Monday, December 4, 2006

Double Standards. . .

Okay, this is my last post on abortion for awhile, I just couldn't resist how true this cartoon is. . .

Quick Quiz

Answer yes or no to the following situations:

A. The mother of a family of 14 is pregnant again. Her husband — the father of all 14 of these children — has a history of alcohol abuse and mental disorders which frequently causes him to abuse his other children. The mother herself is already worn out from trying to care single-handedly for her large family and doesn't feel she can care for another child at this point. On top of all this, two sons in the family also have a history of alcohol abuse, one of the children is in a mental institution, and none of the other children have steady, dependable jobs with which to support mom and dad. Abortion or Not?

B. A poor black family in the South is expecting a fifth child. This family, because of its skin color, already has difficulty receiving help and are already at the bare minimum poverty level. The outlook for their present children does not look bright. Abortion or Not?

C. A woman is engaged to a man some years older than she; she finds out that she is facing an unplanned pregnancy. The child she is carrying is definitely not the son of her fiancé, and he is worried for her sake and for their repution in their community. This child could put a serious strain on their relationship and on any future children. Abortion or Not?

Okay, everybody finished? Here are the results:

A. If you answered Abortion for A, congradulations! You just aborted Ludwig Van Beethoven!

B. If you answered Abortion for B, again, congradulations! You just aborted Martin Luther King, Jr.

C. If you answered Abortion for C, YOU WIN THE GRAND PRIZE! You, my friend, have just aborted Jesus of Nazareth.

I found this at

Thursday, November 30, 2006

The GREAT Debate!

I'm kind of excited . . .a classmate of mine is interested in having a religious debate. We've settled on having it over Christmas break, and it should be quite interesting. I'm going to let my classmate choose the topic. I think that is only fair since I have homecourt advantage AND a picture of Pope Benedict!

So Jeff. . .let the games begin . . .well, in about a week . ..

Saturday, November 25, 2006


Every morning when I walk in the front door of my oh-so-politically-correct law school, I am confronted by a seemingly innocuous sticker showing a gun with a Ghostbusters style red circle-with-a-slash. The message, of course, is that weapons are not allowed on the premises.

I understand the motivation for this type of thing. After all, there have been a frightening number of school shootings, from Columbine to the shooting of the Amish children . . .but I had wondered if letting crazy gun toting killers know that no one would be able to defend himself* if the crazy gun toting killers decided to have their next rampage in my school was the best idea.

My fears were all for not. Yesterday, I saw a gentleman sitting on one of the "smoking benches" with a sad expression on his face and a semi-automatic under his arm.

"What's wrong?" I asked, being the compassionate individual that I am.

He looked at me with soft brown eyes misted with unshed tears. "I wanted to shoot the whole %&*#$ place up. . ." he said, "but then I saw the sticker . . ."

For the purposes of full disclosure, the incident described above never happened.

I know, big shocker, since it never would happen.

But there is a ray of hope. Even if the sticker serves only as a deterrent to upstanding citizens from protecting themselves from the crazies, perhaps the angry feminists who loiter in the hallways will have their own deterrent effect.

* This use of "himself" as a universal pronoun could be enough to set the feminists after me!!!

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Richard Dawkins' Speech at RMWC

I watched Richard Dawkins' speech on his book "The God Delusion" on C-SPAN2 this evening. Well, okay, only parts of it . . .but there was one aspect that I found to be humorous, sad, and enlightening all in the same instant.

This gentleman (a noted atheist) claims that of course atheism has a moral code, and it arises from a recognition of how we would like to be treated, a sort of golden rule if you will.

Mr. Dawkins lamented the fact that there are no self-described atheists in office in the United States, but also speculated that there were quite a few "closeted" atheists, who lied to get into office because most of the darn Christian plebes in this country wouldn't vote for an atheist. And of course, he segued into a minnie rant about the horrible prejudice of Christians that force this condition on the poor atheist politicians.

This led me to wonder, would Mr. Dawkins vote for a Christian if he could choose instead to vote for an atheist? It seems to me that most people prefer those in power to actually agree with them. Since most people in the United States are still (believe it or not) Christian, it stands to reason that they would prefer to vote for Christians. Furthermore, is lying in order to gain power acceptable in the atheistic "morality"? Mr. Dawkins certainly had no condemnation for those atheist politicians who did so . . .Does this mean that Mr. Dawkins would like it if Christians lied in order to get power?

The answer is: No, of course not.

The further answer is: Can you really trust this type of moral code?