Thought Quotient

This was a question asked in the speech given by presidential candidate John Kerry.

I find it telling that a politician can ask that question and then give a speech about the value of families, opportunity, and choices … and only seem to talk about the material things. The critical issues facing the family today are not financial. They are not political. They are moral issues. They are issues of right and wrong.

“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.” - Abraham Lincoln, September 5, 1864

In an effort to counter the public manipulation on this issue by Ron Reagan and others, James Dobson addresses the issue of embryonic stem cell research and how it differs from adult stem cell research.

You can find this commentary here.

Delivering a slap to his late father’s political party, Ron Reagan told Democratic delegates Tuesday that voters in November face a choice between “the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology,” on the matter of embryonic stem cell research.

He forgot one…a choice between right and wrong.

How come when people talk about this issue - they talk about everything but whether it’s right or wrong? Take for example, Ron Reagan’s speech….

the future and the past

Since when did this issue involve a choice between moving forward and somehow living in the past? That’s one of those phrases that appeals to our emotions….”Hey, who wants to live in the past? Let’s progress into the future!”

reason and ignorance

Is he saying he is ignorant? Of course not! So that means he is implying that anybody that doesn’t share his view on embryonic stem cell research is ignorant, not on his side - the side of reason.

true compassion and mere ideology

So far, he’s not really making a case of why this is the right thing to do…sure it sounds good - there are lots of appeals to emotion, but no facts.

“It does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many,” Reagan said. “And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?”

This argument depends on who is right and who is wrong. Why aren’t we debating what it is that ‘these few’ actually believe instead of complaining that it is not fair because there are ‘many’ that believe otherwise. Numbers don’t matter, principles do. After all, whose theology is this? Is this the theology of a man, of a party, of a church … ?

theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world

For another view on this, read this Chuck Colson article…

The Wrong Legacy
A Cause Reagan Wouldnt Have Supported

No kidding… That was the result when I did a search on “Danbury Baptist Association” and “Separation of Church and State” while doing some research on the church/state separation issue. See for yourself:

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/%2522Danbury%2BBaptist%2BAssociation%2522%2B%2522Separation%2Bof%2BChurch%2Band%2BState%2522

Now, isn’t that interesting. As Christians - or perhaps said better - believers and followers of Jesus Christ, doesn’t it seem a bit incongruous with scripture to be dangling the “fresh meat” sign and “pimping” single believers to the masses? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not slamming Christian dating services… exactly. I’m just thinking that the marketing needs a LOT of work.

In case you’re wondering, this is the line for BaptistFriends.com - “The Best Baptist Dating Site in the World!” Their Motto:

Join BaptistFriends.com to begin the most wonderful online dating with millions of single Baptist in the world, especially when you can have love both from God and us! (emphasis added)

I’m not going to point out the disturbing closing tag on the motto… oops, I guess I just did. Nor will I spend an exorbitant amount of time discussing the cons (and a few pros) of online dating. I suppose one might look at the bright side and point out that “at least they’re not supporting unequal yoking“… although, I fear the concept (and the syntax) might be lost on most who would ever sign up for such a program. In the end, let me just leave it with this…

?????????????????????????????????????????

Ever wonder why very little gets accomplished in the Senate? Here’s a good example of why:

They can’t even agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

(more…)

Proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage will play role in election

The judges and the courts (who are writing law these days) know best apparently…

(more…)