Veritas Supra Omnis

Do not pay too much for the whistle

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:57:00 +0000

Greetings all,

Have you ever known or heard of someone who devotes time, money or other resource to something that in your mind just wasn't worth it? Sometimes, you just ask yourself "do they really have any concept of value?" I am sure you have and do because everybody, whether they realize it or not, "pays" for everything, be it good or bad. If you take that vacation you pay time and money. If you save up a rainy day fund you pay by giving up the luxuries you might otherwise have been inclined too. When you devote yourself completely to your job so that it and your future are secure and comfortable you pay by giving up involvement with your family and community. Whatever it is, good or bad, we pay for everything. It seems to be common sense, but far too many people have no concept of value and as a result they pay far more than something is worth. On this matter Benjamin Franklin shared much wisdom in a letter written to Madame Brillon in 1779.

"I am charmed with your description of Paradise, and with your plan of living there; and I approve much of your conclusion, that, in the meantime, we should draw all the good we can from this world. In my opinion we might all draw more good from it than we do, and suffer less evil, if we would take care not to give too much for whistles. For to me it seems that most of the unhappy people we meet with are become so by neglect of that caution.

You ask what I mean? You love stories, and will excuse my telling one of myself.

When I was a child of seven years old, my friends, on a holiday, filled my pocket with coppers. I went directly to a shop where they sold toys for children; and being charmed with the sound of a whistle, that I met by the way in the hands of another boy, I voluntarily offered and gave all my money for one. I then came home, and went whistling all over the house, much pleased with my whistle, but disturbing all the family. My brothers, and sisters, and cousins, understanding the bargain I had made, told me I had given four times as much for it as it was worth; put me in mind what good things I might have bought with the rest of the money; and laughed at me so much for my folly, that I cried with vexation; and the reflection gave me more chagrin than the whistle gave me pleasure.

This, however, was afterwards of use to me, the impression continuing on my mind; so that often, when I was tempted to buy some unnecessary thing, I said to myself, Don’t give too much for the whistle; and I saved my money.

As I grew up, came into the world, and observed the actions of men, I thought I met with many, very many, who gave too much for the whistle.

When I saw one too ambitious of court favor, sacrificing his time in attendance on levees, his repose, his liberty, his virtue, and perhaps his friends, to attain it, I have said to myself, this man gives too much for his whistle.

When I saw another fond of popularity, constantly employing himself in political bustles, neglecting his own affairs, and ruining them by that neglect, "He pays, indeed," said I, "too much for his whistle."

If I knew a miser, who gave up every kind of comfortable living, all the pleasure of doing good to others, all the esteem of his fellow-citizens, and the joys of benevolent friendship, for the sake of accumulating wealth, "Poor man," said I, "you pay too much for your whistle."

When I met with a man of pleasure, sacrificing every laudable improvement of the mind, or of his fortune, to mere corporeal sensations, and ruining his health in their pursuit, "Mistaken man," said I, "you are providing pain for yourself, instead of pleasure; you give too much for your whistle."

If I see one fond of appearance, or fine clothes, fine houses, fine furniture, fine equipages, all above his fortune, for which he contracts debts, and ends his career in a prison, "Alas!" say I, "he has paid dear, very dear, for his whistle."

When I see a beautiful sweet-tempered girl married to an ill-natured brute of a husband, "What a pity," say I, "that she should pay so much for a whistle!"

In short, I conceive that great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by the false estimates they have made of the value of things, and by their giving too much for their whistles."

I discovered this letter when reading an article on personal finance management from The Art of Manliness that I also pass on with my recommendation. I believe Mr. Franklin frames the issues wonderfully and no doubt I will find the phrase "will I pay too much for this whistle?" running through my mind many times in the future. As a young man in my early independent professional life, the impulse to make quick decisions without fully considering their consequences, and then to not go back and review my decisions after they are made to see if they still make sense, is very strong, so a call for caution is very beneficial.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Wisdom from Madison

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:36:00 +0000

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment]"

-James Madison speaking in support of the Bill of Rights and 4th Amendment

Methinks he doth protest too much

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:24:00 +0000

I originally wrote this as a status update for Facebook but it was about 53 characters too long and I didn't want to cut it off and. So, I decided to just expand it into a blog post. :-) The opportunity to wax eloquent (in my mind) notwithstanding, I will endeavor to keep this short and in the style of an opinion commentary. :-)

While driving home from work today, I listened to a prominent Evangelical leader being interview about the exclusion of religious leaders from the 9/11 memorial in New York City, an exclusion which elicited much dismay and outrage from him. To a great extent I share his dismay and sorrow caused by this event and a general trend to reject our historic faith, but I am also very concerned by the reaction of many Christians to these things. Many seem to think it necessary and good to loudly decry such treatment as "un-American" and "disrespectful" and call for some sort of socio/political action to arm twist the organizers of this event into including religious leaders, particularly those of an Evangelical stripe. To this, the famous line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Act III, and Scene II comes to mind. Methinks we doth protest too much.

I absolutely believe America has historically been a "Christian Nation", but it also seems apparent beyond dispute that we are an increasingly secular nation. Practically speaking, outraged and dismayed insistence to the contrary won't alter that fact, and spiritually speaking we should carefully consider what eternal value is to be gained from such expression in this sort of matter. It seems most consistent with scripture and in keeping with an eternal perspective to simply and respectfully state (and demonstrate) the enormous and overwhelmingly positive role of Christianity in the fundamental shaping of this country...and leave it at that. Brow beating and arm twisting is a distinctly political tool - not necessarily a Christian tool - and the Christian should be quite prepared to accept rejection and ridicule from the world and continue about the task[s] given to us by Him without fear, discouragement or anger.

As an aside, I agree with Dennis Prager wholeheartedly when he calls for "clarity above agreement" and believe this principle is important for Christians to consider as we engage with and in the world. I would rather a person openly reject my God than that they pretend adherence to it if that is their true spiritual state...especially if that person is seeking to benefit from such pretension.

For Christians, increasing secularization simply emphasizes the need to "be holy" as He is holy (I Peter 1:13-16) and study to show ourselves approved (II Timothy 2:15) so that we are always ready to humbly and gently give an account of the hope that lies within (I Peter 3:13-15). Perhaps we should consider the possibility that we have strayed from the basic tenets of our faith and hope and have become more conformed to the patterns of this world than we ought.

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2)

Thoughts?

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Thoughts on the possible shutdown

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 19:06:00 +0000

Hello all,

I've been out of blogging for quite a while now out of necessity, but I foresee possibly being able to take it up again on a regular basis (probably with more posts that are just "brain splats" with less attempt at polish) and because of that have a bit of the "blogging bug" at the moment. Consequently, I can't help myself and would like to offer a few thoughts on the possible government shutdown and related controversies.

First, I don't think it would be good for there to be a full shutdown of the government (or any shutdown at all, really, because negotiations that need to take place are the same whether they take place before or after a shutdown). By this I mean that the most core and essential functions of the government like the military, for instance, and any other essential functions that the two parties agree/should agree on, should be funded separately before and separately from less essential "functions" like funding Planned Parenthood, the EPA, National Endowment of Arts, etc, etc, etc. The problem with my viewpoint of course, is that the main sticking points seem to be entitlement spending, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and such. It's possible that within minutes a compromise will be reached on the main sticking points, but if they aren't the responsible thing to do would be to pass a few stop-gap measures funding the military and essential government employees and yes...keeping Social Security checks going out (at least at a reduced rate) and perhaps Medicare and Medicaid too, although if my understanding of the process is correct, IOU's can be issued to those programs (Medicaid and Medicare) which can be paid back at a later time (please correct me if I am wrong and you have the time). It's not right for the government to create programs for and by which people become dependant upon the government to buy groceries, pay the electric bill, the rent and such, and then suddenly cut that funding totally off before cutting off funding for such programs and departments such as Planned Parenthood, the EPA, the Education Department (the individual states can keep their own schools open) and so on.

Second, why are more people not seeing and calling out the Democrats on their "TEA Party" smokescreen? According to the Democrats, the only thing prevent a resolution of the budget debate is the TEA Party. I'm not a TEA Party guy and never have been. I've had a "polite" relationship with the TEA Party (for lack of a better description) and think it has it's good points and it's not so good points. So, don't mistake me as a hard line TEA Partier. Make no mistake though. Blaming the TEA Party for holding up all progress is an obvious smoke screen intended to conceal that the Democratic Party likewise is unwilling to make concessions. If they weren't refusing to make concessions then, logically, a resolution of some sort would already have been reached. Granted, according to the Democrats, their "principled" stands are in "defense" of the middle class and such, and the TEA Party's is about big business and "extreme" ideology, but it's not hard to see that they are as ideologically motivated as the TEA Party.

Third, when did it become wrong to be ideological? And...who isn't ideological? I don't have problem with ideology; in fact, I have my own ideology which happens to include a belief in the necessity of governing which from time to time may require that most hated of all things..."compromise"...on certain matters. I may disagree with other peoples ideology but I neither expect nor request that they scuttle it when they come to the negotiating table. I would only hope that the ideology of the individuals I'm negotiating with have some ground we can find in common.

Fourth, and finally, the Republicans have a smokescreen of their own. They keep calling for Presidential "leadership" in the budget negotiations, but the last time I checked the House of Representatives hold the purse and are primarily responsible for building and negotiating budgets. Does/should the President have a place at the table? Sure...and obviously he can veto a bill (which the house can then override with sufficient numbers) but House leaders are supposed to be at the head of the negotiating table when the budget is the matter at hand. The Executive Branch is supposed to be the third of four arms of government to weigh in on budget matters ( 1) the House of Representatives, 2) the Senate, 3) the Executive Branch, 4) the Judicial Branch). House leadership, both the majority leadership and the minority leadership, wanted their respective jobs. They got those jobs and are now responsible for them. Deal with it and be more careful what you wish for next time.

Clearly, everybody is posturing themselves politically, which is fine and necessary to an extent. But in this case most of the key players have been so focused on posturing BEFORE beginning negotiation (in anticipation that any possible compromise will be more unpopular than popular) that real negotiation has only recently begun, and that's a problem. Job security is very important to a politician. Oh! And the good of the nation too.

Ironically, the people with the greatest job security in the next election (outside of those who aren't up for re-election in 2012) will probably be those "ideologues" who actually stuck to their guns unequivocally, and rightly so. It's time voters more readily reward character and integrity in their elected representatives, which, btw, I think TEA Party voters will and have done, for which I applaud them.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Eduardo Verastegui: tolerating what can't be seen?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 05:03:00 +0000

Hello all,

I was struck this evening by something said in an Eduardo Verastegui video message posted to the Cry Action Blog. I don’t agree with all that is said in the video, at least not as it is put, but this portion conveys important and true food for thought that I would like to help pass on.

Speaking in defense of using graphic images of abortion to defend life, Mr. Verastagui says this:

“Perhaps some of you question whether it is necessary to show a video like this, and my answer is the same that they give in schools about showing movies of the Nazi holocaust. Teachers don’t show these videos in order to emotionally manipulate students. They show them because the Nazi holocaust represents a terrible evil that words alone cannot describe. The holocaust of abortion is no different. We all instinctively know that abortion is something evil and if it is something so terrible that we can’t even see it, shouldn’t we perhaps not tolerate it either?“

If you would like to see the whole video message (it’s about 4:24 long) you can see it on the Cry Action Blog by following this link.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Kevin Bales on fighting modern slavery: the power of small things

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:01:00 +0000

Hello all!

Ever wondered how to fight slavery? Ever wondered what young people and/or people with limited resources can do to help? If you have asked yourself these questions then I highly recommend the following video to you. It won't answer all your questions probably, but it will help set you on the path to finding your own answers.

Watching this video, I was flabbergasted by the impact that "small things" can have on a global level. I've always known intellectually that small things could make a big difference but the projected impact that small things could have in fighting slavery simply shocked and convicted me. I was convicted because I see how much impact I have likely been wasting. Take for instance my love of Starbucks Caramel Macchiato's...

I am a frequent patron of the local Starbucks, frequent enough that most of the regular employee's know me by name and all of them know my regular order; a Grande Caramel Macchiato. Nothing can beat a Caramel Macchiato for a bit of relaxation and awesomeness. But, at what cost do I indulge in this treat?

Well, suppose I have 1.5 Caramel Macchiato a week (I try to limit my intake). They've raised the price this year from $4.28 to $4.60 for a GCM, so if I have 1.5 a week that = a total of $6.90. Multiply that by 52 and you get $358.80 a year spent on GCM's. If I get 2 GCM's a week, by no means something unheard of, that total number jumps to $478.40 a year spent on Grande Caramel Macchiato's.

How much does it cost to free a slave? In many parts of the world...$400...for sustainable freedom according to Kevin Bales.

Wow. I am both angry with myself by those calculations and joyfully amazed at the impact I can have!

Now tell me. What does it say of a person who refuses to do small things for God's glory?

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

These are serious issues, Mr. Linkins

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:46:00 +0000

Hello all,

Be warned that this post is a bit of a departure from normal fare on this blog and I’m not bothering with the disclaimers that I normally include. If you are normal reader of this blog, just imagine the balancing (hopefully) disclaimers I usually include.

I read the Huffington Post pretty much daily. I admit that it’s a fun and engaging site, even if I disagree with most of the views and opinions of their writers and bloggers, and I enjoy the intellectual stimulation and insight into opposing views available on Huffington Post. There is also a good deal of content on the site that I am careful to skirt due to appropriateness issues, which is a disclaimer I am throwing in.

Anyway, while reading yesterday, I ran across a story about controversial statements recently made by former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum. The story includes an imbedded video of the actual comments themselves as well as a brief debate between Santorum and Al Sharpton on the Sean Hannity show. The video is worth listening to if you have 6 minutes and 59 seconds of extra time. The subject of this post though is a different article, this one by Jason Linkins. I should preface this by saying that I have never enjoyed or really read Linkins’ articles as they have never struck me as worthwhile. But this one caught my eye because of its title.

“Santorum Abortion Remark Spurs Incomplete Discussion”

Hmmmm... That got my attention. What could he be referring to?

What I read made me mad. I don’t often get angry by what people write as I accept it as a fact of life that people don’t always agree with me (which is both good and bad) and are sometimes deeply misguided; but Linkins post conveys callousness towards life that is deeply appalling. If you will bear with me, I would like to break down the relevant portions of his article by sentences and paragraphs. The rest of the article, the parts I am not breaking down, is a largely useless and snarky summation of why Santorum would say what he said. You can read it here though if you would like to see the entire context.

“Got that? In case it didn't sink in, Klein summarizes it all thusly: "Now, once again, you may not believe that a fetus is a person--but if you do, as Santorum does, this is a perfectly reasonable argument, an argument against limiting the civil rights of anyone according to race or life status."

This portion is basically summing up Joel Klein’s summation of Santorum’s beliefs regarding life. It’s a reasonable and fair summation, for which both Klein and Linkins deserve credit, though I hate to give credit for things I would expect of any decent journalist and/or opinion writer.

“Yes, okay. But I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't a "reasonable argument" against "limiting the civil rights of anyone according" to gender. To all the people falling all over themselves to assert the fact that Santorum really believes what he says and that there are others that agree with him -- two facts that no one has actually disputed -- I'll remind you that there actually exists a sizable portion of the population who have consistently made a "reasonable argument" that women are neither chattel nor brood-mares, and that Santorum's non-alignment with that argument is what makes him a radical.”

I know something else nobody has disputed – that women are not “broodmares”. What pro-life advocate has ever said anything remotely similar to that? The closest you can get to that is the very, very small portion of the population that believes large families (i.e. as large as possible) are essentially a biblically mandate and even that is more than a considerable stretch reality. But that portion of the population is so small that it barely registers on the radar. Pro-life advocates as a group believe life begins at conception. That’s it. Being pro-life has nothing to do with making women “broodmares” and there is nothing approaching any kind of consensus among pro-life advocates concerning family size. If Linkins does not know that he has no business writing on the subject. Additionally, Linkins’ assertion that Santorum believes women to be broodmares is absurd.

“Additionally, it shouldn't be overlooked that if we're comparing fetuses to slaves, we're equating women with amoral slaveowners, and elevating the rights of the fetus over those of the woman to choose whether to proceed with a pregnancy that has significant medical risks above and beyond the actual act of parenting.”

Actually, we’re comparing slaves’ God given human rights to unborn babies God given human rights and concluding they are the same. Linkins just summed up Klein’s summary of the pro-life belief that “fetuses” are fully human and thus deserving of basic human rights so you would expect him to grasp this nuance. I guess he just doesn’t understand that we are elevating the right of one human (the fetus) to the same level as the rights of another’s (the mother).

I know people like Linkins scoff and rage at this sort of statement, but women do have reproductive rights and freedom – the freedom to reproduce or not to reproduce. To confuse that right with the “right” to terminate the life of a human is the tragic confusion of abortion advocates.

In closing his article, Linkins makes this bold and unyieldingly principled statement.

“I just wanted there to be at least one blog post on the Internet that sort of considered those matters worthy of discussion, okay?”

Wow. What would we do without this courageous cultural crusader?

Look, people can and do (obviously) disagree on such matters as the beginning of life, women’s rights, and the role of government in protecting both. All of these are very serious issues that demand and deserve very serious treatment. Santorum at least treats these issues with the gravity they deserve, while Linkins does anything but, despite his apparent conviction to the contrary. I don’t expect there will ever be strong consensus on the aforementioned issues, but I am fully convinced that voices such as Linkins will only impede good and grave thinking on these crucial life and death issues.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Censor Huckleberry Finn?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:39:00 +0000

Hello all,

Normally I don’t write posts “off the cuff” as I am doing now, but I was dismayed this evening to learn that NewSouth Books’ upcoming edition of Mark Twain’s 'Huckleberry Finn' will be edited to remove the “N-word” and replace it with “slave” and will do the same to an upcoming edition of 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'. The new edition will also remove the word “injun” though I have not heard and am not sure what it will be replaced with (I presume it will be something obvious like “Indian”).

What I don’t want to do is overreact. I realize this may have a limited impact for some time to come if it has a significant impact at all, but at the same time I think this has potential to be very significant in our educational system by promoting and charting a new “course” and means of writing and learning history that would be severely detrimental to learning. In my estimation, it should therefore be treated as significant.

One of the big themes in Huckleberry Finn (if not the primary “take away” lesson/theme) is the silliness, wrongheadedness and moral indefensibility of race based discrimination. Racism imbeds itself into cultures in both subtle and not-subtle ways and in obviously wrong and marginally wrong ways. Terms and labels are often used by a group or groups to demean other people...though such terms and labels in and of themselves might otherwise be harmless. In the case and times of Huckleberry Finn both the terms “nigger” and “injun” were demeaning terms that denoted the slavery, segregation and racism of the times. Jim, the enslaved (runaway slave) Negro friend of Huckleberry Finn represents a class of people who at that time were widely enslaved and treated as less than human physically and - perhaps worse yet - viewed consciously and sub-consciously as inferior beings to their "masters". Terms such as "nigger" are largely born of the conscious and sub-conscious varieties of racism and commonly associated with it...which is why such terms are always a sensitive matter.

As Huckleberry and Jim grow in friendship throughout the story Huckleberry begins more and more to see and view Jim in his true light - not as a “nigger” - but as a human, as a friend and as an equal. For his part, Jim proves himself to be the deepest and truest sort of friend (John 15:13) and by the end of the story both Huckleberry and the reader are struck by the silliness and wrongness of the term “nigger” and - more precisely - what it represented. To remove the cultural words and connotations of the time would be to remove the essence of Jim and his role in the story.

Huckleberry Finn is a carefully crafted masterpiece that does more than tell a good story. But, if we expunge the terms and cultural context of the time how are we to learn from our past? And, if we don’t learn from our past, how are we not doomed to repeat our mistakes?

All this being said…I haven’t even touched the censorship issue and that issue is deserving of much discussion.

I neither doubt nor question the good intentions of NewSouth Books’. No doubt many will question and analyze them and their motives and cast aspersions on them. I don’t wish to do that though. I believe their decision is wrong irrespective of their good or bad intentions and I hope their reasoning does not become a trend. We must not sugar coat history. It is what it is and we are foolish to take offense by it. We should learn from it, and learn from its fullness, even when it is ugly.

In closing - Anderson Cooper conducted an excellent interview (in my opinion) on his show that I am linking and recommend you watch. I don’t necessarily agree with all that is said, but it is worth viewing nonetheless.

New Edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the N-word

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Abortion is not an option when in doubt

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:08:00 +0000

Hello all!

Some of you may recall a post of mine from a while back (relying heavily on an article by E. Christian Brugger) titled “Public Discourse: The Ethics of Fetal Pain”. The most basic premise of my comments and Mr. Brugger’s article could be summed up something like this. “When in doubt don’t kill or torture the fetus, otherwise known as a baby, because there is no justification for abortion in the face of doubt”.

I found another article today, titled “A Chance Worth Fighting For” by Timothy Dalrymple, in which the author cites Erwin Schrödinger’s “Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics to draw the following conclusion that would affirm mine and Mr. Brugger’s contention:

“I present this thought experiment because my most fundamental question concerning abortion is: whether or when abortion is the destruction of a human life? Yet I cannot find a definitive answer to the question of when human life begins in the womb, and I suspect many on both sides, if honest, would confess the same. What do we mean by human and life? What if human life does not begin at any discrete moment, or when is a life sufficiently human to claim special moral value?

I sympathize with the distraught young woman who stands before the trials of motherhood, and it is difficult to contend that she should face them for a six-week-old fertilized embryo. Yet I cannot see the dismembered bodies of late-aborted fetuses, or the videos of fetal activity in the midst of abortion procedures, without feeling as though we have gone horribly wrong. If no leaf changes without the silent knowledge of the tree (Kahlil Gibran), we are all responsible for the least of these.

Yet the "indeterminacy" of the beginning of life works in favor of pro-lifers. The mere chance that abortion is the destruction of human life, or of nascent human life of high moral worth, is enough to stand against it. Why should we accept in the mysterious confines of the human body what we would not allow in front of our eyes?”

I won’t lie. I find abortion appalling and believe God does as well. However, I don’t view all people who believe abortion as acceptable and/or that it should be legal in the same light. Some people are honestly convinced that a “fetus” is not human, a view particularly common among products of a thoroughly humanist educational system. I believe this view to be horribly misguided scientifically and logically, and I would do my utmost to persuade them of their error. However, this is a human mistake common in our deceived times, and I would be slow to condemn these people too quickly or too harshly.

There is another category though. This one is comprised of people who are not convinced of the soundness of abortion scientifically, morally or logically, but because society allows it and it is convenient they are willing to support abortion. This group is tragically and reprehensibly confused, beguiled and assuaged by a deadly combination of self indulgence and willful ignorance.

Is there a defense for such individuals?

Ironically, I don’t see why an abortion advocate from the first category mentioned in this post would disagree with my premise.

Advocates of abortion tout “women’s freedom” and “reproductive rights” as grounds for legalized abortion, but this view is justifiable only if you believe an unborn child is simply a “fetus”. If you are not convinced of this, what justification is there for abortion? Are “reproductive rights” in anyway comparable to life itself when the two are weighed against each other?

I believe they most certainly are not which is why, in part, I so strongly believe that the presence of even the slightest doubt concerning whether or not a fetus is a human should take the “option” of abortion completely off the table for a person with a sound moral compass.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Flaws are no cause for rejection

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:47:00 +0000

Hello all,

I came across an excellent “common sense” article today by Thomas Kidd titled “The Tea Party, Fundamentalism, and the Founding”. In it, he responses to several attacks on the Tea Party leveled by Jill Lepore in her new book “The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History”. It’s an interesting read (and not long) so I recommend that you take a few minutes for reading it.

For the purposes of this post I would like to highlight the final paragraph of Mr. Kidd’s article:

“But Lepore wants us to stare the hard facts in the face: the Founders denied the basic rights of citizenship to the majority of Americans, especially slaves. She implies that because the Founders were flawed people, bound by their place and time, we can learn almost nothing from them. "Thank goodness, the eighteenth century is over," Lepore says in her acknowledgements. Surely we all agree that the leaders of our Revolution were products of a culture that was morally faulty, just as our own society is. But entirely dismissing the wisdom of that age throws out the very principles -- especially the notion that "all men are created equal" -- that helped us move past the limitations of the Founding. Thinking that you can learn something from the past does not make you a fundamentalist.”

I think his point is very important. To reject outright the collective and individual wisdom of a world changing generation on the basis that they were immensely flawed human beings is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. People are always products of their times and need to be evaluated in that light.

Our Founding Fathers were extraordinary people in many respects. They are largely (if not primarily) responsible for changing the world for the better by adopting a new philosophy, theology and worldview of government and social structure. However, they were deeply flawed. They did not live out their own ideas and principles as well as they could have or should have. Nonetheless, they laid a foundation and planted seeds that would effectively move future generations in a direction that would more fully realize the noble principles pioneered by our Founding Fathers and Mothers.

For that, we should honor them, and thank them, but we also must realistically evaluate them in light of their imperfections and times. I for one have no problem saying on one hand “Our Founding Fathers planted the tree of freedom and pioneered an unrivaled political and social philosophy and I honor them for that” and on the other hand proclaiming “Our Founding Fathers unjustly enslaved and stripped of their full due dignity thousands upon thousands of their fellow man”. That is no contradiction; that is realistically acknowledging mans capacity to work great good while also engaging in great evil and differentiating between the two.

History is full of such man and women. I marvel at how much good can be accomplished by flawed human beings and take great comfort in knowing that God can use an imperfect vessel to accomplish His good will.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Theodore Roosevelt: The American Boy

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 01:12:00 +0000

Hello all,

Theodore Roosevelt is a man that has much to teach our culture today, especially when it comes to leadership and "manliness". This is not an endorsement of everything he said or did necessarily, but I do think that the good in his life and beliefs far outweigh the bad or not so good.

The Strenuous Life is Roosevelt's previously well known collection of commentaries (essays) and public addresses on "what is necessary for a vital and healthy political, social and individual life" and is specifically addressed to men and young men.

Today, while doing some research, I had occasion to read Chapter X of The Strenuous Life and found it refreshing and challenging. It's not often we hear so boldly and unabashedly declared masculine virtues. But then, it's not often we have a Teddy Roosevelt in our midst. :-)

I won't post the entire address, but I would like to copy a few of my favorite portions of it and highly recommend that you read the rest. It hardly bears mention I would think, but do keep in mind that some of the words and their meanings were used differently today than Roosevelt's day. Just making sure we're clear there. :-P

THE AMERICAN BOY (by Theodore Roosevelt)
PUBLISHED IN "ST. NICHOLAS," MAY, 1900

OF course what we have a right to expect of the American boy is that he shall turn out to be a good American man. Now, the chances are strong that he won't be much of a man unless he is a good deal of a boy. He must not be a coward or a weakling, a bully, a shirk, or a prig. He must work hard and play hard. He must be clean-minded and clean-lived, and able to hold his own under all circumstances and against all comers. It is only on these conditions that he will grow into the kind of American man of whom America can be really proud.

There are always in life countless tendencies for good and for evil, and each succeeding generation sees some of these tendencies strengthened and some weakened; nor is it by any means always, alas! that the tendencies for evil are weakened and those for good strengthened. But during the last few decades there certainly have been some notable changes for good in boy life. The great growth in the love of athletic sports, for instance, while fraught with danger if it becomes one-sided and unhealthy, has beyond all question had an excellent effect in increased manliness. Forty or fifty years ago the writer on American morals was sure to deplore the effeminacy and luxury of young Americans who were born of rich parents. The boy who was well off then, especially in the big Eastern cities, lived too luxuriously, took to billiards as his chief innocent recreation, and felt small shame in his inability to take part in rough pastimes and field-sports. Nowadays, whatever other faults the son of rich parents may tend to develop, he is at least forced by the opinion of all his associates of his own age to bear himself well in manly exercises and to develop his body—and therefore, to a certain extent, his character—in the rough sports which call for pluck, endurance, and physical address.

Of course boys who live under such fortunate conditions that they have to do either a good deal of outdoor work or a good deal of what might be called natural outdoor play do not need this athletic development. In the Civil War the soldiers who came from the prairie and the backwoods and the rugged farms where stumps still dotted the clearings, and who had learned to ride in their infancy, to shoot as soon as they could handle a rifle, and to camp out whenever they got the chance, were better fitted for military work than any set of mere school or college athletes could possibly be. Moreover, to mis-estimate athletics is equally bad whether their importance is magnified or minimized. The Greeks were famous athletes, and as long as their athletic training had a normal place in their lives, it was a good thing. But it was a very bad thing when they kept up their athletic games while letting the stern qualities of soldiership and statesmanship sink into disuse. Some of the younger readers of this book will certainly sometime read the famous letters of the younger Pliny, a Roman who wrote, with what seems to us a curiously modern touch, in the first century of the present era. His correspondence with the Emperor Trajan is particularly interesting; and not the least noteworthy thing in it is the tone of contempt with which he speaks of the Greek athletic sports, treating them as the diversions of an unwarlike people which it was safe to encourage in order to keep the Greeks from turning into anything formidable. So at one time the Persian kings had to forbid polo, because soldiers neglected their proper duties for the fascinations of the game. We cannot expect the best work from soldiers who have carried to an unhealthy extreme the sports and pastimes which would be healthy if indulged in with moderation, and have neglected to learn as they should the business of their profession. A soldier needs to know how to shoot and take cover and shift for himself—not to box or play foot-ball. There is, of course, always the risk of thus mistaking means for ends. Fox-hunting is a first-class sport; but one of the most absurd things in real life is to note the bated breath with which certain excellent fox-hunters, otherwise of quite healthy minds, speak of this admirable but not over-important pastime. They tend to make it almost as much of a fetish as, in the last century, the French and German nobles made the chase of the stag, when they carried hunting and game-preserving to a point which was ruinous to the national life. Fox-hunting is very good as a pastime, but it is about as poor a business as can be followed by any man of intelligence. Certain writers about it are fond of quoting the anecdote of a fox-hunter who, in the days of the English civil war, was discovered pursuing his favorite sport just before a great battle between the Cavaliers and the Puritans, and right between their lines as they came together. These writers apparently consider it a merit in this man that when his country was in a death-grapple, instead of taking arms and hurrying to the defense of the cause he believed right, he should placidly have gone about his usual sports. Of course, in reality the chief serious use of fox-hunting is to encourage manliness and vigor, and to keep men hardy, so that at need they can show themselves fit to take part in work or strife for their native land. When a man so far confuses ends and means as to think that fox-hunting, or polo, or foot-ball, or whatever else the sport may be, is to be itself taken as the end, instead of as the mere means of preparation to do work that counts when the time arises, when the occasion calls—why, that man had better abandon sport altogether.

No boy can afford to neglect his work, and with a boy work, as a rule, means study. Of course there are occasionally brilliant successes in life where the man has been worthless as a student when a boy. To take these exceptions as examples would be as unsafe as it would be to advocate blindness because some blind men have won undying honor by triumphing over their physical infirmity and accomplishing great results in the world. I am no advocate of senseless and excessive cramming in studies, but a boy should work, and should work hard, at his lessons—in the first place, for the sake of what he will learn, and in the next place, for the sake of the effect upon his own character of resolutely settling down to learn it. Shiftlessness, slackness, indifference in studying, are almost certain to mean inability to get on in other walks of life. Of course, as a boy grows older it is a good thing if he can shape his studies in the direction toward which he has a natural bent; but whether he can do this or not, he must put his whole heart into them. I do not believe in mischief-doing in school hours, or in the kind of animal spirits that results in making bad scholars; and I believe that those boys who take part in rough, hard play outside of school will not find any need for horse-play in school. While they study they should study just as hard as they play foot-ball in a match game. It is wise to obey the homely old adage, "Work while you work; play while you play."

A boy needs both physical and moral courage. Neither can take the place of the other. When boys become men they will find out that there are some soldiers very brave in the field who have proved timid and worthless as politicians, and some politicians who show an entire readiness to take chances and assume responsibilities in civil affairs, but who lack the fighting edge when opposed to physical danger. In each case, with soldiers and politicians alike, there is but half a virtue. The possession of the courage of the soldier does not excuse the lack of courage in the statesman and, even less does the possession of the courage of the statesman excuse shrinking on the field of battle. Now, this is all just as true of boys. A coward who will take a blow without returning it is a contemptible creature; but, after all, he is hardly as contemptible as the boy who dares not stand up for what he deems right against the sneers of his companions who are themselves wrong. Ridicule is one of the favorite weapons of wickedness, and it is sometimes incomprehensible how good and brave boys will be influenced for evil by the jeers of associates who have no one quality that calls for respect, but who affect to laugh at the very traits which ought to be peculiarly the cause for pride.

There is no need to be a prig. There is no need for a boy to preach about his own good conduct and virtue. If he does he will make himself offensive and ridiculous. But there is urgent need that he should practise decency; that he should be clean and straight, honest and truthful, gentle and tender, as well as brave. If he can once get to a proper understanding of things, he will have a far more hearty contempt for the boy who has begun a course of feeble dissipation, or who is untruthful, or mean, or dishonest, or cruel, than this boy and his fellows can possibly, in return, feel for him. The very fact that the boy should be manly and able to hold his own, that he should be ashamed to submit to bullying without instant retaliation, should, in return, make him abhor any form of bullying, cruelty, or brutality.

There are two delightful books, Thomas Hughes's "Tom Brown at Rugby," and Aldrich's "Story of a Bad Boy," which I hope every boy still reads; and I think American boys will always feel more in sympathy with Aldrich's story, because there is in it none of the fagging, and the bullying which goes with fagging, the account of which, and the acceptance of which, always puzzle an American admirer of Tom Brown.

There is the same contrast between two stories of Kipling's. One, called "Captains Courageous," describes in the liveliest way just what a boy should be and do. The hero is painted in the beginning as the spoiled, over-indulged child of wealthy parents, of a type which we do sometimes unfortunately see, and than which there exist few things more objectionable on the face of the broad earth. This boy is afterward thrown on his own resources, amid wholesome surroundings, and is forced to work hard among boys and men who are real boys and real men doing real work. The effect is invaluable. On the other hand, if one wishes to find types of boys to be avoided with utter dislike, one will find them in another story by Kipling, called "Stalky & Co.," a story which ought never to have been written, for there is hardly a single form of meanness which it does not seem to extol, or of school mismanagement which it does not seem to applaud. Bullies do not make brave men; and boys or men of foul life cannot become good citizens, good Americans, until they change; and even after the change scars will be left on their souls.

The boy can best become a good man by being a good boy—not a goody-goody boy, but just a plain good boy. I do not mean that he must love only the negative virtues; I mean he must love the positive virtues also. "Good," in the largest sense, should include whatever is fine, straightforward, clean, brave, and manly. The best boys I know—the best men I know—are good at their studies or their business, fearless and stalwart, hated and feared by all that is wicked and depraved, incapable of submitting to wrong-doing, and equally incapable of being aught but tender to the weak and helpless. A healthy-minded boy should feel hearty contempt for the coward, and even more hearty indignation for the boy who bullies girls or small boys, or tortures animals. One prime reason for abhorring cowards is because every good boy should have it in him to thrash the objectionable boy as the need arises.

Of course the effect that a thoroughly manly, thoroughly straight and upright boy can have upon the companions of his own age, and upon those who are younger, is incalculable. If he is not thoroughly manly, then they will not respect him, and his good qualities will count for but little; while, of course, if he is mean, cruel, or wicked, then his physical strength and force of mind merely make him so much the more objectionable a member of society. He cannot do good work if he is not strong and does not try with his whole heart and soul to count in any contest; and his strength will be a curse to himself and to every one else if he does not have thorough command over himself and over his own evil passions, and if he does not use his strength on the side of decency, justice, and fair dealing.

In short, in life, as in a foot-ball game, the principle to follow is:

Hit the line hard; don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard!

I think the above thoughts are very thought provoking. Our culture has come far since the times of Roosevelt, sometimes progressing for the better and often regressing for the worse, but young men are still basically the same.

Our culture would do well to reconsider how we raise our boys, specifically the sort of "strenuous life" we commend to them. We need to encourage and nurture our young men to do hard things and live a Rebelutionary lifestyle.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Public Discourse: The Ethics of Fetal Pain

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:58:00 +0000

Hello all,

As anybody who reads this blog knows, I am strongly pro-life and believe the abortion issues is far and away the single biggest moral and cultural crisis this country is currently facing.

One of the aspects of the abortion debate that doesn't get a whole lot of attention in the large media outlets but does get a good deal of attention in the front lines of the battle, where the rubber meets the road, is the issue of fetal pain. Specifically, whether or not, and when, fetuses feel the pain of the abortion process.

This is an important question for two relatively obvious reasons. 1) If the fetus feels pain it must be a life, and since it is comprised of distinctly human DNA, it would then be a human life and abortion would be murder. 2) If the fetus feels pain then the cruelty and injustice of abortion would be greatly exemplified and amplified by that pain.

A friend on Facebook linked an article today by E. Christian Brugger about the fetal pain issue. It is posted on Public Discourse, titled "The Ethics of Fetal Pain" and I believe it really cuts to the core of the matter. The author’s main/basic premise is that abortion should be unthinkable in the face of uncertainty. He argues that, regardless of where you stand on the issue, the fact that there is scientific uncertainty should dissuade us from condoning and/or allowing abortion.

The following is the portion of the article that is best sums up his larger point[s].

"Let us say for the sake of argument that rigorous data is inconclusive. I am then left with a doubt as to whether or not levonorgestrel might render the uterine lining inhospitable. According to my practical knowledge, informed, let’s say for the sake of argument, by the best available evidence, I might kill an embryo if I use this drug in such and such a way. The possibility that my action will cause a death gives rise to the duty, stemming from the requisites of fairness, to refrain from that action. I would need to be reasonably certain that it will not cause death before purposeful action is justifiable. This reasonable certitude can also be called moral certitude. And reasonable doubt and moral certitude about the same fact are mutually excluding.

Let me propose one more example. If reasonable doubt existed as to whether the new device known as the “Mosquito,” which emits a high-pitched noise to disperse loiterers, not only caused minor auditory discomfort but severe pain, the burden of proof would fall upon the manufacturer to give evidence that it does not before the device should be approved for general use. Proof, of course, would be simple to arrive at: ask those exposed to the “Mosquito.” Since fetuses cannot yet provide self-report in language we cannot simply ask them whether they feel pain.

Yet I think the principle still stands: the burden of proof would fall upon defenders of the “Mosquito” to rule out a reasonable doubt that the device causes severe pain before its common use was approved, or to take action to assure that this possibility is mitigated.

The burden falls on the one who might be doing wrongful harm to rule out reasonable doubt that they are. If you were hunting in the woods and saw something moving in the distance, but were unsure of whether it was a deer or another hunter, you would be bound not to shoot until reasonable doubt was dispelled that what was stirring in the distance was not another hunter. When a doubt of fact bears on settling whether an alternative under consideration is immoral (e.g., it would be immoral to shoot in the face of reasonable doubt), one should withhold choosing till the fact has been settled.

So the question to be settled is whether or not reasonable doubt exists concerning a fetus’s capacity to experience pain. Since empirical certitude is not available, I propose, in light of what I said above, the following principle: that the judgment that fetuses do feel pain need only be a reasonable explanatory hypothesis in light of the settled evidence. Whereas the judgment that they do not requires moral certitude before providing a speculative ground for normative judgments about how to act."

I think the author hits the nail on the head and would encourage my readers to read the rest of the article. Pro-choice advocates would be hard pressed to overcome that reasoning. It's actually very much in line with legal thinking/reasoning concerning standards/burdens of proof.

Hopefully this post was informative for you. Pro-life advocates need to give close attention to these questions of ethics and values. These are the issues that are contested in the trenches and upon which this battle will be decided.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

(Book Recommendation) Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 19:03:00 +0000

Hello all,

I just finished reading Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative and though I don't have time to write a thorough book review, I would like to recommend it to you and include some information and commentary that might pique your interest in reading it.

When I first read about this book, the one word most consistently used to describe it was "provocative". Initially, this description discouraged my interest in reading Republocrat as I have a low estimation of most "provocative" books, articles and essays. In the culture of today, what is passed off and described as provocative more often than not would be better described as poorly reasoned, hyperbolic, leering opinion splats. But reading descriptions of the content and subject of Republocrat piqued my interest in the book and overcame my word association.

I am glad it did. In Republocrat, author Carl Trueman sets out to challenge the thinking of political establishment conservatives, offering pointed insights and critiques of their party, institution, thinking, working and behavior.

Republocrat is indeed pointed and provocative, but it is constructively pointed and genuinely and thoughtfully provocative. This is not to say that it is perfect, not by a long shot. There are several instances in which I believe the author fails his own standard of logic and reasoning. For instance, Trueman's criticisms of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly (his critique of Glenn Beck I agreed with almost entirely) are largely legitimate but often seem disproportionate. All major news networks are a mixed bag, a fact the author acknowledges later in the book but seems to have forgotten when addressing Fox. His critique of what I term "institutional" conservative views and understandings of Marxism, Totalitarianism and Socialism often ignore what shapes their view and instead focuses on the technical incorrectness of common terminology. He views Marxism primarily in socio/economic/contextual terms and his sharp criticisms of institutional conservative views of Marxism seem to miss the fact that conservatives view Marxism in primarily religious/philosophical/productive terms. The point is not to say either view is right or wrong, only to highlight one of my disagreements with the author.

There are other areas and instances where I disagree with the author, but the book is nonetheless worthwhile, and being a relatively short book, would not take much of your while.

I particularly appreciated and agreed with his thoughts on the secularization of America (covered in Chapter 2: "The Slipperiness of Secularization") and his critique of the state of political discourse and communication (covered in Chapter 5: "Rulers of the Queen's Navee").

Peter Lillback, President of the Providence Forum, has this to say of the book and its author:

"What we really have here is a lonely thinker who longs for the truth of a better city that he cannot find on either side of the Atlantic. He lampoons the cherished political idols that dominate our political landscape. I couldn’t suppress chortles of laughter, alongside shocks of disdain and disagreement, all the while admiring Trueman’s unmasking of the well-camouflaged foolishness on all points of the political spectrum. This historian-turned-pundit, with all the force of a prizefighter’s left jab and right hook, leaves the left, right, and center (or centre) reeling on the ropes. Therefore, I heartily recommend that you read this book, but you do so at your own peril. Its intensity, as well as its pointed, provocative, and persuasive prose, will force you to look at the Vanity Fair of politics from a pilgrim’s perspective. It’s just possible that you, too, will begin to yearn for a better city.”

Additional reviews can be found on Republocrat's Amazon page.

Overall, this is a book I highly recommend, especially to my conservative and evangelical friends. :-)

For those interested, here is an interview of Carl Trueman. For those particularly interested in knowing Mr. Trueman's views on abortion, they are explained in the imbedded video at about the 9 minute mark.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

(via The Population Research Institute) ObamaCare: The Facts on Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:00:00 +0000

I know this debate is supposed to be settled...but it's not and this is far too an important an issue to be silent on.

I found the following video, produced by The Population Research, Joe Carter's First Thoughts blog. I've posted material before briefly detailing how ObamaCare can/would be used to fund abortion, but this video is the best I've seen in that category, thus, my posting it.

May we never rest while there are still helpless and precious lives to defend!

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

The Purpose of Suffering

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:25:00 +0000

Charlie Albright has posted (or re-posted...not sure which) an excellent fundamental examination of the purpose of suffering. I would like to post some of that article with preliminary thoughts and comments prompted in my mind by Charlie's post.

When approaching the issue of suffering, if we are to benefit from suffering, we need to first think about what suffering actually is. I don't pretend or aim to have a full answer to that question, but I would suggest that there are two basic types of suffering: the physical and the spiritual, and that both these kinds of suffering are designed to accomplish common goals in our life (dealt with later in this post). Physical suffering is usually pretty obvious. It can be sickness, injury, disease, pain, persecution and other such things. Then there is spiritual suffering, or "affliction". This can include depression, doubts, unrest, sorrow, etc.

One article on suffering I read described it in a way I found thought provoking and insightful: "It is a tool God uses to get our attention and to accomplish His purposes in our lives in a way that would never occur without the trial or irritation."

I personally like that definition and believe it is very much in line with Biblical teachings on suffering.

Suffering can be for disciplinary purposes. We know that God chastises those He loves (Hebrews 12:4-7) to purify them (Zechariah 13:8-9) and to bring them back to Him. We also know that what we sow will be reaped (Galatians 6:7-8). I make these points because as young Christians it's important that we understand this truth so we will know to examine ourselves (II Corinthians 13) in the face of suffering and not assume that our suffering is unrelated to our sin.

Suffering can also happen for reasons we cannot see or understand. This is where Christians can (and frequently do) become easily discouraged and disheartened. Just ask Job. He suffered more than I can imagine for reasons he never fully understood. Yet, the fruit of his suffering was clearly evident. Thank God we can always be assured by the truth of Romans 5:3-5 but must understand that we don't always know why we suffer.

Because we can't know why we suffer, it is imperative that we understand and cling to the promises of what is accomplished through suffering. That is why posts such as Charlie's are important and why we are posting it here. So, without further ado, here is an abridged version of Charlie’s post. If you would like to read the rest (and I would encourage you to) please hop over to Renewing Thoughts and read it there.

The Purpose of Suffering

Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises dead. 2 Corinthians 1:9

The suffering Paul and his companions were experiencing at this time felt like a death sentence. The burden of their suffering had driven them to the point that they had believed the time had come for them to lose their lives.

In the midst of the despair and sorrow that surround Paul and his companions the God of all comfort came to them. The experience does not end in despair. Though, it does not end in immediate physical deliverance either. Comfort comes by the means of truth. There is a truth attained by the experience which Paul explains in the last sentence, “to make us;” This tremendous burden of suffering had a purpose. There was an aim, a goal that it was set out to accomplish. No suffering is purposeless. Far be it from that! Instead the very creator and sustainer of ever molecule has a purpose in every affliction in our lives. What is that purpose?

It is theological in giving us a correct vision of God

“to make us rely not on ourselves;” The first aspect of this correction is in making us see that we are not God. We are not lords over our lives. We like to think that we are. We like to think that we are in control of each and every day. But suffering is the clearest demonstration that this is not the case. We are not in control.

“but on God;” When suffering removes our reliance from ourselves the only place that is a sufficient rock is none other than God. Suffering brings us to the place where the only stable and sure foundation is the Lord of the universe. This is why God brings suffering, that it might drives us to Him!

“who raises the dead.” It is not: rarely, maybe, sometimes. Our Lord always moves and works for His children. Our God is one who does mighty deeds and glorious works for His children. He never leaves them behind, but always fulfills the plan which he set out to do for them. Now, His plans are not our plans. Faith is holding on to this truth while waiting for the glorious plan of God to come to fruition.

Suffering is hard and painful, yet by faith we can hold to the truth that the purpose is more glorious than a life of ease. Let suffering drive us to Christ and His love!

To those words of wisdom I heartily say amen!

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

No, Mr. President. Killing Is Killing No Matter What We Call It.

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:06:00 +0000

No, Mr. President. Killing Is Killing No Matter What We Call It.: "No, Mr. President. Killing Is Killing No Matter What We Call It. from the Desiring God blog."

You "want" to help, but are you looking to help?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:22:00 +0000

Hello all,

Good intentions are wonderful. I think we can all agree with that. However, good intentions are not enough unless they translate into action. The Bible clearly teaches in Matthew 7 that the measure of a person’s intentions and heart is no less than their actions.

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰ Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20, New King James Version)

I was really blessed and challenged this week by a story I ran across on lifesitenews.com about a man who exemplified the union of "intent" and action. The story begins with the following:

"They call retired salesman Don Ritchie "the watchman." Each day, as he sits in his favorite chair at his cliffside home, he looks up and scans the precipice that takes the lives of approximately 50 suicide jumpers each year, trying to discern the intentions of visitors.

When somebody seems to be lingering too long at the cliff, he walks out to talk to him.

"You can't just sit there and watch them," Ritchie told the AP in a recent interview. "You gotta try and save them. It's pretty simple.""

Later in the story:

"According to official estimates, Ritchie and his wife Moya have saved 160 lives during the 45 years they have lived near the Gap Park, a famous cliff frequented by sightseers that affords a beautiful view of the Sydney Harbor. However, the unofficial tally is closer to 400, according to the Sydney Morning Herald."

You can read the rest of the story here.

Cliff 'Watchman' Saves Hundreds From Suicide with Kindness and a Smile

When reading the story, the question posted in the post title came to my mind. I wondered, "Do I really believe the things I espouse?" You see, it's one thing to "believe" and another thing to do. For instance, many people think that to be a Christian you must only believe in God and believe in the Bible. But, even Satan and his demons believe.

¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! ²⁰ But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?^[a] (James 2:19-20, New King James Version)
Footnotes:
James 2:20 NU-Text reads useless.

Don Ritchie didn't have to talk to these people that most assume to be beyond help (or worse, unworthy of help). But he believes that life is precious and had a sincere love for these desperate people. When he could have sat in his house and just prayed he voluntarily gave time and effort he was under no obligation to give.

Most of us don't live on a cliff popular with suicide jumpers. But, if we care to look, all of us can and will find something we can do to live out our faith; to unify our intentions and actions into a God honoring and glorifying testimony of loving action. It could be giving a smile to a person in the store that has a downcast look (which requires actually noticing other people and thinking about them), it could be stopping to give a meal to a person obviously in need of a meal or it could be sending baby dolls to Mexico for little girls that wouldn't otherwise have them. Maybe it could be volunteering at your local Crisis Pregnancy Center or be-friending the unpopular kid at school who needs a loving friend. It could be any one of these or a million other things. The point is that belief and desires translates into action and action is inherently pro-active. You need to be looking for opportunities to minister. If you just wait for them to come to you innumerable opportunities will be missed.

As I have been challenged recently to test my own beliefs in light of what I do so I also challenge you to test your intents and desires by your deeds and fruit. Ask yourself the question, "Am I really searching for a way to live out my convictions?" And, "If I'm honest with myself...what does my inaction say about my faith?"

May God give us grace and strength to obediently and faithfully follow the path He has set before.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Changing focus a little bit

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:34:00 +0000

Hey all,

Not surprisingly, I've neglected my blog of late. It's not so much that I've forgotten about it, it's mostly that I want to write longer and more thorough blog posts that are more in line with my personality as opposed to more standard and shorter posts. I still hope to be able to put out long thoughtful posts, but in the meantime I'm just not able to write anything more than short posts and since I don't want to let my blog voice go silent I'm just going to start putting out short posts. That's really what I've been doing anyway, thanks to time constraints, so hopefully changing focus will help me to put out better short posts.

They might even be interesting. :-P

Comments are always welcome! I love to interact with my readers and especially love to field and read differing views on issues.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Sen. McCaskill: Conway "reasonable" moderate

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:27:00 +0000

Hello all,
Imbedded is a clip from Morning Joe containing an interesting round table discussion of the Kentucky Senate race between Rand Paul and Jack Conway. I post it not because I am paying close attention to the race itself, but because it touches more broadly on political discourse and how candidates should conduct themselves.

The portion in question extends to about the 7:00 minute mark. I tried to imbed the video but for some reason the "imbed" link wasn't working so I'm just going to link it the old fashioned way.

Click here to see video

I don’t agree with McCaskill (who btw, I like from what I've seen of her) about shaking opponents’ hands and the respect issue. Yes, there are circumstances in which an opponent can cross the line in attacking you or your family to such a degree that they have lost the privilege of being shown respect and Conway flirted with that line if he didn’t cross it entirely. What was implied in the ad - the innuendos in it - are pretty startling and Paul has a right to be upset about them (unless of course he’s just guilty as charged). Smarmy (or unctuous) is a word that comes to mind as accurately describing that sort of ad. Maybe that’s a bit too extreme on my part though.

Speaking to what McCaskill said regarding Conway being a moderate - while I haven’t followed the Paul/Conway race closely - Conway does appear to have some major inconsistencies in his record past and present (flip flops) that perhaps show Conway to be more politically motivated than “reasonable”.

Irrespective of how true the claims made by the Conway campaign are, the ad in question was an extreme ad making extreme accusations. Hardly something a “reasonable” moderate would put out if they were not thoroughly substantiated.

To the best of my knowledge they aren’t.

McCaskill needs to call out people like Conway even if they are in her party if she wants to have credibility when she speaks of being “reasonable” and of cross aisle collaboration and cooperation. By the same token, Republicans should do the same. This doesn’t mean people pounce on everybody who goes too far (Meghan McCain?) but you have to apply to you and your part the same standard that you apply to the other party.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Gianna Jessen - Abortion Survivor in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 03:52:00 +0000

Greetings all!

A friend shared the following video[s] with me on Facebook and they blessed and challenged me so much that I had to post them here.

They really need no introduction. Jessen speaks with such power and conviction seasoned liberally with the grace of the Gospel, God has truly given her and ministry and blessed her with the tools to faithfully minister it.

Part 1

Part 2

I especially appreciate her "challenge" to the men. The abortion debate has become so twisted over time that we have largely forgetten the role of men in the matter, and bringing the focus back to it's proper place on the men is, I believe, a crucial element in winning the abortion war. If men would be men and support their ladies imagine how many young, precious lives could be saved!

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Psalm 148

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:53:00 +0000

Hello all,

I spent the greater part of yesterday hiking in the Redwood Canyon section of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park. The whole park is positively stunning and throughout the hike several scriptures kept coming to mind, one of which was Psalm 148. While I don't have anything profound to add to the Psalm in the way of commentary, I would like to post it here (along with a few of the many pictures I took while hiking) in the hopes that it will be a blessing to some of you.

¹ Praise the LORD!

         Praise the LORD from the heavens;
         Praise Him in the heights!
² Praise Him, all His angels;
         Praise Him, all His hosts!
³ Praise Him, sun and moon;
         Praise Him, all you stars of light!
⁴ Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
         And you waters above the heavens!
          (Psalm 148:1-4, New King James Version)

⁵ Let them praise the name of the LORD,
         For He commanded and they were created.
⁶ He also established them forever and ever;
         He made a decree which shall not pass away.
          (Psalm 148:5-6, New King James Version)

⁷ Praise the LORD from the earth,
         You great sea creatures and all the depths;
⁸ Fire and hail, snow and clouds;
         Stormy wind, fulfilling His word;
⁹ Mountains and all hills;
         Fruitful trees and all cedars;
¹⁰ Beasts and all cattle;
         Creeping things and flying fowl; (Psalm 148:7-10, New King James Version)

¹¹ Kings of the earth and all peoples;
         Princes and all judges of the earth;
¹² Both young men and maidens;
         Old men and children.
          (Psalm 148:11-12, New King James Version)

¹³ Let them praise the name of the LORD,
         For His name alone is exalted;
         His glory is above the earth and heaven.
¹⁴ And He has exalted the horn of His people,
         The praise of all His saints—
         Of the children of Israel,
         A people near to Him.

         Praise the LORD! (Psalm 148:13-14, New King James Version)

Amen! May we never cease to marvel at the totality of His creation!

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Tony Reinke - On Burning Religious Books

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:33:00 +0000

After my last post I continued to think about and to keep an eye out for Gospel oriented views on the well publicized Quran burning scheduled for this September 11th by Pastor Terry Jones and the 50 member strong Dove World Outreach Center. But since I was distracted by crazy events this evening and being unsatisfied with my own reasons and articulation for why this Quran burning is not God honoring, I was fortunate to come across this post by Tony Reinke thanks to Justin Taylor.

Mr. Reinke makes 6 basic points that I will share here with his most relevant comments (to the 6 points). If you would like to read his post in its entirety, which I would encourage you to do, please follow this link.

The Bible, as far as I can tell, mentions one account where religious texts are thrown to the flames (Acts 19:11-20). On the heels of the great work of God in Ephesus, the people had come to fear God and to trust in the Savior. As a result, “a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver” (v. 19). In modern terms they ignited a bonfire using very expensive magic books.

What were these books? According to Eckhard Schnabel, they were occultist documents that described how to make amulets to protect against demons and how to make love charms (Early Christian Mission, 1221). The books gave directions for casting spells on others, either for good or ill, and they would have been quite expensive, which highlights the effect of the gospel upon the wealthy inhabitants of Ephesus. That Paul went toe-to-toe with the owners of documents, which later led to a book burning, tells me they qualify as religious texts, and probubly comprised the pop religion of the day.

From this account here are six points to ponder:

1. The Ephesian people burned their own books. These new believers renounced their past. This was not an act of Christians barging into homes to ransack libraries for kindling, or weeding out the public library, or buying up all available copies from the local bookshop. They gathered the valuable books from their own houses.

2. No Christian leader encouraged the book burning. At least the text doesn’t say it. Or would have been better for the books to be sold and the money given to the Apostolic ministry? Perish the thought. There there is no indication that Paul advised the people to burn (or sell) their occultist books.

3. The books posed no threat to the gospel. The gospel overcame the magic power of the books. The gospel is like a hurricane and nothing will stop its wind, certainly not a book of demonic spells.

4. God’s display of power convinced the people that their books were worthless. There was no need to address the value of the magic books directly. Once God’s power and his gospel were seen in the city, the matter was settled.

5. The book burning was a display of godly sorrow. The recently converted Christians wanted to confess their sin before “all.” The high value of the books (50,000 days wages worth!) made a strong statement. It was an act of personal sorrow for their own sin.

6. The burning illustrated the victory of the gospel. The magic books were burned because the gospel was spreading like wildfire: “So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily” (v. 20).

These six points should make us very hesitant about burning other people’s religious books.

I concur with Mr. Reinke's thoughts and believe Pastor Jones would do well to give them careful consideration as well. As Christians, we must always do our best to ensure that God is glorified by and through our actions. I have no reason to believe that Pastor Jones doesn't think what he is doing somehow honors God, but I believe he is very mistaken and would encourage him to reconsider his and his congregants scheduled burning.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Burn Couches, Not the Quran

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:26:00 +0000

Hello all,

I happened across this article by Andrew Lisi and wanted to pass it on to you because I believe he is thinking along the right lines. I believe the burning to be deeply misguided, but as Mr. Lisi points out, a Christian shouldn't respond in a purely reactionary manner. Rather, grace is needed all around for a positive and Christ like impact to be made.

Burn Couches, Not the Quran

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

A pro-life perspective on ELLA

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:03:00 +0000

Hello friends, family, and random internet readers!

As promised in a previous post, I am back to post with some information and thoughts on the “ELLA” drug recently approved by the FDA. In my previous post I shared a video clip in which Randy Alcorn and Mark Driscoll discuss the dangers common contraceptives pose from a pro-life perspective, which I am sure includes the ELLA drug. I have similar concerns about ELLA.

So first, what is ELLA?

According to the Wall Street Journal, ELLA is “a new drug that is supposed to block pregnancy up to five days after sex, two days longer than the currently available emergency contraceptive Plan B.” In the words of the FDA, “ella is a progesterone agonist/antagonist whose likely main effect is to inhibit or delay ovulation. Since May 2009, the prescription product has been available in Europe under the brand name ellaOne.” According to the pro-life organization Americans United for Life (AUL), “Ella is being marketed as an “emergency contraceptive,” but it is the “next generation” of the abortion drug, RU-486.”

The possible dangers and ethical questions raised by ELLA are not as clear as most people would prefer. Still, from a pro-life perspective, I believe a solid answer can be reached.

What are the dangers of ELLA?

First, does ELLA interfere with or kill a developing embryo? That depends on when you believe life to begin. Basically, forgoing the technical and scientific terms that I find it difficult to keep straight sometimes…ELLA’s primary function/purpose is to inhibit or interfere with ovulation. But, if it is unable to do that, its next function is to keep that fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Turning again to AUL for input, “Ella, like RU-486, is a selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM). As a progesterone blocker, an SPRM works to interfere with the developing human embryo, causing it to die by either interfering with the uterine lining and preventing implantation, or by starving an implanted embryo.” AUL further states in a letter to Margaret Hamburg (Commissioner, US Food and Drug Administration) urging that ELLA not be approved “Ulipristal Acetate and the abortion drug Mifepristone (RU-486) are both selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM). SPRMs block progesterone, which is necessary to maintain pregnancyithus starving an unborn baby of the nutrients it needs to continue life.

Given ella’s similar chemical makeup to RU-486, women deserve to see evidence demonstrating that ella will not destroy or harm an unborn child and that ella’s modes of action do not include abortion, especially in light of studies that show ella causes abortions in animal studies. FDA materials admit that data is “too limited to draw any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of ulipristal on an established pregnancy or fetal development.”

So the answer to the question of whether ELLA interferes with or kills a life (and thus constitutes an abortion) depends on when you define life to begin and whether ELLA is successful in its primary function of preventing ovulation. If you believe life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized, then yes, ELLA absolutely interferes with and/or kills a human life when it fails in its primary purpose (which it must be assumed will happen with fair regularity due to lack of precision in administration). According to studies, only 2% of women taking ELLA up to 120 hours after intercourse become pregnant. 2% sounds small but when thousands upon thousands of women take ELLA 2% quickly becomes a large number. But, if you believe life begins at the moment of implantation or when the egg is attached to the uterus, then it is not clear to what extent ELLA interferes with the embryo. I say “not clear” deliberately because that leads to my next concern with ELLA.

Is ELLA safe and thoroughly studied enough?

As with virtually all prescription pills or drugs, there are possible side effects of ELLA. Not new news. But, there are concerns that ELLA has not been sufficiently studied to determine its effects on women and embryos it does not prevent from being fertilized and implanted. On this count, AUL has this to say: “While the FDA made specific assurances that Plan B would not affect an embryo after implantation, it contraindicates ella for “known or suspected” pregnancy. The FDA admits, “There are no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women.” It cites studies in animals with high rates of pregnancy loss, and it acknowledges that the effects on a fetus that survives ella are unknown.”

Exactly what weight these concerns about safety hold, I just can’t say with authority, due to my lack of familiarity with the process of approving prescription pills. Neither a human life or the health of a mother are worth the chance of an insufficiently researched product; so I believe it behooves the FDA to further examine the affect ELLA would have both on the health of the mother and the child, in the event that ELLA does not keep an egg from implanting or is taken too late.

In summary: the bottom line from a consistently pro-life perspective is that ELLA is sure to interfere with and end many human lives in their earliest stage of life. For this reason alone I believe ELLA should not be used by pro-life individuals but the unanswered questions concerning the safety of ELLA are also a significant concern.

There is no good reason for not examining more thoroughly safety questions, especially when a fetus could be harmed for life. The FDA’s failure to do so raises questions about the impact of political and industrial involvement in the approval process. The answer to those questions is of secondary importance though as the FDA cannot make individuals use ELLA.

The choice is the individuals. How will they decide and what will the pro-life community do to stand up for the unborn and protect the sanctity of life?

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Related Articles:

AUL's "Letter to the Commissioner" http://ellacausesabortions.com/ellapetition/Media_Center_files/Ella%20Group%20Letter.pdf

"Is Ella Birth Control or Abortion?" on Slate.com
http://www.slate.com/id/2264108/

WaPo "FDA approves ella as 5-day-after emergency contraceptive"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081305098.html

Birth Control and Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hutchins) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:56:00 +0000

Hello all!

Anybody who reads my blog regularly knows that I'm ardently pro-life. I believe our country is facing many challenges and questions of a distinctly and inherently moral and "worldview" nature and that for all its many virtues our country has frequently fallen short of what I believe it can and should be in many, many ways. But, to me, the single greatest failing of our country from a values perspective is abortion…specifically that we allow and encourage it.

The purpose of this post is not to expound on why I believe abortion to be fundamentally wrong and even evil. As always, I believe when one is seeking to advocate a certain value, view or position, the people you should first try to convince are those that share some measure of common ground with you. So, in keeping with that principle, the purpose of this post is to highlight an avenue through which people unwittingly risk aborting a baby and perhaps to help sway those why may differ with my views.

As is common on this blog, I'm going to share someone else's work on the matter instead of writing up my own. I never hesitate to highlight others work when it exceeds mine in quality and expertise. :-)

The question I would like to raise is "does "birth control and specifically "the pill" contribute to abortion?"

Randy Alcorn offers keen insight into the matter. Please watch the linked video and pass it on to friends and family you believe would be benefited by it. It's on 7 minutes and 2 seconds long. :-)

Is There a Connection Between Birth Control & Abortion?

Please note that this post is not arguing against all methods of birth control, only certain kinds. I have a more detailed article on the "the pill" and the new "ELLA" pill that I would like to post in the next several days. I'm keeping things bite-sized though. :-)

God bless and veritas supra omnis!