Tuesday, May 26, 2009
I just wanted to let all of you know that I almost lost my daughter on Saturday. Her pregnancy was ectopic and it burst. Luckily she was at home which is right behind the mid-wife clinic where she works , about 20 steps. She called them and the RN came over and immediately called 911. She almost died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and the surgeon told us that he didn’t know if she would make it through surgery because she had already lost over a third of her blood volume and it was over 3 hours from the time it burst until they got her to the hospital because she had passed out prior to calling for help. She was out over 2 hours. The RN who was with her said she thought Mandie was dead several times on the way to the hospital. She had laparoscopy surgery to remove the tube and a blood transfusion. She may have to have another transfusion but we don’t know yet. She is home now with an RN around the clock. I am taking off the rest of the week to stay with her so I ran in to work today to catch up on necessities for our medical board which is on Wednesday. I have been with her since Saturday and I am exhausted. She is not sleeping so neither am I. Let me tell you that I cannot explain to you the feelings in my heart when that surgeon said he didn’t know if he could save her or not. Only God knows how I felt and believe you I prayed like I have never prayed in my life. Praise Him He spared her life !!! God was gracious to us! The doctor said she will probably never be able to have children now as her other tube has a lot of scar tissue from her last tubular which did not burst but they had to dissolve the baby that time with drugs. So, she is very very depressed. It breaks my heart for her. So, if you believe in prayer, please say a prayer for her recovery. She is not out of the woods yet. Thank you."
Gwen has been a really good friend to me over the years, and has been having health issues of her own to deal with as well. Please pray for both her and her daughther this week. Thank you.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
I still disagree with you on the church/state argument. I believe religion and politics should be kept separate, as I said before. Who is to say what version of Christianity is to be recognized by the Government? Would it be mine, yours, or Benedict XVI's? Who is the arbiter of that? Men from Washington to Madison recognized that our nation was a mixture of more than one faith, and that to survive there needed to be mutual respect of all faiths. While they realized that it was our faith that shapes our morality; that faith needed to be instilled on a personal level and not by the government.
The message of Christ wasn't about the governments recognizing Him. His message hits us on a more personal level. We are the heralds of the Kingdom of God, not Uncle Sam. We are the ones responsible for taking care of the hungry, the thirsty, the unclothed, the strangers and aliens, the prisoners (Matt 25:30-46). This is the message of the Gospel, the Good News. It's not about politics.
Here is an interesting quote from the 1930's:
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians ... stand at the head of [our country]. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press — in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... few years."
Sound familiar? This is a quote from a speech by Adolf Hitler (Hat tip to One P.O.'d Veteran for the quote).
This is the danger of mixing Church and State in any form. We see it from the Crusades to the current problems with radical Islam. Whenever we try to mix religion and politics both suffer.
I still fail to see how a nation founded on the principles of freedom and individual liberty can then attempt to take away that most important and sacred of those liberties, that of belief and worship. Why is it that the Radical Right feels they need to legislate morality? I just cannot grasp it.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
May 4, 2009
Dear Congressman Boozman,
Recently, you made comments on a local TV station regarding a bill that was passed by the House and is on it's way to the Senate. This bill, called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, or the "Matthew Shephard Act", would extend the prosecution of hate crimes to crimes against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people (LGBT). You have suggested that such a law is not necessary. Your stance is that hate crimes should be prosecuted as regular crimes, and do not need "special treatment". You further address the unfounded fear that this legislation would prevent pastors and priests from speaking out against homosexuality from their pulpits. I strongly disagree with both statements, and will address each one separately.
Statement #1: "“I opposed this legislation because it creates a new federal offense for so-called ‘hate crimes,’ and adds a special class crimes potentially motivated by the victims ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ or the ‘perceived’ thoughts of the alleged criminal. These are extremely subjective terms that will criminalize a person’s thoughts or motivations, rather than their actions. The message that Congress is sending with this legislation is that a politically-favored class of victims deserve greater protection under the law than others, such as our nation’s veterans and the elderly." --Quoted from your website at http://www.boozman.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=124536
Congressman Boozman, this is a stretch, to say the least. According to the law, in order to prosecute as a hate crime, it must be established that there was a clear bias toward the victim based on their race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It is not prosecuting their thoughts, but their actions. You and I are still free to think what we will and speak what we wish.
My second disagreement with you is in your stating that the people you mention above are a "politically favored class". From what I have seen in the past few years, this is far from the case. Crimes against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered men and women have been steadily increasing, according to the FBI. The case of Matthew Shephard, while especially brutal, is not an isolated incident. Each year, thousands of LGBT men and women are beaten, raped and/or murdered simply for who they are. And this is a "favored class"? A class that is not allowed the same rights as other men and women of heterosexual orientation? When is the last time you were not allowed to visit your wife at a hospital that she was in? Or for that matter, when were you unable to file your taxes with your spouse? When was the last time that your parenting skills were questioned because you were a heterosexual? This is a "politically favored class?" I think not.
Congressman, violence against LGBT men and women affects more than the victims. These crimes, especially when motivated by prejudice and hate, strike fear into a whole community. Is this not how we define terrorism? We prosecute terrorists because of their intent as well as their actions. How is this different from the above legislation? If we are able to prosecute terrorists because of their intent to strike fear and terror, then why should the same brush not be applied to those who commit hate crimes?
Statement #2: “It is a mistake to carve out a protection in the law for just one segment of people. This bill violates the equal-protection set forth in our Constitution. It is constitutionally suspect, infringes on states’ rights, and threatens religious freedoms and First Amendment Rights. It could also restrict free speech and lead to criminal prosecution of religious leaders or members of religious groups for expressing their religious beliefs.” --Quoted from http://www.boozman.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=124536
Congressman Boozman, this statement leads me to believe that you either have not fully read the law that you voted on, or that you are pandering to your political base. I am not sure which of these I find more disturbing. Allow me to take a direct quote from the end of the amendment as it was presented in the House of Representatives:
"SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution."
In other words, Congressman, the right of pastors, priests and street corner prophets to slander Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgendered men and women (LGBT) is protected, just as the right of groups like the Knights from Zinc, AR, to speak against anyone not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is protected under the First Amendment. The only reason why someone would not be able to preach such messages would be if they included calls to violence against the LGBT community, and even this would be difficult to prosecute.
In short, Congressman Boozman, I believe you are wrong. I believe that you are actually pandering to the fears and prejudices of people in