I'm including the following quote because it expresses so well my feelings of many years about how our national anthem has been butchered by "musicians" trying to outdo each other in style and publicity. I am concerned that we have lost the pride and humility to embrace the few American traditions we have with enthusiasm and respect. Singing our national anthem in a stylistic and ego-centric manner is insulting to true Americans and patriots. Or have we forgotten about that?
Superbowl Sunday Date: Feb.2 2014 08:22:07 -0500 From a Marine Corps Colonel in Afghanistan:
"So with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten - straight up, no styling. "Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don't make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love - not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from your costume, makeup and your entourage. Sing 'The Star Spangled Banner' with the courtesy and humility that tells the audience that it is about America, not you. And please remember, not everything has to be sung as a Negro spiritual. We're getting a little weary of that. Francis Scott Key does not need any help." Semper Fi !
Monday, January 27, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Abortion
This issue is so charged with emotion that objectivity seems impossible. Polarity is so strong that a middle-of-the-road position can't be found. Arguments incorporate religious, social, political, feminist, legal, and medical beliefs. Ignorance plays a key role in preventing understanding and prohibiting compromise. No one is interested in trying to understand the opposite position, let alone accept even portions of it. For the moment, let's forget exceptional cases such as rape, fetal viability, medical issues, etc., which deserve separate contemplative treatment on their own merits.
Women argue, largely successfully, that they have a right to determine what happens in and to their bodies. This includes terminating an unwanted pregnancy, using a variety of abortive measures. Largely forgotten, is the other half of the relationship that created the pregnancy. Since the pregnancy exists in the female body, she claims sole right to retain it or dispose of it according to her own whim. Also at issue is whether the fetus is a legal person, entitled to life, or a vegetative growth that can be excised at will. Essentially, is the fetus a person or an inanimate, growing tumor? The huge question is "When does life begin?"
Since it takes both a male and female to create a pregnancy, perhaps it should take the permission of both to terminate it. After all, paternity usually determines the person responsible for financial support of the maternal side.
I recently heard a discussion of abortion where proponents associated pro-life positions with prejudice against women. Pro-abortionists used a technique of making the opposition feel ashamed of who they were. The concept of destroying a fetus, which could be defined as a "person," was relegated to a subordinate level and the "rights" of women elevated to the highest level. I couldn't help but wonder if, in 50 years or so, a mother would be permitted to "terminate" a three year old child who becomes a drag on career and social freedom. The concept playing out was sacrificing the weak in favor of the convenience of the strong.
If abortions are deemed socially acceptable and legal, why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay the bill? Abortion, like impregnation, is an individual choice that shouldn't require society to rectify. I can certainly support the concept that the father should both agree and be held financially liable for one-half of the cost of an abortion. I find it strange that we tend to support aborting a "non-person" but are abhorred at the thought of using the result for stem cell research.
I happen to believe that, at the very moment of conception, a person endowed with an eternal soul is created; that "life" begins at the moment of conception. Given that belief, I cannot accept abortion as any form of medical or social solution. (Case in point: Beethoven.) I object vehemently, however, to taxpayers paying for abortion for any reason. I submit as well that a pregnant woman does not have the right to unilaterally opt for abortion. These are my private beliefs and ones that I cannot expect others to share. I can't help but wonder what contributions to mankind so many aborted fetuses might have made.
Women argue, largely successfully, that they have a right to determine what happens in and to their bodies. This includes terminating an unwanted pregnancy, using a variety of abortive measures. Largely forgotten, is the other half of the relationship that created the pregnancy. Since the pregnancy exists in the female body, she claims sole right to retain it or dispose of it according to her own whim. Also at issue is whether the fetus is a legal person, entitled to life, or a vegetative growth that can be excised at will. Essentially, is the fetus a person or an inanimate, growing tumor? The huge question is "When does life begin?"
Since it takes both a male and female to create a pregnancy, perhaps it should take the permission of both to terminate it. After all, paternity usually determines the person responsible for financial support of the maternal side.
I recently heard a discussion of abortion where proponents associated pro-life positions with prejudice against women. Pro-abortionists used a technique of making the opposition feel ashamed of who they were. The concept of destroying a fetus, which could be defined as a "person," was relegated to a subordinate level and the "rights" of women elevated to the highest level. I couldn't help but wonder if, in 50 years or so, a mother would be permitted to "terminate" a three year old child who becomes a drag on career and social freedom. The concept playing out was sacrificing the weak in favor of the convenience of the strong.
If abortions are deemed socially acceptable and legal, why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay the bill? Abortion, like impregnation, is an individual choice that shouldn't require society to rectify. I can certainly support the concept that the father should both agree and be held financially liable for one-half of the cost of an abortion. I find it strange that we tend to support aborting a "non-person" but are abhorred at the thought of using the result for stem cell research.
I happen to believe that, at the very moment of conception, a person endowed with an eternal soul is created; that "life" begins at the moment of conception. Given that belief, I cannot accept abortion as any form of medical or social solution. (Case in point: Beethoven.) I object vehemently, however, to taxpayers paying for abortion for any reason. I submit as well that a pregnant woman does not have the right to unilaterally opt for abortion. These are my private beliefs and ones that I cannot expect others to share. I can't help but wonder what contributions to mankind so many aborted fetuses might have made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)