http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Neighbor-Thinking-Wisely/dp/1581349459/ref=sr_1_1/102-2085712-9684969?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188485260&sr=8-1

Well, it’s true that people might feel that since the opinion is coming from a Christian radio program that they are condemed by God if they vote contrary to the opinion of the speaker, but unfortunately that just shows our inability to think and also the power of media. And actually, I think Michael Moore is operating off this same principle, I think. He knows that Americans (people in general) are very influenced by the media (especially the silver screen) and that many will believe what they see and hear simply because they heard Michael Moore say it in a movie. I mean, really, how many people who watch the news and listen to the comentaries, actually GO to where the facts are and see for themselves. We believe those who tell us about them, because we want to trust that we are being told the truth. In reality, I have no more reason to believe George Bush than Kerry or Morre or anyone else, for that matter. We choose to believe which ever “seems” more credible to us. No different than reading a history book. (Not mentioning any names (abeka)) They all have thier political slant and we either choose to believe one or the other, or we choose to remain open and accept the fact that we don’t have all the facts first hand. You know what I mean?

I guess here’s my main point about stem cell issue. I’m old. I’ve watched things go thier ways. I know that legislation in America is made to be modified. It’s fluid and adapts to our current culture. It’s not always based on right and wrong, as you probably know. When abortion was made legal back when I was a teen, it was for the “protection” of the poor victims of rape and incest. That’s what we were told. Who would have thought that laws could be modified and reinterpreted until now where we can take live, viable babies OUT of the womb and kill them. The stem cell law is in the very same category I think. And things tend to degenerate no matter how much legislation we start with.

Given all that (my opinion), reguardless of what I think, I realize that the eventually we will be using unborn fetus for their tissue, parents will probably be relieved of their guilt by knowing that thier murdered baby will go to good use, researches will probably start creating human life just so they can use it for research, etc, etc, etc. It happens in other situations, why not this one? The issue is ripe for all the abuses that one can imagine. This is why I choose to vote against it, dispite what I think will probably happen anyway. In 20 years, I don’t want to look back (like the poor lady who was used in the Roe V Wade case) and see what has happened and know that I was one of the ones who helped it happen.

About the blog…. I don’t know how to do it. I wouldn’t mind my words being up there, as long as it’s not there just so people can make fun of another brainwashed stupid old person or yell at me because they disagree.

Well, since that would be impossible, we can only guess what they would want. That’s why I asked that if you were an aborted embryo and were somehow (after you died) given the knowledge and option to allow your dead body to be used for the purpose of healing people, don’t you think you would choose to do so?

Also, I think the organ donation rule should be the opposite - you should be required to specify that you don’t want to donate, and the default is that you will.

- Jared

And by the way, people who are murdered or die in other ways, are required to give their consent before their organs are used for anything scientific. Are we going to give the embryos the same rights?

I wasn’t trying to imply that the Democratic party lines up with the teachings of Jesus, only that they are much closer than the Republicans overall, *in my opinion*. Obviously, there are people who disagree with me on that point, and I’m certainly willing to change my mind, if I see some evidence to the contrary. I was just saying that I think that people see the Rep. party as the “Christian” party based almost exclusively on the abortion issue, and they don’t take the time to look deeper.

As for Dobson, I don’t disagree with his right to say whatever he wants. What I have a problem with is it being said in the context of a Christian radio show. Many people who listen to his show would get the impression (based on the way he presents political issues) that not voting Republican would be a vote against the will of God (or at least against what’s best for the Christian family). Even if he doesn’t come right out and say it (although sometimes he comes close) people get that impression.

That is the difference between him and people like Michael Moore. When people watch or listen to Moore, they know that they are listening to someone who is expressing their personal opinion. If a pastor got up on Sunday morning and told people how to vote (on either side) I would have a big problem with it, and I think the Dobson radio show is closer to the latter than the former.

I guess based on that, my problem is really more with a lot of the Christians of America who take what shows like his say as “gospel” than with Dobson himself. Maybe he doesn’t really mean to present his personal opinions as authoritative spiritual truth, but they are taken that way by people. I would have a lot more respect for him if he clarified that his positions on political issues are his own opinion, and that other people of faith disagree with some of them.

As for using the tissue, I think that we both agree that abortion is wrong. All I’m saying is that I think it’s OK in certain circumstances to “cash in on the evil” (although I obviously wouldn’t use that term), and that I don’t think it “adds to the momentum” in this particular case - that’s just an assumption. I think terms like “cashing in on evil” are a little misleading and/or inflammatory, because no one will say “sure, I want to cash in on evil”, but you could play the same game the other way around and say that by denying the research it would “condemn people to die needlessly” or “make their loss in vain”, etc.

When you finish your dissertation you should set up a blog so everyone can read it. Speaking of that, do would you mind if I posted these e-mails on my blog as a comment to my post? I could leave your name off if you want.

Just for the record, if you look at ALL issues, neither party aligns themselves with the teachings of Jesus. Anyone who believes that they do is in denial. And why can’t Dobson push his political agenda anyway he wants to, as can (and does) our beloved Michael Moore, Bruce Springstein, Dixy Chicks, Mel Gibson, Mother Teresa and whoever else has the money and the forum. It’s his opinion. What’s the problem with him talking about it on his radio show any more than any other activist using their radio show? He feels what he is saying is in support of the family and important. I admire someone who speaks their mind against the flow of the culture, because they believe it’s right. Why are all groups allowed to speak their mind in this county and give their positions and advice EXCEPT Christian organizations?

As far as USING aborted babies to further research, I have alot more to say. Just because we know it is happening and we know it probably won’t stop, that is no reason to cash in on the evil and add to the momentum of a horrible attrocity, giving more and more reasons, justifications and validations for the selfish horrible act of killing human beings, BABIES NO LESS! And don’t quote the death penalty to me, I’m against that too. And don’t whine about the war, I’m against that too. I think it’s a joke that democrats, republicans, Iraqi’s, Americans, or anyone else would justify murder for any reason.

I’m working on a wonderful disertation, filled with my own brand of symbology that I’m sure will be published in all the great political journals as soon as I’m finished. I’ll send it to you when it’s done.

See my blog entry on this….

>> Also, here is an article by Dobson (don’t know what you democrats think about him )

P.S. - Well, I’m not a democrat, but I’ll tell you what I personally think about him.
I am a huge fan of the most of the parenting teaching, etc that his organization does. I don’t necessarily agree 100% with everything in it, but it’s probably the best that’s out there.

The big problem I have with him is mostly the use of his radio show to constantly push a political position instead of “focusing on the family”. I used to listen to it a lot, actually, but I stopped after a while. I think that his organization (among others) has done a huge disservice to the “church” in America by polarizing people politically around a single issue, namely abortion.

I am the first to agree that abortion is wrong, just so I’m clear about that up front. The problem I have is that when you’re considering a particular political candidate, you have to consider *all* the issues. The “religious-right” often forgets that abortion as been legal for a long time, during which there have been several strongly conservative presidents (especially Reagan - the Republican hero). This would lead me to believe that choosing a presidential candidate is not an effective way to combat abortion.

If the church would honestly like to prevent abortions, they would do much better to look to places like Tender Life maternity home, that actually offer women alternatives and help rather than condemnation. Of course, criticizing people doesn’t cost anything, whereas taking the time (and money) to help people does, so guess which one people will choose, especially those whose party encourages them to keep every “hard-earned” penny for themselves?

Not to mention the fact that the “pro-life” position is very inconsistently applied within the Republican party, when it comes to things like the death penalty and especially unjustified bombings and invasions of other countries.

Also consider which party more closely aligns with the “right wing” described by Jesus in Matthew 25:35-36 - “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

Also, here is an article by Dobson (don’t know what you democrats think about him )
but the large paragraph is what I was trying to say about how things spiral downward. And by the way, America is no different than other countries in their disreguard for compassion and devaluation of imperfect human life forms. This whole world is made up of people, and people are people. Ameicans are no worse that any other nationality or ethnic group. It’s been going on since the beginning of time. I think it tends to spiral downward until some catastophic event (Natural like the Great Flood or Man Made like the Killing of the Jews last century) jerks us back into considering right and wrong.

Imagine thinking that after Hitler gassed all the Jews that it would be ok to do experimentation on them. They were dead anyway, and this way their death would benefit mankind. Somehow Hitler would be a sort of hero if we had found a cure for cancer or the common cold. The atrocities of killing other human beings would then be somewhat validated. The difference between this and using aborted babies is that no one cares that the babies are have been murdered by their own mothers. I’m telling you, we spiral downward unless we put safeguards up.

Also, the socialist in me thinks that there are some issues that should not be up for public debate. These include things such as civil rights issues and possibly medical research such as this. If there was a large enough “moral majority” crowd in the U.S. that opposed AIDS research, believing that it was some sort of “judgment from God”, etc. I think that the government should still fund research to prevent or cure it, even if people disagreed.

for me, the bottom line is this: the government should never fund something that a huge percentage of the population finds morally objectionable. even if the percentage is in the minority, the majority should respect the moral objection of that minority by funding the research privately. just as abortions are done privately.