Thursday, March 31, 2016
In every presidential election cycle, the abortion debate surfaces, but where is the competency in addressing it?
Presently, we have a hypothetical contrast posed if abortions were made illegal. Namely, should a woman be punished by the law for having an abortion? Or should it be the doctor who performs the abortion who is held liable?
Both scenarios miss the deeper question.
Namely, what drives a woman to seek an abortion? Simply, it is male chauvinism at the deepest level. The vast majority of abortions are the result of a man getting a woman pregnant, then refusing responsibility to her, and to their child.
Roe v. Wade will not be overturned until the voting public embraces this reality. In the meantime, I propose a simple law:
A man who gets a woman pregnant is legally responsible for the well-being of both woman and child.
An honest debate needs to happen in grasping the possible ramifications of such a law, and in the process, both women and their unborn gain deserved esteem.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
In the March 25 post, I introduced a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also found at 2016libertyamendment.org.
We face a debate over how to respond to the immigration of Muslim populations which may include those bent on jihad. Do we minimize such a risk under the guise of blanket immigration for those fleeing jihad, on the one hand? Or do we seek to ban all Muslim immigrants, on the other?
Neither extreme will do, if we honor the biblical ethics and religious liberty which undergird the U.S. Constitution.
This proposed amendment merely ratifies what is already constitutional. But in today's social order where biblical and constitutional illiteracy abounds, it is appropriate a) to restate it clearly so as b) to also encourage honest public debate.
Religious, political and economic liberty applies to all people equally. But there a caveat. Namely, unless we affirm a two-way freedom of association and identity in these zones of liberty (freedom to join or leave), it is all hollow.
And thus, by definition, any group of persons who seeks to restrict these liberties, for themselves or others, rejects what it means to be an American.
Since Islam is historically a one-way religion that does not grant full and equal religious, political and economic liberty among Muslims and especially non-Muslims, this is a special problem.
How do we proceed? And especially, in view of those many Muslim Americans who cherish the liberties they have in this nation?
Friday, March 25, 2016
In this extended series, I want to engage in some patient thinking. I believe informed choice on any matter is not possible apart from a true definition of terms, and it is such definitions I pursue.
Also, up front, I ask all Muslim persons who are interested: Am I being honest in representing Islam on its own terms?
Islam is historically a one-way religion. Whether a person is born, converts or is forced into Islam, he or she is not permitted to leave.
Yet too, Muslim persons, like all of us, are wired for full human liberty, in religious, political and economic terms. This is at the root of the aborted "Arab Spring" (apart from some tentative success in Tunisia) -- a desire for freedom.
In the face of ISIS and other threats of Islamic jihad against the West, here is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that can give great protection. And similar language can be contextualized for other nations.
All citizens, visitors and other persons living in the United States, or its territories, must affirm the following:
“I affirm that all persons living within the jurisdictions of the United States of America have full religious, political and economic liberty under the rule of law.
“I thus affirm that all such persons are free to change their religious, political and/or economic affiliations as they see fit, free from any forms of coercion.”
I will look at this further in my next post.