomes more of a whim.
This man was not convicted, he was only suspected. That's why countries like Canada and the US have court systems. Even Jeffrey Dahmer, or Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka received a trial and were sentenced according to the law. No one would argue that these are good upstanding citizens. Indeed, most believe they are evil and reprehensible. Yet even for these individuals, there is a trial in an official court of law.
I'm sure not too many people would shed many tears if Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered after what he did, but does that give the government the right to assassinate him in the absence of real evidence in a court of law?
Once we go to this point, we start using vigilante justice, and the whole legal system is in jeopardy.
I find all too often, people sacrifice principles because a subjectively "good" end has been achieved. One such example is from the US, where Obama ordered the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen. Many people believe he was an evil person bent on the destruction of the United States, and I'm not here to argue whether or not he was.
The problem with the scenario, is that as an American citizen, Al-Awlaki is entitled to a trial before he is executed, regardless of where he is located in the world. Obama chose to ignore this and decided this man was better off dead.
What I'm talking about is principles. Many people rejoice at the death of a terrorist, and I'm not here to talk about that. I'm not a pacifist and believe countries have a right to defend themselves, but I find people are far too comfortable with saying that what happened was legally wrong, but oh well, we killed a bad guy so there's nothing wrong with that.
But this violates the entire purpose of due process and the law in the first place. The legal system was established not to treat our friends properly, but to uphold the rights of our worst enemies. Once we start ignoring the law and arbitrarily deciding who is protected by it or not, then it ceases to be a "law", and becomes more of a whim.
This man was not convicted, he was only suspected. That's why countries like Canada and the US have court systems. Even Jeffrey Dahmer, or Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka received a trial and were sentenced according to the law. No one would argue that these are good upstanding citizens. Indeed, most believe they are evil and reprehensible. Yet even for these individuals, there is a trial in an official court of law.
I'm sure not too many people would shed many tears if Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered after what he did, but does that give the government the right to assassinate him in the absence of real evidence in a court of law?
Once we go to this point, we start using vigilante justice, and the whole legal system is in jeopardy.
Michael Coren & Tanya Gralic Allan: Thomas or Tammy? An 8 Year Old's Se...
How disgrace are the actions of these parents! Michael Coren is absolutely right, they should be charged with a crime, and this child should be taken away. How did they even end up with this child? They are two lesbians, so it obviously wasn't an act of love between the two of them that produced this child. It was probably some sort of adoption or in vitro fertilization or something. And the woman is right too. Kids might ask for anything. They might want to be anything, but that doesn't make it right. It could be horribly wrong. And this really is.
Did you know that some people have a psychological desire to amputate limbs? Do we believe it's good to give in to these demands? Some people actually believe they are certain animals. Should plastic surgery be used to transform them? The answer is obvious.
This is not just an isolated incident. Things like IVF, surrogate motherhood, and other types of immoral sexual activity have bred a society which can accept or allow this type of grotesque thing to happen. It occurs when we believe we create life and that we control it. We need to have far more respect for life and dignity.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Friday, September 02, 2011
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)