Friday, March 14, 2008
“The month of March provides us with the ideal opportunity to celebrate the personhood of the preborn human being,” said Michaeleen Sedlak, events coordinator for American Life League.
“Specifically,” continued Sedlak, “March 25, which exactly is nine months prior to Christmas, is celebrated by Christians as the first day that Jesus came to earth. On that day, known as the Feast of the Annunciation, Mary said ‘yes’ to God’s plan, becoming the first arc of the covenant as Jesus took up residence in her womb.”
According to the Catholic liturgical calendar, the Feast of the Annunciation will be celebrated on March 31 this year because March 25 falls within the Octave of Easter.
“The significance of this day is not lost on the many countries that celebrate it as a holiday,” said Sedlak. “El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Peru have all officially recognized the Feast of the Annunciation. American Life League is planning to commemorate the day by having a special Mass offered for the safe birth of all babies in the womb. In addition, we have developed a set of activities that individuals and groups can participate in throughout March.”
And so those are some of the dynamics that makes it hard. And I'm troubled by
isolationism and protectionism. As a matter of fact, I dedicated part of my
State of the Union address a couple of years ago to this very theme. And what
concerns me is, is that the United States of America will become fatigued when
it comes to fighting off tyrants, or say it's too hard to spread liberty, or use
the excuse that just because freedom hadn't flourished in parts of the world,
therefore it's not worth trying, and that, as a result, we kind of retrench and
lose confidence in our -- the values that have made us a great nation in the
But these aren't American values; they're universal values.
And the danger of getting tired during this world [sic] is any retreat by the
America -- by America was going to be to the benefit of those who want to do us
harm. Now, I understand that since September the 11th, the great tendency is to
say, we're no longer in danger. Well, that's false. That's false hope. It's
either disingenuous or naive, and either one of those attitudes is unrealistic.
And the biggest job we've got is to protect the American people from
harm. I don't want to get in another issue, but that's why we better figure out
what the enemy is saying on their telephones, if you want to protect you.
(Applause.) Notice I am deftly taking a trade issue and working in all my other
But I'm serious about this business about America
retreating. And I've got great faith in the transformative power of liberty, and
that's what I believe is going to happen in the Middle East. And I understand it
undermines the argument of the stability-ites -- people who say, you just got to
worry about stability. And I'm saying, we better worry about the conditions that
caused 19 kids to kill us in the first place.
And the best way to deal
with hopelessness is to fight disease like we're doing in Africa, and fight
forms of government that suppress people's rights, like we're doing around the
world. And a retreat from that attitude is going to make America less secure and
the world more dangerous, just like a loss of confidence in trade.
yet the two run side by side: isolationism and protectionism. I might throw
another "ism," and that's nativism. And that's what happened throughout our
history. And probably the most grim reminder of what can happen to America
during periods of isolationism and protectionism is what happened in the late --
in the '30s, when we had this "America first" policy, and Smoot-Hawley. And look
where it got us.
And so I guess to answer your question, there needs to
be political courage, in the face of what may appear to be a difficult headwind,
in order to speak clearly about the effects of retreat and the benefits of
trade. And so I appreciate you giving me a chance to opine. (Laughter and
Reverend Hashmel Turner, a member of the Fredericksburg, Virginia city council, was threatened with lawsuits by from many secular anti-Christian groups, including the ACLU, for his Christian prayers during a council meeting. Turner was apart of a rotation of all the council members who would take turns praying at the council meetings. His case is currently making it's way to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19, and would allow Christians the right to pray "in Jesus' name" in the public forum. This case will have a tremendous impact on city councils and state legislatures throughout the United States.
"Just because somebody objects to praying in Jesus' name does not mean that should Christians must deny their faith to accommodate another person's opposing beliefs. This is discrimination," said Dr. Cass. "Over 80% of American's self-identify as Christians, but Hindu's, Muslim's and Jew's have all prayed in the public forum and no one has restricted the content of their prayers and the ACLU has not threatened them.
"The majority of Christians are subjected to non-Christian prayers, why are Christians told what they can or cannot pray? This is simply anti-Christian bigotry and an attempt to deny free speech for Christians," said Cass.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, May 6, 2007
If this which I have mentioned be the meaning of the word Liberty, in the ordinary use of language; as I trust that none that has ever learned to talk, and is unprejudiced, will deny; then it will follow, that in propriety of speech, neither Liberty, nor its contrary, can properly be ascribed to any being or thing, but that which has such a faculty, power or property, as is called will. For that which is possessed of no will, cannot have any power or opportunity of doing according to its will, nor be necessitated to act contrary to its will, nor be restrained from acting agreeably to it. And therefore to talk of Liberty, or the contrary, as belonging to the very Will itself, is not to speak good sense; if we judge of sense, and nonsense, by the original and proper signification of words.— For the Will itself is not an Agent that has a will: the power of choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing. That which has the power of volition is the man, or the soul, and not the power of volition itself. And he that has the Liberty of doing according to his will, is the Agent who is possessed of the Will; and not the Will which he is possessed of. We say with propriety, that a bird let loose has power and liberty to fly; but not that the bird’s power of flying has a power arid Liberty of flying. To be free is the property of an Agent, who is possessed of powers and faculties, as much as to be cunning, valiant, bountiful, or zealous. But these qualities are the properties of persons; and not the properties of properties.
There are two things contrary to what is called Liberty in common speech. One is constraint; otherwise called force, compulsion, and coaction; which is a person’s being necessitated to do a thing contrary to his will. The other is restraint; which is, his being hindered, and not having power to do according to his will. But that which has no will, cannot be the subject of these things.— I need say the less on this bead, Mr. Locke having set the same thing forth, with so great clearness, in his Essay on the Human Understanding.
But one thing more I would observe concerning what is vulgarly called Liberty; namely, that power and opportunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice, is all that is meant by it; without taking into the meaning of the word, any thing of the cause of that choice; or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition; whether it was caused by some external motive, or internal habitual bias; whether it was determined by some internal antecedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause; whether it was necessarily connected with something foregoing, or not connected. Let the person come by his choice any how, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, according to, the primary and common notion of freedom.
What has been said may be sufficient to show what is meant by Liberty, according to the common notions of mankind, and in the usual and primary acceptation of the word: but the word, as used by Arminians, Pelagians, and others, who oppose the Calvinists, has an entirely different signification.— These several things belong to their notion of Liberty. 1. That it consists in a self-determining power in the Will, or a certain sovereignty the Will has over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volitions; so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without itself, nor determined by any thing prior to its own acts. 2. Indifference belongs to Liberty in their notion of it, or that the mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilibrio. 3. Contingence is another thing that belongs and is essential to it; not in the common acceptation of the word, as that has been already explained, but as opposed to all necessity, or any fixed and certain connexion with some previous ground or reason of its existence. They suppose the essence of Liberty so much to consist in these things, that unless the will of man be free in this sense, he has no real freedom, how much soever, he may be at Liberty to act according to his will.
A moral agent is a being that is capable of those actions that have a moral quality, and which can properly be denominated good or evil in a moral sense, virtuous or vicious, commendable or faulty. To moral Agency belongs a moral faculty, or sense of moral good and evil, or of such a thing as desert or worthiness, of praise or blame, reward or punishments; and a capacity which an Agent has of being influenced in his actions by moral inducements or motives, exhibited to the view of understanding and reason, to engage to a conduct agreeable to the moral faculty.
The sun is very excellent and beneficial in its action and influence on the earth, in warming and causing it to bring forth its fruit; but it is not a moral agent: its action, though good, is not virtuous or meritorious. Fire that breaks out in a city, and consumes great part of it, is very mischievous in its operation; but is not a moral Agent: what it does is not faulty or sinful, or deserving of any punishment. The brute creatures are not moral Agents: the actions of some of them are very profitable and pleasant; others are very hurtful: yet seeing they have no moral faculty, or sense of desert, and do not act from choice guided by understanding, or with a capacity of reasoning and reflecting, but only from instinct, and are not capable of being influenced by moral inducements, their actions are not properly sinful or virtuous, nor are they properly the subjects of any such moral treatment for what they do, as moral Agents are for their faults or good deeds.
Here it may be noted, that there is a circumstantial difference between the moral Agency of a ruler and a subject. I call it circumstantial, because it lies only in the difference of moral inducements, by which they are capable of being influenced, arising from the difference of circumstance. A ruler, acting in that capacity only, is not capable of being influenced by a moral law, and its sanctions of threatenings and promises, rewards and punishments, as the subject is; though both may be influenced by a knowledge of moral good and evil. And therefore the moral Agency of the Supreme Being, who acts only in the capacity of a ruler towards his creatures, and never as a subject, differs in that respect from the moral Agency of created intelligent beings. God’s actions, and particularly those which he exerts as a moral governor, have moral qualifications, and are morally good in the highest degree. They are most perfectly holy and righteous; and we must conceive of Him as influenced, in the highest degree, by that which, above all others, is properly a moral inducement; viz. the moral good which He sees in such and such things: and therefore He is, in the most proper sense, a moral Agent, the source of all moral ability and Agency, the fountain and rule of all virtue and moral good; though by reason of his being supreme over all, it is not possible He should be under the influence of law or command, promises or threatenings, rewards or punishments, counsels or warnings. The essential qualities of a moral Agent are in God, in the greatest possible perfection; such as understanding to perceive the difference between moral good and evil; a capacity of discerning that moral worthiness and demerit, by which some things are praiseworthy, others deserving of blame and punishment; and also a capacity of choice, and choice guided by understanding, and a power of acting according to his choice or pleasure, and being capable of doing those things which are in the highest sense praiseworthy. And herein does very much consist that image of God wherein he made man, by which God distinguished man from the beasts, viz. in those faculties and principles of nature, whereby He is capable of moral Agency. Herein very much consists the natural image of God; whereas the spiritual and moral image, wherein man was made at first, consisted in that moral excellency with which he was endowed.-- Jonathon Edwards