Prelude to nihilism 9


By Tom Quiner

You need to get to know Pete Singer. Fast.

Pete Singer, atheist

Mr. Singer is an Australian philosopher with associations with Princeton University in the U.S. and the University of Melbourne in Australia.

Mr. Singer is an atheist with a unique philosophy: human life is no more valuable than mosquitos, muskrats, or mackerel, or, for that matter, any other life form on Mother Earth.

There is nothing special about man. Since there is no God, in his view, man was certainly not made in the image of any  deity.

Here is why you need to keep Mr. Singer and his acolytes on your radar. He believes that …

“being a member of the human species does not confer a right to life.”

You only have moral worth in his eyes if you possess certain properties, such as self-awareness, an understanding of desires, the ability to envision the future, and the capacity to feel pain.

In the debate over abortion, the pro life side asks: what is the difference between a baby five minutes after she is born compared to five minutes before she was born? Pro abortion advocates hem and haw but still maintain she has no human rights until after she is born.

Not Pete Singer. He believes she has no human rights for the first several years of her life until she begins to develop the characteristics above. Until then, her parents should be allowed to kill her with impunity.

I’m serious.

Mr. Singer maintains that “being human in the biological sense is of no intrinsic human significance.” We are disposable at the whim of the powerful. Mr. Singer is clear in expressing his philosophy:

“Killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”

Why waste time talking about Pete Singer? After all, most folks consider his view to be nutty. Right? Don’t be paranoid, let’s focus on the real issues of the day like jobs, healthcare, and reproductive rights.

Right?

Wrong. Nutty views today can become mainstream tomorrow. I proved that with yesterday’s post (“The evolution of principle.”)

In one short decade, the Democratic Party rejected their two hundred year history of looking out for the little guy and denied that human beings have a right to life. In the next short decade, they decided that choice wasn’t enough. They decided that women have a fundamental right to an abortion, and that taxpayers should pay for it.

Today’s kooky idea can become tomorrow’s mainstream idea in the hands of the powerful who can profit by rejecting their principles, as the Democratic Party has.

Today, Democrats believe human life is not only disposable, but should be treated as a disease and prevented, at taxpayer expense, no less. Freedom of religion be damned.

Can you imagine sitting across from Harry Truman back in 1948 and saying, “President Truman, I believe we should not only legalize abortion, we should make taxpayers pay for it. Even more, it is imperative that we impose it on religious organizations, especially Catholic ones.”

What would have been Mr. Truman’s reaction? He would have thrown you out of his office. He might have even had you committed, since you were certainly talking like a nutcase.

When a political party has no principles, anything is possible.

The Pete Singers of the world can have tremendous influence on people with no moral bearing. The Obama Mandate is the biggest issue of our time. If the president and his party pull this off, anything goes.

The Obama Mandate is simply a prelude to nihilism where life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Peter Singer needs to be stopped.

The Obama Mandate needs to be stopped.

Mr. President, life really does have meaning.

Obama’s war on Jefferson 1


By Tom Quiner

Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party

The founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, held a completely different view of America than the current leader of the party, Barack Obama.

Who is right?

Jefferson believed mankind enjoys inalienable rights that flow from God. Obama embraces secularism and believes the highest authority is the state.

Jefferson believed we each enjoy a right to life.

Obama’s belief in this right is conditional. The weakest in society, the preborn, have no rights and are subject to the whims of the powerful.

Jefferson believed we each enjoy a right to liberty. Obama doesn’t. He believes in fairness which calls on an elite power structure to determine who should get to keep the fruits of their own labor, and who would receive the fruits of another’s labor.

Jefferson believed we each have a right to a pursuit of happiness, which he defined as a right to accumulate and possess property. Obama believes the state should have a big say on this subject. Even more, happiness is a lifestyle issue in Mr. Obama’s eyes, not a property issue.

Here’s the thing: Republicans agreed with the Democrats of the Jefferson mindset. Sure they could wrangle over different issues, but they could compromise, too, because they all believed in these same fundamental American values as articulated by Thomas Jefferson.

Why are politics so polarized today? Because the current crop of Democrats think Mr. Jefferson was wrong.

Welcome to Des Moines, Mr. President Reply


By Tom Quiner

In this 2007 Life Magazine photo, President Obama campaigns in Beaverdale, Iowa.

The President of the United States is visiting my neighborhood this morning. He’ll be at the home of members from my church. Some of my friends will be in attendance.

I had a 7 AM meeting at my neighborhood coffee shop this morning, Grounds for Celebration, where a couple of Secret Service agents where loading up on caffeine.

It’s all exciting, but I didn’t earn an invite. I wonder why?

Despite our differing political views, I welcome the President to Beaverdale, Iowa. (Beaverdale is the name for a neighborhood in Des Moines — surely one of the best places in the world in which to live!)

I honor the Presidency and welcome President Obama to my beloved state and neighborhood.

A friend of mine, a Democrat, asked if I could ask the President a question, what would it be? I don’t know that I have a question as much as an explanation for the difficult political climate in which President Obama operates. It goes back to Peggy Noonan’s question to which I referred in my post last night: does the other side have a good motive?

Abortion is the leading social issue that explains much about how conservatives assess the President and his Party’s motives .

They state that abortion should be rare, but safe.

But the legislation they have either passed or want to pass contradicts their rhetoric.

They refused to exclude abortion in the language of the mammoth healthcare bill they passed. True, the President signed an Executive Order preventing it, but an Executive Order does not carry the clout of clear legislative language such as the Hyde amendment.

The President is an enthusiastic supporter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This act would have devastating implications for Americans who revere the sanctity of human life. It would strip away conscious-protection laws. Doctors would be compelled to perform abortions, because abortion would now be considered a basic “human right.” Catholic hospitals would be forced to abandon Catholic principles … or close. The sheer quantity of abortions will only increase, contrary to the stated position that abortion should be rare.

It’s one thing for Democrats to say “although I’m personally opposed to abortion, I can’t tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.”

It’s quite another for Democrats to say “you will be compelled by law to remove the life within a mother’s womb if that is what she wants.”

FOCA has not passed … yet.

Democrats took a big step toward the goals of FOCA, though, by ensuring that abortion was not excluded from the healthcare bill, the President’s Executive Order notwithstanding.

So, here is what I would say to President Obama:

“Mr. President, I hold your office in high esteem. I pray for you often. I pray that God keeps you safe. But I don’t trust your motives. I’m concerned that you want to impose a new value system on me, my Church, and my country, one that our Founding Fathers never envisioned, one that my Church never envisioned. I’m concerned that if you and your party get your way, Americans who have embraced traditional American values of God-granted rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, will experience economic sanctions … or worse … if they don’t accept your new order. I wish you well, Mr. President. Thanks for letting me voice my views.”