Frames of Reference - Ethics

Abortion and the Healthcare Debate

yeager — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:53:25 +0000

With all the debate over health-care, what’s really going on behind the scenes? You sure won’t find out watching CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN. One of the sticking issues remains abortion — should the Federal government pay for it? The two sides have been arguing back and forth, but recently the mask has come off the pro-abortion side, revealing what they really want.

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If that’s how Democrats view the life of the unborn, it’s not too much of a stretch to see what they’ll do for senior citizens who also require large amounts of health-care. The talk of “death-panels” and such has been over-hyped, but the principle remains — reduce the money spent by not providing care (“rationing”), increasing abortion (“don’t be punished with a baby”), substituting less-effective treatments (“take a pill instead of having the operation”), or other means.

Democrats health-care plans are no longer simply about taking over the system — it’s also about a huge increase in abortion to “keep costs down”. That’s their cost-control system in the bill — abort more babies so the government won’t have to pay either the cost of the mothers pregnancy, or the child’s health-care.

Democrats are now (as John Loeffler says) entering the final “naked runner” phase, where everyone sees what’s really going on, but Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) hopes it’s too late for the awakening of the people to foil their diabolical plans as they sprint naked and unmasked for the finish line. Will it be too late?

Will the country get what it deserves? Or will God grant mercy one more time?

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The bill (without a miracle) will likely pass. Team RePO has already stated they’ll do whatever it takes to pass it — and that includes bribes and payoffs, intimidation, and ignoring the will of the people — Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, intimidation, arm-twisting, bribes, and more are all fair game, and could soon be law of the land if the bill passes. Today the House is 5-10 votes short, but after some one-one-one, most of those Congressmen will fold like a cheap lawn chair and do the bidding of Team RePO over citizens, voting for unprecedented corruption.

And what’s on the mind of Team RePO? Increasing abortion (after all, Obama doesn’t want you to be “punished with a baby” — better to terminate the child instead) which puts $$$ to organizations like Planned Parenthood (it’s completely unrelated these groups can be large donors to Democrats).

That’s the legacy they’ll leave us, along with massive debt, from this health-care bill. Don’t be deceived, it doesn’t take 2,100 pages to make a few changes in insurance policy:

Remove Pre-existing condition exclusions.
Remove barrier to competition across state lines.
Improve coverage.
Reduce costs by tort reform.

That could be a 20-page bill. It’s all the payoffs, new government control, increased abortion, and other surprises awaiting in the bill which take the other 2,000 pages, most of which Congressional members haven’t read.

Don’t be fooled — this bill is most definitely not about health-care. You may like that or not, depending on which side you’re on.

How much is a Trillion?

yeager — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:47:30 +0000

As the federal deficit passes the trillion dollar mark (quadrupling since last year), and expected to go higher before the end of the year as Congress and the administration ponder yet more spending, how much is a trillion dollars?

$10,000 for each household is one trillion.
$3,000 for every man, woman, and child is one trillion.

But that’s just the so-called “stimulus” part of the debt — total federal debt now comes to $546,000 per household, according to USA Today, and increasing. At just 4% interest, each American household owes over $2,600 per month for the next 30 years — even if the spending spree stops now. Doesn’t leave much left for your family, does it?

Since the only way to finance such massive spending beyond available income comes from borrowing (or creating money), consider Solomon’s wisdom:

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7 KJV)

Who’s buying the government’s debt?

As Chuck Missler says, debt is a presumption on the future. Christians must be wise stewards of what God has given them; don’t take your cue from the massive spending spree currently in vogue by the federal government. Massive deficit spending pulls forward demand from future years — in essence spending our children’s income before they earn it. At some future point the debt must be paid.

Stimulus doesn’t sound so good when you consider it’s spending your children’s earnings, does it?

What is Doublethink?

yeager — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:14:41 +0000

We’ve referred to doublethink several times, but many have asked what exactly it consists of. Surely it doesn’t really exist, as Orwell wrote a fictionalized account of a future government in “1984”. No, it really exists — consider an editorial by the Register-Guard, noting the Oregon Legislature just provided a wonderful example of Doublethink. But first, allow Orwell himself to provide the definition.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. … To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (Orwell, George “Nineteen Eighty-Four” page 35, 176–177)

So what did the Oregon Legislature do? Just switched the definition of “YES” and “NO” votes for certain elections:

A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.

Or, as the editorial continues, pointing out the absurdity of the Oregon Legislature’s actions:

So, let’s see: If opponents of the income tax measures succeed in gathering enough signatures to place them on the ballot, a “no” vote will mean “yes, I support these tax increases,” and a “yes” vote will mean “no, I do not want these tax increases to take effect.”

Or maybe it will go like this: A “no” vote will mean “no, I do not want these taxes to be blocked by this referendum,” and a “yes” vote will mean “yes, I support the effort to stop these tax increases.”

Classic Orwellian Doublethink, courtesy of the Oregon Legislature.

This is the time, as Chuck Missler calls it, of the age of deceit. Is it any wonder Jesus warned “Take heed that no one deceive you”?

Do your own homework, and remember, the Bible calls you to be a skeptic. Not a cynic, but a skeptic.

Tolerance Redefined

yeager — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:34:37 +0000

What defines tolerance? Is the following what you have in mind when you’re told to be “tolerant” of other beliefs?

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint. Dictionary.com

Perhaps not many watch the Miss USA pageant, but lately scandal after scandal envelops Mr. Trump’s events. This year provides no exception as intolerance rears it’s ugly head … at a beauty pageant. Miss California Carrie Prejean (a student at San Diego Christian College) provided this response during the Q&A session regarding same-sex marriage:

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” Andrea Tantaros

One of the judges reportedly said after the event:

“She lost it because of that question,” Hilton said Monday. “She was definitely the front-runner before that.” Hilton, who is gay, said he gave Prejean a zero for her answer, and that may have made the difference in the outcome. FoxNews

We hear “tolerance” thrown about, but after the hate-filled diatribes launched against her, and one judge admitting she lost because he didn’t like her answer, where is the tolerance? Why was that question in the mix anyway? How can so many display hate toward her, while espousing tolerance at the same time?

Because they’ve redefined tolerance.

Tolerance no longer means you have your views and I’ll have mine, as we discuss and debate each other, but in the end if we don’t agree that’s fine, as we’ll both be respectful of the other. That’s what most people would mean by tolerance (and the dictionary definition).

But that’s not what many mean by tolerance anymore, as the response to Carrie Prejean obviously demonstrates. The new “tolerance” means everyone must accept their views, and society must change the way they want, or else you’re intolerant. And of course, since they’re right, anything done to you is acceptable and correct. It’s value relativism and situational ethics as whether something displays intolerance or not depends on who said it. That’s how they hold the contradictory position of justifying their hateful speech, while at the same time claim they’re showing tolerance.

The intolerance of the tolerant crowd makes as much sense as the value relativism crowd saying the only absolute is no absolutes exist. In other words, the only supreme rule is there are no rules, and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Huh? But that’s the twisted logic of value relativism and the “tolerant” crowd when attempting to justify their contradictory actions.

Sound bizarre? Consider the difference Miss California Carrie Prejean received verses President Obama during the campaign:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage (Candidate Obama). ABC News

Where was the hate-filled rants against candidate Obama? What about Vice-President Biden as he expressed similar views? “Tolerance” depends on who says what — on the one hand, a liberal politician becomes elected President, while a Christian student has her title denied, yet both expressed similar views. So much for any pretense of consistency — tolerance depends on who says what and when without any consistency.

Regardless of your views on marriage of any kind, any reasonable person must admit the bizarre responses (to be polite, as some of them can’t be repeated in a family-friendly way) display remarkable intolerance of her views (and even hate directed toward her personally). After all, it’s a beauty pageant and had little to do with politics — at least until the Miss USA committee knowingly approved questions they knew to be a trap.

Interesting what her sister (who supports same-sex marriage) had to say:

Prejean also said that her sister, a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force, and a supporter of gay marriage, was not offended by her answer. “She was just in my hotel room and she said, ‘Sis, I’m not offended by anything that you said. We have two different opinions and I love you because of it. I love you because you stood up for what was right …’” FoxNews

So who displayed tolerance toward a view they disagreed with?

The same tolerant/intolerant mess pops up with religion. True tolerance means you believe in your god, and I’ll believe in mine — we’ll debate and discuss, but in the end it’s a personal choice each person makes. You present your case to me, and I’ll present mine to you, but in the end we’re free to believe however we wish.

But again, that’s not how tolerance is used. Tolerance means no absolutes exist, and anyone claiming such displays intolerance, and thus any actions taken against the “intolerant” person becomes acceptable to force them to the “correct” view. As such, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all “intolerant” as they all claim exclusivity (of course, they can’t all be right, but that’s a topic for another time). And instead of rational, reasoned discussion, viscous attacks, hatred, and true intolerance become directed at various groups, as those groups don’t fit with the anything-goes New World Order (their term, not mine) where no absolutes exist (except the rule no absolutes exist … oh, my head hurts).

Be vary careful with how the word “tolerance” appears — many don’t use the normal definitions the rest of us would. Virtually everyone would agree tolerance — respecting others beliefs — is a good thing. But as Miss California Carrie Prejean found out, it’s not the way the “tolerant” crowd uses tolerance. Be sure you’re defining terms so we all agree on what tolerance is, and point out to the “tolerant” crowd just how intolerant they are.

George Orwell was right in “1984” as doublethink becomes the official language, if off by a few years in his predictions.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. … To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (Orwell, George “Nineteen Eighty-Four” page 35, 176–177)

The Real Financial and Political Crisis

yeager — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:04:27 +0000

It’s not AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even Enron and MCI. It’s not the national debt, budget deficits or politician’s plans for staggering tax increases which will surely damage the already fragile economy. Make no mistake, all those are bad, but they’re only symptoms of the real disease, the cancer eating away at our society — that cancer is as Zell Miller said “A Deficit of Decency” — more specifically, a lack of ethics.

First off, don’t confuse morality with ethics; morality being just an idea of right and wrong, generally coming from some absolute source (many people mistake the concept of morality for “good” morals — i.e. don’t cheat on your wife, but murderers have morality as well, it’s just bad), while ethics is “my word is my bond”. It’s possible to act ethically, but not morally.

For example, few would disagree a crime syndicate performing shake-downs of an innocent business lacks morality (“Gee, that’s a nice business you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it”); they’re acting immorally, however, the ethics surpass those of politicians and wall street — you can be sure they’ll do what they say and won’t change, if fact, you can count on it.

Ethics and morality aren’t the same, even though they share similarities.

Perhaps the confusion comes as younger people (30 or below) don’t remember a time when a handshake was enough to seal a deal (or a time when the Interweb thingy didn’t exist either, but we digress). Believe it or not, a time existed when your word was sufficient, and people (gasp) did what they promised. They many not have acted with good morals, but their ethics were unquestionable.

That was the prevailing attitude for many, many years. Most business circles were fairly small; you simply couldn’t get away with breaking your word. Perhaps not because people didn’t want to, but because the community simply didn’t tolerate it. Ethical behavior was demanded if you desired to stay in business.

But today, even if you have a contract, it’s who has the most lawyers and $$$ to fight. It’s not about holding up your promise, it’s about grabbing as much money as possible in the fastest way possible. Ethics is thrown under the bus, even as candidates promise “change”, but don’t want you to look behind the curtain to see it’s just business as usual and the ethics continue to disappear.

That’s the real problem in Washington — a lack of ethics. When double-talking politicians try to dodge real questions with slick-talking nuance instead of solutions, and then act differently when the teleprompter turns off, that’s a lack of ethics. The goal in politics becomes how to fool people with slick oratory, but then after election turn against the flowery rhetoric and act oppositely — in their own interests instead of serving the country.

Don’t be fooled by the man behind the curtain.

It’s easy to act one way while someone looks, the real measure of ethics is what you do when no one looks, or it’s not going your way. Do the actions change? For Christians, it’s easy — the ethical standards don’t change even when you can get away with it.

Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? He who walks uprightly, And works righteousness, And speaks the truth in his heart; He who does not backbite with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor does he take up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those who fear the Lord; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change; He who does not put out his money at usury, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved. (Psalm 15 NKJV)

Unfortunately, not many people acting in such a manner remain, and those few are ridiculed on TV talk shows and sitcoms — the guy working 40 hours for a weeks pay and who actually performs his commitments becomes the butt of jokes.

So what should a Christian do? First off, act ethically and morally. Morals (absolute right and wrong) come from God; you must learn them (which means studying God’s Word for yourself to see what He has to say). Then in every situation, apply morality and act ethically — your word is your bond. In other words, if you sign a contract and it turns out it’s not as beneficial to you as it could be, you honor the contract and fulfill it’s terms. Naturally, you’ll never be able to be perfect, but the goal becomes to always act properly, knowing you’ll never completely live up to the goal.

But acting morally during the election season raises a question — how involved should a Christian be in political matters? And how should they determine how to vote? Some Christians don’t want to be involved at all, others abandon Biblical principles in their quest for political utopia, becoming disciples of men and worshipers of Nebo, Baal, Mammon and others, instead of God. Both are wrong. But how should a Christian determine how/who/what to vote for? What criteria should be used to determine a vote? As we said before in our commentary on Daniel:

We will be held accountable as stewards; we hired the guys leading the county. If they be Godly men and men of integrity, it’s because the people demand it. If they be men without morals and choose to promote sin, it’s because the people allow it. The politicians aren’t the problem, they’re a symptom of the real problem — the attempt to exterminate God from all corners of society. And after the elimination of God, no absolutes remain and it’s a moral free for all; it’s back to the times of the Judges once again (read the book for yourself, and see what happens when a society becomes a moral free-for-all without the absolute standard of God’s Word).

The attempt at extermination of God from society includes education, science, and of course, politics. So what should we do? Fortunately Paul has the answer — in 1 Corinthians chapter four Paul notes it is required of stewards to be faithful. As a representative democracy, citizens of the United States vote as stewards of this country; you must be faithful and exercise your due diligence in your vote; God will hold you accountable for your stewardship of your vote — you are the employer of politicians.

The hardest task becomes finding out what a candidate actually believes for the simple reason they don’t want you to know, because no matter what stand they take some people won’t like it; to avoid taking any position at all means nobody is upset. It takes work to find out what exactly someone believes (cutting through the doublespeak), as many for political expediency will simply tell you what you want to hear (not necessarily what’s best for the country). You’ve got to do some homework to determine how the candidate will likely respond to certain issues.

So who to support? By what criteria should we cast our votes? We propose a simple idea, one which every Christian should agree on — find the candidate lining up best with Biblical principles, and support them. Nothing more is needed, nothing less meets your stewardship responsibility. It’s not about putting bumper stickers on your car or waving signs on the corner — just vote for the candidate or issue best aligning with God. If all Christians did that, the country would turn around.

Of course, all candidates are flawed in some way, but frequently when you consider two candidates one lines up with Biblical principles much better than the other. In November, either McCain or Obama will become president. Which one better agrees with Biblical principles? That’s the task before a Christian who wants to be (as Paul said) a faithful steward of their vote. Find out what they believe, find out what God says, and then support the guy who is closest with what God says.

We will be held accountable for the stewardship of this country. If the government be Godly, it’s because the people demand it. If it slouches toward Gomorrah, it’s because the people tolerate it. You’re a steward of your vote; do some homework and exercise your stewardship wisely. Be like the sons of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do (1 Chronicles 12:32). It takes work and dedication, but your stewardship demands no less.

And always pray we don’t get the leaders we deserve, but the leaders we need.

For more on this subject, read our Daniel commentary for chapter nine as Daniel prays for his country and people, and note it applies to us today as much as it did for Daniel’s people thousands of years ago.