The Gay Rights Movement has been slowly yet steadily gaining support for the past several years. Gay marriage has become legal in 35 states, and nation-wide legalization is projected for the near future. So far, most gay marriage cases have made their way through the legal system without much backlash as they have been expected to- states have passed them individually, with the District Courts finalizing most decisions.
The Judiciary Branch of the US Government works like this: every legal case first goes to the District Court. This is what the local courthouse is, and here every case reaches a verdict. If the party in question disagrees with the verdict, they can ask for an appeal. This is where the case goes to one of the thirteen Circuit Courts. Eleven of these Circuit Courts reside over the United States based on location and the other two are the District of Columbia and the Federal Circuit Court. A case must be reviewed and accepted to get to this level. If the Circuit Court reaches a verdict, and an appeal is again requested, the case moves on the the Supreme Court. Only the most complex, and often controversial cases get accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The verdict reached at this level is final.
To the surprise of the nation, the 6th Circuit, which is compiled of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage. Entry to the Supreme Court was denied and this caused controversy. The conservatives rejoiced for their party's victory and the liberals wept for the huge step back. This case was the first time a court had ruled against sam-sex marriage at this judicial level.
Judge Jeffery Sutton is an obviously brilliant, well read, and intelligent man. Residing over the sixth circuit, he offered truly thought provoking arguments against gay marriage. They didn't relate to religion, they only sourced from a purely logical, and econonimalcally beneficial standpoint. He stated,"By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g. with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of raising offspring. This does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. This explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning." Basically, he is saying legal support is offered to married couples to stay together can raise a more stable family. These benefits are only necessary to those who have the option of pro creation.
Personally, my beliefs fall in a tricky place. I am a strong Christian who personally believes gay marriage is a sin, yet I believe every couple should have the legal rights, benefits, and responsibility that come with lawful partnership in marriage. I believe that by not allowing this, we deny American citizen's fundamental rights a citizens and go against the Constitution. This country was founded on Christian principles, but it was also founded on freedom- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. We as American Christians, cannot force the nation to conform to Christian ways or else the church becomes disingenuous and corrupt. We can encourage morality and others to turn to Jesus, but we cannot force our religion. That being said, after reading Judge Sutton's full report (which can be found here), I know he could easily and intelligently offer convincing counter arguments to my remarks.
Now, the 5th Circuit Court, which includes Texas, anxiously awaits a ruling on the same-sex marriage cases. News reports anticipate the gay marriage ban to be ruled unconstitutional, but I wonder what would happen if Judge Sutton resided over this ruling as well.
Sources: Albert Mohler, Kate Jacenich, My San Antonio
Saturday, December 13, 2014
CIA Report Released
Torture: one of the most shameful and overused forms of warfare. On Wednesday, December 10th, the CIA released the first part of the long awaited extensive report on the methods used proceeding the 9/11 terrorists attacks. What was released was the first part of a 6,000 pages. I am sure that the first series of this information released is only scratching the surface of the brutality used in the war on terror. The Washington Post stated' “An exhaustive five-year Senate investigation of the CIA’s secret interrogations of terrorism suspects renders a strikingly bleak verdict on a program launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, describing levels of brutality, dishonesty and seemingly arbitrary violence that at times brought even agency employees to moments of anguish.”
This statement alone honestly fills me with shame and it hurts to think about the physical and psychological torture conducted under America's name. Obviously, the people receiving this torture are suspect and often guilty of awful crimes against the US, but this torture even brought CIA personnel immense amounts of psychological injury. If the CIA wants to take punishable routes, maybe they should approach it in a way that doesn't harm their own agents.
Especially referring to the 9/11 attacks, I feel this torture is completely failing its purpose and therefore unnecessary. The religious fanatics that comprise Al Qaeda were willing to do anything for their faith. They committed suicide and murdered three thousand others when they flew commercial aircrafts into the World Trade Center: a symbol of America's prosperity and success. The pride for their faith and Al Qaeda has led them to do horrific acts, I believe that this specific cultural group would be especially resistant to torturous methods as a form of interrogation, that they would rather die than abandon their faith.
As the world superpower, I believe we have a standard to uphold. Torture and keeping prsoners. In our socio-economic, social, technological position, it is fully possible to win a war without the use of
torture. President Obama stated the Senate report "documents a troubling program" and "reinforces my long-held view that these methods were not only inconsistent with our values as a nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests." We as a nation set a moral and ethical precedent for the world to see. Obama also said, the CIA's interrogation program "did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners." I agree with his statements. There are more effective ways of interceding information that are more effective and beneficial for this country's reputation and morale.
Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, spoke openly and passionately on the recent release of this information. He himself was beaten, starved, humiliated, and isolated for five and a half years during the Vietnam War. He is the only person of his national status to have the credidation to fully offer an opinion and I believe he expressed it perfectly. McCain described the CIA's methods post 9/11 as a stain on America's honor and with barely any practical value.
Regardless of one's support or repulsion of the use of prisoner torture, I think it is pretty universal that it is one of the most shameful chapter's of American history. Treat others that you want to be treated. America's people would chastise any other nation brutally for using the methods that we ourselves have been quietly using for the pat thirteen years.
Sources: USNI News, Albert Mohler, Washington Post,
This statement alone honestly fills me with shame and it hurts to think about the physical and psychological torture conducted under America's name. Obviously, the people receiving this torture are suspect and often guilty of awful crimes against the US, but this torture even brought CIA personnel immense amounts of psychological injury. If the CIA wants to take punishable routes, maybe they should approach it in a way that doesn't harm their own agents.
Especially referring to the 9/11 attacks, I feel this torture is completely failing its purpose and therefore unnecessary. The religious fanatics that comprise Al Qaeda were willing to do anything for their faith. They committed suicide and murdered three thousand others when they flew commercial aircrafts into the World Trade Center: a symbol of America's prosperity and success. The pride for their faith and Al Qaeda has led them to do horrific acts, I believe that this specific cultural group would be especially resistant to torturous methods as a form of interrogation, that they would rather die than abandon their faith.
As the world superpower, I believe we have a standard to uphold. Torture and keeping prsoners. In our socio-economic, social, technological position, it is fully possible to win a war without the use of
torture. President Obama stated the Senate report "documents a troubling program" and "reinforces my long-held view that these methods were not only inconsistent with our values as a nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests." We as a nation set a moral and ethical precedent for the world to see. Obama also said, the CIA's interrogation program "did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners." I agree with his statements. There are more effective ways of interceding information that are more effective and beneficial for this country's reputation and morale.
Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, spoke openly and passionately on the recent release of this information. He himself was beaten, starved, humiliated, and isolated for five and a half years during the Vietnam War. He is the only person of his national status to have the credidation to fully offer an opinion and I believe he expressed it perfectly. McCain described the CIA's methods post 9/11 as a stain on America's honor and with barely any practical value.
Regardless of one's support or repulsion of the use of prisoner torture, I think it is pretty universal that it is one of the most shameful chapter's of American history. Treat others that you want to be treated. America's people would chastise any other nation brutally for using the methods that we ourselves have been quietly using for the pat thirteen years.
Sources: USNI News, Albert Mohler, Washington Post,
Sunday, November 9, 2014
The F-Bomb
Recently, a for-profit social justice shirt company called "fckh8.com" has released a series of videos raising shock value and conversation. The company carries a message of pro-gay rights, anti-racism, and anti-sexism. Let me preface by saying that I am personally for all of these issues, but the way that this company has gone about promoting them is absolutely sickening. Their commercials for the shirts mostly contain young children using alarming, attention catching language and statements.
If I belonged to any of these respective groups, I would be ashamed of this negative attention the company has brought.
The shirt company first caught the public's attention when it released a commercial for it's "Racism Is Not Over, But I'm Over Racism" shirt by using black kids from the town of Ferguson, just weeks after Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer. The video starts off by saying, "Hey white people!" and then continues to chastise the entire white race for Michael Brown's death. NEWS FLASH. People of all races contribute to racism, and people from all races help to end it!
The latest video has become most popular. It contains six young girls dressed up like pretty princesses defending feminism by dropping the F-word dozens of times. These girls, some as young as six, are preaching a message they cannot possibly understand or believe in given their age. I believe that this feminist and anti-sexist video is actually creating the opposite of what it stands for! It's odd that in this video they talking about ending abuse, when the children they use themselves are being props used to sell a t-shirt. These videos are scripted. These children are reading lines or, for those to young to read, are copying what an adult tells them to say. The video's goal is to prove that terms such a "rape" and "pay inequality" are worse than standard "bad words". But here's the problem: having little girls spew explicit language does nothing but catch attention and corrupt their young malleable minds. I get that it's not language that is wrong, it is the intent of it, but these young ladies aren't mature enough to distinguish that.
If you look beyond the insane amount of F-words these little girls are reading off their cue cards, you will find even more offense. This line said my the youngest girl especially caught my attention: "Here's a hot tip: stop trying to tell girls how to dress and start teaching boys how to not f-ing rape." That statement completely destroys any last shred of credibility the video might have still possessed because it is completely sexist toward men! Men face descrimination and pressure because of the gender ALL. THE. TIME. How dare this company imply that every man is a twisted, villainous, rapist?! This comment on the video summed up most of my feelings: "In what world do you tell a six-year-old child that she's going to be raped or sexually assaulted when she's older? That is incredibly offensive to me. And you know what else is offensive? The logic behind this video, and the IDEA that women in the United States are oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia, come back, and then whine to me about how oppressed women are in the United States." That is not to say that sexism doesn't exist in the US, it does. But women are being stoned by ISIS for not being fertile, wanting an education, or refusing to let their husbands rape them. I believe that instead of hyper focussing on what's wrong, our society should be hyper focussed on not focussing on gender! Isn't that the issue? By not judging someone based on gender, I believe the issue would completely resolve itself.
If I belonged to any of these respective groups, I would be ashamed of this negative attention the company has brought.
The shirt company first caught the public's attention when it released a commercial for it's "Racism Is Not Over, But I'm Over Racism" shirt by using black kids from the town of Ferguson, just weeks after Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer. The video starts off by saying, "Hey white people!" and then continues to chastise the entire white race for Michael Brown's death. NEWS FLASH. People of all races contribute to racism, and people from all races help to end it!
The latest video has become most popular. It contains six young girls dressed up like pretty princesses defending feminism by dropping the F-word dozens of times. These girls, some as young as six, are preaching a message they cannot possibly understand or believe in given their age. I believe that this feminist and anti-sexist video is actually creating the opposite of what it stands for! It's odd that in this video they talking about ending abuse, when the children they use themselves are being props used to sell a t-shirt. These videos are scripted. These children are reading lines or, for those to young to read, are copying what an adult tells them to say. The video's goal is to prove that terms such a "rape" and "pay inequality" are worse than standard "bad words". But here's the problem: having little girls spew explicit language does nothing but catch attention and corrupt their young malleable minds. I get that it's not language that is wrong, it is the intent of it, but these young ladies aren't mature enough to distinguish that.
If you look beyond the insane amount of F-words these little girls are reading off their cue cards, you will find even more offense. This line said my the youngest girl especially caught my attention: "Here's a hot tip: stop trying to tell girls how to dress and start teaching boys how to not f-ing rape." That statement completely destroys any last shred of credibility the video might have still possessed because it is completely sexist toward men! Men face descrimination and pressure because of the gender ALL. THE. TIME. How dare this company imply that every man is a twisted, villainous, rapist?! This comment on the video summed up most of my feelings: "In what world do you tell a six-year-old child that she's going to be raped or sexually assaulted when she's older? That is incredibly offensive to me. And you know what else is offensive? The logic behind this video, and the IDEA that women in the United States are oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia, come back, and then whine to me about how oppressed women are in the United States." That is not to say that sexism doesn't exist in the US, it does. But women are being stoned by ISIS for not being fertile, wanting an education, or refusing to let their husbands rape them. I believe that instead of hyper focussing on what's wrong, our society should be hyper focussed on not focussing on gender! Isn't that the issue? By not judging someone based on gender, I believe the issue would completely resolve itself.
This video has received 50% positive feedback and 50% negative feedback, so technically it can't be called a success. BUT what it has done is create conversation, debate, and brought attention to gender equality. Whether you agree with the content of the video, that fact can't be denied. My question is: is it worth sacrificing little girls innocence in order to do that? Little girls should not be exposed or cohersed into saying bad words, thinking about rape and gender violence, and raised with the expectation of discrimination. Regardless of the language, by having these girls say these things, If you think like a victim, you become the victim.
Another question I have: If you're really promoting equality across your brand, then why are 99% of your t-shirt models white and stick thin? If you truly believe in what your promoting then wouldn't your own models be diverse in shape, size, and color?
Another question I have: If you're really promoting equality across your brand, then why are 99% of your t-shirt models white and stick thin? If you truly believe in what your promoting then wouldn't your own models be diverse in shape, size, and color?
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Death with Dignity
Brain cancer is scary. Death is scary. Fighting for your life is scary. Having a choice in when you die may seem like the only sane part of one's life. This is how I interpreted Brittany Maynard's reasoning for taking her own life with a physician's assistance.
Brittany Maynard had a form of cancer that was especially scary. Malignant brain tumor's more often than not completely destroy their patient's lives before taking them completely. As a control freak, I completely understand why Brittany was terrified by this and wanted control of this last part of her life. What I can't understand is how she didn't have hope. If not hope that she might live, then hope that she might use her time on earth to make a huge impact. How can you be certain that there is absolutely nothing else for you on this earth?
Another aspect of this case that I can't begin to comprehend is Oregon's death with dignity policy. To me, it simply translates as a pretty word for euthanasia. It may seem extreme, but once the floodgates are open for one patient, the lines of right and wrong begin to become blurred and unclear. If not controlled, this death with dignity law could become an inhumane, financial, managing, and immoral issue across the nation.
As a Christian, I especially find deep moral issue with this. Up to our deaths, we are here in this earth for a purpose. God might have planned for Brittany Maynard to make a huge impact in this life on her last day. Instead, she took control of her own fate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/brittany-maynards-death-why-brain-cancer-so-lethal-n240841
Brittany Maynard had a form of cancer that was especially scary. Malignant brain tumor's more often than not completely destroy their patient's lives before taking them completely. As a control freak, I completely understand why Brittany was terrified by this and wanted control of this last part of her life. What I can't understand is how she didn't have hope. If not hope that she might live, then hope that she might use her time on earth to make a huge impact. How can you be certain that there is absolutely nothing else for you on this earth?
Another aspect of this case that I can't begin to comprehend is Oregon's death with dignity policy. To me, it simply translates as a pretty word for euthanasia. It may seem extreme, but once the floodgates are open for one patient, the lines of right and wrong begin to become blurred and unclear. If not controlled, this death with dignity law could become an inhumane, financial, managing, and immoral issue across the nation.
As a Christian, I especially find deep moral issue with this. Up to our deaths, we are here in this earth for a purpose. God might have planned for Brittany Maynard to make a huge impact in this life on her last day. Instead, she took control of her own fate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/brittany-maynards-death-why-brain-cancer-so-lethal-n240841
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Color Blind Society
Story time. At my work, my boss (and close friend) happens to white and her boss happens to be black. The two young women were talking about a work related topic, and my boss described something as "ghetto" to her boss. Her boss responded with a formal six paragraph email chastising her for using the term which she took as a direct insult to the black community. In the email, her boss accused her of being unprofessional, insensitive, and uneducated. I became aware of this because my boss (and close friend) called me crying. This email ruined her night. She didn't know if her position with the company would be threatened, if her professional relationship with this person had been destroyed, or if the respect of her colleagues had been lost. One simple word created a terrible situation. My friend had never associated being black with being ghetto. Instead the black girl assumed and took quick insult. Is this being conscious to your culture's history or oversensitive?
I think there is a fine line between remembering your background and culture and, in a way, using it as a crutch. No matter what race, it is a commonality for one to assume something occurred because they are that specific race. For instance, as a white person, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you didn't get into a certain college because you're white. It is true that university's have a ethnicity quota to fill, but a student shouldn't use that policy as an excuse for not getting in. As far past racism as we have come in our nation's recent history, you would think it would be to a point of not falling into this trap.
The term "colorblind society" has raised questions and concerns. Many think that this is the white person's excuse for not acknowledging the disadvantages that the non-white population faces. Although I am white and can't speak for an African-American person, or any person of color for that matter, I feel this mindset is poison. A colorblind society simply disregards the color of a person's skin as a factor of decision or judgement. As much of a no-brainer like this seems, one should be judged "by the content of their character" instead of "the color of their skin," as Martin Luther King Jr. said. This instance that between my coworkers really struck deep reflection about racism and equality in our culture today. It seems as if in such an effort to fight racism, our culture has set impossible standards and created an assumptive and hyper sensitive culture.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-03-01.htm
I think there is a fine line between remembering your background and culture and, in a way, using it as a crutch. No matter what race, it is a commonality for one to assume something occurred because they are that specific race. For instance, as a white person, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you didn't get into a certain college because you're white. It is true that university's have a ethnicity quota to fill, but a student shouldn't use that policy as an excuse for not getting in. As far past racism as we have come in our nation's recent history, you would think it would be to a point of not falling into this trap.
The term "colorblind society" has raised questions and concerns. Many think that this is the white person's excuse for not acknowledging the disadvantages that the non-white population faces. Although I am white and can't speak for an African-American person, or any person of color for that matter, I feel this mindset is poison. A colorblind society simply disregards the color of a person's skin as a factor of decision or judgement. As much of a no-brainer like this seems, one should be judged "by the content of their character" instead of "the color of their skin," as Martin Luther King Jr. said. This instance that between my coworkers really struck deep reflection about racism and equality in our culture today. It seems as if in such an effort to fight racism, our culture has set impossible standards and created an assumptive and hyper sensitive culture.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-03-01.htm
Friday, October 10, 2014
A New View On Feminism
Feminism: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economical, and social equality of the sexes." My entire life, standing by that term has seemed like a no-brainer. I didn't bother to do much research on feminism because I didn't think there was a way to distort this pure quest for equality. I assumed most people in the 1st-world Western nations held the view of feminism as a good thing as well, but I was wrong.
Actress Emma Watson was recently appointed the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. Through this position, she is launching the campaign "He for She." The day this went live, my twitter feed exploded with opinions. I am a writer for The Smart Girls Group, and through this company I have connected with many brilliant and driven (and opinionated) young women who are well versed in political, social, and economic issues. At first, I only saw positivity and applause for Ms. Watson's speech, but then negatively started swelling. I realized that this group of educated and thoughtful women was split down the middle on the issue of gender equality that Watson spoke about. I wondered why and then discovered that's it's not equality that people have an issue with, it's the word "feminism."
After watching Emma Watson's brilliant speech, I decided that there are two types of "feminism." One, that doesn't like the F-word, as it's been coined, and one type that finds identity in it. It seems as if almost everyone is on board with the ideals of gender equality, but the word feminism gets many on edge and upset. Here's why: there have been some extreme groups that I believe reject what it means to be a woman. They fill a negative stereotype of man-bashing, dressing in clothes that reject a woman's beauty, and angrily forcing opinions. I believe that this not only misrepresents feminism, but goes against what it stands for. This drives women who believe in gender equality to preface their opinions with "I'm not a feminist, but..." In a gender equal world, "both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong," as Emma Watson said. We should not be confined to either acting like a strong man or a weak woman. I think that these extreme "feminist" groups do exactly that.
Actress Emma Watson was recently appointed the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. Through this position, she is launching the campaign "He for She." The day this went live, my twitter feed exploded with opinions. I am a writer for The Smart Girls Group, and through this company I have connected with many brilliant and driven (and opinionated) young women who are well versed in political, social, and economic issues. At first, I only saw positivity and applause for Ms. Watson's speech, but then negatively started swelling. I realized that this group of educated and thoughtful women was split down the middle on the issue of gender equality that Watson spoke about. I wondered why and then discovered that's it's not equality that people have an issue with, it's the word "feminism."
After watching Emma Watson's brilliant speech, I decided that there are two types of "feminism." One, that doesn't like the F-word, as it's been coined, and one type that finds identity in it. It seems as if almost everyone is on board with the ideals of gender equality, but the word feminism gets many on edge and upset. Here's why: there have been some extreme groups that I believe reject what it means to be a woman. They fill a negative stereotype of man-bashing, dressing in clothes that reject a woman's beauty, and angrily forcing opinions. I believe that this not only misrepresents feminism, but goes against what it stands for. This drives women who believe in gender equality to preface their opinions with "I'm not a feminist, but..." In a gender equal world, "both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong," as Emma Watson said. We should not be confined to either acting like a strong man or a weak woman. I think that these extreme "feminist" groups do exactly that.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Cosmpolotin Magazine Attacks Jessa Dugar
For those who don't know, Jessa Dugar is a star on the TLC reality show, 19 Kids and Counting. The show centers around an unusually large Christian family that holds wholesome and conservative views. As a regular viewer of the show, I find it refreshing to watch something that is appropriate for the whole family and sets an example instead of leading other's astray, even if I don't agree with every one the family's stances. The Duggars love one another and respect all regardless of their beliefs, yet this family constantly faced hatred and accusations. Yes, they live life in a way that doesn't fit the normal mold of today's society, but should they face a media firestorm because of it?
This proved to be especially significant when Jessa Duggar posted a picture from the Holocaust museum. Her caption said: “I walked through the Holocaust Museum again today… very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and fundamental of all rights–their right to life. One human destroying the life of another deemed “less than human.” Racism, stemming from the evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that some people groups are “more evolved” and others “less evolved.” A denying that our Creator–GOD–made us human from the beginning, all of ONE BLOOD and ONE RACE, descendants of Adam. The belief that some human beings are “not fit to live.” So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor. “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? and He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? and shall not He render to every man according to his works?” (Proverbs 24:10-12) May we never sit idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again. Not this generation. We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #prolife" I believe this very eloquently stated her beliefs. A visit to the Holocaust Museum reminded that we must protect every life. In fact, it would not have been obvious that she was referring to abortion until she used the hash tag "prolife".
Cosmopolitan's Senior Political writer jumped on this opportunity to attack Duggar. Her article slammed Jessa Duggar for comparing abortion to such methodical murder of 6 million Jews. Did this writer who holds a senior position at a nationally recognized magazine do enough research to know that so far 42 million women have chosen to get abortions? That is 1 in every 3 women. The holocaust was an atrocity. Abortion is an atrocity. Both issues are different, complex, and, in my opinion, inhuman. I applauded Jessa Duggar for so beautifully stating her opinion, while this writer accused her of being "tone deaf, insensitive, clueless, and deranged." To me, it sounds as if this woman is actively seeking attack against anyone who makes her feel convicted. Additionally, I'd like to point out that "prolife" isn't just talking about abortion. Prolife defends all life, so it makes sense why Jessa Duggar was so passionate after visiting the Holocaust Museum. The Holocaust should be a constant, every reminder that we need to protect all life.
Live Action News Adreanna Ekdawy
This proved to be especially significant when Jessa Duggar posted a picture from the Holocaust museum. Her caption said: “I walked through the Holocaust Museum again today… very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and fundamental of all rights–their right to life. One human destroying the life of another deemed “less than human.” Racism, stemming from the evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that some people groups are “more evolved” and others “less evolved.” A denying that our Creator–GOD–made us human from the beginning, all of ONE BLOOD and ONE RACE, descendants of Adam. The belief that some human beings are “not fit to live.” So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor. “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? and He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? and shall not He render to every man according to his works?” (Proverbs 24:10-12) May we never sit idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again. Not this generation. We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #prolife" I believe this very eloquently stated her beliefs. A visit to the Holocaust Museum reminded that we must protect every life. In fact, it would not have been obvious that she was referring to abortion until she used the hash tag "prolife".
Cosmopolitan's Senior Political writer jumped on this opportunity to attack Duggar. Her article slammed Jessa Duggar for comparing abortion to such methodical murder of 6 million Jews. Did this writer who holds a senior position at a nationally recognized magazine do enough research to know that so far 42 million women have chosen to get abortions? That is 1 in every 3 women. The holocaust was an atrocity. Abortion is an atrocity. Both issues are different, complex, and, in my opinion, inhuman. I applauded Jessa Duggar for so beautifully stating her opinion, while this writer accused her of being "tone deaf, insensitive, clueless, and deranged." To me, it sounds as if this woman is actively seeking attack against anyone who makes her feel convicted. Additionally, I'd like to point out that "prolife" isn't just talking about abortion. Prolife defends all life, so it makes sense why Jessa Duggar was so passionate after visiting the Holocaust Museum. The Holocaust should be a constant, every reminder that we need to protect all life.
Live Action News Adreanna Ekdawy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)