Getting Cross About ACLU Supporter Nonsense

Batten down the hatches. The Canyon County, Idaho seal is creating a controversy:

Now, if you squint, you’ll notice that a church with a cross on top depicted on the seal of one of Idaho’s most religious counties. If you can’t see the cross, get out a magnifying glass.

According to the Press-Tribune story:

The county’s spokeswoman said the seal reflects the county’s values and that no one complained about the seal when officials presented it to the public and later adopted it in 2005.

County commissioners approved the new seal in November of that year, hoping it would represent modern-day Canyon County. The cross is too small to be visible in many uses of the seal, such as on county letterhead. But it is plainly visible on several larger seals displayed in the County Courthouse.

The seal depicts a scene with a river, hills, livestock, buildings and other items.

“To bring up religion at all is a violation of the Constitution,” Caldwell resident Randy Hooban said. “It’s the wrong mindset for government…”

Hooban noticed the Canyon County seal earlier this year at a Canyon County Democratic Central Committee meeting. He said he contacted the ACLU of Idaho in Boise about the seal and brought the issue up with Canyon County Commissioner Steve Rule…

Canyon County Democratic Chairwoman Maria Gonzalez Mabbutt, who ran against Ferdinand in November, said the seal could be divisive.

“What about individuals in our community that belong to the Baha’i religion and other religions that may not be Christian?” Mabbutt said. “Government should not show favoritism to dominant religion in a community.”

I lay this one right at the feet of the ACLU. I’m trying to imagine how this came about. Here’s the best I can come up with. Mr. Hooban is at the Democratic Central Committee Meeting and he sees the County Seal and looks all over this thing and finds a small cross on a building and decides to sue. It’s a conditioned response, no matter how inane the suit might be.

Hello? Where did common sense go?

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Here’s looking at . . .me!, Nuke’s news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Yes, I Have Wondered

Bitterman at Ales Rarus writes:

Do you ever think about what other people think about you? I mean more than the usual, “Oh my god, I’m so fat” way that people worry about. What I’m trying to get at is what people really think about you as a person. Where do others see you fitting in their world, and what do they think you’re really like?

This is one of those questions that a great source of challenge for me. I imagine what other people think of me. It’s a tremendous challenge, particularly since my imagination goes wild trying to guess. It’s a great challenge for me.

Of course, you never really know what people think of you, not even right after you die. Right after you die, everyone is solemn and respectul out of sensitivity to your family (unless your name is Jerry Falwell.) So about 45 days after I’m dead, it’ll emerge what people really thought. I just won’t be around to find out. Foiled again.

The Salesman’s Pitch

In my last piece, I talked about how an Idaho Planned Parenthood clinic is using an article by local abortionist Duane St. Clair to sell religious women on abortion. St. Clair’s piece is a theological defense of the practice. In the second part of this series, I examine St. Clair’s arguments.

To begin with, Dr. St. Clair readily admits that life begins at conception:

”There is no debating it is a live ovum and sperm that unite at the beginning of pregnancy; human life began thousands of years ago and has been a continuum ever since.”

A quite stunning admission from the abortionist, but at least an honest one given the current state of Embryology.

He then goes on to write:

”The important question is not when life begins but when does ‘morally relevant personhood’ begin?”

So, Dr. St. Clair, having utterly been failed by science begins liberal
theological gymnastics typical of the pro-choice crowd. Ironically, towards the end of his argument, St. Clair infers religious motives to pro-lifers (emphasis original to the document):

Others believe there is a soul present in the fertilized ovum, and therefore they feel it must be a person. However, they realize they cannot discuss their fear is that a soul may be present without the Constitution of the United States limiting them in their attempts to legally prohibit abortion. Believing in a soul is clearly a religious belief; so they continue to use the terms person and unborn child.

So thus Dr. St. Clair leads us to a debate outside science, coming down to a basic debate over personhood and the presence of a soul. Advocates of the pro-choice position claim to be about science and reason, not religion and philosophy. Yet, as many advocates before him have done, St. Clair rejects science for a philosophy that arbitrarily denies human rights to million. .
The other points, I’ll merely summarize as these points have been vigorously debated over the Internet:

He makes the silly argument that abortion is okay due to the number of miscarriages that occur. Abortion is justified by the fact that there are spontaneous miscarriages in the same way first degree murder is justified by the fact that people die of natural causes.

Dr. St. Clair writes, “We must either reject all abortions or allow every woman the right decide which cases are ‘hard cases.’ No one can place a value judgment on another person’s situation.”

Here Dr. St. Clair has gone from medicine to philosophy to law. What he states isn’t true. Our legal system makes value judgments about people’s situations all the time. We take a look at one case of killing and we say, “It was in self-defense, you are therefore not guilty.” We take a look at another and say, “You were enraged and killed someone in the heat of the moment with no premeditation, you are guilty of manslaughter.” We take a look at still another case and say, “You killed this person with malice aforethought and are guilty of first degree murder.”

The Old Testament Law rings with such evaluations and judgments based on different situations. If you take a look at the law (Exodus-Deuteronomy) you’ll find a law book that examines what happens in dozens of different circumstances. For example, if a man killed another accidentally, he could flee to a city of refuge to avoid being killed by an avenging relative, if he killed out of malice he could not.

St. Clair then judges the right to life stance as unchristian (and by extension those who advocate for it) by ironically citing the “Judge not” scripture, thus judging the entire Pro-Life movement.

As I said, it’s fairly typical of the stuff you’ll find on the Internet advocating abortion. The only difference is that this one-sided propaganda is being handed out to young women in an attempt to influence them to have an abortion, and that is truly an outrage.

Two Stories that Make No Sense Together

So how do these two Baseball stories make sense, both from Ben Mailler.

Story #1

Multiple scouts said Wednesday the Yankees are interested in Rockies first baseman Todd Helton and closer Brian Fuentes, though nothing is brewing. If the Rockies don’t rebound, many teams will be calling to see if they want to unload salaries. Helton has rebounded nicely this season. He ranks second in the big leagues in on-base percentage and first with 21 multihit games. Fuentes has already established a club record with eight saves this month.

And then headline from Story #2:Rockies president still supports Hurdle, O’Dowd.

Oh, it’s about the Rockies, that makes more sense than.

Voters are Too Stupid, So I Quit

I find this decision very troubling:

Idaho Supreme Court Justice Linda Copple Trout is leaving her term early so his successor can be appointed by Gov. Butch Otter, not chosen by voters.

Trout, 55, who will retire in late July after more than 25 years as an Idaho judge, said she is more comfortable having a committee screen possible successors for Otter than have voters try to pick her replacement.

“There are a lot of problems with the system, but the biggest problem is people don’t know how to make a choice on who would make a good judge,” Trout said. “I want to give enough opportunity for my successor to get in there and get some experience and let people see them and their work product before they run for the seat.”

Justice Schoeder’s decision didn’t bother me because it was a standard retirement. What Justie Trout is doing seems to be a cirumvention of the normal process. While, I don’t care for it, it’s the law. However, it seems a new tradition is being made here.

We’ll have 2/5 of our high court chosen by the Judicial Council until these seats come up for election and that’s troubling. Why not go to straight Gubenatorial Appointment and cut out the middle man? And how about we actually change the law to do that.

On Startin For Governor: Not Now, Please

W. Lane Startin, who is blogging over at 43rd State Blues is considering a run for Governor in 2010 as the Democrats. The arguments that he should run for a lower office is somewhat silly given how hard it is to win in Idaho for the legislature. I certainly wouldn’t support him, but if he wants to run for it, he should certainly go for it. He looks like a candidate who could be trounced.

However, he should not go for it NOW. Our campaigns run too long. Our Presidential Election in reality began sometime after Christmas, 2004. No, there were no announcements, but there were “non-campaign” visits by a multitude of future candidates and non-candidates. There was fundraising and contacts were made and then there was the posturing. Larry LaRocco has announced for Senate and hired Julie Fanselow 18 months before the election.

I don’t care for the idea of Gubenatorial Candidates doing the whole Presidential thing. In addition, I think Startin has shot himself in the foot by laying his cards out this early. He’s trying to get a “Democratic Freedom Caucus” started. What he’s basically done is sent a message, “Hi, I’m starting an organization, so I can run for Governor.” That will turn off voters as well as some political activists. That, plus this has publicized his 2002 run for Congress as a member of the Green Party (not going to earn points with Party loyalists.)

Who Gets Tenure

A look at a two professors: a scientist and an anti-religious idealogue and the how Iowa State University treats the two.

Click here to add my podcast to your I-tunes.

‘

Related:

Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer