Trig Palin has divided America (Hat tip: Luke)
A Paliban Daily article titled “Sarah Palin’s Retarded Platform: More Trigs!” interpreted Palin’s outspokenness on disability rights as a political ploy to win votes. Other articles contained subtle but unmistakable eugenic overtones.
Those reactions echoed the hateful response that met Palin when she introduced Trig on the campaign trail last fall. Nicholas Provenzo of the libertarian Center for the Advancement of Capitalism discussed being “troubled” by Trig’s existence because “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”
Sadly, such hatred reflects a broader societal bias against disability. Polls suggest public support for abortion is highest when the child is likely to have a deformity or a genetic condition.
Our society has moral schizophrenia.
—
Senate Calls Its Healthcare Plan Ca Ca. No Really!
—
Stan had a good post on 1 Corinthians 6:19 and how it is often used as an anti-smoking verse.
1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
I thought he made good points about reading it in context and how it relates to sexual sins, though I do think that v. 19 could have broader application though based on the principle of the Holy Spirit living in us.
As our Associate Pastor pointed out to us in a Bible study last year, the whole “Your body is a temple so don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t have sex outside marriage, etc.” bit isn’t bad advice, but it is a rather significant understatement and misses out on something glorious: As Christians we are at the intersection of Heaven and Earth. We have the Holy Spirit living in us.
Why aren’t we rejoicing and applying that truth more?!
—
Andy Griffith knew moral relativism was nonsense.
—
What’s that? Al Qaeda still doesn’t like us? That can’t be.
Let this not come as a surprise to those who are mesmerized by Obama’s speech in Cairo, our positions … have not changed in the least,” al-Amriki said, in the transcription provided by MEMRI. “If we study his words carefully, we can note very clearly that this new beginning is still heavily based upon American interests … [Obama spoke] not because he loves the Muslims he lived with in Indonesia, as a boy, but rather, it is because the only way to defeat the Muslims is by distracting them with this temporary life.
—
I appreciate the candor of the National Education Association General Counsel in saying that it really is about money and power and not the children.
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.
The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.
Filed under: Weekly roundup | Tagged: abortion, current events, down syndrome, holy spirit, Politics, Pro-life, religion, roundup, sarah palin, trig palin
Another good round up. I’m glad there is someone in the NEA willing to admit what they are really about. It’s too bad that the message of power doesn’t get back to the 3.2 million who pay their dues.
Blessings
BTW, did you see the report on the gays and mormons clashing? Makes me wonder whatever happened to the gay argument that they just wanted to be left alone, and not have anyone’s views forced on them. I don’t care for the mormons that much, but seems the gays want to force their lifestyle unto those who oppose it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533900,00.html?test=latestnews
Blessings
Interesting discussion related to 1 Cor. 6:19.
However, I find that most people that take that stand that Stan is taking (pun unintended) are simply trying to justify their own habit. I don’t know if Stan smokes or not, but regardless of context the whole “your body is a temple” statement that verse makes would mean that a whole host of behaviors should be excluded from the lives of Christians.
Further, the argument made in that verse does, in context, is teaching a much bigger principle: you can’t use the whole “I am only harming myself” argument because you are not your own! That would make an even bigger anti-sexual promiscuity, anti-smoking, anti-overeating, anti-sedentary lifestyle, anti-drinking, anti-self mutilation, etc. statement.
Further, we now know that smoking pretty much kills you. Smoking is a form of suicide in my opinion, though long and protracted. Still can any believer truly argue that suicide is not wrong?
Justifying smoking as part of the Christian lifestyle is ludicrous at best, and misleading at worse.
Great round-up. I wonder how you find the time to do all this.
Amazing re: the NEA. Also not surprising; it’s probably why public education in this country is so bad. Alfie of in2theFray has a new post up about over-education (i.e. going to college when one’s job doesn’t require the education there) – which I pointed out is a result of our bad public high schools.
Re: 1 Corinthians 6:19 – just wait until the vegans start weighing in .:)
What is funny about the vegan position is that there is no evidence that a vegan diet or vegetarian diet is better for you! In fact, most vitamin deficiencies are more common in people that do not eat meat or do not eat red meat.
Granted, all things in moderation, but we were not meant to be vegetarians as witnessed not only by the fact that we have canine teeth, but by I Timothy 4:4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
???
I’ve been a vegetarian for 11 years (not vegan, though). Vegetarians have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, fewer incidents of diabetes, and lower cancer rates (especially colon and perhaps breast) than do their meat-eating counterparts.
My blood pressure is 90/50, my cholesterol is wonderful, and, when I stopped eating meat, I was able to up my mileage in running, drop 30-45 seconds off my 5K time, and about 15 seconds off my mile time. I give blood regularly, and my iron is always excellent.
For some people, though, vegetarianism is a nightmare. Their bodies need meat in order to function – they give up meat and are tired, cranky, and run down.
I guess I just don’t understand either the desire to shame meat-eaters nor to harp on vegetarians. So long as someone is being healthy, why does it matter to you what other people put in their bodies?
I am definitely one who cannot live without meat. My hobbies would be unrealistic on a low-protien diet. Right now I consume 270 grams/day, and unless you are downing monstrous amounts of soy/whey, there is no way I could maintain my lifestyle on a vegetarian diet.
I’m sure it’s perfectly fine for most people, but have yet to meet a vegetarian weight lifter.
FWIW,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/21/rich.roll.getting.fit/index.html
That guy does it on a plant-based diet. Which baffles me.
Two totally different things. I am building muscle mass, which is impossible without a calorie surplus (which Rich definitely does not have) and an excess amount of protein (as any new lean body tissue is made of proteins). Rich went on a calorie deficit to lean down, and his protein source was likely large amounts of soy and cottage cheese. To get the levels of protien I am at, he would literally have to drink over a gallon of soy and 3 pounds of cottage cheese each day.
But it is really good to know that he cut on a plant diet. I’m getting a little heavy, and in a couple months I’ll be focusing on cutting. Don’t know if I can give up wonderful, delicious medium-rare rib-eye.
Extremely impressive that the guy went from doing nothing to contending Ultraman races.
I’m a veggie weightlifter, though a casual one and not much of a student of the science. I do some protein drinks and such. Did you mean like, a champion bodybuilder? You’re probably right in that case.
This guy’s veggie: http://www.scoobysworkshop.com/aboutme.htm
I didn’t mean that it doesn’t work for some people. Just like some people cannot tolerate gluten and therefore must avoid wheat. Or glucose and must avoid sugar. Or lactose and must avoid milk.
I was speaking in general terms. The human body was design for meat consumption. I have no doubt of that. Now, obviously some people can do well without it or shoud avoid it due to other problems.
I eat venison almost exclusively for red meat consumption, from wild deer. I eat 4-6 servings of grilled or broiled fish a week, and stick to chicken or turkey the rest of the time. I consume 5-8 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, and eat oatmeal every morning. I snack on almonds, pretzels (dipped in almond butter!), and fruits.
You can eat meat and still be healthy. Th key is choosing the right kinds of meats, and keeping them to a proper proportion of your diet.
Today I brought the leftover grilled venison tenderloin we had for dinner last night for lunch to eat in a venison salad!
Good one! Another one I like is how a friend summarized Leviticus during a Bible study after reading several times about how the smell of the sacrifices was “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” He said, “God loves barbeque.”
I also liked the response an uber-vegetarian character gave to Lisa Simpson’s question about his vegetarianism and his description of being a “level 6 vegan” — “I don’t eat anything that casts a shadow.”
Theobromophile — Yeah, you can run faster, but how much can you deadlift?
Seriously, I appreciate vegetarians who have their reasons for eating that way but aren’t all shrill about it.
Lone Wolf Archer — you are a hunter?! Shocking! Seriously, that is cool that you eat what you kill. I have no problem with people who hunt but killing just to kill doesn’t appeal to me.
I am an avid meat eater. Lot of vegetarian friends of mine tried swaying me away from my non-vegetarianism many times and failed miserably. Finally they tried using “Don’t you think God would disapprove of you killing His creations to satisfy your appetite?”. I thought for a minute and replied, “I don’t think so. Ya know, when Jesus lived on earth, He was a non-vegetarian. So, you are not going to make me feel guilty!.”
Good call on the deadlift! If the saying ‘you are what you eat’ is true…..then I’d rather be a lion than a gazelle.
Or in North American terms, I rather be a wolf than a rabbit.
You called me a gazelle!
Awwww. 
Not digging at all, hey?!
Thanks for clarifying things theo! Vitamin deficiencies occur in those who do not actively seek to complete their diets. I think biblical vegeterianism has more to do with a passive lifestyle than healthy eating.
The dietary laws outlined in Leviticus would ban meat if it weren’t allowed.
If God did not want us to eat animals, he would not have made them out of meat.
Even an atheist can tell a God joke can’t he?
Humans have always eaten some kind of meat, but not everything we eat today. We ate birds, grubs, lizards and other small animals, and that’s why we have teeth for tearing and ripping, as well as teeth for eating vegetation. I’m a bit on the fence as far as vegetarianism goes. I do believe it is healthier for us, but that’s only if you make sure to eat a wide variety of other things. Iron can be obtained from tons of vegetables, and so can almost every other vitamin we need. Vegans have it really tough though. It can be done, but that isn’t for me.
The problem for me is that meat is delicious. I have red meat maybe once a month, and chicken maybe once a week just to keep my cravings in check. Anything more than that, and I start to feel less healthy.
Moderation is the key. Us North Americans eat way way too much meat. Most people eat meat every single day, and not the healthy kind. That’s got to stop.
“That’s got to stop.”
Why? Can’t people make their own choices? Further, what is the consequences of a destructive behavior, from your perspective, short of a shorten life?
I didn’t say people can’t make choices. Do you not think it’s good to have a healthy diet? From your other post, you seem to be very aware of what you eat, and very careful about eating a good variety of different foods. Venison is full of vitamins, and low on cholesterol, as I’m sure you know. A lot of people have no idea what they are putting into their bodies, and no idea what they should be eating.
The meat many people are eating for every meal is processed, full of fat and sodium, breaded, fried, and/or wrapped with bacon. That is what needs to stop. I’m not against eating meat, but on average we eat too much of it, and not the right kinds.
“What is the consequence of destructive behavior?”
That’s a vague question, but in this case, having an unhealthy diet not only shortens your life, but it effects your physical and emotional well-being. It also causes a burden on society, diverting finite health care resources from people that need services through no fault of their own. You also tend to pass on those habits to your children.
I guess I would say I am against legislating diet as a society. If you are merely talking about educating people about healthy choices and allowing them to make the choice, I am for that.
As for last answer, I believe that gluttony is a sin. It isn’t preached about much anymore but those that are destroying their bodies through the wrong foods in the wrong amounts are no different to me than smokers or drinkers and they will be held accountable for that behavior on the day of judgment.
I’m against legislating diet, and am also all for high taxes on high-fat foods, as well as on cigarettes to fund cancer treatments and weight-related problems. I don’t see why, as a Canadian who funds public health care, I should pay for someone else’s choice to get cancer. I mean, what gives someone the right to willingly inject known carcinogens into their body and then demand that I fund their treatment?
I think the bigger issue is public health care, but then that is a discussion for a different setting………
Our Canadian public health care program is a sacred cow that needs to be BBQ’d medium rare. A politician cannot win in any constituency if he/she pooh-poohs the system in any real way. Most talk about health care reform, but that’s akin to using a band-aid on a terminal cancer patient. Most reforms don’t ever really amount to much anyways. There is one object in the universe that I liken the Canadian public health care system to that seems to reflect accurately the nature of the beast. That object is a black hole. No matter how much money one throws at it, it merely devours the goods and demands more, providing little in terms of return on investment (in a hyper-technical sense, the people who do get good and timely treatment are picking up the health-care version of Hawking radiation, but they are in the minority).
I’m with you Adam (Canadian too). You can’t tell people what to eat, but I don’t have a problem with the government funding programs that help to educate people on a how to eat healthy, and by forcing food manufacturers to disclose ingredients and manufacturing methods.
Whether health care is public or private, there will always be finite resources, and those resources will be taxed by people who lead unhealthy lives.
Reminds me of this.
You know, just for arguments sake, Genesis 1:29-30 outlines God’s grand design for our own dietary needs and meat-eating seems to be absent. Just sayin’.
Good point, Jeff. That could be added to the “Have you not read . . .” post as well.
Jeff, as Neil said, good point. However, God amended that in latter laws given to the Jews (allowed the eating of clean animals), and then to Christians (allowed the eating of all creatures).
Yes, and that happened post fall. I’ve always wondered at what point Adam and Eve said “Well, since we’re out here, we might as well eat this cow.” Perhaps after toiling all day and seeing no results? Oh, and to stir the pot a little more, if God is sovereign and unchanging, why does God need to make amendments?
God’s law changing isn’t God changing. He had a plan for Christ from the beginning, that is what John chapter 1 is all about. The patriarchal period got us to the Law of Moses, which eventually got us to the Christian Law.
As far as eating the cow, God is logical. I believe he was allowing species to propagate before he opened up human consumption of animals. This is not scriptural, it is just me surmising.
Also, remember, Abel’s animal sacrifice was more acceptable than Cain’s plant based sacrifice. God wasn’t advocating vegetarianism out of any sense of “saving the animals”.
I guess I say all this but I still wonder what your point in all this is?
Great question.
The amendments are to particular law (like the laws a congress passes) that were given to the people as a gift. Those laws can and do change to best fit changing circumstances.
The eternal law (moral principles, etc) are unchanging and can not change.
Why so serious? My point was its ok to be a little lighthearted every now and then.
Oh, well that is a good point!
I have to dissent from the consensus against evangelical vegetarians. Self-righteousness and dudgeon and unsubtlety are counterproductive, but the position that “I don’t eat meat and it would be better if you didn’t either, or at least ate a lot less,” is a highly defensible one. The extent of animal suffering from our heavy carnivorism is astronomical, and the impact on the natural environment cuts deep.
Peter Singer’s actually a pretty good model of an evangelical vegetarian. I’m not really one myself, mostly because I cower before the disdain which the culture at large holds for them.
There’s also a cast-the-first-stone consideration: I’m bound to be causing real damage in some other blithe consumption habit. Plus I’m not vegan, which perhaps I should be.
Uh, seas, just by existing you are depriving something else of life. That’s the way it works. So of course you are causing real damage – that is what consumption is!
True. Therefore the wisest course is to stop worrying and consume away.
Or kill yourself to provide food for plants.
Peter Singer has all sorts of interesting views, such as how we should be able to kill infants provided that it increases the rest of our net happiness.
I suspect you’re slightly misrepresenting him, but I’m defending his vegetarian agenda, not his views on infanticide. He’s a thoughtful and thought-provoking guy, not to be dismissed wholesale because he sometimes overdoes it.
(I haven’t read a book of his, only what’s available on the internet. I particularly had in mind this interview with Richard Dawkins where Singer takes him gently to task for eating meat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU. Dawkins lets himself be taken to task, it’s disarming).
That isn’t a misreading of Singer. He is an open advocate of infanticide for some time after birth.
“Provided that it increases the rest of our net happiness” could mean “whenever it’s convenient.” Again, I haven’t read much of him and am in no position to speak for him, but I’m pretty sure his requirements are more stringent than that.
You haven’t read him. If you’d like to read some of his books and then discuss his work, I’d be glad to do so.
In the mean time it’s fruitless to discuss his positions because you don’t know what his positions are.
The wiki page for him seems solid enough from my skim of it, especially the section dealing with infanticide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
So that might be at least an alright starting point. I would advise reading a lot of other books before reading Singer, however.
“Ten Philosophical Mistakes” by Mortimer Adler would be a superior starting point.
Wow, someone missed the whole Popeye thing. Spinach, not Spam!
As for my non-evangelicalism with respect to vegetarianism: when it comes to eating meat, I’m pro choice (keeping my laws out of your stomach and out of the kitchen; against steak? don’t have one, etc).
Pretty good, pretty good. You’re quick on the draw in this thread.