Cockroaches have more respect than some leaders

When convictions clash with culture, the changes taking place in the way people think becomes clear. I cannot remember a time when there has been more evidence of the change in the direction of our nation or the major change in the way people think as they go through their life. Often, I have bemoaned the reality of the loss of respect we have seen over the years. It is hard to pinpoint the exact date in time when our nation started down the road in losing respect for those who were in authority.

 Recent surveys indicate that cockroaches are more likeable and can be tolerated better than elected members of Congress. It is a sad day when people in positions of leadership have so disappointed the people they are supposed to be leading that their approval rating goes down and shows no signs of going back up. With the age of tolerance and diversity ruling the day, it is becoming evermore obvious when a person is driven by convictions or traditional views of what is right and what is wrong they will be held up as examples of bigotry. There have been times when I have compared the harsh nature of the rhetoric taking place between people with differing opinions as if it is a “wrestle mania” match. In sports, we have come to expect that the enemy is the other side and we must mash their faces in the dirt and leave them bloody on the field of battle. People are not satisfied just to win a sporting event; they want to see the other side crippled for life. That same attitude is showing up in every area of our culture. In the business world we hear the phrase, “Dog eat dog.” We have heard that when a person goes into the world to try and make a living for their families they find it is like jungle warfare out there. There is a worldview that quickly responds with invectives and insults toward any person who happens to express a different viewpoint. We have moved into a time when we are seeing the truth in the statement; “Only the strong survive.” Any sign of weakness is exploited to the point of rendering the other side useless and of no human value. We soon discover the people who cry the loudest for diversity and tolerance show no indication they are willing to exhibit either tolerance or diversity when they come up against someone who disagrees with their worldview.

What a person believes can be kept personal for a short time but when the belief systems begin to clash, the complete disagreement of how to manage conflict or differing views soon boils to the surface. There are various worldviews driving people today. We have those who believe in no rules or laws, except those they want to impose on others. There are people who advocate for relaxing of the moral code that has been in place in our country for generations. There are people who will take from others without fear of being caught. Once they are caught, however, they quickly seek to blame someone or something else for their behavior. There was a day in our history when rules of behavior were generally accepted but that day is gone. There was a time when mature adults could disagree without being disagreeable but that day is also gone. Human life has been devalued to the place where there is no value left.

Jokingly, my daddy would tell me many times, “Son, remember there are two sides to every issue, your side and then a bunch of ignorant prejudiced idiots.” I am afraid that what my father said in jest has now become the new normal in public exchange of ideas and morals in our culture. There are people who argue that there are no absolutes in moral issues and they are absolutely sure there are no absolutes. We seem to be at a place where everybody does what they believe is right in their own eyes rather than following a moral code generally believed to be the way we should all live our lives. One cannot help but wonder how much further down this slippery slope of clashing worldviews we will fall before we hit bottom.  There must be a return to personal and individual respect in the public square.

Life is precious; all should have a chance at life

Life begins at conception and is to continue until the Giver of Life determines its natural end. This never moving conviction is part of my list of beliefs I always express about the origin of life. 40 years ago this month, the United States Supreme Court ruled they had found what had not been seen in the United States Constitution previously. They found a guaranteed right of choice to take a life in the womb. Though the Declaration of Independence assures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as part of the founding pillar of our nation, these justices determined they knew best and refused to allow for the pursuit of happiness for the most innocent of human life, a child in the womb. Since they ruled in favor of abortion, more than fifty-four and a half million people have been aborted at the choice of someone else. It seems very strange to me that we have been told by those advocating for the death choice that life does not begin at conception. In fact, depending on which advocate for death one reads, life is an ever moving goal post. Some advocates for death want us to think it could be as late as one month after a child is born. Other advocates for choice want us to think it could be that the child (a vital and vibrant human being) does not really possess life until they can know and be aware of their surroundings outside the womb.

I find it interesting that with the announcement of a celebrity being pregnant there is not a picture of a “Fetus bump,” but the picture always has a tag line to say a “baby bump.” I have yet to see someone go around showing pictures of their ultra sound calling the baby in the womb a blob of tissues. Yet, when the choice advocates refer to an aborted human being as a fetus or just a blob of tissue we are supposed to concede the point to them. The future King of England and his wife are expecting a baby, nowhere have I read they are having a fetus or blob of tissue. Each reference I have read about the heir to the throne of England’s child, says a “baby.”

Over these forty years since Roe v Wade, those who advocate for choice always set a predetermined point that they have the right to choose if the life in them lives or dies. Those of us who advocate for life are painted as extremists and even a danger to society because we argue on the side of life. In the way this issue has been presented to the public, we are told that the life issue is political. Not so, the issue of life is a moral one. Over many years, I have been asked to help counsel women following abortions when the reality sets in on what they chose to do. I have not sought them out; they have come to me seeking guidance as to how they can deal with the trauma following their decision and resulting death of their baby.

I am pleased to be able to stand with Georgia Right to Life as they advocate for life. We are still in the process of finding it necessary to explain to this current generation of child bearing women that carrying a child to full term and giving birth is the correct choice to make when dealing with the issue of being pregnant.

My heart goes out to the women who learn they cannot conceive or bring children into the world. With the number of children who for many reasons are in this life without parents, adoption is a wonderful path to take in becoming parents. I remember being on a fact finding mission in the former Soviet Union and visiting many orphanages where children were longing and looking for affection and care. In recent years, many have rejoiced in being able to adopt a child from Russia. That option has now, at least temporarily, been closed. There are many more children across our nation and in other countries that are available to adopt. As a person finds they are faced with the choice of abortion or carrying the baby to full term know, there are agencies that will assist in being sure the baby has a chance at life. I look forward to the day when Roe v Wade will be overturned.