On February 14, 2018, Americans were sickened and saddened again to learn of another school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. There was another senseless act of violence leading to the deaths of seventeen people and at least fourteen more wounded. Our hearts are heavy with grief for the families impacted by the cowardly acts of a demented teenager responsible for the murders, injuries and heartaches.
It wasn’t long before the age old debates about gun control surfaced. Law enforcement officers were busy trying to discover what was wrong with the shooter, Nikolas Cruz, and how similar occurrences could be stopped in the future. There were lengthy news conferences and interviews with those that had survived the attack. As time progressed it was revealed how the F. B. I. had failed in preventing the attack, how school security officers failed to act during the attack, and how the sheriff handled the events following the attack. It seemed to be everybody’s fault – except the shooter, Nikolas Cruz.
Immediately, the liberal politicians and media blamed the National Rifle Association, and the emotions and irrationality began to flow. For example, as Senator Marco Rubio was present to address questions and concerns at a town hall meeting one young man stood up and said, “Senator Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down the barrel on an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz …”
Just exactly what is that supposed to mean? Because Senator Rubio supports the Second Amendment, looking at him is the same as looking down an AR-15 or looking at the murderer, Nikolas Cruz? From what does this absurdity derive? This student was obviously speaking from a purely emotional (and I’d add irrational) thought process that is neither logical nor sensible.
So … what has happened to common sense? What happened to the exercise and challenge of discussion and careful reasoning in finding solutions to problems? Why is there so much opinion, emotionalism and subjective reasoning? Kurt Andersen noted a major concern with the debates and problems confronting our nation. “What’s problematic is going overboard – letting the subjective entirely override the objective; thinking and acting as if opinions and feelings are just as true as facts.” Daniel Moynihan accurately noted, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Opinions and feelings are subjective, fleeting, personal and changing while facts are objective, based on truth, consistent and unchanging. A major obstacle to holding serious discussion to address problems is the idea that “You have the freedom of speech … as long as you agree with me.”
Until there is a return to objective truth and rational thinking, the blame shifting, name calling and verbal assaults will continue, and no reasonable and workable solution will be attained.
The lack of consistency and logic is the same in the pro-abortion realm. There is no sound reasoning or truth to the arguments used to defend the murder of babies, but only opinions and feelings that are subjective, fleeting, personal and changing. If the arguments and logic are valid, such arguments should be consistent and used in similar circumstances.
There is an interesting article titled, “Why we should legalize murder for hire.” Look for the parallels between this article and the pro-abortion logic. Author Betsy Childs wrote:
“I’ll be the first to admit it; hit men are shady. But they are shady because they are doing work that no one else wants to do, work that is, in fact, illegal. By labeling contract killing a ‘crime,’ we have obscured the fact that hit men provide a valuable service to society. Many women find themselves trapped in unwanted marriages. Matrimony severely curtails a woman’s freedom, and husbands can be unreasonably demanding. A woman in such a situation is vulnerable. She sees only one way out, and so she makes the difficult decision to kill her husband. But the inconvenient truth is that a woman hiring a hit on her husband will likely have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, with no guarantee that the kill will actually take place. Legalizing the transaction would remove uncertainty. Hired guns could be vetted, trained, and held to professional standards of safety. No one wants a hit to go bad. Removing the threat of prosecution would drastically lower the cost of contract killings. Legalizing murder for hire would bring a sordid industry into the light. While divorce may be an attractive alternative to murder for hire in most cases, some women do not have the emotional and financial resources to go through a divorce. A contested divorce can take more than a year to resolve. After attorneys drain the couple’s finances, the woman will be left with little money to get on with her life. Additionally, a discrete and well-timed hit protects a husband from the pain of discovering that he is no longer wanted. A truly skilled assassin can take his target painlessly in an instant, without any suffering. The end of a marriage can potentially ruin a woman’s life, but if her husband can be taken out quickly and cleanly, it can be a new beginning for her. Murder for hire is an uncomfortable subject, and I personally could never order a hit. The better course is to avoid unwanted marriage in the first place. Yet this is not a decision that anyone else can make for a woman. It is her marriage; only she can decide when it must end. I realize readers may be hesitant to endorse this proposal, but stop to consider the profound way that the legalization of abortion has taken away the stigma against a woman who wants to kill her child. Abortion was once considered murder and thus could only be obtained secretly and at great risk to women. Now, our country celebrates women who exercise their choice to kill their family members. Why shouldn’t we extend this right, and give women the choice to kill their partners?”
Obviously, the writer is simply utilizing the arguments and logic used by the pro-abortionists and transferring it to husbands, and it is so absurd it becomes either diabolical or laughable. Yet this is the godless reasoning and logic used to influence our culture – with tremendous success!
It is imperative that we respond with objective, unchanging Truth. We must remain faithful in sharing the Gospel, taking the message that can bring people to the Light of the world, Jesus Christ our Lord. It is also imperative that we use the Truth of God’s Word against the foolishness, irrationality, subjectivity and emotional manipulation that is accepted as fact. The Bible addresses the issues of our day. God has not left us without Truth and answers that will work – if we only listen and obey!
Devotional submitted by:
Pastor Richard C. Rogers
Calvary Baptist Church of Sturtevant
President of the Board, Baptists for Life of WI