Property rights - FB discussion

I posted this:

"Property rights, like all rights, are a right of action. A right to freedom of action. It is more than a right to the property as a physical object, it is a right to do with it as you please. For if you are not free to use your property as you wish, then what good is your right to claim it?"

L.B.: You sound like a good Englishman. Ownership, property rights, mine, mine, mine. This was all brought to this continent by the British, and I really do believe the people in this country are still British. Look how they slobbered over the birth of the new little king, and the royal marriage. I believe the concept of land ownership is rebellion against the one who owns all of creation. The Native Americans had it right; they believed that the land could not be owned by a man but that it all belonged to the Creator. All land and property belongs to YHWH God and we are only blessed with the privilege to use it. We all need to give our property rights back to Him and see what He wants us to do with it. That is the only right you have. Doing what we please is rebellion against God.. I preached this in a church one time and the pastor told me that if I ever wanted to preach there again not to preach that message. lol. Its the truth baby!!!

Me: I was not intending to comment on spiritual matters, only on legal principles under our system. Of course everything belongs to God! My purpose was to contrast with the leftist idea that the government has the power to impede legal property rights.

Property ownership was a deeply ingrained principle in the Hebrew people. All the tribes received a portion of the promised land except the levites. Every seven years, it all reverted back to the original owners.

So, my question is, how did God give the land to Israel if they did not possess it? Ge. 17:8: "The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

I agree with much of what you said, but I wonder if the concept of stewardship can be demonstrated from the Scriptures? Your thoughts?

L.B.: Psalm 24:1 (Your favorite scripture) "The earth is YHWH God's and all of it's fullness, the world and those who dwell therein." more later

S.W.: I'm ok with people owning property and doing with it as they please, but if you have you car radio blasting in my cul-de-sac at 2:00 a.m., those right will be abridged.

L.B.:  Think about it. Do you really own your land or do you just have permission to think you own it?

Me: I do not think I own my land. That's the purpose of my post. If someone else can tell me what to do with the land I supposedly hold the deed to, then my ownership is diminished because the property serves someone elses' interest, not mine. And, if I don't pay my property taxes, the government can take the land and sell it. Clearly I don't own property.

S.W.: I do subscribe to the thought that six feet is all the land a man ever really needs, and chances are that he will hold that piece longer than any other. By that time, ownership questions are moot.

Me: Ownership includes the power to decide the disposition of the property after you die. But as a practical matter, you are correct.

L.B.: Who do you think really owns the land? The Queen, the Pope, the USA Corporation?

S.W.: On the other hand, I happened upon a guy inside of one of the family's properties who claimed that he "...didn't think it belonged to anyone..." Some call him a Free Spirit; the court called him a Burglar.

Me: The US government has final say on all property and its use and disposition.

Me: Here is an example. This IRS decision changes the nature of how property is treated/taxed/not taxed. Regardless of the issue of homosexuality, clearly the government assumes the power to make these kinds of decisions about peoples' property.
I.R.S. to Recognize All Gay Marriages, Regardless of Statewww.nytimes.com

If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person - Allison Benedikt

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------
This is a truly twisted way of looking at education, social policy, and personal obligations to one's children vs. the interests of society as a whole. Read on...

A manifesto.

By Allison Benedikt Posted Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013, at 5:50 AM

Send your kids to public school, even if you can afford private. Future generations will thank you.

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad. (Ms. Benedikt lays the groundwork for her thesis. She begins not by identifying the problem for which she will proffer a solution. No, she passes judgment on parents who make personal choices not in accordance with her preferences.) 

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. (This is the "cart before the horse." People are taking their children out of public schools because of their deterioration. Returning these children would not improve education, it would simply add to the number of children being maleducated.) 

This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (In other words, you should sacrifice your childrens' well-being in the undemonstrable possibility that later generations might benefit decades later. It's likely that Ms. Benedikt doesn't have a similar view regarding the national debt that is being left to our grandchildren to pay.)

(Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.) (Rich people are irrelevant. We are really talking about the mass exodus of the middle class from public education, and as of yet Ms. Benedikt has not made an argument in favor of denying them their own choices.)

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. (Hmm. This sounds like the elimination of private schools, just to make sure that everyone receives and equally bad education.) 

Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. (Abstract? When it comes to our children, there is nothing abstract about it. We are talking about real people with real risks. Our children are not social experiments propagated for the benefits they bring to society. The good of society is way down the list. If public schools fail, it is only because they did not do as they are charged.)

Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

And parents have a lot of power. (Ummm, no. It sounds more like that Ms. Benedikt wants to curtail parental power in favor of an illusory "benefit" to other interests who may or may not have the interests of the parent or the child in mind. Further, parents have very little power in the public school system. Indeed, Ms. Benedikt betrays this in her interest to bolster government schools at the expense of generations of children. There is no evidence whatsoever that parents hold sway in the public schools, or those schools would already be what Ms. Benedikt wants them to be.) 

In many underresourced schools, it’s the aggressive PTAs that raise the money for enrichment programs and willful parents who get in the administration’s face when a teacher is falling down on the job. (The worst public schools in America [Washington, DC] are also the best funded. Where is all that money going at $18,000 per child? There is no reason at all for schools having to rely on fundraising with this kind of money in play.) 

Everyone, all in. (By the way: Banning private schools isn’t the answer. We need a moral adjustment, not a legislative one.) (So now she denies that she wants to ban private schools, but she does not offer a mechanism to make public schools "everyone, all in.")

There are a lot of reasons why bad people send their kids to private school. Yes, some do it for prestige or out of loyalty to a long-standing family tradition or because they want their children to eventually work at Slate. But many others go private for religious reasons, or because their kids have behavioral or learning issues, or simply because the public school in their district is not so hot. None of these are compelling reasons. (Whaaa? Who is she to decide what others might think are compelling reasons? This is typical leftist thinking, to presume for you what are good and bad reasons. Leftists are all about controlling people. They love to bring the coercive power of government to bear on people who they believe aren't doing the "right thing." They know better than you what is good and bad, because you are too stupid or too self interested to make proper choices.) 

Or, rather, the compelling ones (behavioral or learning issues, wanting a not-subpar school for your child) are exactly why we should all opt in, not out. (Another bare assertion that has yet to be backed up.)

I believe in public education, but my district school really isn’t good! you might say. I understand. You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it. (Again she presumes to tell us all what we need, and no doubt is quite willing to make sure we conform to her precepts.) 

If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. (A generalization based on supposition and nothing else.) 

She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. (Another bare assertion, unsubstantiated by nothing more than her worldview.) 

She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. (Now I'm wondering if she's writing satirically. It's just fine that your child gets a substandard education, because it's supposed to benefit public schools in the long run? This is the reason we should sacrifice our children on the altar of the "good of society?" What?) 

Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

I went K–12 to a terrible public school. (Based on her presentation in this article, she came out maleducated. 

Here comes some anecdotal evidence from which Ms. Benedikt will make generalizations as to what is good for everyone else...) 

My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book. There wasn’t even soccer. This is not a humblebrag! I left home woefully unprepared for college, and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either. You know all those important novels that everyone’s read? I haven’t. I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don’t quiz me on the dates of the Civil War. I’m not proud of my ignorance. But guess what the horrible result is? I’m doing fine. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all. (The educational malpractice perpetrated against Ms. Benedikt manifests in her lack logical and thinking skills. She is quite content with her ignorance, her lack of understanding, and the things she didn't learn in school. And this is what she wants to foist on all the rest of us. Why? Because what is good for public schools is more important than personal choice and what is good for children. Wow.)

By the way: My parents didn’t send me to this shoddy school because they believed in public ed. They sent me there because that’s where we lived, and they weren’t too worried about it. (Can you imagine?) Take two things from this on your quest to become a better person: 1) Your child will probably do just fine without “the best,” so don’t freak out too much, but 2) do freak out a little more than my parents did—enough to get involved. (In other words, they didn't care enough about her to either involve themselves in her public school, which was the panacea she offered above, or to proactively do something about her poor education by getting her out of the bad situation. Yet she suggests that the solution is for parents to do for their children at home to make up for what the public school failed to do. Astonishing!)

Also remember that there’s more to education than what’s taught. As rotten as my school’s English, history, science, social studies, math, art, music, and language programs were, going to school with poor kids and rich kids, black kids and brown kids, smart kids and not-so-smart ones, kids with superconservative Christian parents and other upper-middle-class Jews like me was its own education and life preparation. Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? (Ho-boy. More Leftist doublethink. Here she places high value on "diversity," higher than actually learning stuff, as if diversity in itself is automatically beneficial. Well, Ms. Benedikt, guess what? Not everyone values the same thing you do. In fact, it really doesn't matter what you value. People get along quite well in life without ever having met an immigrant from Estonia.) 

Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools.

Many of my (morally bankrupt) colleagues send their children to private schools. (How selfish they are! How classist! How out of tune with the needs of the whole! They didn't simply make a choice regarding their children's well being. No, they are morally bankrupt! Every one of them are immoral. Why? Because they didn't submit their children to the public school meatgrinder! That is the unforgivable sin.)

I asked them to tell me why. Here is the response that most stuck with me: “In our upper-middle-class world, it is hard not to pay for something if you can and you think it will be good for your kid.” I get it: You want an exceptional arts program and computer animation and maybe even Mandarin. You want a cohesive educational philosophy. You want creativity, not teaching to the test. You want great outdoor space and small classrooms and personal attention. You know who else wants those things? Everyone. (Aaaand, that's bad. Everyone wants good things for their children, but that must be suppressed because it is anti-society. Such independent thinking must be frowned upon in the strongest possible terms.)

Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience, assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same. No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it. Send your kids to school with their kids. (Yes, don't help them obtain a scholarship to a private school. Don't facilitate their desire to give their children a better chance at success in life. No, you should send your children to the same crap hole your impoverished neighbor does, so that everyone is equally ignorant at the end of 12 years of indoctrination and educational malpractice!) 

Use the energy you have otherwise directed at fighting to get your daughter a slot at the competitive private school to fight for more computers at the public school. (More government funding! Throw good money after bad so that kids will be able to surf the web but can't read their diplomas! Yes, for the good of society, make everyone just the same, equally stupid, equally unaware of history, math, biology. Because that's FAIR.) 

Use your connections to power and money and innovation to make your local school—the one you are now sending your child to—better. Don’t just acknowledge your liberal guilt—listen to it.

The Forward Together Lectionary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

This is a perfect expression of the social gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Everything discussed here will deal with physical problems and political solutions. The reader will not find a single mention of sin, repentance, holiness, any discussion of the church and its mission or obligations. 

No, its singular focus is on what government needs to do to bring about social change.

----------------------

Introduction to the Forward Together Lectionary

The policies that have been advanced by the North Carolina General Assembly are both extreme and immoral, but they are not new. They reflect human practices of oppression and humiliation that are as old as human society itself. In their attempt to limit access to power to the hands of a select few, to undermine public services and public response to the needs of the most vulnerable, and to generally establish a system of inequality, the current General Assembly agenda resembles that which God decries throughout the Scriptures. It is in this regard that this lectionary has been composed. It is an attempt to provide the context for a response to the issues of the day in the Scriptures that are key to many believing communities.

One cannot look at the Bible and explore its pages without becoming acutely aware that God is greatly concerned for justice in human communities. Most clergy will acknowledge this in relation to the works of the prophets; the prophets speak consistently and repeatedly about notions of interpersonal and societal justice. But the truth is that it is not only the prophetic texts that have this concern. Every section of the Bible addresses justice in some form or fashion. Whether it be the destruction of Sodom in Genesis for its abuse of vulnerable travelers, or the liberation of the enslaved Hebrews in Exodus, or the instructions about the proper care for widows, orphans, the poor, and aliens in Deuteronomy, or the countless narratives about God's actions to ensure justice in the Deuteronomic History, or the persistent entreaties for God's justice in the Psalter, or the manifold attempts to find fault with the protagonist's actions toward the poor in Job, the Hebrew Bible is replete with discussions of God's call for social justice. (Everything up to this point is true and accurate, and ought to be the burden of every Christian's heart... but then they slip in the phrase "social justice." This is a leftist buzz word which invokes the unrestrained power of government to implement its vision of what social justice is. We will find as we read that the Lectionary intends to address hunger, poverty, and other social ills, via the redistributive power of government programs via taxation. You will not find them calling for individual compassion, personal work done on behalf of individuals or communities. You will only read of what government should do.

We also find it ironic indeed that these folks want the Bible imposed on American government [according to their understanding, albeit], while at the same time )

In fact, the entire narrative of the Hebrew Bible tells the story of God's attempt to create a community wherein Justice reigned, where everyone had land from which to subsist, where everyone had a right to argue their case at the city gate, where judges did not take bribes or honor the socially powerful, where all scales were balanced and boundary stones fixed, and where those who fell through the cracks were protected by God. Even promises of a Messiah and the impending "Day of YHWH" are predicated on the notion of God's work to bring justice long delayed into being in this world. (This is, of course, quite true, though repentance, redemption, salvation, and sin will not be found in this presentation. Only the social aspects of society will be addressed.)

These messages, however, are not limited to the Hebrew Bible. The Christian Testament addresses notions of God's justice incarnate in a Messiah who heals the sick, feeds the hungry, welcomes the outcast, and brings "good news to the poor" of the advent of the Kingdom of God where the justice that is a part of God's will is done "on earth as it is in Heaven." (The question is begged: What is the "good news," aka, The Gospel? Is the "good news" only for the poor? Reviewing the Scriptures, we find only one mention of the "good news" in conjunction with the poor, Mt. 11:5: "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." 

The "good news," however, is not for just the poor. Mk. 16:15 says, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." All creation needs the "good news," because the "good news" is salvation from sin and a restoration of that from which creation has fallen because of sin. 

God made creation and said that it was good. That creation now suffers under the sin of Adam, and Christ came as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the people. Lk. 2:10-11 tells us, "But the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.'"

"Jesus Himself claimed the mantle from Isiaiah 61: 

Lk. 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor." Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." 

There is a spiritual application to these phenomena: Freedom, vision, liberation. They go far beyond government giving the poor a meal.

Ac. 14:15 confirms this: 

Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them." 

The "good news" is to repent [turn from evil] and to the Creator of all things. 

Paul tells us in Ro. 1:16: 

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Clearly, the "good news" must include the message of salvation.) 

The Gospels are followed by narratives of early Christian community where all goods were shared and all needs met in Acts, where men and women, enslaved and enslavers, Jews and Gentiles were deemed "one" in Galatians, where religion was summed up as caring for orphans and widows in James, and where we are called to Love our sisters and brothers if we claim to Love God in 1 John. The entire concept of apocalyptic which drives so much of the Christian Testament is tied to notions of justice denied in this world being fulfilled at God's in-breaking into our time and space to fix what we have broken and to make right what we have corrupted. (We continue to notice the subtle twist given to the purpose of God on the earth. The social gospel is only about social change, change to the political Left. Any other consideration is subordinated to this, if mentioned at all.)

Thus, it can rightly be said, that the entire corpus of the Hebrew and Christian Testaments is focused on justice! That said, sermons on justice that address the constant cry in Scripture to tend to the needs of single mothers, fatherless children, immigrants (regardless of their status), the sick, the afflicted, the oppressed, the incarcerated, and the poor in our times are few and far between. As a result people have frequently imagined the message of God to be a solely spiritual concern (The social gospel commits the opposite error. It has little or nothing to say about the spiritual.)

and forgotten that God's word was intended to transform this world (Undocumented statement.)

and not just offer us benefits in the next. It is for this reason that this brief lectionary was created, to serve as a reminder of what it was that God really said, over and over and over again about justice being done in this world and to provide a context from where sermons and lesson plans can be developed by religious leaders to address justice issues with their congregants. (And the Lectionary makes the opposite mistake, that "social justice" is the sole impact of the Gospel.)

In this brief lectionary you will find 5 focal passages with exegetical/ theological and reflective information about the texts. In its pages, we will address Genesis 1:26-27 (Focus: the importance of the image of God for establishing just relationships), 1 Samuel 8:11- 17 (Focus: the need for prophets to balance kingly/governmental power), Isaiah 1:10-17 (Focus: determining what is it that God calls for from believing communities); Matthew 25:31-46 (Focus: the way we treat vulnerable Others is the way we treat God); and Acts 2:43-47 (Focus: an example of a just and diverse community). Though far from offering thorough commentaries on these texts, we hope that these readings will provide a basis for faith communities to begin discussions about what it is that God requires and how to begin to move our state, our nation, and our world in that direction. This work, though the product of the immediate labors of Dr. Rodney Sadler, Dr. William Turner, and Dr. Peter Wherry, is born of the contemporary theological engagements of many of our state’s religious leaders and Dr. William Barber’s constant challenge to us all to view the current crises in North Carolina’s political arena through theological and scriptural lenses. Special thanks are due to Dr. Cardis Brown and Rev. Kojo Nantambu for their work to organize North Carolina’s religious leaders and to foster this project.

Gen 1:26-27 NRS Betselem Elohim: In the Image of God 

26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

One of the most poignant passages in all of Scripture for addressing human rights comes in the first chapter of the first book of the Judeo-Christian biblical texts. It is two verses from the initial Priestly Writer’s Creation narrative ("Priestly Writer" is a reference to Textual Criticism, which is a literary discipline that attempts to harmonize perceived errors in the ancient documents. The offspring of this in liberal theological circles is the effort to rob the Scriptures of their divine inspiration by casting doubt on traditional Christian doctrines. 

So regarding the Genesis reference, it is thought by the textual critics that Moses did not write it, that instead several authors created it and there was a later effort to amalgamate all the stories in Genesis. Thus, the contents of Genesis is a conspiracy of sorts, since these "editors" decided what would be included and what would not be. The flaws in this kind of thinking is beyond the scope of our presentation. Suffice to say, there is no good reason to suggest that Genesis was written by a committee.)

in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. In this brief account, the omniscient narrator there describes the creation of humankind, or haadam. This term, haadam is a fascinating term since it is not really a reference to a personal name or a “man” in this story. Instead it is a reference to an idealized form of humanity from which all of the rest of humanity is eventually derived. It is a humanity that contains the origins not of a male, but of both the male and the female, expressing their common origins in a way that is neither hierarchical nor expressly patriarchal; no, the passage is decidedly egalitarian as it grounds the origins of both genders in God’s initial creative activity. (And so it begins. Note how the Lectionary seeks to mythologize the account of Adam and Eve, making them a archetype of humanity and not actual people who existed in history.

Further, There is no sense of egalitarianism in these accounts. This is a modern concept, valued by the Left today, which is an imposition pursuing an agenda. 

Indeed, the Left is quick to criticize Christianity as patriarchal; indeed, all of Jewish society throughout the Bible is patriarchal. But somehow, without any documentation, the authors claim the original creation was egalitarian.)

Submission in marriage - Vox Day

Vox Day expounds on true submission as it applies to wives specifically in Christian marriages, but it seems to me the principles hold true for men in the church as they too are called to submit to one another.
---------------------------
In the gap created by feckless, feminized Churchian pastors across America, one fearless Game blogger boldly stands:

What takes courage, obedience, and faith is to witness a failing Christian husband and remember that the Bible is clear that husbands are the head of the household, and wives are called to submit to their husbands even if the husband is not leading her as Christ leads the Church.

These men are overcome by their own pride and a desire to curry favor with the wives they are speaking to.  In the case of Pastors who sin this way it is to strengthen their position of leadership over their congregation, and this is by far the most damaging act of treachery.  In the case of the omegas circling the camp hoping to find a shortcut to manhood by currying favor with unhappy wives, the treachery is no less real but it is far less damaging because these men are failures whom neither men nor women respect.  But either way, this is how feminist rebellion is sold to modern Christians, and it perfectly explains why movies like Fireproof and Couragous are so eagerly accepted.  Christian women in feminist rebellion are eager to hear a message which absolves them of the clear instruction to submit to their husbands, and far too many Christian men are looking to ingratiate themselves to the women in rebellion.

In his series of three posts on the matter, Dalrock correctly points out:

1. Marital leadership is a man's Bible-based Christian duty.
2. The modern Church is actively setting itself against the Bible in this regard.
3. Female marital submission is not dependent upon a woman's approval of her husband's leadership.

The irony is that the position of the modern Christian church is not dissimilar to the position of the modern Islamic mosque. It removes responsibility from women by rendering their duty to submit dependent upon their husband's quality of leadership.

It is understandably difficult for women raised in a feminist and equalitarian society to accept that they have a Christian duty to be submissive wives to their husbands. But think on this: pride is the source of the original rebellion. To rebel against the clear message of the Bible because it offends one's pride is quite literally Satanic behavior, whether one is male or female.

And one rejects one's Christian duties at one's eternal peril. Rejecting the leadership of one's husband is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting Jesus Christ as one's savior, but God is neither mocked nor fooled, and one always pays a price for disobeying His commands.

Orlando Women's Center $50 coupon - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

One of the clinic’s abortionists is James Scott Pendergraft, a man who has reportedly lost his medical license five times in Florida. A deal like this doesn't happen every day.

B.R.: I've decided that every time I see you post about abortion, I'm going to donate $5 to Planned Parenthood.

Me: You never cease to amuse me. Many more abortion posts to follow.

Me: Your attempt to silence me is unseemly.

B.R.: What makes you think I want to silence you? On the contrary. Planned Parenthood needs money, and I make a good deal of it. Personally I wish you'd post about constructive ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but you're free to post about whatever you like.

Me: I'm glad. Maybe they can afford to hire competent doctors for a change.

B.R.: Do you have any documentation to support the claim that Planned Parenthood hires incompetent doctors?

Me: I don't want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I want to prevent unwanted murders.

B.R.: Sooooooo put your effort toward preventing unwanted pregnancies... If people who don't want to have babies don't get pregnant, there won't be abortions. Am I wrong?

Me: Again, I don't want to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

B.R.: Even though that would prevent abortions?

Me: Yes, incompetent.

Abortion verdict: Will judge reverse Orange Circuit Court $36.7 million failed abortion verdict?

Me: Yes, incompetent: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/14/nyregion/doctor-with-revoked-license-is-arrested-in-abortion-case.html


Me: Yes, incompetent: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130530/HEALTH/305300097/Delaware-AG-files-complaint-against-former-Planned-Parenthood-abortion-doctor



Me: incompetent. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/20/ireland-abortion-death.html



Me: Incompetent. http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2013/03/18/miracle-baby-born-after-botched-abortion



Me: One must conclude that prochoice people would prefer to endanger women via abortion than to admit their shop of horrors.

B.R.: Rich... All but ONE of these articles have ZERO to do with Planned Parenthood. I googled more about Liverlight, and if those claims are true, that dude should be booted from medicine forever, if not tried and convicted for endangering his patients. However, you've done very little to show me that Planned Parenthood makes a habit of hiring incompetent doctors. Please don't make erroneous generalizations and false claims. As for what "one must conclude", there's no "must" about it. You clearly focus on what you choose to focus on, and conclude whatever you like.

Still... why don't you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Me: Yeah, I noticed how you narrowed the subject matter to PP. A manipulative tactic that is frankly beneath you.

B.R.: I "narrowed" it in my very first comment. It's not beneath me at all. I approve of Planned Parenthood. I can't speak as to the quality of care at other abortion clinics, though I'm sure you're right that some of them have sub-par or even dangerous quality standards.

Planned Parenthood is a reliable and trusted source of care for women. You attacked their overall standards, and when evidence was requested, you provided unrelated sources with the exception of one individual related claim. That's your manipulative tactic, not mine. I admitted that this one PP doctor, if proven unsound, should be removed from the health care system. No one's in favor of malpractice or unsafe standards. But that one case does not condemn the entire organization, any more than a single faulty branch of a business chain would condemn the entire brand.

When you post about abortion, I'm not going to donate to any abortion services provider besides Planned Parenthood, because they've earned my respect and trust as an organization. I see from your posts that you don't want American women to be at risk when getting abortions. If that's the case, then I recommend you recognize Planned Parenthood as a safer and more reliable resource than other providers.

But all this is just a distraction from the larger point, which you still have not addressed: if the goal is to reduce the amount of abortions in America, then it would be more productive to put one's energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies than to focus on those abortion services providers with bad reputations. If you won't recognize the logic of preventing abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, and you won't explain your reasoning for denying such logic, you leave me in total mystery as to what your actual priorities are in this arena.

Me: My post was about abortion, you posted about PP. I attacked abortion clinics. You defended PP. Therefore, you are the one artificially narrowing the spectrum in order to justify the alleged benefits of an organization you support.

If this was your thread, you could post any topic you want and reel me in. You have done just that more than once. Since it is mine, I reject your attempt to divert the topic to a subset of the general topic.

"Preventing unwanted pregnancies" is nothing more than a euphemism for free birth control, taxpayer subsidized abortions, and a plethora of government programs. It's never about the stated objective. As such, I have no interest in "preventing unwanted pregnancies." I reject the premise.

I really don't care how wonderful PP is. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another leftist organization suckling from the government teat, pretending to benefit women while advancing leftist causes. Breast exams and cervical examinations are nothing more than smokescreens to hide behind.

B.R.: You're rejecting so many facts, so much progress, and so many opportunities to reduce the number of abortions in this country, all in the name of what? Politically-focused negativity.

When I say "preventing unwanted pregnancies", I'm not talking about free birth control, taxpayer subsidized abortions, and a plethora of government programs, though the first one is actually pretty successful. Your words taste terrible in my mouth and I'd appreciate it if you stop putting them there. I was actually primarily thinking about sex education in public schools. But that's just MY first suggestion of solving a very very solvable problem. I'd be happy to discuss YOUR ideas on how American women and families could prevent unwanted pregnancies.

You could take even a minute to think of ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies that you DO approve of. But you won't! How can you claim to care about solving a problem when you reject every logical and realistic solution to do so???

Me: In addition, you did not threaten to give $5 every time I posted about PP, you threatened to do so every time I posted about abortion.

B.R.: Yep. I care about the health and safety of women.

Me: So any abortion chop shop is a good one.

Me: Listen, I know the rhetoric. I know that "preventing unwanted pregnancies" is a political phrase with a political agenda. That's the way it is used by the abortion lobby. I didn't see any evidence you were using it differently.

Apparently this means I "...reject every logical and realistic solution." EVERY. Do you see how you are manipulating the language to establish that only your solutions are the only logical and realistic ones?

B.R.: Alright, Rich. I don't work for a political lobby, as much as you treat me that way. But I'll bow to your preference for the sake of making my point.

Let's toss out all the solutions you and I have each listed. Let's really drop all the defensiveness about those words having inherent political meaning. Let's drop all the political meaning they evoke. Let's choose different words, words that mean virtually the same thing, but don't have a place in such deep neural pathways for either of us.

Lowering the amount of times that a girl or woman in America becomes pregnant without intending to.

Do you agree that it would lower the number of abortions in America if we (individually and/or collectively) found ways to lower the amount of times that a girl or woman in America becomes pregnant without intending to?

If not, why not?

If so, can you think of one or two ideas, efforts or solutions, individually or collectively, that you WOULD approve of, toward the goal of lowering the amount of times that a girl or woman in America becomes pregnant without intending to?

Me: I don't mean to offend you, but your use of language sometimes aggravates me. Too many people use language to manipulate and marginalize.

I'll concede that the Left actually wants fewer abortions, although the reasons for this aren't clear. Anyway. Let me answer by asking some questions. Was there a time in America when abortions were very low? What conditions contributed to that situation? Which of those conditions are absent today, and for what reason?

B.R.: It's alright, I understand having built-up expectations about canned phrases, but I'd like you to assume that there's substance to the terms I use, rather than assuming they're just campaign rhetoric or something. If you think I AM simply using empty language, please ask me to rephrase so you can see what I really mean. Or something.

I don't know the answers to those questions, sorry. Do you?

While I really want to return to constructiveness, I only want to continue this conversation if you'll answer the questions in my last Comment. Take however long you like.

Me: My questions are at the heart of what you are seeking. For many decades the abortion rate was very low, the rate of unwanted pregnancies was very low, and the rate of unwed mothers was very low.

E.S.: A woman's individual decision; not a man's, not another woman's, not ANYONE else's. Shut your pie holes unless you are the one who is pregnant.

B.R.: Rich - fine, if you're going to eschew, please explain and make your point. Why was the rate so low and how can this information actually answer my question?

Me: Sis, free speech is for everyone. Especially when it's about the important issues of the day.

Me: B.R., you were asking how o lower the number of abortions. We had lower abortions before. Don't you think it's worth exploring how to do again what was done before?

R.K.: E.S., you make the decision but, admit your KILLING a BABY. Don't sugar coat it using nice words like "choice". Look at the pic's of these poor babies, don't call them a blob of cells. Blobs don't have fingers, toes, eyes and ears. Make your "choice if you choose. Kill your baby and live with it.

B.R.: Rich - yeah, sure, so please, lead the way. Share your knowledge. C'mon. Make your point.

B.R.: R.K. - one delineation that truly matters in this discussion is the developmental line that divides fetus from human being. In my beliefs, and potentially in Eileen's, that line is drawn when the baby can survive outside the womb. Before that time, it is not yet a human being, and therefore not murder. Sad, traumatic, challenging to live with, and hopefully avoidable - but not murder. It is not a fruit, it is a seed. I see from your comment that you draw the "human being" line much earlier in the fetus' development, which is of course your right to believe. It's a tender and beautiful belief, but not one that all people share. I hope that this vital distinction helps you understand why pro-choice citizens don't feel the weight of murder when it comes to abortions - because to us, it is not an independent life form. It's not yet a person. It's still an internal process of the woman's body, and only that woman gets to decide what to do with her body.

Me: When life begins is not an individually selected opinion, it is a matter of medical science. Therefore, your criteria are arbitrary. "Surviving outside the womb" has no precedent in science or law for that matter.

Regarding your last sentence, "only that woman gets to decide what to do with her body," that is false on its face. No one anywhere has carte blanche power to do such a thing. There are helmet laws, anti-suicide laws, and anti-prostitution laws. One cannot sell one's organs. There are hundreds of things a person cannot do with their own body.

But none of this has to do with medical facilities, i.e., abortion chop shops, that are unsanitary, dangerous, and operated by incompetent doctors.

Me: If the goal is really to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we would have to have to abandon the hook-up culture, sex without consequences, and the casual view we have towards life. We would have to begin to value propagation in the context of families, and curtail no-fault divorce. We would need to reverse the destructive trend of single parent childbirth, especially in minority communities which are being devastated by poverty, disease, and lack of hope.

Many of the problems of society have manifested as a result of social engineering experiments in the name of compassion, the fall-out of 1960s radicals now holding the reins of power. Ironically, these people, who so hated "The Man," are "The Man" themselves.

B.R.: Rich - I want to hear more about these solutions: how do we encourage or enforce the abandonment of hook-up culture? what will take its place?

How do we reduce single parent childbirth?

My mind goes straight to governmental solutions, so rather than assume that's what you mean (haha), I'd like to know the HOW behind your ideas. I think we can find some common ground.

R.K.: B.R., please define "survive outside the womb". If I take a newborn put it in a box and "see if it survives" it would not. Your definition of survival assumes independent living (I assume) NO baby can survive without support. In or out of the womb. I just don't get the logic I wish it made sense to me, it would be so much easier. Look at the photos Rich posed. Your telling me these are not people? We can legally kill our kids. It's our right. Just call it what it is.

B.R.: Randie: thanks for asking. I mean that the fetus has become a human being once it has physically developed enough that it can sustain vital functions after being removed and disconnected from the womb. Not as in "independent from needing assistance from others"...haha even I'm not at that point! Does that make more sense?

Me: Randie, in other words, it's human whenever I decide it is.

B.R.: Um...we each decide when it is. Your definition is no better or more correct than mine.

Me: I have not offered a definition. I did say, "When life begins is not an individually selected opinion, it is a matter of medical science. Therefore, your criteria are arbitrary. "Surviving outside the womb" has no precedent in science or law for that matter."

That is without question better and more correct.

Dr. Ring to present carbon thriller - Kristen Walser, Bozeman Citizens Climate Lobby

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-----------------------

It seems like environmentalists are given more and more to hyperbolic language and insistent moralizing. They seem to approach their issue with a zealotry bordering on religious fervor. Kristen Walser's recent guest opinion is no exception. This starts as a newsy opinion piece and morphs to a clumsy letter-to-the-editor style polemic, complete with a "call your senator" plea at the end. 

She supplies us with an astounding number for the health costs of coal mining, a claimed $2 trillion annually. But according to Kaiser, the total expenditure for healthcare in the US was $2.6 trillion in 2010. Apparently she wants us to believe that 77% of all healthcare costs are attributable to coal mining. Like I said, given to hyperbole.

What she describes as a "common sense" solution to the human toll of using fossil fuels is to "place a price on carbon and combustion..." For some reason she's afraid to use the word, but this is what is known as a tax. Yes, the universal leftist problem solving strategy... tax it. 

Then, send all $2 trillion to the American people. Ummm, yeah. So we need to ask: How likely is it that Congress will actually transfer this money directly to the American people? That's $6000 per person, per year, every year. But a better question is, how long will the oil and coal industries continue to produce their products in that scenario? 

According to Pell, the size of the Coal Mining market was $39.15 billion in 2009. Yearly production of oil amounts to $260 billion. These industries already pay lots of taxes. For 2012, the three largest oil companies, Exxon ($31.05 billion), Chevron ($20 billion), and ConocoPhillips ($7.94 billion) paid a total of $58.99 billion in taxes. What will that do to the price you and I pay for energy? If you answered, "skyrocket," go to the head of the class. You and I will pay this tax.

This means that rather than "20-40 years" of transition time to alternative fuels, a $2 trillion coal tax will shortly destroy the energy industry, which will increase energy prices, plummet the already fragile economy into a tailspin, and throw millions of people out of work, out of their homes, and into the welfare system. Really great plan, Ms. Walser.

We can discern what the real agenda is. These extremist environmentalists hate big corporations, CEOs, and the wasteful American way of life. Their answer to every problem is more taxes and more government. They disdain capitalism, they have nothing but contempt for the rich, and they despise SUVs. They are convinced that they are the agents of change to bring about a utopian vision of worldwide peace and harmony, oneness with the land, and tofu in every pot. And they're always happy to bring government to bear on those who don't fit in to their happy plans.

-----------------------

This week, Gallatin residents will have an opportunity to have their minds stretched by the encyclopedic knowledge of Dr. Wendy Ring. As we learned from Dr. Alan Lockwood, author of the Silent Epidemic, when he came to Bozeman last March, the health costs of coal mining and combustion are devastating and reach $2 trillion annually.

According to Dr. Ring, this is just a sliver of the health impacts we are seeing now from warmer temperatures of air and water, not to mention extreme weather events.

Dr. Ring recently spoke on the national conference call of the Citizens Climate Lobby. org. Believe me, there’s no need to spend your money on a terrifying summer blockbuster. This is it, all from a woman so dedicated to her cause, that she is riding her bike across country to tell us about it.

Luckily, this story could have a happy ending. Let’s do what Republican economists, scientists, four former EPA administrators under Republican presidents, even Exxon, have suggested.

Place a price on carbon when it comes out of the ground that reflects its true costs to health, insurance, clean up after storms and pollution, rebuilding coastal cities, drought relief, and firefighting costs.

Give the entire proceeds back to the American people, and the terrific engine of our market-based economy will do the heavy lifting. No need for subsidies or cap and trade, no loopholes or half measures, just a level, predictable playing field, oh, and the added bonus of a livable planet and a complete transition to alternative fuels in 20-40 years (Mark Jacobson).

Ask Sens. Tester and Baucus, and Rep. Daines to lead the charge for carbon fee and dividend in Congress now.

And come to 301 Reid Hall MSU at noon Aug. 15. Be prepared for a thriller.

Goals statement - Worship

• 
  
  
  
  Immediate Goals –
  
  
  1)     Teaching/training for worship team on the meaning, purpose, and practice of worship
  2)     Teaching/training for congregation on the meaning, purpose, and practice of worship
  3)     Worship team worship sessions:
  a)     that are not preparation for Sunday
  b)     A time for getting to know each other musically
  c)     A time to discover strengths, gifts, weaknesses, preferences, tastes, etc.
  d)     A time to enhance skills and discernment
  4)     Improvisational worship sessions/song writing/Holy Spirit immersion for the worship team:
  a)     A music-based exploration of the depths of worship
  b)     Learning to follow the flow of the Spirit
  c)     How to musically express the Word
  d)     Enhancing the ability of the worship team to hear and act upon the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
  5)     Monthly congregational worship services
  
  
  Short Term Goals –
  
  
  1)     Expand the experience of worship of the worship team and congregation
  2)     Expand the number of musicians trained in spiritual worship.
  3)     Emphasis on original worship songs
  4)     Record worship every Sunday, assembling material for an album
  5)     Increase congregational participation in worship
  a)     physical and vocal expressions
  b)     spontaneous songs
  c)     recognizing the move of the Holy Spirit
  6)     Add purposeful times during the service, allocated for unstructured worship
  
  
  Long Term Goals
  
  
  1)     Become a hub of worship in the Gallatin valley, where people recognize our church as the place where worshipers go to worship.
  2)     Start a School of Worship, which might initially be weekend seminars, expanding to an actual immersive training school.
  3)     Start a Christian music recording studio where musicians/worship bands can make albums
  4)     Create regular valley-wide worship times with many worship teams
  5)     Send our worship teams to churches who desire training in worship, or who have weak or non-existent worship teams.

Child hunger a growing problem in Montana - by Minkie Medora and Lisa Lee

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------

I approach this topic with a fair amount of reluctance, because these days it seems that criticizing something automatically means you are in favor of the thing they're working to stop. So I'm going to criticize an organization the is dedicated to stopping childhood hunger. This does not mean I am in favor of hungry children.

The Montana Partnership to End Childhood Hunger appears to be intertwined with a national network (as well as other related organizations) that may or may not be working to end childhood hunger. Most certainly they're working for government funding, even lobbying the Montana Legislature. 

My suspicion is that this tangled web of organizations is connected by individuals who sit on various boards with the objective of making the effort seem larger and more important. It appears that these organizations might be working the system to get the flow of money going from private parties, businesses, and government. And because it's "for the children," there is many a sympathetic ear.

I looked around quite a bit at the various organizations, and it appears that very few of them are actually supplying meals to children. 

Let's look at the article:
--------------------------
It is 6:30 a.m. and parents in many Montana homes are waking up their kids, while, preparing a simple breakfast of cereal, milk and fruit for them before they leave for school. Now imagine a home where mom had to leave for work at 6 a.m., and dad came home from work at 11:30 p.m. the night before and is trying to rest. The children need to wake themselves up, get dressed, and eat before leaving for school if there’s food and enough time. (The first thrust is the sob story. Here is where the tragedy is laid out for you so that your heart strings are pulled.) Dinner the night before may have been pasta and sauce with a small glass of milk. That will not hold them until it is time for school lunch the next day, unless the school has a breakfast program. (A curious hypothetical is presented. I guess the point is to suggest that children might not be getting enough to eat, even though they are not hungry. 

I'm just kind of uncomfortable with the example. It suggests that these groups have the right to ascertain the propriety of nutrition being provided and intervene in the family structure as a result. This is not troubling until you realize how dependent these organizations are on government programs and funding. This means the possibility exists for the power of government to be brought to bear on families to measure up to certain standards of face sanctions.)  

This scenario is all too familiar for thousands of Montana families, including single-parent families, trying to earn a living while having enough time and money to ensure that kids are properly fed. This situation plays out year round but becomes particularly challenging on weekends, school holidays or during summer when school is out because children are home, parents are working and there is little food at home. It is equally challenging for children coming home from day care to find there is no food for supper. (Of course there is hunger in America. But there really shouldn't be. There are so many programs, charities, and churches feeding people that a person would have to willfully avoid opportunities to be fed. It isn't a case of not being able to access food. That's why I wonder if this organization is more about fund raising than actually feeding children.)

The Montana Partnership to End Childhood Hunger is holding a statewide summit at Montana State University in Bozeman on Sept. 23 and 24 to bring this issue to light and to demonstrate pathways to end child hunger. (I don't think it's possible to end hunger. It sounds wonderful, but as a practical matter there will always be nutritional deficiencies. But beyond that, the activists will always need a cause, like the race baiters who ostensibly are trying to eradicate racism but make their living fomenting resentment and hatred. It keeps the money rolling in.) The summit will showcase best practices toward ending childhood hunger, create opportunities to meet others from their community, and provide resources to initiate public and private community action. Lori Silverbush, co-director of the film, “A Place at the Table” will be the keynote speaker and lead a discussion of the varied aspects of child hunger in the nation.

In Montana, more than one in five children — nearly 48,000 struggle with hunger and food insecurity. Food insecurity means limited or inconsistent access to healthy and nutritious food for growing children. Hungry children come from hungry families. Income is the single largest factor in determining if a family will have enough healthy food. Studies by the Montana Food Bank Network have shown repeatedly that families feel compelled to first use their limited dollars on rent, utilities, child care, medical costs, transportation, and other fixed expenses, with little money left for food. (Here's a hint at the underlying agenda - wealth disparity. This is a big issue for the Left. They really believe that every problem will be solved if everyone had the same amount of money.)

The impact of food insecurity in children is serious and unacceptable.Lack of good nutrition effects their growth and development from infancy on, reduces immunity, increases sick days in school, increases risk of repeated grades and lowers chances of graduation. Food insecurity affects health by increasing the risk of children developing chronic diseases and obesity. Hungry children also show multiple social and behavioral problems that in turn impact their academic success. This reduces their potential for future education or learning a trade, becoming part of the state’s workforce, and achieving economic independence as adults. (Thinking back to when I was a kid, we were poor. I didn't realize it at the time, but I can remember many times when we had only the most basic of necessities. Before my time, back in the Depression, people were desperately poor. But there was no crime spree. Kids behaved in school. So many of them grew out of desperate circumstances to become the captains of industry, innovators, scientists, and businesspeople. This is not to say that poverty is good, but it ain't necessarily bad...)

There are those who claim that poor families should pull themselves up from their bootstraps and solve their own problems. (Who claims this? Name someone, anyone. I'd wager that the writers would not be able to name a single person who believes this.) To do that, a family needs boots to begin with. This includes a living wage (Ah, here we go. A living wage is code for wealth disparity that needs to be remedied by government redistribution programs. It isn't fair that some people have to work so hard for so little, while others have been born with a silver spoon in their mouths!) that can meet the growing cost of food, housing and transportation, as well as affordable health care. (Strike two. See how this is interrelated? Obamacare is here to save the day.) Parents are the first and most important providers for food for their children, but are struggling to make ends meet. (Unfortunately due to the very redistributionist practices that got them, and us, into this financial mess. And they want more!)

Child hunger affects not just the family, but the community and state. Children are the future workers in the state, and the ability to acquire proper knowledge and skills in the early years can have lasting benefits for our economic progress in the future. Good nutrition is a key building block in a child’s life to maximize assurance of their future. Business leaders have a critical role in assuring the vitality of our future workers.

The good news is that there is tremendous work being done in the state to end child hunger. This will be showcased at the “Build a Stronger Montana: End Childhood Hunger Summit.” We encourage employers, faith groups, service organizations, health professionals, non-profit groups and others to attend this conference and learn about opportunities to resolve this problem in their own communities. For more information or to register for the Summit, go to https://tofu.msu.montana.edu/cs/childhunger2013.

We can end child hunger in Montana but it will take the combined efforts of all sectors in the community and state to develop sustainable solutions.

Minkie Medora and Lisa Lee are cochairs of the Montana Partnership to End Childhood Hunger. (And Ms. Medora is a board member of the Montana Food Bank Network, which also apparently receives government funding.