A new report out today from Smart Growth America, which surveyed 17 studies of compact and sprawling development scenarios across the country, sizes up the scale of the impact this way: Compact development costs, on average, 38 percent less in up-front infrastructure than “conventional suburban development” for things like roads, sewers and water lines. It costs 10 percent less in ongoing service delivery by reducing the distances law enforcement or garbage trucks must travel to serve residents (well-connected street grids cut down on this travel time, too). And compact development produces on average about 10 times more tax revenue per acre.

Due to its sprawling layout, suburbia demands a greater investment in certain infrastructure elements, as sewer lines, water lines, and roads have to be run much farther. In a time of fiscal crisis for many cities and counties across the nation, these are very relevant numbers.

I’m not arguing that everyone should live in large buildings in cities, but it is important to consider the public costs of each type of city development. And as an individual, you should consider whether or not you want to contribute to the cost and lifestyle of sprawling development.

I would suggest that many people who currently live in large houses with big yards in suburban sprawl do not actually need all of that square footage and barely use their large yards. More people should consider whether they might be happier in smaller places closer to shopping and work, where they would not need to spend as much time in their cars. Unfortunately, the last many decades of development have told people that they have two choices: city slums (and miniscule flats) or a big house with a big yard in a cul-de-sac.

Further, some people would be better off embracing country life, with a larger property they can really cultivate. These people often provide their own water and sewer, and perhaps they drive on gravel roads. The country dwellers demand far less in infrastructure costs.

If more Americans would move away from suburbia into these two alternatives, we could reduce our infrastructure costs and unused spaces. I’m not arguing that the government force this change – just that more citizens and developers should think about their living options and the costs and benefits associated with our spaces.

Wesley J. Smith has been on top of dissecting media coverage of this development. As is sadly typical of media bioethics coverage, much of it is way off base. Recent examples include news.com.au‘s article stating that “[This development] is an important step in research because it doesn’t require the use of embryos in creating the type of stem cell capable of transforming into any other type of cell in the body.” Which, of course, is exactly wrong.

Or the Los Angeles Times, which states, “One advantage to this approach is that, unlike much of the initial work on stem cells, it doesn’t require the destruction of human embryos.” And follows later with, “The biggest ethical issue for the OHSU team, though, is that it artificially created a human embryo, albeit one that was missing the components needed for implantation and development as a fetus.” I guess the author didn’t realize the second sentence contradicted the first?

News agencies should be ashamed of publishing this low quality journalism. The average citizen will need a lot of help in understanding what these developments even mean – much less developing a moral perspective on them. If the media can’t get it right, they’d be better off not reporting it at all and letting alternative media sources do the detailed work they’re apparently incapable of executing. Smith is featuring these stories in a series – you can read them here.

Townhall

The Christian Post

Catholic Lane

“Resisting the Tide of Secularism” was linked by:

NH Insider

In case you missed it—which is very likely, given the way the mainstream media had to be dragged kicking and screaming into covering Gosnell’s trial (after Gosnell’s guilt was pronounced, 56 days since the trial began, ABC News finally broke its silence!)—Gosnell was found guilty of, among hundreds of other things, first degree murder in the cases of three babies born alive after botched abortions.

If you’ve paid any attention at all, you know the gruesome details: “snipped” necks, frozen body parts, tiny arms and legs stored in jars, and so on. For decades, while earning millions of dollars, Gosnell and his associates butchered women and children alike.

No one should be surprised that the culture in America produced a Kermit Gosnell. After decades of lies from the abortion industry and its willing cohorts within the liberal media and Democrat party (along with “pro-choice” Republicans like Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania—where Gosnell performed his butchery), millions of Americans were led to believe that, after sperm fertilizes egg, what grows inside a woman’s body was not a life, but a “choice.” Such blatant disregard for sound morality, sound science, and plain common sense produced Gosnell’s “House of Horrors.”

After weeks of a trial that revealed a shocking callousness for both the born and the unborn and after 10 days of jury deliberations, during which speculation of the verdict abounded, there was plenty of time for all of America to see the truth when it comes to abortion and the ghastly practices that occur in abortion clinics. Yet following the announcement of Gosnell’s guilt, like a toddler with his fingers in his ears, abortion apologists such as The New York Times continued with their propaganda.

Before being caught, called out, and subsequently editing its online article, six times The Times referred to Gosnell’s young victims as “fetuses.” Early in the article The Times noted, “The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.”

In March of this year, a representative from Planned Parenthood (PP) Florida testified before the Florida legislature. The legislators were considering a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to a child born alive as a result of an abortion attempt. In a rare moment of candor from the culture of death (to borrow from Al Mohler), the PP representative endorsed the position under which Gosnell himself operated: the “right” to kill a baby born alive.

Stunned, Rep. Jim Boyd wanted clarification. “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” PP lobbyist Alisa Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Writing for Salon early this year, pro-abortion advocate Mary Elizabeth Williams declared that it is time for the abortion industry and its supporters to stop playing games when it comes to life. “So what if abortion ends a life,” she concludes. She explains: “All life is not equal…a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

Given such a climate, it is unsurprising that Gosnell’s attorney blamed the verdict on the “baby factor.” He did not elaborate as to his meaning, but given the perverted sense of life that many in our culture have developed, there is little surprise that the lawyer for an abortionist would choose to slander the use of the word “baby” when it comes not only to describing the unborn, but even children outside the womb.

Words matter. In a recent interview for The Atlantic, psychotherapist Gary Greenberg notes the many problems with modern psychiatry. Mostly he points out how, through the very political and subjective Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, modern psychiatry has attempted to gain medical relevance. In this process, Greenberg notes we have eliminated the moral aspect behind certain behaviors. He rightly concludes, “This society is very wary of using the term ‘evil.’” Not being able to call evil “evil” is how we end up with Kermit Gosnell.

Also, in this case (as with every such abortion) distance (mere inches) matters. As pointed out on The Hill, “The murder case against Gosnell rests entirely on the location of the victim (in inches, mind you) at the time of death, not in the fact that the victim was killed. The main difference between Gosnell and other abortion doctors is that he couldn’t get the job done before the baby came out. He tried doing it like his peers at Planned Parenthood—the industry leader which is worthy of half a billion dollars annually in tax-payer funds.”

Further illustrating America’s moral decay, when it comes to protecting children who survive an abortion, no less than the man most recently elected (twice!) President of the U.S., Barack Obama himself, advocated a position that differs little from Gosnell’s. As World Net Daily put it, “Fundamental to Gosnell’s argument was that severing the spinal cord of a baby who survived an abortion was not infanticide.”

In 2001, the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Then-state senator Obama voted against the bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

In 2003, even after a “neutrality clause” was added to the Illinois bill that made it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that unanimously passed both houses of the U.S. Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

What can one conclude about a nation that elects such a man its leader? For one thing, as I already noted, the fact that a Kermit Gosnell exists should come as no surprise to any American. Secondly, until this nation sees abortion for what it really is, the next Kermit Gosnell is just around the corner.

Trevor Thomas resides in Gainesville, GA with his wife and four small children. He has a bachelor’s degree in physics and two graduate degrees in mathematics education. He has taught high school mathematics in public and private schools for the last 17 years and has written opinion columns for the last nine years. www.trevorgrantthomas.com

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

(c) Can Stock Photo

The congressional report said to achieve his $1.1 trillion in savings over the next decade, Obama relies on $974 billion in higher revenue and $172 billion in spending cuts. That is nearly a 6-1 ratio.

This is the balanced, wise, responsible compromise our President talks about? Six-to-one?? And all of this increased revenue – it isn’t going to fix our problems:

Overall, the budget office says Obama’s budget would produce $5.2 trillion in red ink through 2023. That is $1.1 trillion less than the deficits that would be generated over that time if no tax or spending laws are changed.

Six-to-one and we’re still spending ourselves silly. Great.

Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today and he will pay the price for the atrocities he committed. We hope that the lessons of the trial do not fade with the verdict. Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.

From the lack of funding available for low-income women to access abortion services, to the sharp decline of reputable providers in Pennsylvania, to the gross negligence of authorities to enforce the law after complaints were filed against Gosnell, each aspect of this case must be a teachable moment for lawmakers: until we reject the politicization of women’s medical care and leave these decisions where they belong—between a woman and her family and her doctor—women will never be safe. The horrifying story of Kermit Gosnell is a peek into the world before Roe v. Wade made legal a woman’s right to make her own choices.

NARAL Pro-Choice America’s annual Who Decides? publication has given Pennsylvania an ‘F’ grade precisely because it has passed medically unnecessary laws that restrict access to safe and legal abortion care. It is my sincere hope that the women in Gosnell’s clinic did not suffer in vain and that Pennsylvania, and every state, will step up and join us in making the protection of women’s ability to get, safe, high quality, and legal abortion care a top priority.

Esolen has a great takedown of this ridiculous statement, but let me share just a few quick bullet-points of my reactions:

1. Gosnell was convicted of killing babies. These are the “atrocities.” Not having dirty facilties.

2. How on earth does Hogue not even mention the babies?!? That takes a special kind of obfuscation.

3. Hogue decries the failures of government authorities to respond to complaints but then wants to keep the government out of decisions “between a woman and her family and her doctor” and resists safety standards.

There is more to be said, but it bears emphasizing once more: How on earth can this President look herself in the mirror after writing three paragraphs about Gosnell’s “atrocities” without ever once mentioning the babies he killed?  Ridiculous.

So said First Things editor R.R. Reno in a speech delivered to a Hillsdale College leadership seminar this past February. In his address, Reno tracks the hostility that the Obama administration, the courts, and the ascendant “Nones” (those who, when asked in surveys to identify their religious affiliation, indicate “none”) are exhibiting toward religious liberty in America. And he identifies the threat that this hostility poses to our culture and our Constitution. It’s a very important speech. Thankfully, in it he also talks about how to reverse the trend.

Reading through Reno’s speech, it is easy to feel at once overwhelmed, angry, and discouraged. Forces antagonistic to religion dominate our courtrooms, our classrooms, and that most potent platform of public influence, the entertainment industry. Stridently ideological and convinced that the forces of reason and progress are on their side, these secular shapers of culture will not be satisfied until every last vestige of religious influence is exorcised from the public square. These individuals reject the fact that the Christian religion played an integral role in the shaping of America’s political traditions and the spirit of liberty and equality that is unique among nations. They do not understand that radically marginalizing religion will undermine the institutions essential to keeping our country strong and free.

And, as Reno predicts, these antagonists are likely to be successful in the short term. No doubt, this is due to the frog-in-the-kettle effect. The saying goes, if you put a frog in a kettle of water and set it on the stove, the frog will not respond to the increasing temperature of the water until it is too late. There is still a strong contingent of believers in America. We have the numbers on our side. The problem is, not all of us are paying attention. This is understandable. Life is busy, and we devote our energies towards the things that directly impact our day to day lives. We work. We take our kids to soccer practice. We help with book reports and college applications. We tend to aging relatives and prepare meals for sick neighbors.

But, while we’ve been busy living our lives, the sands have been shifting under our feet. It’s quite possible that the world our grandchildren live in will be one in which the public profession of religious faith will be culturally taboo, if not outright illegal. Churches will not be able to deny the rites of marriage to same-sex couples and parents will not be allowed to raise up their children according to the moral dictates of their faith. Religious employers will not be permitted to allow their beliefs to influence the way they run their businesses. There won’t be any positive portrayals of religion on television or in the movies. Public prayer will be a relic of a bygone era.

If the “Nones” are successful in obfuscating the once-universal recognition that mankind is created in the image of God and that there is such a thing as transcendent truth, then America will be defenseless against the corrosive and fatalistic influences of moral relativism and social Darwinism. The land of the free and home of the brave will be degraded and transformed into a place where the weak and vulnerable are exploited and power trumps principle. Utilitarianism will triumph and our brave new secular world will look like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

Make no mistake, all this will come to pass if people of faith do not come together and send the message that we will not surrender our rights and America’s future without a fight.
 Reno lays out the ways in which faithful Americans must engage the “Nones” if we are to turn the tide of religious antagonism currently holding sway. He says we must fight for religious liberty in the courts, in the classroom, and in the court of public opinion. We must make the point that religious belief is “the most secure guarantee of freedom.” And finally, we must unite with other believers in defense of our “divine cause.”

Happily, Reno’s speech ends – as it should – on a hopeful note:



”Right now the Nones seem to have the upper hand in America. But what seems powerful is not always so. If I had to bet on Harvard or the Catholic Church, Yale or the Mennonites in Goshen, Indiana, the New York Times or yeshivas in Brooklyn, I wouldn’t hesitate. Over the long haul, religious faith has proven itself the most powerful and enduring force in human history.”



Amen.

 
Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society. 

(c) Can Stock Photo

We have not been attentive enough to the basic fact that power, itself, tends toward centralization and that, as Tocqueville put it, the longer a democracy endures, the more centralized its power will become…. A democracy can only thrive when people perceive themselves as citizens with real voices who can effect real change. I fear that many Americans today see themselves primarily as subjects or beneficiaries or even victims but not as citizens.

And sadly, many of us who would purport to be conservatives have our own blindspots:

We hear some railing against “big government” but at the same time cheering “big business” as if the two are not intimately conjoined. We hear from some quarters a steady militant drumbeat but we hear no admission that the warfare state is as beneficial to the centralization of power as the welfare state.

I fear this prognosis is far too accurate and, perhaps, now irreversible. I fear what the United States will look like for our children and grandchildren. Any change must come from the ground up – from men and women in small communities spurning the broad powers and provisions of the federal government and looking to themselves, their families, and their neighbors to meet their needs. We must regain an emphasis on the local. We must rediscover the centrality of the family, the church, the local institutions and small governments. If there is any hope for change, it will be a slow, hard change.

Clearly, a life is a life, but restricting abortion to 14 weeks will surely save some lives. LifeNews reports on the development (click here for the article):

When a member of [40 Days for Life Sacramento] called the Sacramento [abortion clinic] office last week, they got a pleasant surprise. A receptionist told her that clinic and the Fremont and San Jose clinics were all closing this week. “We just didn’t have enough patients,” she said, when asked why the clinics were shutting down.

Praise God – but clearly there is still much work to be done. Planned Parenthood’s expansion in the same area is troubling, but it is joyous to see that there weren’t enough local women near Sacramento desiring to abort their children to support the clinic’s terrible practice.

Very soon after its invention, certain people noticed that the qualities of the whip made it an efficacious tool for coercing their fellow men to comply with their will. Because men do not have thick fur or skin, the same whip strike that would barely make a horse take notice would leave contusions and lacerations in the soft skin of a human, who would often bear the physical and emotional scars for life. The agony inflicted by a whip on bare human flesh was usually more than enough to cause the stubborn to subjugate their own wills, and cause the witnesses of the whipping to do the same, through their awe and fear of being subjected to the same treatment.

The whip, then, is an instrument which was designed for a moral purpose, but was then pressed into use to facilitate an immoral act of coercion of the human free will. The whip-bearers accomplished this by deliberately inflicting suffering on other human beings. Whether the whip was used to directly coerce other humans to comply by means of physical blows, or was used to intimidate into compliance those who witnessed the screams and agony of the afflicted person, the whip had found a lasting place in the hands of evil men. Not everyone needed to be whipped in order to be forced into compliance. Many, in fact, manifested a type of Stockholm syndrome, going so far as to approve of such savagery in retaliation against real and perceived criminals. Some went so far as to assert that the whip-bearer had a special moral right to behave savagely toward his fellow man. Indeed, punitive whippings were often performed in the town square as a spectacle, and many townspeople would cheer and even laugh as a human being was bound with cords and subjected to intentional suffering. The author would like to pose the question: Why do you think they were cheering?

At some point in human history, men in positions of power decided that the use of the whip did not provide sufficient revenge for or prevention of certain actions that were considered grave offenses, so the scourge was introduced. A scourge consisted of a firm handle, perhaps 8 inches in length, made of wood or woven leather. Attached to the end of the handle were several short strips of leather or cords, of about 18 inches in length. At the end of each of these strips was fastened lead weights, nails, or small bits of flat metal, often bent at a 90-degree angle or greater, and often sharpened. The result of this combination of features was a fearsome tool that could easily rend human flesh to the bone.

The scourge was an instrument unlike the whip. While the whip was a legitimate tool whose purpose was abused, the scourge was specifically intended and purpose-built as a means of inflicting suffering on human beings. It was primarily intended as a means of subjecting the victim to agony, while the sight of its gruesome effects accomplished a secondary goal of instilling terror and docility into the hearts of all who witnessed a scourging.

The underlying reason for deliberately inflicting such suffering on human beings was, ostensibly, to “correct” the one who violated a statute or law, to “restore justice,” and to secure peace and order in society.

What does it mean to “correct,” by means of inflicting suffering, someone who has committed a real evil? This deliberate intent to inflict suffering can only be a direct means of coercion of the human will, which God, in his wisdom and love, created as inviolable. Likewise, what does it mean to “correct” the intellect by means of inflicting suffering? By the very nature of truth and of its apprehension in the free assent of the will, it is ontologically impossible to force someone to believe anything, and as a result, any attempt to do so is gravely immoral. The human soul is created by God in his own image and likeness: with a free will and an intellect. Any attempt to coerce these intrinsic faculties of the soul is an attempt to directly violate the core of man’s very nature, and consequently, it is a crime against the Creator of that nature.

Given the intrinsic immorality of inflicting suffering as a means of coercing the free will or the intellect, how can inflicting yet another injustice “restore” justice? An unjust act is a terrible evil, and while preventing further evil is a good and noble goal, it is a goal that can only be achieved through moral means. If justice has been violated, it is because someone failed to render to another his due. An injustice, once it has been taken place, cannot itself be rectified, but its effects can sometimes be mitigated, through restitution, for example. The effects of an unjust act can never be mitigated or rectified by the directly intended infliction of suffering on a human person. Just as taking the life of an unborn child is an unjust response to the injustice of rape, so too is deliberately inflicting suffering or death on anyone for the alleged purpose of “restoring justice.” The only way to achieve justice in society is for each man and woman to be honest in their dealings with others, and to treat each other justly. In the absence of these qualities in our human relationships, forgiveness and mercy are the appropriate responses to an injustice that has already been perpetrated.

Securing order is also a valid goal for people to have. Yet order can only be secured by acts that are not themselves contrary to the natural order. An attempt to secure order by means of disordered acts is an inherent contradiction. Order is maintained by an individual behaving himself or herself in a rational and orderly fashion. Neither the desire for order, nor the practical outcome of order can be coerced into existence: disorder may be physically prevented when it directly violates human rights, but this prevention may not take place through the intentional infliction of suffering.

The whip was a good thing that had been abused by being placed in a role for which it was never intended. The scourge was an implement that from the day of its creation was intended to secure good ends, but could only do so by means of injustice. An individual person would rightfully be considered a monster, if he spent long, painstaking hours to carefully create an implement that he intended to use to deliberately inflict suffering on his fellow man. Certain groups of people, however, actually consider this savage behavior praiseworthy, as long as it is called “enhanced interrogation,” and as long as it is done to “preserve order, safety and security.” Like the scourge of leather and metal, there is in our own day an entire institution that exists, ostensibly, to correct evils, to “restore justice,” and to secure peace and order in society. While these alleged purposes of its existence are indeed good, the author asks: “Does this institution actually achieve these ends, or does it frustrate them?” Another crucial question is this: “Do the agents of this institution use only moral means in the attempt to secure order and justice?”

In his essay A Vindication of Natural Society, the Englishman Edmund Burke wrote:

“I can never believe that any institution, agreeable to nature, and proper for mankind, could find it necessary, or even expedient, in any case whatsoever, to do what the best and worthiest instincts of mankind warn us to avoid. But no wonder, that what is set up in opposition to the state of nature should preserve itself by trampling upon the law of nature.

To prove that these sorts of policed societies are a violation offered to nature, and a constraint upon the human mind, it needs only to look upon the sanguinary measures, and instruments of violence, which are everywhere used to support them. Let us take a review of the dungeons, whips, chains, racks, gibbets, with which every society is abundantly stored; by which hundreds of victims are annually offered up to support a dozen or two in pride and madness, and millions in an abject servitude and dependence. There was a time when I looked with a reverential awe on these mysteries of policy; but age, experience, and philosophy, have rent the veil; and I view this sanctum sanctorum, at least, without any enthusiastic admiration. I acknowledge, indeed, the necessity of such a proceeding in such institutions; but I must have a very mean opinion of institutions where such proceedings are necessary. . . . In vain you tell me that artificial [coercively imposed] government is good, but that I fall out only with the abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!”

It is time for human beings, created as they are in the image and likeness of God, to firmly reject all attempts to coerce the will, any deliberate infliction of suffering, and all support for evil acts that are committed in the name of “securing order” and “maintaining justice.” Individuals who deliberately hurt other people are rightly called sociopaths. But the very existence of the coercive State often has a tendency to turn what is rightly considered “sociopathic behavior” if committed by one, into acceptable “public policy,” if approved by a committee and performed by a plurality. The same act that is rightfully called the crime of “assault and battery” if committed by a normal person, is euphemistically called “wall-to-wall counseling,” “a mahogany shampoo” or “giving a ride on the TASER” by sociopaths. Burke was right: the Thing itself is the Abuse, and we must stop honoring and supporting it. Men and women must become honest with themselves and acknowledge the institution of unjust violence for what it is. Unless we recognize how human beings are supposed to treat each other and speak out against evil acts and evil attitudes, we will all continue to suffer from the abusive blows for the rest of our lives.

Geoff Turecek lives and works in Northern Virginia.  Please email your comments to forum@centerforajustsociety.org.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

(c) Can Stock Photo