Ethics

Home » Ethics

Following the law

Kim Davis

Kim Davis was holding fast to her beliefs. Good for her. I’m proud of her. I think that if you believe in something you should stick to it. Unfortunately, you also need to think about your job choices. If you don’t belief in violence, you probably shouldn’t be a Navy Seal.  Kim Davis should have known that gay marriage was going to be the law of the land. I could see the writing on the wall. Why couldn’t she? She should have had a plan. Her plan shouldn’t be to defy the law of the land. Instead, she should have held a press conference and stated her beliefs and then resigned.

Look, this isn’t an attack on Christianity. It simply isn’t. This is an attack on someone who has decided to defy the law. If you break the law you go to jail. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, “Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country.” This is simply wrong. The statement is wrong. I’m a Christian and I don’t feel under attack.

When you sit back and look at the Bible, I mean really study the Bible, Jesus is telling us to take care of the poor. He is telling us to love our neighbors. He is telling us to love and obey God. If you read the Bible and think one of the most important tenets of Jesus’ teachings has to do with gay marriage, you have read the Bible incorrectly. Read it again. There are at most four or five passages that may have something to do with gay marriage or homosexuality. (Personally, I don’t think that any of those passages have squat to do with homosexuality. I think that the passages have to do with obeying God.) If you are Christian then you believe that Jesus came to earth to clarify the Old Testament. When you look at the red words… the words of Jesus, what did he say about homosexuality? Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. I rest my case.

Ms. Davis needs to resign. She has become a hero to the Right. She can join Sarah Palin on the lecture circuit.

 

By |2015-09-09T12:38:12-04:00September 4th, 2015|Civil Rights, Ethics, Religion|6 Comments

News Roundup – Happy New Year, Jahi McMath, Drought in California

happy new year

I would like to wish you and yours a very healthy, prosperous, blessed Happy New Year!!

Jahi McMath. Sigh. It has been eight years since we have had an opportunity, as a nation, to discuss death and dying. Terri Schiavo provided us the last opportunity. We fumbled the ball and never got into the discussion. Now, we have Jahi McMath. First, let’s understand that this is a tragedy of epic proportions. A 14-year-old, previously healthy teenager should not go into the hospital for a routine operation and end up brain-dead. This should never happen. Secondly, in the United States since the late 1950s brain death has equaled death. Brain death is an irreversible condition. In the condition of brain death, the patient has lost all measurable brain function. This means that not only is there no evidence of higher brain function like thought and following commands, but neither is there evidence of lower brain function, which would include pupillary response, spontaneous breathing and other brain reflexes. There is no hope, with current medical technology, to reverse this syndrome. Because Jahi McMath was previously healthy and also extremely young, her heart is able to pump blood through her body without the assistance of her brain. The heart is on autopilot. Unfortunately, this is the state that in which she has been since December 12. Currently, the family is looking for facilities that will “take care of” their daughter. To what end? The harsh reality is that their daughter is gone. Unless we, the medical community, can come up with some way to regenerate dead brain cells or to transplant a brain, their daughter is not coming back. This is an extremely sad case. I hope and pray that the family and parents of Jahi McMath find peace and understanding. I’ll have more to say on this later. (more…)

By |2014-01-01T21:42:36-04:00January 1st, 2014|Civil Liberty, Environment, Ethics, Healthcare|2 Comments

Greed in Congress

In my mind there are two types of people on Capitol Hill. There are those who are really trying to fix America’s problems and there are those who are really trying to line their own pockets. I really love those who are trying (even those who are misguided but who are trying to fix America). I really, really loathe those who are simply padding their bank accounts.

From NYT:

Soon after he retired last year as one of the leading liberals in Congress, former Representative William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts started his own lobbying firm with an office on the 16th floor of a Boston skyscraper. One of his first clients was a small coastal town that has agreed to pay him $15,000 a month for help in developing a wind energy project.

Amid the revolving door of congressmen-turned-lobbyists, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Mr. Delahunt’s transition, except for one thing. While in Congress, he personally earmarked $1.7 million for the same energy project.

So today, his firm, the Delahunt Group, stands to collect $90,000 or more for six months of work from the town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay, with 80 percent of it coming from the pot of money he created through a pair of Energy Department grants in his final term in office, records and interviews show.

Experts in federal earmarking — a practice of financing pet projects that has been forsaken by many members of Congress as a toxic symbol of political abuse — said they could not recall a case in which a former lawmaker stood to benefit so directly from an earmark he had authorized. Mr. Delahunt’s firm is seeking a review of the arrangement from the Energy Department. (more…)

More from CREW:

Rep. Delahunt’s case may be more direct than most, but he isn’t alone. CREW’s research found five other former lawmakers, all of whom left office within the past five years, collecting lobbying fees for institutions they earmarked to while in office (two others are registered to lobby for institutions they have earmarked to, but reported earning only nominal fees). The members collectively earmarked more than $70 million to the organizations they went on to represent, and have pulled in a total of nearly $1.9 million from the work. Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), for example, earmarked $1.6 million for defense contractor Northrop Grumman in the 2008 budget. Then he left office – but apparently kept up the relationship. The company was one of his early lobbying clients, and lobbying disclosure records show the contract brought in nearly $1.3 million in fees between 2008 and 2010.

By |2012-01-28T09:05:10-04:00January 28th, 2012|Congress, Ethics|Comments Off on Greed in Congress
Go to Top