I just got an e-mail from the Center for Bioethical Reform, and they provided two interesting facts about abortion in the United States:

-Did you know that since 1973, more than twice as many blacks have died from abortion than from heart disease, cancer, accidents, violent crimes and AIDS combined?

-Did you know that Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population in the United States but account for 37 percent of the abortions?

Bret Stephens answers this question in the Wall Street Journal:

Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification.

Randy Alcorn posted a great piece on his blog, Eternal Perspectives, the other day. It deals with same sex marriage and the reasons we should oppose it.

A few excerpts:

…Marriage has been the societal building block for millennia; it has developed as the method by which cultures pass on, from generation to generation, who and what they are. Since cultures are made up of men, women and children, to effectively pass on cultural values the family should reflect the cultural makeup of one man, one woman (an equal number), and their natural children where possible.

…”Homophobia” and discrimination have nothing to do with opposition to same-sex marriage. Opposition to it is not an attack on homosexuality or homosexuals; it is simply the belief that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, based on practical cultural and social reasons as the list above makes clear.

Also, “discrimination” necessarily involves infringement of a basic human right. A marriage license is not a basic human right. It is a privilege which has always required the government’s permission, as do many other parts of life, such as getting a driver’s license or a business license (to sell food, for example). Just as the ability to freely move about on roads and the ability to pursue the occupation of one’s choice both require certain preconditions, so it must be true of marriage. One of those preconditions for the granting of this privilege (in addition to age and health based considerations) is that the participants must be one man and one woman, for all the reasons listed in Bill’s talking points.

I understand John Piper is a fairly well-known pastor. I’ve not personally heard any of his sermons, but I’ve met several bloggers who like him. The following commentary on his blog is weird, though, to say the least.

What do the supreme court ruling on guns and the martyrdom of missionaries have to do with each other?

Noël and I watched Beyond Gates of Splendor, the documentary version of End of the Spear, the story of the martyrdom of Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, and Nate Saint in Ecuador in 1956. That same day we heard that the Supreme Court decided in favor of the right of Americans to keep firearms at home for self-defense.

Here’s the connection. The missionaries had guns when they were speared to death. One of them shot the gun into the air, it appears, as he was killed, rather than shooting the natives. They had agreed to do this. The reason was simple and staggeringly Christlike:

The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.

I suspect the same could be said for almost anyone who breaks into my house. There are other reasons why I have never owned a firearm and do not have one in my house. But that reason moves me deeply. I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun. Better to find some missionaries like this and support them.

I don’t want to be harsh, but can I point out that there is a difference between shooting the people who own the land on which you are trespassing (basically what the missionaries were doing, right?) and shooting people who break into your home? Don’t get me wrong. I totally support the missionaries, and I admire them for choosing to die rather than defend themselves. There is a big difference, however, in the duties of a missionary and the duties of a father or husband.

Now, I don’t own a gun, either, but I don’t have a problem with people using guns to protect themselves. In fact, I think we are duty-bound to defend our families. Exodus 22:2 says, “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

On this passage, Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe quotes Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, who says:

Here the Torah teaches you: If someone comes to kill you, kill him first. And this one [the thief] has come to kill you, because he knows that a person will not hold himself back and remain silent when he sees people taking his money. Therefore, he [the thief] has come with the acknowledgement that if the owner of the property were to stand up against him, he [thief] would kill him [the owner]. - [From Talmud Sanhedrin. 72a]“.

Jesus did not prohibit us from owning weapons, either. In Luke 22:36 he said, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Now, I know that these instructions were given so that a prophecy could be fulfilled, but that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus told them to buy swords. The point was so that Jesus would be numbered among the lawless, but if owning a sword (which is used solely for killing) is a sin, then Jesus told his disciples to commit sin.

My first responsibility is to my family. If a non-Christian threatens my family, therefore, my response is as protector of my family, not as an evangelist.

Hat tip to Shane

Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent piece the other day. It’s definitely something to think about.

If anyone suggested that Tiger Woods should try to be more like other golfers, people would question the sanity of whoever made that suggestion.

Why should Tiger Woods try to be more like Phil Mickelson? If Tiger turned around and tried to golf left-handed, like Mickelson, he probably wouldn’t be as good as Mickelson, much less as good as he is golfing the way he does right-handed.

Yet there are those who think that the United States should follow policies more like those in Europe, often with no stronger reason than the fact that Europeans follow such policies. For some Americans, it is considered chic to be like Europeans.

Some people are going to laugh at me, but I am going to confess, anyway. I watch Star Trek: Voyager here in Japan. I’ve never been a Trekkie, but I did enjoy the original series when I was a kid. There’s not a terribly big selection of American shows here in Japan, so I watch some shows here I wouldn’t normally watch if I was in the US. Voyager is one of them.

If I had to describe it, I’d say it’s Star Trek for women. The captain is a woman, and the stories tend to have some kind of emotion-exploring theme (the episode where the captain fell in love with a hologram was particularly laughable). It’s quite silly, but I can sit through it, unlike shows like Charmed or LAX.

Anyway, the other day they were doing an anti-death penalty episode. There were some violent murderers on their way to execution, and their ship got damaged or something, so Voyager took the crew and prisoners aboard. Many among Voyager’s crew expressed misgivings about delivering the murderers to the executioner.

At one point, the doctor (who happens to be a hologram–I’ll never understand how he’s able to pick up physical objects, by the way) says, “Killing is wrong. No matter who’s doing it.” I just had to laugh, because Voyager routinely fires on hostile ships. Are we really to believe that no one ever dies as a result of that? Does the doctor really believe that it is wrong to kill in self-defense? I wonder if he would object to a security officer killing a hostage taker. Once we admit that there are cases where the state (or governing authority) is permitted to kill, we have to debate when killing is justified. It is no longer possible to say that it is always wrong.

To be truly consistent, abolitionists who argue that it is always wrong to kill must also object to killing in self-defense and killing aggressors to save the lives of victims. That’s just silly, though, because this world ain’t perfect, and some people just needs killin’.

I usually agree with Joseph Farah, but I think he needs to take a deep breath and honestly assess the gun control situation in Japan. Here’s an excerpt:

A 25-year-old Tokyo man, describing himself as “tired of living,” yesterday killed seven and injured 12 more people…Japan has among the very strictest gun control laws in the world. And that is precisely why one disturbed young man with a truck and a knife could wreak such carnage in a bustling neighborhood.

Tomohiro Kato drive his truck into a crowd of pedestrians shortly after noon, then jumped out of his vehicle and began stabbing any strangers he could reach.

…People who believe gun control will result in less violence should be forced to live in societies where only criminals have guns – or where, like in Japan, police have broad search-and-seizure latitude to hunt down any illicit weapons.

…There are really only two alternatives to a free society that respects the right of armed self-defense: One is chaos and anarchy and the other is a repressive police state like the people of Japan live under.

…We can learn from Japan, all right.

The lesson to be learned is not to repeat the mistakes that country has made on guns – trading freedom for safety and getting neither.

I agree with his logic as it pertains to the situation in the United States, but not in Japan. Handgun ownership has never been legal in Japan. People here in Japan don’t need guns to defend themselves, because criminals do not have guns. If there has been a trade-off between freedom and safety, I’d say Japan has definitely ended up with greater safety. Does anyone want to compare violent crime rates between the US and Japan? When was the last time there was a school shooting in Japan? Does Mr. Farah think that Japan should legalize guns so that they can prevent the rare incident like the above from happening and instead have to deal with random shootings like in the US?

There’s no way to get rid of handguns in the US without jeopardizing the rights of law-abiding citizens. I’d never support that in the US, but there’s no good reason for Japan to legalize guns. It is a safer country without guns. Any country is going to be safer without guns. You can’t argue otherwise. It just makes no logical sense that having wide availability of weapons that can kill several people all at once and from a distance can create a better situation.

And where does he get the idea that Japan is a “repressive police state?” I’ve lived here for seven years now, and I don’t feel repressed. I’ve never been searched for weapons, either. This is a poorly researched and poorly put together article. I’m surprised to see Mr. Farah’s name on it.

If Obama loses to McCain in the fall, the mainstream media is going to be saying we “were not ready for a black president.” They’ll say this despite the fact that the population is pretty much split 50/50 Republican and Democrat.

…is the elitists in the global warming scaremongering movement that tell us that we have to make sacrifices or the world is going to end. Rich people like Al Gore and Sting who say that there is a crisis going on and that we have to change the way we live or the earth itself is going to wither up and die. I’ll believe there is a crisis when these hypocrites actually make sacrifices themselves. Why is it that the self-professed leaders of this so-called “Save the Earth” movement don’t have to make any sacrifices but we plebians do? If they really believe we’re going to destroy the earth, they better start acting like it. It seems these people want some kind of Communist world where the masses live in poverty while the elite live in extravagance.