A Question for Three Groups of Americans
posted by: Jakes
January 8, 2008
5:41 pm
A Question for Three Groups of Americans. Group 1: Candidates for all politcal positions at all levels of government: federal state, county, municipal.
The Golden Rule states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" Assuming you agree with that rule, as Americans, generally, seem to, would you include under "others" the innocent human being in the womb? Please explain in what ways you - if elected to the office for which you aspire - would meaningfully exercise whatever are your convictions on this matter? Group 2: All Citizens currently registered as definitively elibible to vote in 2008 elections and all citizens who will meet all general requirements (age, residency, etc) for eligibility to vote in the 2008 elctions but who need, personally, to take some required steps - sufficiently before election time - to definitively establish full eligibility for casting their votes at their voting place on election day.
The Golden Rule states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" Assuming you agree with that rule, as Americans, generally, seem to, would you include under "others" the innocent human being in the womb? Please explain in what ways you - as fully able to be an eligible voter in 2008 - would meaningly follow through and exercise whatever are your convictions on this matter? Group 3: All those citizens not yet having reached an age required for voting in 2008, but having an interest in, and respect for the democratic election process, such that they would wish to discuss with others - whether eligible voters they might know or, like themselves, others not yet eligible to vote - significant matters influenced by the democratic voting process.
The Golden Rule states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" Assuming you agree with that rule, would you include under "others" the innocent human being in the womb? Please explain in what ways you - one who respects the democratic election process and will feel its favorable or unfavorable outcomes, just as would all other Americans - would try to make your convictions on this matter known to others? Peace, Jakes
posted by: Tarheel
January 11, 2008
10:10 pm
Tough questions to answer Jakes.
I will tell you what I did to Senator Lott from Mississippi (now retired) several years ago when an issue was coming up for vote in the senate that I didn't agree with (Tax increase). I wrote him a very short letter saying as a taxpayer already paying too much taxes didn't want anymore. At the bottom of the letter I attached a copy of my voter's registration card and wrote by hand.
P.S. I vote in every election. I treasure my right to do so. Feel free to check the voting records to verify.
Tarheel (Dave)
posted by: Jakes
January 12, 2008
8:33 am
Thanks, T-H.
Peace, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 12, 2008
11:50 am
There are only two problems I see in your post, Jakes, one is that you presume that all three of these groups abide by the golden rule...you wrote, Assuming you agree with that rule, as Americans, generally, seem to, I would say that today's American would say something like do unto others whatever you can get away with as long as it will benefit you or yours, if caught, claim extreme prejudice based on race, creed, color, etc.
The other is that people from all these groups are exercising their convictions on the matter of the "others".
I stand with you in the battle for the hearts and intellects of those still trapped in the "blob of cells" and "choice" mentality that allows for the death of an innocent.
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me... Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: Jakes
January 14, 2008
12:04 pm
Thanks, David.
In informal (hopefully, friendly) conversation with members of Groups 2 or 3, one would likely be advised if the other should disagree with the golden rule. Though I’d expect that to be a fairly rare occurance, even that could serve mutual candor and honest discussion about respect of neighbors (our target). Hopefully, it would tend to affirm the appropriateness of the electoral system for continuing strong support of our nation’s cultural ethos.
Posing the question to members of Group 1 would be done best in some sort of public way. Repetitive asking, as necessary and as additional opportunities present themselves, could serve to ascertain a candidate’s true predilections as well as those of competing candidates. Responsibly making such findings known publically might diminish ambiguities in electoral contests and lead to more reliable criteria for selection of candidates.
Incidentally, I’d expect that persons wishing to "smoke out" candidates relative to the Golden Rules’ applying (or not) to the unborn and women, would use the wording they deem best for the occasions they might encounter.
As Tarheel stated "Tough questions to answer Jakes." So, should someone wish to phrase them more comfortably for their own purposes, I'd say "right on"!.
Peace, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 14, 2008
1:13 pm
Jakes,
What would be a rare occurrence is someone being forthright about what lies in one's heart in regards to neighbor. Really, Jakes, would you expect that someone would come out and say - I don't care about neighbor or I don't care about the unborn?
The proof for my observation is in my countless converstaions with averge Americans, who shyfully avoid or outright claim "no comment". Another proof would be in the recent voting that took place in our country and abroad. One state narrowly missed making abortion illegal, while a country that is self professed 95 percent Catholic could not even bring enough voters to the polls in order to make the decision valid.
As to Group 1, they will affirm or deny based entirely on Groups 2 and 3. In all honesty, politicians that make such a career, need to comform to the will of the people they represent, the voters.
Lukewarm{ness} - should work for every Bible reading Christian.
For every one else, we must appeal to the advancements of science in regards to the status of life from conception to birth, as well as the overwhelming negatives to birth control and abortion. It is not perfectly normal, and we need the media and our education system to embrace the value of life and promote the truth. To this end, group 3 gives us the best hope and I will continue with you in spreading the value of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: Jakes
January 14, 2008
5:09 pm
Thanks, David. I think I’ll comment, for now, just on your first paragraph, to wit
"What would be a rare occurrence is someone being forthright about what lies in one's heart in regards to neighbor. Really, Jakes, would you expect that someone would come out and say - I don't care about neighbor or I don't care about the unborn?"
David, in referring to Group 1 (candidates) I couldn’t agree more that no responder from that group would be so candid. Hope should always bloom in the human (questioner’s?) heart, though, that he might learn a tidbit from each of the attempts, that might accumulate to (at least) somewhat more definition about candidates than candidates might, gratuitously, reveal in any single moment.
But, with regard to Groups 2 and 3, I would hope (perhaps after many tries) for what I characterized as "informal (hopefully, friendly) conversations". If one of the two parties adopts a noncommunicative, unbending posture such as you postulate, I’d guess that would be the end of that particular exchange, and really, a "conversation" hadn’t occurred at all..
But, you know, a Kirby salesman doesn’t expect to make a sale of a vacuum cleaner behind every front-door bell he rings. And he doesn’t expect the resident to say, "Yeah, gimmy two of them", before he even opens his selling mouth. He needs to be peddling a good value, smartly and with persistency. And for its corporate success, the Kirby company needs plenty of salesmen just like him.
The electorate needs to take a meaningful interest in the value achievable through the election process. A Kirby salesman doesn’t say, "This next resident probably will turn me down with some words I’ve heard so often; no need ringing this bell".
Often, respectful conversations reveal, not only what is said specifically but also insights into what’s unsaid, implied or avoided and, often, convictions underlying it all.
Peace, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 15, 2008
8:47 am
Jakes,
In the interest of informative discourse, I would like to state clearly that I believe those that are "no comment" and practice careful avoidance are indeed from groups 1, 2 and 3. Specifically, for my comments in the previous post, I was referring to groups 2 and 3.
You wrote, "The electorate needs to take a meaningful interest in the value achievable through the election process...
I agree, and in the state of South Dakota, the electorate voted against an abortion ban 55 % to 45 % with roughly 225,000 votes. In Portugal, a referendum was put to the people to decriminalise abortion and not enough people voted to make the decision valid. My point is that the "lukewarm" and "gray area" voters may just stay at home.
You wrote, "Often, respectful conversations reveal, not only what is said specifically but also insights into what’s unsaid, implied or avoided and, often, convictions underlying it all."
This is exactly what I said in the previous post when discussing the mindset {do you think people will just come out and say...} of an individual. What is not said does say volumes. My experience, of course.
I live in New York in a community comprised of upper to lower class people, financially speaking, and the convictions run the gambit of these social classes. Some believe the poor should abort, some believe abortion is a solution to failed contraception, some believe we should educate our children in regards to utilizing contraception and abortion, most are confused. The poor in wallet, and in mind, feel their options do not include having the baby. These opinions are held by women as well as men, by Catholics as well as secular.
The question may not be if you follow the golden rule, but why don't you? Why don't you understand the child in the womb as such and give the child the respect that all of God's people deserve? The question is, how do we help people understand the value and dignity of the human person at conception, as a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus? The question is, how to appeal across race, creed and socio-economic structures that each have a different reason to support the culture of death?
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me... Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: David T Garrison
January 15, 2008
9:22 am
Jakes,
You wrote, But, with regard to Groups 2 and 3, I would hope (perhaps after many tries) for what I characterized as "informal (hopefully, friendly) conversations". If one of the two parties adopts a noncommunicative, unbending posture such as you postulate, I’d guess that would be the end of that particular exchange, and really, a "conversation" hadn’t occurred at all..
Although I addressed this somewhat in my last post, I must say that the conversations I have with people do not end in noncommunicative, unbending postures, but seems to leave me with a sense that they either just never thought about it from our perspective or they were unsure how to discern moving forward. Quite frankly, my introduction into taking an active role for the unborn was quite tumultuous. More often than not, one needs to take on much in the way of education and conscience forming. You must understand, Jakes, that most people believe it is morally correct to contracept, and this confuses their opinion on abortion.
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: Jakes
January 16, 2008
12:52 pm
David, I think we should be collaborating (which would be a privilege for me), with other C/E persons and carrying our message to other electronic sectors, as well,, based, generally, on following viewpoint:
Starting with far-fetched, judicial mangling of the intent of our constitution, and prolonged by a distasteful (albeit, skillful) manipulation of our voting processes (largely founded on "deceit through words"), a very determined interest group has grown extremely wealthy and politically powerful. And 3,000+ killings, each and every day, of innocent, helpless, unborn human beings has resulted.
The judicial mangling made it legal to kill innocent human beings in the womb. The deceit led millions of Americans to misunderstand both the nature and the magnitude of such killing, starting with the fairytale that what was being "removed" was just a "blob of tissue" and it would be done so as to help the woman (mother) out of misfortune she faced (whereas - in reality - so often, she is severely pressured by selfish others - like a boyfriend determined to avoid the "bother" posed by his progeny's continuing to live by exercising her legally-protected right to have the life of her child aborted! The "living" part is what so upsets him!
This has been going on and intensifying for 34 years, now. Politicians who’s tenure in office has come to depend greatly on the largess flowing regularly to their election campaigns out of the profits of the baby-killing industry, seldom (if ever) adopt a JFK-like profile in courage, because that would "bother" their revenue source!
And the disease spreads, as we see how "bothers" are eliminated, these days: A single, pregnant marine murdered and her remains burned and buried. The hidden bodies of four daughters murdered over time by their mother. Thirty-three randomly-chosen, university students gunned down by a disturbed student whom they must have "bothered" quite a bit. Many instances of a high-schooler gunning down others randomly. Is murder to eliminate a "bother" becoming as American as apple pie? Are human lives (others’, not mine) just a "bother"?
Well, apparently to our Creator, a human life is a big deal, since part of His Great Commandment says "Love your neighbor as yourself". No option, that, but a Divine Command, addressed to each and every one of us.!
Now, here’s the rub: Election after election, 50% of Americans eligible to vote fail to cast their ballots! Those unborn human beings, THEIR (and OUR) NEIGHBORS, are killed by their failing even to lift a finger to vote in defense of their continued living! Do these neglectors think that the Great Record Keeper will neglect, on the day of THEIR final settling up, to mention the matter of those dead babies and just "give them a pass" for not caring enough about them to give them a vote for their continued living? Do they think that the souls of the millions of unborn babies whose destruction non-voters had made possible by neglecting to support them at election times, might not be standing by at that very moment to make that "pass" quite unlikely?
Gimmy a break, any who think God’s GREATEST COMMANDMENT is meaningless might be gambling away their own eternity with small odds of a pass, if any indeed, on their side!
Oh, yes, in addition to the non-voters, those who voted for politicians who (besides seeming like "nice guys") support the culture of death for its largess to their campaigns, ought to re-think things through a bit, whatever their reasons in voting for abortion supporters happened to have been.
Peace, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 16, 2008
1:18 pm
Jakes,
My brother? in Christ, we are collaborating as part of the mystical Body of Christ. May our efforts lead one day to a joyful encounter, whether on this earth or beyond. This coming Lenten season, we will again be supporting a 40 days for life campaign in conjuntion with our remembrance of our Lord's Passion.
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: Jakes
January 16, 2008
1:38 pm
David,
As the Benedictines say: Ora et labora. A lot of labora among the 50% of non-voters might have glorious results for both themselves and the electoral process.
Peace, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 16, 2008
1:44 pm
Jakes,
hi ho! hi ho! it's off to work we go...May the Holy Spirit engulf the souls of the lukewarm and set them ablaze with a passion for their Lord and the unborn!
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: Jakes
January 16, 2008
5:51 pm
David,
Would it be safe for me to comment: "David's a piece of work!"?
Or would you prefer one they used where I grew up: "David's a sketch."
At any rate, you're a riot!
Pieceful labors, old sketch, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 16, 2008
6:05 pm
Jakes,
I am apiece of work! Hopefully, I become a glorious piece of God's handiwork that He can proudly display to the world!
Never take yourself to seriously, but be serious about grave matters!
In Christ,
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: Jakes
January 17, 2008
9:58 am
Hey, David,
How about keeping wide of that "grave" stuff, please - at my age!
And don't give up trying to pin down those politicians (and educate the rest) about life's inviolability!
Peace, Jakes
posted by: David T Garrison
January 17, 2008
11:17 am
Amen
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...
Remember, the Sun is always shining!