Throwing The Baby Out Instead Of The Foreskin

As the US hurtles toward social, political, and economic changes, I wonder at the break down of simple logic in our society. There seems to be, for example, a great disconnect between the values a segment of our country claims are desirable and the illegal activities to which those lead.

Take, for example, attitudes toward sex. Our youth today are taught in public school that sex is natural and that they are free to experiment and discover who they are and what their sexual preference is. But woe to the teenage boy who discovers that his sexual preference is six year old little girls. Woe to the adult male who acts on his preference for teenage boys.

Here’s another disconnect. Back in the latter half of the twentieth century, schools stopped teaching morals and ethics, as pundits began the process of eradicating religion, and Christianity in particular, from anything associated with government, in the mistaken idea that the presence of religion equated with the establishment of religion.

The new ethic became, It’s not wrong unless you get caught. Now in the early part of the twenty-first century we are rocked by scandal after scandal in local and national government, in financial institutions, in business, in labor, in houses of worship.

A different kind of disconnect recently came to the forefront — this one a subset of the larger body of activities designed to protect children, such as outlawing lead paint, requiring infants to be in car seats secured to a back seat, and any number of other safety regulations.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m all for protecting children, though I think we’d do better if we instructed parents how to raise kids rather than pass laws bad parents aren’t going to obey anyway.

But back to this latest version of Disconnect. It seems enough people in San Francisco signed a petition to get a proposal on the ballot to outlaw circumcision for anyone under eighteen. Presumably after eighteen, a man can decide for himself if he wants to be circumcised, but until then, the government will step in and protect these innocent baby boys from their evil parents who might inflict unspeakable harm on their little bodies. 🙄

How ironic, then, that those same evil parents are considered innocent if they choose to kill their baby boys before they take a single breath. Unborn babies, the entire little person, can be thrown away, but these anti-circumcision people want to spare foreskins.

This one is right up there with pregnant drug addicts being accused of abusing their unborn child if they continue to take drugs while they’re completely free to abort the baby if they choose.

These disconnects seem to get more bizarre every year and therefore more glaring. I wonder if sometime the majority of people will start realizing these issues are related. If babies need to be protected, then we should start by protecting them in the womb. Why is that one a hard concept to grasp?

Published in: on May 27, 2011 at 7:26 pm  Comments (9)  
Tags: , , , ,

9 Comments

  1. These incongruencies and more (re: issues concerning the elderly, etc) needed to be spotlighted. Thank you for starting the discussion, but if the body of the citizenship doesn’t get on board it will only get worse.
    It seems that common sense is no longer common, rationality gives way to rationalization, and logic is no longer logical. Sighhhh.

    Like

  2. Oh this reminds me of a poster on the door or maternity ward at our small hospital in Palmer, Alaska. It was the only hospital in the state that allowed third-trimester abortions. When we took over the board and tried to put an end to them, we were sued by five Anchorage doctors for damaging them financially since they came out to Palmer to do their third-trimester abortions. No other hospitals would allow them to do late-term abortions so the judge made us keep allowing them. So there we were killing third-trimester babies and on the door of the maternity ward was a picture of a pregnant woman smoking. The caption read: The ultimate child abuse. I was thinking, “Huh? Worse then sucking their brains out and delivering them dead? Worse than salt poisoning?”

    But how can anyone outlaw circumcision? They are messing with the religious freedoms of Jewish people. This is scary stuff.

    Like

  3. So outlawing circumcision, this is an actual political cause? Did these people, when they were little kids, decide, “Hey, when I grow up, I’m going to fight to outlaw circumcision?”

    I don’t know what to say.

    Like

  4. Did you ever wonder how these “disconnects” ever happened, here, in the good ol’ U.S.A.? I have–I used to wonder about it a lot, until I attended a symposium at Christian Liberty Academy, near Chicago, in the late 80’s.

    I regret that I do not remember his name, but an erudite former judge spoke, giving a remarkable history of this situation. It seems that, in the late 1800’s, about the time people were investigating various new philosophies, some people began to insist that we needed a new rule of law. There was an immediate, appropriate and vociferous outcry, but amazingly, the thing was pushed through, and nobody ever did anything else about it.

    They felt that we should not have our country’s rule of law based on the Ten Commandments. They wanted it based on the law of the precedent.

    You are probably somewhat familiar with this, today. For instance, when Ms. Karen Quinlan (from Iowa, I think) was denied food and water because of a “persistent vegetative state” that opened the way for the next ruling, in Florida, taking the life of another person who couldn’t speak up for herself. Joni Tada could speak up for her, but I knew the result! The precedent had been already set, in the courts.

    The problem comes, of course, when one district judge rules one way, unaware of the way another has ruled, or in defiance of the other ruling! (Remember the problem they had with one gentleman in Mississippi, I believe, who wanted to display the ten Commandments?)

    So the disconnect comes as soon as we have a departure from the Scriptures! Actually, that’s when it happened, but it took much longer to take effect, in this case, luckily. Why? Because the law of the precedent followed precedent, and all our law had a precedent set based on the Ten Commandments! Eventually, a district judge would give a rogue ruling, not following precedent and set a new precedent. This has now happened several times.

    When we don’t have a rule of law based on Truth, anarchy will eventually prevail.

    So, although each life lost through the evil we see about us today is an infinite loss, we need to be aware of the multiplier factor,(!) and do all we can to re-establish the rule of law for our country, based on Truth.

    Like

  5. Excellent post and excellent comments.

    Like

  6. Preach it, Becky. And the rest of you, too!

    Like

  7. I might step on toes here, but this same disconnect is going on in the church as well. I was reading an article on cnn.com today that asked the question why do people still attend churches filled with scandal? Its because they do not want to face the truth. And not until their pastor is dragged away to jail do their eyes open (and sometimes not even then).

    Like

  8. Gloryteller, Morgan, I think you’re both right — there are any number of other disconnects we could point to. Sally’s example is one of the most egregious!

    I think they will continue to exist in our society because we are deceived by our own wicked hearts. I don’t see more laws or winning back our government as the answer. I agree, Peggy, that there are societal changes (such as Supreme Court Justice John Marshall — I think he was the one you’re referring to) that greased the slide into cultural disregard for righteousness, but I think those were probably symptomatic. The real issue is the hearts of our people.

    Would that Christians join together and pray for revival — not a restored government, but redeemed people. I keep thinking changed hearts will take care of the sins we decry, too, but confronting the sins won’t change the hearts.

    I guess I should have made that clear in this post.

    Becky

    Like

  9. Nicole and Normandie, as always I so appreciate your encouragement. Thanks for taking the time.

    Becky

    Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: