James Reesor 2010 Campaign Issues #8 |
The Patrick Benedict Questionnaire By White Horse Independent James Reesor A 13 October 2010 letter with the following questionnaire from “Patrick Benedict” was received. I have no knowledge about Patrick or why my opinions matter, but it seemed appropriate to offer my position on these issues as presented: (1) Are you for or against allowing a person (or persons) to assist someone to commit suicide? a) for b) against * c) comment by Reesor: I have no personal authority required to dictate the actions of anyone. Whatever people do or don’t do is totally their decision to make. Since I believe that “life” itself is the result of forces beyond our ability to perceive or explain, any arrogance that would prompt a person to end it prematurely should be discouraged by every means possible. Therefore, mark me against this inhumane act that denies an opportunity for living souls to experience the totality of their existence. (2) What is often called “embryonic stem cell research” kills a tiny unborn human person. Are you for or against this? a) for b) against * c) comment by Reesor: Actually, describing a “cell” as an “unborn human person” is an inappropriate identification. A human cell has the potential of becoming a person, but until God imparts a “soul” at conception, reverence for biological life in all forms is sufficient reason to avoid abnormal functions. When qualified people engage in “research” for purposes meant to eliminate disease, correct deformity or overcome damage done due to accidents, my lack of qualifications prevents me from taking a dogmatic position in regard to this issue. However, I do suggest emphasizing the eternal potential of “souls” as opposed to the limited existence of human flesh. (Killing a soul is much worse than killing a cell). If humans can learn how to heal ourselves through research for the proper reasons, it might be necessary to make certain sacrifices? My obvious answer is: I don’t know the answer. I prefer having faith in God for physical healing rather than hope bungling attempts by researchers can eventually lead to miraculous cures or treatment. Personally, I accept the “fate” of my physical circumstances as the “will of God.” I’m totally willing to suffer and die – sooner rather than later – if He has no desire to miraculously prolong my existence. If doctors or other people in the healthcare industry intervene in my behalf, they would be regarded as instruments in the hand of God. (3) Are you for or against students being taught that unchaste behavior is permissible and/or that impure behavior is permissible? a) for b) against * c) comment by Reesor: Not all people believe in God, but all of us exist because of Him. His natural and universal “rules” apply to our lives whether we are believers or doubters. When considering normal human “sexual urges” and how we choose to express ourselves to each other, there are biological and emotional factors that are not easily understood. Students, kids or adults, should never be isolated from the reality of truth. “Sin” or using “freedom” to do evil is permissible, but unwise. Teaching each other to do anything that is contrary to “morality” as defined by spiritual laws and psychological perspectives is a mistake. I’m against corruption of innocent minds by degenerates. (4) Are you for or against human cloning? a) for b) against * c) comment by Reesor: Those who practice the art of “procreation” will provide our civilizations with all the people we need. The idea that “cloning” would somehow populate this planet with some kind of “superior species” seems like a frivolous undertaking. There are more important things to be doing with time, talent, energy and resources. I’m against cloning for any reason – even though I’m wondering, hypothetically, if one human was cloned a hundred times, would they all share the same soul? (5) The non-surgical killing of unborn human persons is caused by things such as the IUD. Are you for or against things that kill unborn human persons non-surgically? a) for b) against * c) comment by Reesor: It would be better to surgically remove the penis prior to ejaculation instead of the fetus after conception. As a believer in God’s desire to see Himself replicated by those of us who enjoy good feelings, I’m opposed to artificially preventing conception during the “merging of souls.” Any act that prevents the Father Creator from sending new souls to our planet is a form of rebellion that only Satan would devise. If we masturbate, use IUD’s or condoms, we are showing contempt for the beauty and purity of life itself – no matter what fools or the “politically correct” crowd believe. (6) Do you think the surgical killing of unborn human persons should ever be allowed? a) It should never be allowed b) It should always be allowed c) comment by Reesor: It should “sometimes be allowed” if the life of the mother is at risk. Otherwise, the “fruit” of lust, promiscuity, rape or incest should be allowed to ripen without hindrance from those with no ability to identify or foresee the future purpose of souls if allowed to live. (7) Do you think what is often called euthanasia should be allowed? a) for b) against * c) comment by Reesor: No. No matter what the reason – boredom, poverty, pain, terminal illness, government executions, murder or anything else – “death” of a human being is not a choice we should be able to legally make. The only “killing” allowable is when we are forced to fight wars to defend ourselves and the innocent among us. (8) Do you think high school students and/or junior high school students and/or grammar school students should ever be given contraceptives? a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: No. The “gift” entices kids to have sex before they are capable of understanding why abstinence is better than having babies out of wedlock. Corrupting souls with a societal “stamp of approval” to enable so-called “safe” sexual activity is diametrically opposed to what true Christians believe. (9) Do you think a person that promotes abortion and/or contraception ought to be allowed to speak to any student from high school on down? a) yes ? (Under the right circumstances) b) no c) comment by Reesor: People on all sides of all issues should be given an opportunity to speak publicly in any forum. Students need to be taught how to make distinctions between deceivers and truth-tellers. Those in authority should be penalized and humiliated if they are found guilty of propagandizing in favor of particular viewpoints – to prevent confusion and/or distortion of facts. In other words, it would be best to schedule two speakers with opposing opinions to allow students to make choices. (10) Do you think that homosexual activity should ever be taught as being permissible? a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: Sexual orientation, homosexual or otherwise, is a personal blessing or curse – depending on a variety of reasons. There are spiritual, psychological, and hereditary variables that contribute to how individuals express themselves sexually. Most kids exhibit “curiosity” about anything that is unknown to them and are usually eager to learn and experiment. Since I believe in what I’ve learned from reading the Bible, teaching anyone to do anything that has been described as “sinful” by God would be wrong. Perverted, unnatural sexual activities should never be accepted as “status quo” permissible behavior. Lord Jesus Christ recommends being lovers not condemners. Judging others is God’s job – not ours. While we keep busy trying to overcome our own sins, we should do our best to tolerate, respectfully, those with lifestyles that are contrary to our own. (11) Do you think two men (or two women) should be told that “marriage” is an option for them to enter into with another? a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: The historic meaning of the word “marriage” does not equate to what two men or two women do when united for the purpose of “sex” or for social/legal reasons. People have the freedom to be “true to themselves” if they are willing to deal with the consequences of their choices. God and governments need to teach nonconformists to mind their own business rather than asking us to approve or emulate them. Appeasing might be pleasing, temporarily, but ramifications for the legalization of “sexual companionship” that is contrary to God’s laws might put America in further jeopardy? (12) Concerning two men (or two women) who have an unnatural attraction for one another: Do you think this should be regarded as a “civil union?” a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: The phrase “civil union” is just a clever way for proponents to move toward social acceptance. Existing tax laws or traditions that make distinctions between people – married or unmarried – should not be changed to make life easier for those who rebel against the “God” that most Americans serve. Many folks would like for every imaginable “sin” to be legal here on earth – even though serving false gods, dishonesty, blasphemy, lust, fornication and adultery are a few of the “Laws” we need to obey. If we actually want God to bless us, our family, our friends, and the United States of America, I can’t imagine why anyone would go out of their way to aggravate Him. (13) Do you think any governmental body should ever purchase and/or dispense (freely or otherwise) artificial contraceptives? a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: No. The government needs to stay out of the sexual part of our lives and stop using tax resources to enable corruption of society. We Christians do not believe in lust, fornication or adultery – with or without contraceptives. (14) Do you support the new “healthcare law” that was approved by the House and Senate, and signed into law by President Obama? a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: Most citizens in this country, including me, have never read the “healthcare law.” I’m sure there are parts that I would agree with, but there are many reasons why I’m inclined not to approve. The whole concept of “healthcare” is too complex for the federal government to properly regulate. We have put too much trust in people and institutions that tend to be motivated by “profit” instead of compassion. Insurance companies have surpassed “faith in God” for reasons that seem practical, but trust in “money schemes” is a substitute for trust in a higher power. I’d rather die from natural causes than have my life prolonged by doctors who cared more about medicare, medicaid or “money” than my survival. We need to keep health-related services locally owned and managed by the people for the people. Elimination of waste combined with “supply and demand” marketplace competition would help assure lower costs. Doctors and patients must negotiate contracts based upon mutual agreement to prevent needless lawsuits. Otherwise, there will be increasing problems leading to inefficient care unless medical practitioners take on a “Mother Teresa” mind set. (15) Do you think money collected from taxes should be used to pay for abortions? a) yes b) no * c) comment by Reesor: No. Men and women of all ages need to take responsibility for their behavior – in and out of bed. If unwanted pregnancies are allowed to be a burden for taxpayers, nothing will change. Those who think sex is a free game to be played need to pay the price for their actions. “Charity” might still be required if “adoption” is the option, but making abortionists rich is not something most people with common sense want to do. Note from James Reesor: A copy of this information was mailed to Patrick Benedict along with a copy of my “Tennessee 2010 Divine Intervention” message. It also seemed appropriate to share this here on my web site at “James Reesor 2010 Campaign Issues.” JAMES REESOR for GOVERNOR (Needing A Miracle To Win) Permission to copy/share this information on the world wide web is hereby granted. More Info: JamesReesor.com |
