blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog




This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

8/11/2005

 

a bet: you support abortion clinic bombers



i would be willing to wager that every last one of you support abortion bombers. no exceptions. how can i make such an audacious claim? take the following test and see for yourself:

do you believe that an 1871 federal law aimed at fighting the KKK by preventing racial discrimination should be used to prosecute people who have nothing to do with the KKK, and didn't discriminate against anyone's race (or gender or religion or sexual orientation or various and sundry other what-have-yous)?

i'll assume you all answered "no." if you didn't, then i suppose i'd lose my bet, but then, i can always make another bet, whereas you would clearly be suffering from some form of crippling and irreparable neurological degeneration. needless to say, those who answered "yes," are excused from reading any further, and may resume smoking crack or drinking benzene or wood alcohol or whatever it is you poor bastards do to make yourselves turn out this way.

i suppose those of you who are still here are now wondering how it is that a rather commonsensical rejection of judicial insanity could be equated with support for abortion clinic bombers, aren'tcha? well i'm glad you asked.

NARAL pro-choice america has created an ad that accuses john roberts of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber" and "excus[ing] violence against other americans" because he once filed an amicus brief in which he argued precisely what you've all agreed with, that as heinous as the actions of these domestic terrorists may be, what they did cannot rightfully be prosecuted under an 1871 KKK law that simply does not apply.

but i'm getting ahead of myself.

back in 1991, several abortion clinics joined in a civil lawsuit against operation rescue, a pro-life group notorious for blockading clinic entrances and other disruptive if non-violent protest measures. roberts was not representing this group, but filed an amicus brief arguing that the prosecution's case, which hinged on a narrow 1871 KKK law, did not apply. roberts explicitly condemned the protestors' actions as illegal under state trespassing law, but not discriminatory as the protestors were blockading women of all races, as well as their husbands, doctors, etc. as the helpful nerds over at factcheck.org (to whom this post owes a great debt) point out, roberts "went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law." indeed, while working as an associate counsel to rondald reagan and dealing with the issue of pardons for abortion clinic bombers, factcheck.org reveals, "Roberts called abortion bombers 'criminals' and 'misguided individuals,'" who "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

so we've got a 1991 case where there was no violence, no bombings, only a blockade, and where roberts' position was that these individuals had broken state law and should be thusly prosecuted, but that they should not be prosecuted under a federal anti-discrimination law which had no relevance to their crimes. everyone with me?

ok, now we jump forward seven years to 1998, when mad bomber eric rudolph blew up a birmingham abortion clinic, injuring emily lyons (the woman in the naral ad that you should go watch now if you haven't done so already) and killing an off-duty cop. so naral puts together this anti-roberts spot, showing footage of the carnage at the 1998 birmingham bombing and an interview in which emily lyons says that since "I almost lost my life...I'm determined to stop this violence so I'm speaking out." presumably, it's john roberts she's speaking out against, and it's roberts alledged support for the bombing of her clinic that prompted the speaking in the first place.

indeed, right before emily lyons explains why she's "speaking out," the ad shows a picture of roberts' 1991 KKK brief, as though the brief he filed were in defense of the 1998 clinic bombing, and, in case that didn't make it clear enough, the announcer then accuses roberts of holding to an "ideology [that] leads him to excuse violence against other americans."

the ad is so laughably dishonest that i could almost believe that evil genius karl rove produced it soley to discredit naral. but it does raise a serious question: if this is the level naral has to stoop to in order to oppose john roberts...then why are they opposing john roberts?

think about it. if they've got to invent things to get hysterical about, why be hysterical? why not be thankful that roberts isn't the pro-life crusader they're knowingly distorting him into?

i think there are two reasons for this, both of which are pretty bad.

the first is that naral, when all's said and done, cares about naral, not "a woman's right to chose." the latter now exists only to facilitate the former, as the mindset of bureaucratic self-perpetuation and the lure of a life of free money from guilt-ridden liberal elites have taken hold.

the second is that, while john roberts would seem a long shot to overturn roe v. wade, and while his clear-minded condemnations of domestic terrorists who bomb abortion clinics should be a comforting thought, groups like naral have always depended on the mutilation of federal law and the constitution of the united states--without it, killing one's unborn child would not be considered an expression of "privacy." step back from the substance of roberts' 1991 amicus brief and consider the form: a crime is committed under state law, the federal government wants a piece of the action, a completely non-applicable statute is invoked, and a refutation of that invocation is proffered. roberts' position was just plain good law--which is probably why, when the case eventually wound up in the supreme court, his argument prevailed to the tune of a 6-3 decision. any good judge is a threat to naral, regardless of his personal feelings on abortion.

locdog is pro-life america




8/09/2005

 

And as Jesus passed by...



1 ...he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

John 9:1-7

once thought to be a religious metaphor used by the apostle john, the pool of siloam has been discovered in jerusalem.

if you've ever read any of the so-called "higher criticism" of the Bible, or, even worse, studied it at a secular university as i have, you'll find that no book aside from Genesis is attacked with more ferocity than the the gospel of John. John is the most metaphysical of the gospels, and in it Christ is most overtly depicted as God incarnate. arguably the single most dogmatic assertion of the Christian faith, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," can be found in John.

John is frequently accused of embellishing or fabricating large sections of dialogue attributed to Christ, or of inventing historical places or personages. the pool of siloam had been considered by some an example of John's untrustworthiness.

it should be noted that the criticism of John is not motivated by the failure of archeology to validate his claims as the vast majority of persons and places John makes reference to have been confirmed. the list of remaining discrepancies is small and getting smaller with new finds.

the problem with John is that the Jesus represented within its pages does not fit with the Jesus of the modern secular critic, a Jesus who was merely mortal, was not a miracle worker, did not believe Himself to be the savior of humanity much less the Son of God, and had no intention of winding up on a cross. this version of Jesus is best understood as a wandering stand-up act who brought His observational humor and cynical ruminations on the religious elite to sold-out meadows and shorelines all across judea.

their vision of Christ is rooted primarily in contempt for Christianity, and a desire to create a more politically correct Jesus who will be considered less offensive by non-Christians. it is not based on evidence, either archeological or textual, as the archeology confirms the Biblical accounts and the oldest, most reliable gospels are already found in the pages of Scripture.

granted, this finding does not prove that Jesus truly was the Son of God--nor could any archeological discovery--but it does take away one more weapon His detractors used to attack the credibility of those who claim He is. conversely, it's another black mark on the record of Jesus' critics, but that should come as little surprise. it would have taken a lot more than an ancient-world jerry seinfeld to spark the greatest revolution in the history of mankind.

locdog doubts cosby, carlin, or rock could have pulled it off either, but thinks steven wright would have had an outside chance