Expanding our reach

[Smokin Joe]

I read "Canticle" many years ago as a boy and remember it vaguely but fondly.  If you do find that passage I'd love to see it again.

So did I. It may well be time to re-read it.

[Smokin Joe]

I recognize the originators intention mentioned in the post above yours and I bow to his wish.

I will say only in response to your fine, fine post SJ, that I take exception to the term "murder" since that is a legal term which technically does not apply  (whether good or ill) to the act at this point. I would wholly endorse the use of the term "killing" or even "licentious, horrible, reckless infant-slaughter" but not the legal term "murder". For whatever reason our culture allows this type of homicide and bends over backwards doing semantic acrobatics to avoid calling it was it is - infanticide. 

But until our laws change, abortion is not murder because it is not unlawful. This is a very serious point and distinction to draw, because some in the past have used the reasoning behind their own vengeful acts of murder of physicians who perform abortions, based upon the view that abortion is murder and that therefore our legal system is wholly dishonorable and may be rightfully disregarded in totality.

Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. I was at a loss for a term which adequately described "mechanical dismemberment", bathing in lethal chemicals, or shredding of a helpless child instead in utero that was adequate but not excessively pejorative.

Perhaps murder isn't so harsh a term, if you consider that the cry to "eliminate" anyone who did this to more autonomous humans would be almost universal.

However, justifying more murder on the basis of murder already committed, even on behalf of the helpless future victims isn't right either.

If you want to save "murder" as a legal term for the killing of those not condemned and adjudicated to suffer the death penalty, fine, but then, that wraps back around to the little humans who are being murdered wholesale and sold retail when the parts look good enough and the demand is up. By any other name, the deed's the same.

[Doug Loss]

If that is the road to be taken, it must be built.

The seminal arguments of the left boil down to "It isn't a human" or "It is less than a human" so killing it doesn't matter.
and ...
Somehow, this 'less than a human thing' is interfering with your rights to live the way you want to.

This is a very cogent argument.  (I've pared down the quotation so as not to use too much space here.)  May I quote your post in its entirety elsewhere?

[Doug Loss]

Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics. I was at a loss for a term which adequately described "mechanical dismemberment", bathing in lethal chemicals, or shredding of a helpless child instead in utero that was adequate but not excessively pejorative.

Perhaps "termination of life" would suffice.

[Smokin Joe]

This is a very cogent argument.  (I've pared down the quotation so as not to use too much space here.)  May I quote your post in its entirety elsewhere?

Absolutely. Be my guest. Hopefully it will help.

[Smokin Joe]

Perhaps "termination of life" would suffice.

We have become so inured to the term "terminate" when we discuss killing (murder or sanctioned by some government) from popular fiction, movies, television, that I think the term lacks any impact. "Terminate the pregnancy" is the euphemism many use for "murder the baby" already.

[Doug Loss]

We have become so inured to the term "terminate" when we discuss killing (murder or sanctioned by some government) from popular fiction, movies, television, that I think the term lacks any impact. "Terminate the pregnancy" is the euphemism many use for "murder the baby" already.

Hmmm.  Then how about "extermination of life?"

[Smokin Joe]

Hmmm.  Then how about "extermination of life?"

Like these guys?



(sorry, perhaps too much levity, but in the science fiction genre, a notable example of those who would exterminate others, and a break from the usual historical suspects)

This isn't the extermination of life, but the selective elimination of people found to be inconvenient by their progenitor(s).

That that has profound implications for those older than the target group already is, as a matter of principle, obvious, or should be. As is the ordinary pattern of things, those least able to defend themselves will be the victims, the very young, the very old, the infirm, those of questionable mental competence, all cut from the herd by words, and preyed upon "for the good of all". History bears this pattern out. Margaret Sanger would have been so proud.

That also has been explored in science fiction, from Logan's Run to Soylent Green and elsewhere. We often extrapolate trends, perhaps to extremes in fiction, but that gave us the fairly prescient 1984 and Brave New World--horror stories of what could be, adopted as a how-to manual by others.

How does one adequately describe the mechanical dismemberment of a living human, without the precision or experimental inquiry of a vivisectionist, solely for the purpose of removing it from the penumbra of responsibility of the progenitor(s)--or even more precisely, to market the parts and avoid damaging the goods?

Done by Mongol Tribesmen with four horses and ropes, we'd see it as a horrific end, whether there was someone there to collect and sell the bits or not.

Done in the dark, it is somehow something we couch in terms which are protective only of the sensibilities of the purveyors and supporters of such acts. "Murder" fits.

[bigheadfred]

Convincing someone that babies are the miracle they are, that they are a gift and a blessing rather than a parasite or a burden is going to be tough when they are so self-absorbed.

@Smokin Joe @Doug Loss

Real easy way to fix that.

Stuff a few of the loudest proponents for abortion into their own slightly too small section of well casing. Then drag them out the other end with gaffs.

[Doug Loss]

@Smokin Joe @Doug Loss

Real easy way to fix that.

Stuff a few of the loudest proponents for abortion into their own slightly too small section of well casing. Then drag them out the other end with gaffs.

Gaffs?  Shouldn't that be some forceps-equivalent around the temples?

[Doug Loss]

My third piece for ThyBlackMan is now up, here:

http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/18/life-versus-convenience/

Here's the text of it:

Life versus Convenience

This piece is a follow-on to my previous one, “Right to Live.” There are a few points my friend Joe (he goes by “Smokin Joe” online) brought up in a discussion that I'd like to share with you. They follow:

“The seminal arguments of the left boil down to "It isn't a human" [an unborn child] or "It is less than a human" so killing it doesn't matter. And somehow, this 'less than a human thing' is interfering with your rights to live the way you want to [I'll talk about the right to live as you want to in a future piece. - Doug].

“Note, not 'Right to live' (except in the most rare and medically identifiable instances when that would not be the outcome), but 'right to live as you want to.' Heck, I want to be independently wealthy, have my own jet, have a few thousand acres and a few toys to go play with on them, etc. But I don't have a 'Right' to have that without some good fortune and a lot of hard work (not there yet, might never be).

“In short the right to live is being confused with some nebulous 'right to live as you want to,' and while the Pursuit of Happiness may be a fundamental Right, that does not give one the Right to pursue that at the expense of the Right of another to live. If my idea of Happiness meant having more land, that doesn't give me the right to just up and take the land of those adjacent to mine (or anywhere else, for that matter). My 'happiness' would run headlong into their fundamental rights, too.

“The conflict here seems to be one of Life versus Convenience (the latter being the pursuit of happiness). Again, as long as that baby in the womb, at any phase of development, is less than a human being in the eyes of the people you are trying to convince, it will be a war of the desires of the Human against the sub- or non-human, and the developing child will be accorded no more rights than a tumor.

“There are plenty of options in the search for 'reproductive freedom' without conceiving a child. A little responsibility and some knowledge can be sufficient. Knowledge is important. For instance, some means of Birth Control become ineffective while the woman is taking antibiotics (I got two grandchildren that way--different moms who are sisters). Had they been aware of that, pregnancy could have been avoided, but I am happy with the grandkids, as are their mothers (well, most days  ). It isn't a question of there not being ample options out there for the prevention of pregnancy in the first place.

“You have to do away with the idea that conceiving a baby and then killing it is 'reproductive choice,' because it isn't. It is not a choice of whether to reproduce or not, but what to do about it when that is a fait accompli. Until these concepts are debunked and refuted:

1. That a developing child is somehow less than a human being with none of the rights any other human has.

2. That the right of the mother to 'pursue happiness' trumps the right of the child to live.

3. That destroying the result of successful reproduction is somehow 'undoing the act' and thus a 'reproductive choice,' and not killing a child.


the Left will continue to use those selfsame arguments to justify the slaughter. Those are the falsehoods they rely upon, along with some eugenicist twists, to support their position.

“I am not saying getting people to reverse their positions on these things is impossible, (All things are possible with The Lord), but at the same time, I recognize these will again be positions in which people are emotionally invested and on which their status may depend on consistency with past stated beliefs. Obtaining that change would be wonderful, indeed, but first you have to convince them they are wrong, and then to publicly admit it. For those religious, it may be easier:

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. - Jeremiah 1:5

“Now, how could that be if he was just a lump of tissue?”

Joe's thoughts here are very clear and (to me at least) undeniable.  I thought them important enough to share with you all (with Joe's permission); I hope they are helpful to you in thinking about this important issue.

Finally, I want to issue an invitation and a challenge to you all.  Convincing a woman to carry and bear an undesired child is only the first part of protecting that child's right to live.  If the woman decides to keep that newborn child, she may very well need the loving assistance of her community to provide the child with the guidance it needs to grow into an honorable adult.

We are all directed to help those in need of our help: “For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me. Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’”

If you're a young person, please look into Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (http://www.bbbs.org/).  No one can make a difference in everyone's life, but everyone can make a difference in someone's life. If you're an older person (like me), please look into Senior Corps Foster Grandparents program (https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/senior-corps/senior-corps-programs/foster-grandparents). If you can't find these programs in your community, don't despair.  Go to your church, your community center, your barbershop, your hairdresser's, wherever people from the community gather, and start an organization of your own.  We can all help bring our children up to be responsible people, and in this season of the year it may be the greatest gift we can give them.

[bigheadfred]

Gaffs?  Shouldn't that be some forceps-equivalent around the temples?

Forceps would crush their tiny eggshell minds.

Get a gaff hook under their chin and a shoulder or two. Yank hard.

[Hondo69]

The “malcontents” I’m talking about are those quiet people (of all races and ethnicities, not just those we’ve previously thought of as fruitful ground for conservatives) who feel that there’s no one and no group who represents their beliefs, desires, and hopes for the future. They are the ones we need to find and welcome. It bears some thinking about.

The Quiet People

We all understand the saying, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease".  It is the neighbor who won't shut up during the Homeowner's Association meeting, the babbling parent who goes on and on about her Johnny during Meet The Teachers day, and the wingnut who monopolizes most of the allotted time during city council meetings.  We know these people because we've suffered through them all our lives.

It only takes one.  The rest of us sit there quietly, biting our tongues out of common courtesy.  But there is another reason why we sit there quietly - it is the path of least resistance.  As human beings we understand inherently that avoiding conflict has its upsides.  Not only is it easier than picking a fight but it also tends to stop from making a bad situation even worse.  Better to let the squeaky wheel babble on and save our energy for more important battles.

I too believe in avoiding conflict most of the time, but I also realize it comes with a downside.  And that downside is that too often it allows for minority rule.  We alter the rules of the Homeowner's Association for that one crabby neighbor.  We stop bringing treats to school because six years ago one kid had a peanut allergy.  Or we install speed bumps on a main road because one person complained about noisy cars keeping her awake.  Minority rules and the rest of us pay the price.

Individually, any single event of minority rule doesn't usually add up to a hill of beans.  The problem is time.  Over time these individual events mount up until they become a bigger and bigger presence in our everyday lives.  One day we wake up and say, "Good God I can't breathe anymore".

Just take a good look around the next time you drive to work and count the number of impediments that slow you down.  The drive that used to take 15 minutes now requires a half hour because of there are a dozen new stop lights, four sets of speed bumps and more warning signs than you can count.  By itself, a new stop light is hardly worth noticing.  But add all the impediments together and you end up with the equivalent of a road block.


Just Say No

Whether at the local level or national we're smothered by a never ending mountain of rules and regulations.  They just keep coming.  Politicians can't control themselves and their efforts to make everyone happy ends up making no one happy.  The net result is a population of boiling frogs.

Well now the boiling frogs have spoken.  If nothing else this last election has proven the boiling frog are willing to Just Say No.  We don't want 634 government agencies, we'll give you 6.  We don't want every single aspect of our lives being controlled for the sake of 2% of the population.  We're sick and tired of minority rule.

The vast majority of Americans simply desire to earn an honest wage, raise their families in a decent environment and go to the Friday night football game.  Other than that we pretty much want to be left alone thank you very much.

Which is why I propose the Just Say No Amendment.  It includes Term Limits for politicians, requires the appeal of the 17th Amendment, and provides a mechanism to dissolve entire government agencies.  I'll spare you the dirty little details for each component, entire books have been written those subjects.  Yet they each share a common cornerstone concept - elimination of minority rule.

And while Just Say No is a short and catchy title, it might better be named Life Is Hard - Wear A Cup.

[Smokin Joe]

The Quiet People

We all understand the saying, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease".  > snip< (for brevity)
Just Say No

Whether at the local level or national we're smothered by a never ending mountain of rules and regulations.  They just keep coming.  Politicians can't control themselves and their efforts to make everyone happy ends up making no one happy.  The net result is a population of boiling frogs.

Well now the boiling frogs have spoken.  If nothing else this last election has proven the boiling frog are willing to Just Say No.  We don't want 634 government agencies, we'll give you 6.  We don't want every single aspect of our lives being controlled for the sake of 2% of the population.  We're sick and tired of minority rule.

The vast majority of Americans simply desire to earn an honest wage, raise their families in a decent environment and go to the Friday night football game.  Other than that we pretty much want to be left alone thank you very much.

Which is why I propose the Just Say No Amendment.  It includes Term Limits for politicians, requires the appeal of the 17th Amendment, and provides a mechanism to dissolve entire government agencies.  I'll spare you the dirty little details for each component, entire books have been written those subjects.  Yet they each share a common cornerstone concept - elimination of minority rule.

And while Just Say No is a short and catchy title, it might better be named Life Is Hard - Wear A Cup.

I think you meant "repeal the 17th, in which case, I completely agree. I've been watching as a state is held hostage by 5000 whiners from elsewhere, and it is time for a change.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

We alter the rules of the Homeowner's Association for that one crabby neighbor.  We stop bringing treats to school because six years ago one kid had a peanut allergy.  Or we install speed bumps on a main road because one person complained about noisy cars keeping her awake.  Minority rules and the rest of us pay the price.

Reminds me of the Democrat party platform.

[Hondo69]

I think you meant "repeal the 17th, in which case, I completely agree. I've been watching as a state is held hostage by 5000 whiners from elsewhere, and it is time for a change.

Oops, my apologies.

[Doug Loss]

I have a Christmas piece up on ThyBlackMan now (http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/21/the-true-spirit-of-christmas/).  I wrote it a bit hurriedly, so I can see bits I would have edited and worded differently had I spent more time on it, but I think it holds together:

The True Spirit of Christmas

I have a few stories for you this Christmas season. The first is from the life of Saint Nicholas; rather than repeat it here I’ll ask you to go to this site (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/three-impoverished-maidens/) and read it. Go ahead, I’ll wait…Nice story, isn’t it?

Now for the second story. A long time ago when I was a teenager, my mother was a third-grade teacher. One December she came home and told us that a little girl in her class said Santa wasn’t going to come to their house this year. The family had fallen on hard times, but the little girl didn’t understand that.

My mother didn’t insist, but she made it VERY CLEAR that it would be a good idea if my younger sisters and I found some old, no-longer-used toys around our house, cleaned them up, boxed and wrapped them as presents. Then she asked me to deliver them.

I called a friend and we excitedly made plans. We knew exactly what to do: we watched Mission: Impossible on TV all the time. We would dress all in black, go to the house, quietly put the bag of presents by the front door, ring the doorbell, and sneak away in the night.

Everything went well, right up until we rang the bell. The porch light immediately came on and the front door started to open! Evidently the father had been standing by the door when we arrived.

We threw ourselves off the porch and ran for the car. As we ran, my friend called out in the lowest voice he would manage, “Ho, ho ho!”

The next day in school, an excited little girl came up to my mother and said, “Mrs. Loss, guess what? Santa came to our house last night, and he was dressed all in black!”

Now, I tell this story not to glorify my family or myself, but to illustrate that the story of Saint Nicholas and the legends of Santa Claus are more than just nice stories. They are examples of how we’re expected and requested to behave. When we wish each other Merry Christmas (literally, the Christ Mass, the church service to celebrate the birth of the Redeemer of mankind), Feliz Navidad (literally, the nativity of the Lord), Joyeux Noel (again, literally the Nativity), or Froehliche Weinachten (literally, the Holy Night when Christ was born), we are giving each other little blessings for His birth.

There are many Christmas customs that are often thought to have pagan origins—the Christmas tree, mistletoe, etc. But when they are examined in detail, you will find that although they may have begun as pagan customs, early Christians adopted those customs and gave them Christian meanings to help bring these new people to Christ. Rather than turn our backs on those customs, we should investigate those meanings and reinvigorate Christmas by telling them to everyone we know.

And we should all try to follow the example of Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus!) and give to and minister to those less fortunate than ourselves, never asking for recognition and if possible keeping our identities secret. That’s the true spirit of Christmas!

[Sanguine]

Very nice, @Doug Loss!

[Doug Loss]

My next piece at ThyBlackMan is up now: http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/29/you-cant-say-that/

You Can't Say That!!

Everyone has the right to say whatever he or she wants to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent people from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.

The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes in schools and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show that those who do them are unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.

You must not allow yourself to be silenced by those who dislike what you are saying. By the same token, you must not try to silence or allow others to try to silence those who say things you disagree with. Rebutting the things others say that you disagree with is certainly your right, but keeping them from saying those things is unacceptable and it is your responsibility to ensure that they can speak. I don’t say that this will be pleasant or easy; what’s easy is allowing speech you agree with. But ensuring that everyone’s right to speak is preserved is something we all must do.

You must refuse any sort of punitive actions against yourself or others, even those you disagree with, for the things they say. If such punitive actions are taken by others or by those in authority, it is your moral obligation to refuse to support those who take such actions, until the actions are overturned. It is also your responsibility to work to get such actions overturned, whenever they occur. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

No speech is automatically criminal, or “hate speech.” If someone’s speech causes him or others to engage in criminal actions, those actions are prosecutable. But the only speech that is prosecutable is that which calls for such criminal actions to take place. However much you may dislike the things being said, the right to say them is absolute.

It is only by speaking out, and by listening to others as they speak out, that we can come to an understanding of the viewpoints of those around us and can work together to build the society we want, where all are treated equally with liberty and respect. If you are speaking wrathfully, or someone else is speaking wrathfully to you, this is a sign that someone is being misunderstood. “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.”

Responding to angry speech calmly rather than returning anger for anger can often be the beginning of understanding. No, it’s not easy; in fact, it’s difficult. But it’s worth the effort. As for silencing those you disagree with, remember the words of Louis Brandeis: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

[Doug Loss]

My first piece of the new year at ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/07/thats-mine/

That's Mine!

Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants, providing he doesn’t interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There’s no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit. He can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed. The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.

What we’re talking about here is best illustrated by a court case from Connecticut, where a woman named Suzette Kelo had her house and land seized by the city government so they could give it to a property developer because the city believed the property would generate more taxes after it was redeveloped. It’s difficult to see how this is different from outright theft of the property.

You’re responsible for maintaining your property and for ensuring that others you invite to make use of it are not harmed by it. This is just another application of the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If your property is stolen or is used without your permission, any injury caused by its use is not your responsibility. Of course, you need to report the theft for this to apply. By the same token, you must not attempt to hold others responsible for the misuse of their stolen or otherwise misappropriated property. The whole idea of suing someone for damages because something they made or once owned caused you injury, even if they no longer own it or are responsible for it, is just another form of attempted theft.

It all boils down to a few concepts. The right of possession of property includes the responsibility of stewardship, the care and preservation of that property. If you cared enough to acquire some property, you should take care to keep the property in good condition. This isn’t so much a matter of the intrinsic value of the property as it is a matter of self-respect.

The right of enjoyment of your own property includes the responsibility to make sure that your enjoyment doesn’t intrude on the rights of others. This would mean making sure your enjoyment doesn’t endanger others, or intrude upon their own enjoyment of their property. Of course, it works the other way too: if someone is enjoying his property and not intruding on you in any way, you don’t have any right to complain about what he’s doing. I’ve heard this called (in a mocking way), “You’re not having fun the right way!” It’s the Golden Rule again; if you wouldn't want it done to you, you shouldn’t do it to others.

There are a couple of old sayings that serve well to sum these concepts up: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors, and Live and Let Live. If we have respect for each other and tolerance for each other’s differing interests and tastes, we’ll have less stress in our lives and better neighbors. And we’ll be more likely to be able to work together on those things that we agree on!

[Sanguine]

Very clearly expressed.

[Doug Loss]

Aaand the next piece at ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/12/human-life-im-not-bothering-anyone/

Human Life: I’m Not Bothering Anyone.

So long as you aren’t harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you’re free to live your life however you wish to. You have no moral requirement to get someone else’s permission to do the things you want to do. Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so. This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don’t, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm. At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.

You may live your life in any way you desire. You’re responsible for the direct effect your lifestyle has on others. For example, if you choose to play loud music at 3 AM you’re responsible for ensuring that others who wish to sleep at that time aren’t kept from doing so by your music.

Others may try to take advantage of this responsibility by claiming some unmeasurable effect of your lifestyle choices. In general, if your choices don’t limit the choices of others you have a moral right to them. You also have a responsibility to support others whose choices are being questioned, if those choices don’t actually affect anyone else. And if they are being forced or coerced to change their way of life against their will, we all have an obligation to help them resist that force.

Now we get to a difficult problem. You may recall an earlier piece I wrote called “Life versus Convenience.” This is an instance where someone’s right to live life as she chooses could come in conflict with another’s right to live at all. The question of abortion can be put in many ways, but here we’ll consider it as a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child. If the mother refuses an abortion, there’s no conflict, of course.

But if the mother doesn’t want to carry the baby till birth, we have a serious question indeed. Clearly, someone’s rights are going to be infringed upon. In this case, I can’t see any way to conclude that the baby’s right to live doesn’t take precedence over the mother’s right to decide how to live her life. From a moral standpoint, the right to live is always the primary right in any such conflict.

What does this mean for those of us who are neither the mother nor the child in this situation? We all have a moral obligation to defend those unable to defend themselves. In this case it would mean we must do everything we can to persuade the mother not to abort the child. At the same time, we have an obligation to defend the mother’s right to live her life as she wants, to the extent we can. I think that would mean that we need to help her find good adoptive parents for the baby after birth if she decides to give it up, and to help her during the pregnancy to the best of our ability.

You have seen that I derived these moral obligations from original principles, but there is another way to come to the same position:

“For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me. Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’”

Isn’t it amazing how moral principles so frequently seem to match directives from the Bible?

[Smokin Joe]

When I was a young man, I often thought of the Bible as an oppressive list of "Thou shalt nots'...When I got older, and often through painful experience, I realized it contained loving advice from a benevolent deity to His creations on how to live a long and happy life.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Actions have consequences. Facing the consequences of one's own actions is hardly a loss of a "right".

[Idaho_Cowboy]

When I was a young man, I often thought of the Bible as an oppressive list of "Thou shalt nots'...When I got older, and often through painful experience, I realized it contained loving advice from a benevolent deity to His creations on how to live a long and happy life.

Amen to that.