The Crystal Ball

Peg Luksik

Once upon a time there was a young man and a young woman.

The young man's life was controlled by a step-father who made decisions for him based on a fear of a predicted future evil. Each decision about the young man's growth and education and development was made through the lens of "limiting evil" that tomorrow might bring. The father made choices for his son that he knew were wrong, accepting and even selecting a "lesser evil" to avoid what he was afraid would be greater one later on.

As it turned out, his judgments about weighing greater and lesser evils were less than accurate, and he got the greater evil that he had most feared. We know his son. His name is Oedipus Rex.

The young woman was raised by a father who made decisions for her based on a trust in the providence of a loving God. Each decision about the young woman's growth and education and development was made through the lens of selecting righteousness.

This story has a different ending. Freed from the burden of judging between evils, this father opened himself and his daughter up to the blessings that flow from the righteousness he chose. We know his daughter, too. Her name is Saint Therese of Lisieux.

In every decision in our own lives, we have the chance to choose between these two philosophies. In most cases, the choice is simple and the results immediate.

But in the case of politics, the difference between thee two choices can seem less clear. We hear that candidate A is the lesser of the evils. We hear that a candidate presenting a clear moral option can't win, so we are wasting a vote.

In one U.S. Senate election in the early 1990's, two avidly pro-abortion candidates squared off. A third gentleman entered the race with a minor party, with the stated intention of giving those voters who desired to vote for righteousness an opportunity to do so. The third gentleman spent no money, and made no pretense that his candidacy was anything other than a place for a conscience vote.

The first of the two pro-abortion candidates appealed to the pro-life community as the lesser of the two evils confronting them. Many pro-lifers accepted that argument, and cast their vote for that first candidate, accepting and even selecting a "lesser evil" to avoid what they were afraid would be a greater one later on.

Others decided that voting for evil, greater or lesser, was not an option.

They voted for righteousness, even knowing that their candidate would not get victory.

By the narrowest of margins, the candidate who self-described as the lesser evil won the election. The pro-life community members who supported him publicly claimed credit for his victory.

Within two years of that election, Congress had changed hands and the "lesser-evil" candidate became a senior member of the majority party and a powerful committee chairman, who thwarted every piece of pro-life legislation that came before him. His opponent would have been a freshman office-holder in the minority party, with no real authority to direct or destroy legislation.

The predictions about the relative amount of evil that the two candidates represented were wrong, just like the predictions of Oedipus's step-father. Those who supported him wound up with the result they most feared.

Consider this. If the pro-life community members who claimed credit for the victory margin of that first candidate had instead voted for the candidate of righteousness, the results of the election would have changed. The winner would have been the candidate who had less ability to do harm - or the real lesser evil.

In the end, there really are only two options; choosing evil, for whatever reason and in whatever amount; and choosing righteousness. Choosing evil to limit evil is STILL choosing evil, and the results will reflect that direction. Only choosing righteousness opens the doors to God's blessing - and only God's blessing can truly limit evil.

TOP

TV or Not TV: That Is the Question

E. Michael Jones, PhD

I play the mandolin weekly at an Irish pub in South Bend, Indiana. Or at least I try to play the mandolin. The one thing I find that keeps me from playing, even more than my innate lack of musical talent, is TV.

No, I don't stay home and watch TV, because I don't have one. In 37 years of marriage, we had a TV just once, for the three years we lived in Germany, because it came with our rented, furnished apartment. No, it is the TV in the bar that keeps me from playing. From where I usually sit, a TV screen stares me in the face. There is no sound, so there is no content to occupy my mind. Just images, for the most part either baseball or football games. My eyes are drawn to the ever-changing images and eventually they glaze over and my playing slows down and then stops.

I suspect that we are physiologically incapable of ignoring something that's moving. If it's peripheral, our eyes want to make it the center of attention because, at some point way back, there was always a danger that that thing in our peripheral vision might end up eating us. It has happened in other situations as well-in fact, in both life and death situations. When my wife was giving birth to one of our five children, I found that I could not focus, not even on that momentous event, if a TV were playing the room. Hospital rooms, in case you haven't seen one in the last half century, are places where sick people watch television.

The same thing applies to the other end of human life. When Sam Shapiro was in the hospital dying I visited him on a regular basis. During one visit, I told him that when death was a distinct possibility we needed to focus on the four last things. "What are they?" he asked. "Death, judgment, heaven, and hell," I replied. The words were barely out of my mouth when Sam Said, "Look at that."

He then pointed to the TV, which showed a man actually dying by falling out of a hot air balloon. I was immediately sucked into the drama on the screen, and that ended our discussion of what turned out to be Sam's imminent death by looking vicariously at the image of the death of someone neither of us knew.

I mentioned all this because it provides the basis for my assertion that TV is a form of control. The fact that we as human beings find it almost impossible to ignore peripheral motion without making it the center of our attention explains television's control over our minds. This allows TV to become the most effective form of political control known to man.

I say "political control" because we have just gone through another election season, whose outcome - like virtually all campaigns - is determined largely by who spends more money on TV commercials.

Television is the ultimate narcissistic medium. The viewer is given the illusion that he has power while becoming more isolated and progressively more impotent. He can't ask candidates any questions. The only power he has is to change the channel and listen to another paid political advertisement.

Television controls the political process in a number of ways. Candidates who run out of money for TV ads do not often win. This means that any candidate who runs for office must raise exorbitant amounts of money, which he shovels like saw dust into the blast furnace known as the local TV station. Needless to say, some people make lots of money from this system. They, in turn, take that money and give it to the candidates who promise to do their bidding, who in turn give it back to the TV stations to get elected.

And who controls television? It's no secret that TV is controlled by anti-Christian forces. Television is not entertainment; it is a form of control. This is especially true of cable TV, which adds pornography to the mix of programming guaranteed to turn people into addicted and passive zombies.

There is, however, a very simple solution to this problem. Remove the television from your home. You will notice an immediate increase in your quality of life and the attention span of your children, even if you are the only one who does it. If enough people follow your example, the entire system of thought control will collapse and be replaced by the system of ordered liberty which the founding fathers intended from the beginning, where politicians were accountable to the people who voted for them rather than those who paid for their TV commercials.

TOP

The Road to Hell Is Paved with... Exceptions!

Patrick Delaney, M.A., M.Div

Before it was defeated in the South Dakota State Senate recently, some groups and individuals were providing an argument for supporting HR 1293 which seeks to "ban" abortion while explicitly permitting abortion by way of exception.

This approach cannot achieve its stated end and makes a strategic mistake that ends up being counterproductive.

One exception in the law surrenders the only principle that can prevent the full legalization of abortion on demand: the personhood of every human being from fertilization. This "pro-life" bill that was in question was premised on the non-personhood of the preborn and the civil government's claim that they have the authority to deprive innocent human beings of their God-given right to life. In this sense, this bill not only surrenders these children, but the entire body of natural moral law in general-in favor of moral relativism (i.e., "choice") which, as John Paul II states in Centesimus Annus, will always lead to thinly disguised totalitarianism" (46).

In other words, again, as stated by JPII: "Even though intentions may sometimes be good, and circumstances frequently difficult, civil authorities and particular individuals never have authority to violate the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence" (JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 97).

Trying to end abortion while permitting exceptions is folly. Establishing exceptions in the law, affirming the non-personhood of the preborn, can never lead our country to recognize the personhood of the preborn (again, the only principle that can prevent the full legalization of preborn child killing). In fact, the very opposite is true… this strategy inevitably leads to abortion on demand. As confirmed by Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International in his research:

"In every one of the 56 countries that now have abortion on demand, the first step the pro-abortion forces took was intense lobbying for abortion in the so-called 'hard cases'-the mother's life and health, fetal deformity (eugenics) and / or rape and incest…Once the pro-abortionists secure abortion for any of the 'hard cases,' they point out the 'inconsistency' in the laws in order to justify abortion on demand" (Clowes, Facts of Life, 1997 ed.179, emphasis in original text).

Doubt it? Check out this recent story from Catholic World News: UN presses Colombia on abortion access. Since Colombia allowed abortion by way of exception last year, it is now a discrimination issue in that country. After all, if abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, etc., why can't women in other circumstances obtain them as well? How long will it be before the pro-aborts achieve fully legalized abortion in Colombia, now that they have established the non-personhood of the preborn and vanquished the simple natural moral law?

Pro-aborts never compromise their lies. Why should we ever compromise God's natural moral truth? Not only should we not pursue such a course (for it is counterproductive), but we may not pursue such a course for it is immoral. The exceptions strategy can never get us any closer to ending abortion. A solid reason comes from the abortionists themselves who admit that they could exploit the smallest exceptions loophole to perform any abortion they want. Brian Clowes shows how abortionists can legally "interpret any loophole-even a 'life-of-the-mother' exception-to mean abortion-on-demand" (Clowes,Facts of Life, 1997 ed.181).

I would encourage all the legislators in SD to support and pass the same bill as last year, and let the next battle continue. Conforming your legislation to God's natural moral law will also bring about the dynamic of grace: for when the truth is spoken and defended, grace is imparted to listeners and can transform hearts. This is not possible with falsehoods.

Before the pro-life movement can save the lives of the children, we must first save the simple Truth-God's simple natural moral law which is binding on all rational human beings, and which even a 5 year old child can understand in its most basic form. This is not some "high pinnacle of perfection," but the most basic requirement of a civil society.

TOP