Problems with Some of Us Conservatives

As a Christian, I am passionate about the sanctity of life. In addition, as one with generally conservative political beliefs, the idea of a right to life for all in whatever state of life one finds oneself, fits those beliefs. However, what do we, we Christians and/or we with conservative political beliefs do for those who have been spared from abortion or euthanasia and their families?

In an ideal America, I'd like to see the government involved as little a possible in its citizens' individual affairs. This includes things like health care and caring for the poor. In a republic, it is not the government's job to be the sole provider for both. However, it has become so for those with disabilities, especially developmental disabilities.

We conservatives say we want fewer taxes so that we can give to charity directly through our churches or through other private organizations. But will we really do it? 'Cause, we're not doing it now, at least not for those with developmental disabilities.

Every organization and agency that provides living and vocational services to people with developmental disabilities, including faith based organizations, in my state that I know of is dependent on Medicaid. Medicaid has a LONG waiting list for those waiting to receive such services. And, without adequate funding and cookie cutter programs, Medicaid often lacks in quality of those services. Even so, faith based and other private organizations aren't stepping up to meet even the basic needs of those with developmental disabilities and their families.

Is the answer to increase Medicaid funding to better improve its services? Only if we with conservative political beliefs or we who follow Christ don't step up and do our part. Do as we believe.

Most people with developmental disabilities over the age of 18 use Medicaid services. This means that the state is heavily involved with their lives. For instance, to ensure that quality care is given and Medicaid money is spent wisely, their caregivers turn in reports about their clients' daily activities, medical concerns, the kind of treatment given, behavioral issues, bowel movements... You name it, the state knows everything about anyone with a developmental disability receiving Medicaid services, which is almost everyone with a developmental disability. In addition, the state must approve the kind of treatment given for those with developmental disabilities. (Such would be the case for all citizens in the case of National Health Care, btw; don't think it wouldn't.)

This seems so wrong to me. But there is no other option.
What did Sarah Palin mean when she said that parents of children with disabilities would have an advocate in the White House? As her son grows, she will learn the headache of trying to receive enough of the right kind of education, health care, etc., for him, and when her son turns 18, she will become quite familiar with virtually the only option for him that is Medicaid.

Okay, fellow Christians and conservatives, if we really want less taxes and less government involvement, wake up! We've got to start meeting the needs of those with developmental disabilities in other ways than just paying our taxes.

I hope that Sarah Palin will become an advocate for life in Washington. I hope that she'll bring Conservatives awareness, real awareness, of the needs for those with developmental disabilities before and after they turn 18.

Natural Instinct

My mother chose not to abort me. She could have, for I was born after 1973, the year abortions became legal.

Had she known that 32 years after my birth, I would have a LOT of needs, that I would have struggled with obesity, identity issues, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, going to school, fighting with my sisters, and not making my bed in the morning, should she have considered abortion? Is she a hero for not? Is she a fool for not?

It's a natural instinct for a mother to protect her child from the womb on. It's sad when doctors, society, and fear keep a mother from doing what's natural. Palin did what was natural for a mother to do when she was pregnant with her son. 'Special' needs and all. It's not heroic. It's what a mother does. My mother taught me this.

Doctor Worries Abortions May Be Reduced

No, this is not from the Onion (the satirical 'newsite').

From LifeNews.com:

Sarah Palin's Keeping Disabled Baby May Reduce Abortions Doctor Worries

A leading Canadian doctor is drawing gasps from people across the world
with a comment that he worries abortions will go down because of Sarah Palin's
story. The number two doctor at the national Canadian physicians group worries
Palin's decision to keep her disabled baby will reduce abortions.

Palin's story of deciding to give birth to her disabled son Trig
despite knowing he would be afflicted with Down syndrome, has been an
encouragement to families with special needs children.

But it's bad news to André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in
Canada," he told the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper Tuesday.
According to
the paper, Lalonde said that, "above all else, women must be free to choose" and
that positive messages like the one from Palin "could have detrimental effects
on women and their families."

Still, LaLone claimed his group doesn't encourage doctors to promote
abortions to parents of Down syndrome babies -- even though statistics show
about 90 percent of babies diagnosed with the condition become victims of
abortion.

"We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,"
he said. "We're coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions
are personal decisions."

But Krista Flint, director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, also
talked with the Toronto paper and said families feel doctors encourage abortions
by stressing the drawbacks to a baby with special needs.
"It's very dark,"
she said. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes
associated with Down syndrome."

Story continued at LifeNews.com.

I'm Not Connecting with this Book of Connection

I was skimming Rob Bell's book Sex God at the library one day, when I came across this paragraph on page 46.

You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are. If
you're still upset that God gave you this body or this life or this family or
these circumstances, you will never be able to connect with God in a healthy,
thriving, sustainable sort of way. You'll be at odds with your maker. And if you
can't come to terms with who you are and the life you've been given, you'll
never be able to accept others and how they were made and the lives they've been
given. And until you're at peace with God and those around you, you will
continue to struggle with your role on the planet, your part to play in the
ongoing creation of the universe. You will continue to struggle and resist and
fail to connect.

Notice he starts the paragraph, a paragraph which may or may not hold some truth, with "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are."

"No! No! No! No! No!", I screamed in my head at the time. My thoughts were, "The opposite is true. You can't be at peace with yourself until you are connected with God. You cannot really know who you are until you know Who God is and who you are in Him." If I'm created in the image of God, to know myself, I must know Him first. If I am to become at peace with who I am before connecting with God, I would have to create this God in my image. For, if I am at peace with who I think I am in my flesh, then the only way to connect with God is to make Him agree with who I want to be or feel I am.

Furthermore, connecting with God, in that first connection, is contingent upon God's law of grace and His act of atonement. Connection with God is His action, not mine, an action of Him reaching down to me, drawing me to Christ, kindly leading me to repentance and acceptance and faith in His work of the Cross. That is how I connect to God.

To really connect with God, in our first connection, I must not be at peace with myself. I must be frustrated with my sin and in recognition of my complete inability to save myself.

So, I've begun reading the whole book to understand what he was saying in context, because reading anything in the correct context is crucial to actual understanding. And it's only fair to the author. I need to know what led up to Bell's conclusion that one must be at peace with himself first to connect with God. However, I've got to tell ya, reading this book- I have a lot of questions. His writing is at the same time seems very deep and very vague to me.

As one who has struggled with her sexuality and discovered that indeed sexuality is about relationships and identity, not just sex, I agree with Bell's premise of the book, Sex God, that sexuality and spirituality are connected. Bell contends that sexuality is actually about connecting with God, others, and the earth. (He had me until 'the earth'.) I can see there is some truth in what Bell says. He talks about how empty and unsexual sex is when there's no connection. Deep stuff.

But I am bothered that in the first chapter, he appears to change the meaning of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:27-30, which reads,

27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28
But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed
adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you
to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part
of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your
hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It
is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be
thrown into hell.

That's pretty straightforward to me. Looking at a woman with lust is the same thing as committing adultery. It's better to lose your eye if lusting through it continues to be a problem, because it's better to lose an eye than to go to hell. In simpler form, sinning in your heart is sin as much as sinning in your actions. Don't sin. Hell is a consequence of sin.

However, in the context of men and women being created in the image of God, Bell twists this Bible passage to mean that when we do not treat one with respect to their image bearing selves (by lusting after a woman), "[Jesus's] point is that something serious- something hellish- happens when people are treated as objects, and we should resist it at all costs." (pg 22)

Bell makes this teaching after he redefines Heaven to mean, "where things are as God wants them, under the rule and reign of God" and Hell to mean, "a realm where things are not as God wants them to be. Where things aren't according to God's will. Where people aren't treated as fully human." (pg 21)

Redefining Biblical terms and Biblical meanings. I sense trouble.

Bell goes on to write that, based on the fact that the early Christian have all been united through the resurrected Jesus Christ, "this new commonality is simply bigger than all of the things" (like race) "that had previously kept them apart." He says the first Christians called this the "new humanity", but gives no reference for this term. (pg 24) Bell says, "The new humanity is about seeing people as God sees them." (pg 25)

I like this idea very much, "seeing others as God sees them" being a new humanity, the new standard by which we treat each other. But Bell seems to miss a couple of crucial steps here. Salvation and regeneration. How are we going to become a part of this new humanity that treats others well without becoming a new human being, one changed out of our selfish fleshly state? More thoughts on that idea, here.

In chapter two, on the subject of connection, remembering that sexuality is about connection, Bell writes about our connection the earth. He writes that from the fall, in addition to disconnection from God and each other, we are also disconnected from the earth. (pg 40) He talks about nature and how the words we use to describe moments like an experience he had with his sons swimming with dolphins "are about nearness and connection, sometimes even intimacy." (pg 41)

Until this point, I was understanding Bell's use of the word 'connection' to be about relationship. But relationship with the earth? Is that what he means?

I understand that we are to be good stewards of our planet. But connected to it? I don't understand what he means by this.

When I went to Colorado a couple of years ago with my mom, there came a point where the beauty of the mountains became so overwhelming that I had to close my eyes. I don't think that was me connecting to the mountains, though. I think it was being overwhelmed by beauty. And, perhaps, by the glory that is revealed in of our Creator in His creation.

Seeing Him revealed in His creation, I understand. Connection to nature itself, though... what does that mean?

At the end of this chapter, chapter 2, Bell makes the statement, "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are." That is as far as I've gotten so far. I hope in the next chapters Bell explains this statement and all the other ones that have left me confused and asking questions. I'm really not connecting with this book.