A thirteen year old Minnesota boy is allegedly on the run with his mother to avoid chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma, a highly treatable form of cancer with traditional chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Mom and son allegedly prefer to treat the cancer naturally on religious grounds, because such treatment would involve violating their beliefs.
Judge Judy addressed the issue in a potluck style interview with Larry King and noted a number of important factors. A thirteen year old boy is of considerable age and as a family court judge, she would want to know the young boy’s desire. Also, the young boy must have his own counsel to protect his own interests, irrespective of his parents and other interested parties.
Mulloverthis thinks that this case is one in a line of many, that points to government imposition into socialist areas that break the bounds of individual rights. The government, through the arms of the court, child welfare and social service agencies, should not mandate medical treatments based upon statistics. If I want to lay down and die from a tumor, that is my business. A family who is otherwise well-balanced and informed should be able to choose what types of medical treatments, or lack thereof, they prefer. Provided the parents are aware of optional treatments and have reasonable grounds for pursuing alternative treatments, they should be free to do so on any grounds.
Consider this: the 13 year old boy could take the chemotherapy and die from the cancer. Meanwhile, he would have endured the torture of chemotherapy. If anyone is qualified to roll the dice on his life, it is his parents and those that love him.
The following record was taken directly from Senator Grassley’s website, from an immediate press release dated March 26, 2009.
Transcription of Senator Grassley’s Capitol Hill Report
“QUESTION: Along that line, Senator, have you — have your requests for information, financial information, from televangelists been completely satisfied? There were one or two holdouts at one time.
GRASSLEY: Those one or two are still holding out, and we haven’t decided yet to take the step of a subpoena. But it looks to me like that’s what we’ll have to do. We have had almost — by two others — almost a complete answer to what I would say would be a good judgment of some progress we’re making. And that is that there’s an evangelical accounting board — and that’s not exactly its title.
But it’s kind a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for churches that are members of it to pledge to do certain things to make sure that their money is handled in a secure way as a trustee for the donors’ money. And we’ve had two of these six have recently submitted themselves to this evangelical accounting board to make sure that they follow the law.
STAFF: Thank you, Tom and Rick, for participating in today’s public affairs program. This has been Senator Chuck Grassley reporting to the people of Iowa.”
UPDATE: To date, there have not been any allegations of inappropriate oversight or IRS non-compliance levied against any of the Grassley Six. Please review articles on this blog since December 2007 providing coverage.
The question is not whether Christianphobia is on the rise or not. The question is do people who despise Christians, because we hold fast to the Bible and our faith, have the ability to be equitable and just.
Imagine the melee gay activists, same sex marriage advocates and the so-called “open-minded” (and I use this characterization lightly) people would have if Mrs. California was pro-gay, and a staunch Christian judge began an uproar because of her support for the advancement of gay rights. Imagine. It’s not hard to imagine, because Christians can no longer go to our own churches without being challenged by people who want Christians to deface our teachings and comply with modern “thinking” and ways of living. When gay people are filthy and downright egregious in their tactics to advance their causes, they are activists. When Christians do the same thing, we are barbaric bigots.
Perez Hilton probably thought he was going to set Miss California up. Perez admitted Miss California’s answer cost her the “win” in the Miss USA pageant. To those who believe her position is outdated and inundated with bias, Perez’s “on the spot” question was fair game. Again, had Perez been James Dobson questioning a hard core lesbian whose avid response supported same sex marriage, and the lesbian suffered the crown because of her viewpoint, no one in America would be able to take a nap.
When folks believe that terrorizing church members by locking them into a sanctuary is not that big of a deal-but the same action against a bunch of preschoolers by a bunch of young black or latino males would have a community in an uproar-that’s when we know the answers to the pertinent questions. What is equitable and justifiable is what people want while the means-end application of principle is out of the window.
Kudos to Miss California for her forthright boldness and honesty while enduring another episode of heterophobia for believing in traditional family values. Just as homosexuals have a right to their opinion, so does Miss California and every other Christian who opposes same sex marriage.
Not really.I don’t believe atheists, agnostics, and people of “spiritual paths” other than Christianity are necessarily fearful of Christians.But since this “homophobia” inflammatory jargon designed to disengage legitimate opposition to the homosexual/gay agenda is now politically correct, I thought the use of the phobia tactic is apropos solely for illustrative purposes.
The truth is many homosexuals/gays-and those who are simply perceived to be homosexual–have been beaten, persecuted, marred, murdered and discriminated against simply because they are believed to be homosexuals.This denigration of humanity is never acceptable.We need not discuss the historical and current persecution of Jews, Christians, and African-Americans through mass genocide and the like.The annals of utter hatred against these classes of people cannot be justifiably encapsulated in one blog post.
Yet, the disdain and intolerance of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda is met with a nifty “phobia” marking. The connotation is as if the logical one who does not agree suffers from some unreasonable fear of what is otherwise simple or normal.I think it is safe to say, most people do not have “fear” of homosexuals or homosexuality.The disapproval, rejection and opposition to a thing are not necessarily synonymous with “fear”.I can’t stand onion rings.My personal preference is to never have onion rings.My failure to order onion rings, or efforts to vote them off of the fast food menu does not mean I fear them.I have made a valuation and judgment that they are not desirable and are not good, although many people may prefer and love onion rings.My personal beliefs regarding homosexuality are clear:it is not a desirable lifestyle.I’m not scared, nor am I ignorant.I just don’t agree.
My belief system is firmly rooted in my faith and commitment to Christianity.Need I be “converted” to another point of reason by one whose belief system is rooted in self by way of intellect, education, philosophical affinity or life achievement?To another woman’s valuations based upon impulse and present life goals and experiences?To another person’s values because he is good?To the current trend of thought because it is increasingly common?The opinionated Christian—not all of us are this involved—has her right to reason to a final resolve just like the non-Christian. We do not enjoy blanket classifications about how we live and respond to the questions of life any more than anyone else.Our opinions and right to be involved in the political process is no less weighty because we serve the True and Living God.We need not cow-tow to those who wake up and go to bed and the world should be as s/he thinks based upon the breadth of knowledge s/he has thusly consumed, or those who heighten the import of the human experience.
There is no civil system of government where the law is not largely composed of moral codes.However a man identifies his own beliefs and morality, and that system of government employs that man’s belief, it is what it is.Christians have every right, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS FOUNDED UPON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, to stand up for what we believe and what we do not believe.A crucial tenet of the faith is that God is the Creator and loves all men.Yet all will not believe what we believe.We are to share our faith because the relationship with God and benefits of being in fellowship with God are available to everyone.We are prepared to encounter those who do as we often do to other belief systems:REJECT the faith. We must simply keep on believing and keep on living.So then, are we dealing with Christianphobia when some atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions do not accept and conform, form interest groups, create and produce programming released through various media outlets to promote their beliefs, lobby for their beliefs to be encoded as statutory rights, file zillions of frivolous lawsuits, actively discriminate against Christians, endanger the lives of Christians, and fight to thwart the values of Christianity because what they believe should be?
MULLOVERTHIS.
Note: Not all Christians share this view. The emphasis of the Christian message is that we have all been born in sin, shaped in iniquity, and have the grace of a loving, merciful God to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
One day, Americans are going to figure out that Sarah Palin didn’t write her RNC speech. Enough people are going to know that the Obama slams weren’t her own. Mitt Romney wrote every word of his speech. He didn’t need the RNC to script his words to the American public. Governor Palin did what Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, and Susan Sarandon do. Actors take a script and bring life to the lines and make it believable. Gorgeous, sassy, big smiling, seems like she is a real spitfire fighter Palin doesn’t cut the mustard because the Vice President needs to bring so much more to the table; Especially one appointed by a Presidential nominee who is old and already a gamble himself having already lived through serious health challenges. McCain better hope the day America gets past the Palin hype is not before November 8.
While most can’t help but like Palin and can’t deny her appeal, after we live long enough we realize that you don’t have to like the mailman. We just need him to deliver the mail. Mail personnel sweet as pure sugar cane who are always late, or deliver our mail to the neighbor down the street are not needed. Palin is by no means an ineffective Governor, or at least her approval rating indicates that her constituency is more than satisfied with her performance. Alaska hasn’t been able to see the calm after the storm. Palin hasn’t even completed one term as Governor of Alaska.
Yet, we are notified of Palin’s “list of accomplishments” by a handful of her female GOP high ranking counterparts when being scolded for Palin’s sexist treatment. We are being asked to take a leap with a Governor whose list of accomplishments were never specified because they just may invoke laughter by the average corporate business executive or CEO who has accomplished greater goal-end objectives in the first quarter of the fiscal year during a RECESSION, than what Palin has during her entire stellar politicanship.
Somebody with a GED has a “list of accomplishments”. My first line of questioning to Governor Palin’s co-horts is what exactly are these accomplishments? Filing suit against the federal government for enlisting bears as endangered species? Firing the chauffeur, chef, and re-directing their income to the budget? Firing all those connected with her pursuit to terminate her former brother-in-law’s employment? We can’t afford not to be real. What are Palin’s achievements?
I only have one message for Former Governor Jane Swift, Carly Fiorina, and these GOP women sensitized to sexism who will not permit Governor Palin to be demonized by the media on the basis of sex. Mothers are women. Men cannot be mothers. The best man cannot be a mother. Children NEED mothers, just like they need fathers. Women and Men are not completely interchangeable with no distinctions. Neither are mothers and fathers. The laws of this country recognize these REALITIES. So, when these women who are so sensitive to sexism that they want to defend a mother of five–four of whom are minors, one of which is an unmarried pregnant teenager (this does not become cute because someone has put a shirt and dress shoes on the young daddy and they profess their love for one another), and the infant son has special needs–to justify her conscious choice to pursue a cream of the crop career, I have a kind suggestion for them. Defend the fathers of this nation who live with the imbalance of legal protections given to mothers BECAUSE THE LAW AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY RECOGNIZE THAT WOMEN ARE PRESUMED TO BE THE PRIMARY CARETAKERS OF CHILDREN, BECAUSE CHILDREN NEED TO BE NURTURED, AND ALL ANIMAL SPECIES THE FEMALES FEED AND NURTURE THEIR YOUNG. Women cannot expect to benefit from the protection of the law and then don’t want any type of public accountability for their lack of responsibility. When all of these hypocrites who want mothers to have the right to mother without interference UNLESS SHE IS UNFIT (or chooses to relinquish custody of her children) can see that their ideals should not stop with Palin and continue into the family courts and mediations across America, then we’ll give Palin a send-off to NEGLECT her children for a career. That’s when we’ll accept that our expectations are biased simply because she is a woman. Most men who are RESPONSIBLE fathers co-parent and negotiate responsibilities to ensure their children are protected, provided for and nurtured to become the best human beings. Fathers and mothers make sacrifices every day for their children. This will be the day that judges look at the best interest of a child based upon which parent is better equipped to parent, and can give a child a better life. There is no real equity in this regard.
All of the Gloria Steinhem, estrogen, and red lipstick will not change the fact that women who decide to have children should be committed to the welfare of their children first, not country first. Home first. Family first. That is when we will have a better country. This progressive feminism appears to be a carte blanche excuse for women to do whatever we feel like doing to be free. Killing millions of unborn babies is not freedom. Neither is choosing a career that will cause a mother to neglect her children during the prime of their developmental stages as opposed to the prime of a woman’s life. It’s time for the beneficiaries of feminism and female solidarity to move beyond women. Our children are the first ad litem expenses to false equity and freedom.
So, Palin’s sisters in the struggle speak up. Now, I, along with many other Americans speak up. We have a right to let Palin know she is mother with BAD judgment. When her water broke with her special needs son, she should not have waited to make her speech. Child’s life versus her moment in the spotlight to make a distinguishing speech must have been in the scales of her mind. To the average mom, this was not even a decision. Palin chose to wait to make her speech because she was not going to miss the moment. She then choose to get on a flight and travel approximately 10 hours to deliver the baby. BAD JUDGMENT. Period.
Finally, if Palin and her female sensitizers don’t want her family values questioned, Palin shouldn’t have been selected, in part, because of her family values and position against abortion, sex-education, and so forth. Bristol still has a baby daddy, with his hard sole dress shoes and all. Although she is human and we all make mistakes, Governor Palin addresses the mis-steps and choices of other people’s lives when she decides to be a proponent of abstinence-only education and is anti-abortion. She is in the homes of Alaskans already. Now, she wants privacy concerning her teenage daughter with a baby daddy. Where is FOX News when we need them? Hypocrisy in pristine suits or with a red, white and blue bikini toting a firearm isn’t cute on the bull-dog Palin, or her defenders.
The bottom line is Governor Palin should be qualified when in immediate succession to the President of the United States.
Moderators Note: Additional scenario to mullover: If Palin were a Black woman with a teenage pregnant daughter, a bunch of kids, just had a new special needs baby, and wanted to pursue a once in a lifetime demanding career, who would stand up for her and defend such a choice? Would our sensitivities tell us that she needs to take care of her children? Do we just “leave it at that” because the mother loves her children?
Allegedly, one of Sarah Palin’s neighbor’s wrote an open letter regarding her knowledge of Governor Palin. The author identifies herself and speaks quite well for herself. Check out the link below:
I’m not surprised that ANN and other inner-cusp Repubs will justify this appointment at any cost. The flags of sexism will continue to be posted wherever there is a legitimate challenge to Palin’s ability to be a decent mother to her THREE CONSIDERABLY UNDERAGE CHILDREN while she is supposed to be the Vice President of the United States. Motherhood and family values are of utmost importance to the GOP platform. Palin’s appointment proves that for this possible administration, this is theory at best. Let’s all work and fight for ideals and principles but not live them.
McCain’s need for a gun-toting, pro-life, tax-cutting young female GOP running mate outweighs any other concerns. For instance, McCain’s age and medical history was not a priority in appointing a POTUS-ready running mate. Did GOP nominee McCain get the memo that if he wins the election, he would be the oldest US President to enter office? McCain should have made the readiness of his VP to lead this nation of utmost importance in his selection. Whether or not McCain outlives Bristol is not the issue. McCain is supposed to be planning for the good of our nation–”Country First”– right GOP? The average family has enough sense to have insurance policies in the event of death. Palin, with two more months of shaking hands, cramming and trying to learn the ropes, come November is supposed to be mature and ready, God-forbid, to be America’s payout.
Otherwise, the idea of the small town girl who is not afraid to go against the grain and status quo to effectuate good is admirable. Palin’s firm anti-abortion, pro-Christian beliefs are welcome. Her youthfulness adds bliss to the equation. If McCain wins takes us through the next four years, Palin will be ready to run for President AFTER her on-the-job training. However, Republicans have been terribly hypocritical in this appointment with Palin’s substantial inexperience (a campaign theme against Nobama), and attempting to posit a mother of FIVE WITH FOUR UNDERAGE CHILDREN traipsing across this country and eventually the world, as the picture of family values in America. No abortions, Dems. That’s what matters. Commitment to EFFECTIVE parenting, or at least having the appearance of the same, is not part of this platform.
