Out of the Box

Out of the Box: Currently The Most Popular Cliché Among Evangelical Christians.

If they aren’t taking God OUT OF THE BOX in which they have allegedly kept Him, they are thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX or are involved in an OUT OF THE BOX ministry.

It would be nice if more Evangelicals would demonstrate better OUTSIDE THE BOX thinking by refusing to jump on the bandwagon and stop using this particular cliché.

Jury Duty

Jeromy Jackson of Morgantown, West Virginia, is suing McDonalds for $10,000,000.

Here’s the short version: On their way home to watch a movie, Jeromy, his mother Trela and friend Andrew Ellifritz stopped at a McDonalds drive-thru for a quick bite to eat. When ordering their meals through the drive-thru speaker, Jeromy allegedly informed the order-taker that he DID NOT want cheese on his burgers because he is allergic to cheese. According to his lawyer, Jeromy also told at least two other workers “face to face” that he couldn’t have cheese because of allergies.

Assuming he had done enough to protect his own life, Jeromy and company drove home, entered a darkened room where they planned to watch a movie, and without inspection tore into the meal.

Almost immediately Jeromy started to have allergic reactions because there was, in fact, cheese on his burgers. He was rushed to the hospital and “was only moments from death or serious injury by the time he reached the hospital.”

Jeromy’s lawyer, Timothy Houston, said, “By my count, he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it. And it did [have cheese] and almost cost him his life.” Therefore, the trio, deserve $10,000,000: Jeromy for almost dying and the other two for risking their lives rushing him to the hospital.

If I’m on the jury, I’m probably getting dismissed at this point, because I would likely start muttering to myself or out loud: “Maybe he took at least five independent steps to make sure that thing had no cheese on it, but what about the sixth and MOST IMPORTANT step?” Why didn’t he look at the thing just to make sure it didn’t have cheese?

Doesn’t it make more sense that if he is deathly allergic to cheese that he would inspect his sandwich BEFORE eating it? And if he didn’t, wouldn’t that be reckless behavior?

At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. If McDonalds had advertised “hypo-allergenic hamburgers” and then hid the cheese in the burger, that would be one thing. But that isn’t what is being alleged. That McDonalds mistakenly gave the man a cheeseburger is what is being alleged.

McDonalds pushes out lots of burgers everyday (many of them cheeseburgers); and the chance that a cheeseburger may be put into the wrong wrapper or the wrong bag is, it seems to me, fairly high. For a deathly allergic person to eat at McDonalds seems risky to me, but for that same person to not check his food before eating is without question, highly risky behavior.

According to Jeromy’s lawyer, McDonalds offered to pay half, then all of Jeromy’s $700 medical expenses, but the trio was not interested in that offer and McDonalds wasn’t offering anything more than the medical expenses. That being the case, apparently the only resolution is $10,000,000. If I’m on the jury, Jeromy would regret the decision to reject McDonalds’ initial offer.

However, my prediction is that one of two things will happen: First and most likely, due to the high cost of defending themselves in a trial, McDonalds will settle out of court for a million or so. We probably will not find out due to secrecy agreements. Or, the jury will award a ridiculous amount to the plaintiff rewarding him for his reckless behavior. This seems to be the pattern of juries these days.

To read the whole story (without my commentary) see here.

The New Generation

“We live in a generation now where dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes.”

Leane Reyes, 16, a senior at Fresno (CA) High School explained why Cinthia Covarrubias has her vote for prom king.

A girl is being selected as prom king? Possibly. In an effort to avoid litigation, the school’s lawyers recommended that the administrators of Fresno High School reverse their decision to allow Cinthia to be considered only for prom queen and not king. They did. And she is now in the running for prom king.

Is this representative of what we have to look forward to from the new generation?

The whole story is here.

The ’08 Presidential Candidates Speak

The United States Supreme Court just upheld the law commonly known as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the major 2008 presidential candidates have all offered their reaction to the court’s decision.

However, before I let them speak for themselves, I think it is appropriate to give some background to the “partial birth abortion” procedure.

For the purpose of the law to ban partial birth abortion, the US Congress defined a partial birth abortion as,

“An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)” [Emphasis added]

Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive entry titled “Intact Dilation and Extraction,” (a.k.a. partial birth abortion and PBA) that outlines the historical, medical and legal background of this controversial procedure. Additionally, Wikipedia’s entry, Partial-Birth Abortion Act Ban, provides a good summary of the issues that surround the law itself.

The National Right To Life organization offers a series of slides that provide a visual overview of the PBA procedure. This set of 5 black and white illustrations are fairly simple, but give an objective representation of what happens when a mother chooses to abort her late term baby. WARNING: Though the slides are simple and without sensationalism, they may be very disturbing and probably very enlightening to most people.

Other links that I think offer helpful insight to the PBA procedure are:
The Naitonal Right to Life
Priests for Life

Now that you have had a chance to be informed about the PBA procedure, I offer the presidential hopeful’s thoughts about the US Supreme court’s decision to uphold the ban on PBA.

John Edwards
John Edwards for President

Apr 18, 2007

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.

I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman’s right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]

Rudy Giuliani

“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. “I agree with it.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]

Hillary Clinton
From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court’s Gonzales v. Carhart Decision

4/18/2007

Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.” [Emphasis added]

[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we’re talking about a live baby that has it’s head all the way outside the mother’s body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of it’s body save it’s head outside the mother’s body. ]

Sam Brownback

“I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]

Barak Obama

I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.” [Emphasis added]

[Please allow me a few questions Mr. Obama: Would it matter to you if the baby was “aborted” one hour after full delivery? Would it matter to you if a mother and father agreed to kill their 2-year old daughter because she was terribly inconvenient to their desired lifestyle, or because they realized they can’t love her the way a child deserves to be loved? Should the government interfere in the very personal decisions between parents? What if they asked a doctor to be involved? Should the presence of a doctor prevent the government’s interference in the very personal decisions between a doctor and patients. I wonder why I don’t ever hear about equal rights for the most vulnerable among us. ]

Tom Tancredo
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions

4/17/2007 Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898

(Washington, D.C.) Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.

Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.

This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]

Mitt Romney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

“Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.” [Emphasis added]

John McCain

For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007 Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550

“Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:” Statement By Senator McCain

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.” [Emphasis added]

In reality, I don’t think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term enutero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA “seems” more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother’s body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.

What Would You Think If . . .

What would you think if you received a note from your pastor with the following “prayer”?

Our Father, who art in Lawrence,
Hallowed be thy Game.
Thy bracket come.
Thy upset will be done, In Syracuse
as it is in Allen Field House.
Give us this day our deserved game.
And forgive us our turnovers,
As we forgive Roy who double-crossed
against us.
And lead us not into defeat,
But deliver us from East Coast bias,
For Kansas is the basketball kingdom,
And the tradition,
And the glory,
Forever and ever,
Amen

Thankfully, my pastor didn’t send this out, but I did receive it from somebody’s pastor.

My initial thought was of the Old Testament story of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-2 NKJV):

Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them to do. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

I realize it is “that time of year” when Americans are swept up in the excitement of the NCAA basketball tournament. In fact, there might not be a more exciting season of sport than that of the “Final Four.” However, “prayers” such as the one above offered by a pastor and Kansas Jayhawk fan seem to go beyond propriety, at least, in my mind.

I doubt very much if said pastor would really pray such a prayer, and I assume he was just having fun when he sent this one. But, is the pattern of prayer that Jesus offered the disciples something we should have fun with?

I think Leviticus 10:3 answers my question:

And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying:‘By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.”