I'm decidedly against abortion, to clarify.
However, I don't think our government should be legislating morality. It doesn't work. I've reached a point where I'm pro-life, but not anti Roe vs Wade.
Does that make sense?
The fight to stop abortion cannot be won on a legal level. The main problem with abortion is decidedly an ethical decision, and ethical decisions are based on worldview questions, which the government should remain silent on.
When we, as the church, try to fight abortion on a legal level, we too often give up on the personal level. People can make ethical decisions, people can choose to abide by morality, a government cannnot.
And that is where I think it is flawed to try to overturn Roe vs Wade. The consequences would be radically different than most evangelical churches would like to admit - it wouldnt end abortion, just put it in the states hands. As evidenced by the massive amount of people who flocked to California for a legal gay marriage, people would still just go where abortions would be legal - in the majority of more liberal states.
And that's only the people who would attempt to abide by the law; that doesnt include those who would simply have illegal abortions.
So... I think it would be unwise to overturn Roe vs Wade. I would argue that you shouldn't allow it to be expanded - Partial Birth abortions should be outlawed.
My basic understanding is that overturning the law would not fix the problem. It would compound it. The solution is not the law - the solution is the effect that the church has in people's lives. If the church has so little effect on their members lives that they cannot stop their members from having sex willy nilly and abortions to cover it up, then how can we think the government can stop it?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Rambo Review
Rambo is unapologetically a man's movie. At one point, Rambo singlehandedly destroys an army. How do you top that?
Stallone is back as John Rambo, the haunted vietnam vet. He is living just south of Burma, selling snakes to make a living. When some missionaries want to go into the warzone that is Burma, he reluctantly takes them. When their mission goes awry, he leads a band of mercenaries to rescue them. The plot is that simple.
Stallone does a great job of acting; Rambo is clearly weary of the world. He is waiting to die. When he finally has something to live for, it's a sight to behold.
The film is outright brutal - from its cringe inducing first scene. People are killed onscreen in crazy ways, and Rambo just ups the violence to ultra realistic levels.
So what do I think? I think Rambo is an interesting movie. It shows the horror that is war as realistically as Saving Private Ryan did. Unfortunately, the other theme that comes across is the futility of hope. It is implied that hope could never save Burma - only a man willing to kill hundreds of people in a bloodbath could stop killing. And that's the problem - killing leads to more killing, which in turn leads to more. If Rambo didn't have a missionary killing someone in the end to save himself, I could have recommended it as a man's movie. Now it's a man's movie that tries to show a worldview that only ends in death.
Stallone is back as John Rambo, the haunted vietnam vet. He is living just south of Burma, selling snakes to make a living. When some missionaries want to go into the warzone that is Burma, he reluctantly takes them. When their mission goes awry, he leads a band of mercenaries to rescue them. The plot is that simple.
Stallone does a great job of acting; Rambo is clearly weary of the world. He is waiting to die. When he finally has something to live for, it's a sight to behold.
The film is outright brutal - from its cringe inducing first scene. People are killed onscreen in crazy ways, and Rambo just ups the violence to ultra realistic levels.
So what do I think? I think Rambo is an interesting movie. It shows the horror that is war as realistically as Saving Private Ryan did. Unfortunately, the other theme that comes across is the futility of hope. It is implied that hope could never save Burma - only a man willing to kill hundreds of people in a bloodbath could stop killing. And that's the problem - killing leads to more killing, which in turn leads to more. If Rambo didn't have a missionary killing someone in the end to save himself, I could have recommended it as a man's movie. Now it's a man's movie that tries to show a worldview that only ends in death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)