Acting on Truth, Part I

Last time we took a look at collectivism and truth.  This time we’ll use several more recent events to examine collectivism and the way it goes about implementing what it perceives to be the truth.  Why?  Because it seems like things are changing rapidly, and not necessarily for the better.  Most people seem to agree.  This week’s Rasmussen right track/wrong track survey indicates that less than a third of Americans think we are on the right track.   Implementing one’s truth concerns not only the ends that are to be achieved but also the means used to reach them.  I’ve stated before that within collectivism, regardless of its form, it is only the ends that matter, and that the means do not matter to them.  So we will look at three current events from the past couple of weeks, and the common thread among them.  The first is the tragic death of Kate Steinle.  The second is the recent revelation of Planned Parenthood’s sale of infant by parts.  The third event is the supreme court ruling on unnatural marriage.  We’ll cover the first two in this post and conclude with the third item next time.


By all accounts Ms. Steinle was a vibrant and compassionate young person.  She was good.  The reaction and caring expressed by those who knew her and the uprightness shown by her family in the face of this tragedy have been both heartfelt and commendable.  The interviews her family have given are a vibrant testimony to her stature and their faith.  Her family is trying to create something good from their daughter’s death by attempting to reduce the likelihood this event will happen again, thereby restoring some sanity to an area where little appears to exist. 


What do I mean?  Ms. Steinle was allegedly shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported five times, and who also had racked up seven felony convictions while in this country.  In addition, he had traveled specifically to San Francisco for reasons we will see in a moment.  He had been arrested and was in the custody of the city of San Francisco, and ICE had requested that he be held until he could be taken into custody by the Federal authorities.  However, the city of San Francisco released him.  Why? Because the city of San Francisco is a sanctuary city.  What does that mean?  It means that the city has policies, executive orders, resolutions, and/or laws in place barring local government employees from aiding Federal authorities in immigration matters.


One only needs to look at the unrepentant reactions and faces of the city council, mayor, and sheriff.  They have gone into hiding, refused to answer questions, ignored questions, and deflected.  They are in hiding because their actions cannot stand the light.  Indeed, they are petulant.  The primary purpose of government is to protect its citizen’s rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  These rights cross both the civil and religious spheres.  So how well did San Francisco’s government do in its primary purpose?  The facts above speak for themselves.  The worst of it is not that they failed in their duty.  The real tragedy is that they do not appear to care.  Ms. Steinle is only an ‘isolated instance’; she is viewed by that city’s government merely as collateral damage.  This is because the rights of those who are here illegally are viewed as being above those of law abiding citizens.  That is the end that matters, and whatever it takes to achieve those means is acceptable to those who embrace collectivism – in all of its forms. 


The leaders of San Francisco have sold their souls for an idea, and Ms. Steinle has paid the price.  Unconscionable.   Compare their actions with those who knew Ms. Steinle and have come from all over the world to offer their condolences and support to her family.  Compare the actions of the city officials to those of her family who are trying to bring some good from this event, and hopefully save someone else from having to go through what they are experiencing.  Then ask yourself which ones are doing right?


Let’s now shift to the recent video tapes that have surfaced regarding Planned Parenthood’s illegal sale of aborted baby body parts.  Yes, they have said that they were not sales, but merely donations.  But let’s take a moment to define a sale.  According to the dictionary, a sale is ‘the exchange or transfer of property of any kind for money or its equivalent.’  A donation is merely one way, a transaction from a giver to a receiver.  Planned Parenthood’s (PP) position is further weakened as they view the aborted babies as their property (the mother is not involved in the decision or compensation), and PP negotiates for the money it receives from the sale of body parts.  Donations are not negotiated.  Don’t buy that?  Here are just a few quotes from the tapes by the PP officials.  ‘What are you used to paying?’  ‘The organization is on board with tissue donations, but we have to have a waiver to do it.’  ‘There is compensation for this.  Patients don’t get anything of course.’


Further they are willing to change their procedures, including the use of ultrasound, to kill the baby and maximize the amount of intact body parts they can extract.  They also use the same type of procedure to extract babies that is used for partial birth abortions, a procedure that is illegal.  In California (where both interviews took place), a fetus extracted and born alive during an abortion is considered to be alive under the law.  The sale of aborted baby body parts is also illegal.  The procedure is to crush the infant, in order to kill it, in a way that does not damage its organs. 


While this is abominable, it is also not the worst.  What is more chilling is the nonchalant way in which the whole process is discussed.  Like going to the grocery store and picking up the items on your shopping list.  All done in an open setting, a restaurant while eating and drinking like nothing unusual is being discussed.   When you sell your soul for such an end, you turn away from your Creator, who is the source of morality.  In its absence one is left with only man’s morality, a relative morality that is no morality at all.  In that state people believe they are doing good when they are actually doing great evil, a variation of the ‘I was only following orders’ defense.  The goal is to provide tissue, and all of the self-professed good that can come from that.  That fact that a life is lost in the process is just another case of collateral damage. Getting the needed tissue is what matters, not the way it is obtained.   Just like the death of Ms. Steinle.  Both cases are the same in so many respects.


  • There is an ideological goal that must be obtained at any and all costs.

  • The implementation of policy and the funneling of funds to support the goal.

  • The setting aside of any existing laws that get in the way of supporting the end, claiming their goal is the greater good.

  • The devaluing of human life and property for the sake of the goal.

  • The above cases are immoral actions of a type that often results in another’s death, and in government failing in its primary purpose, because that purpose has been perverted by a group that views itself as enlightened, and therefore its values are the ones that should be used to govern as it knows best.


Consider the following passage from St. Augustine’s City of God in writing about the fear of a people turning away from their Creator to man.  This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes.  Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquility; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependents, to minister to their pride.  Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure.  Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden.  Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by their righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects.  Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear.  Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man’s property, than of that done to one’s own person.’  Morality and righteousness are necessary for a people to prosper, and that cannot happen unless a people are turned toward their Creator.


But there is good news.  No matter where you are or what you’ve done, you can change.  All one need do is turn back toward Him.  You will be accepted as you are.  You do not have to be perfect; you only need try to be better tomorrow than you are today.  After all, no matter how far you turn away from Him, He is always right beside you.


Peace and Blessings.

Posted in: General


blog comments powered by Disqus
Search My Blog
About Dan Wolf

Dan WolfMy goal is that my writing will help you to get started on your own journey of discovery, or help you along the way on a journey you may have already begun. Our Founders considered education, religion, morality, and virtue to be the cornerstones for any successful society. Being successful requires understanding both the languages of reason and faith; reason alone is insufficient.