Bedrock

The nature of political and social discourse is rarely honest. Opponents often choose issues and words that intentionally put their side or position in the better light by making the other side look bad. The abortion debate is a good example. It starts with as simple a thing as names. Although one side calls itself “pro-life,” the other side chooses to call it “anti-abortion,” giving the position a different character. The other side does the same, calling them “pro-abortion,” even though they prefer “pro-choice.” In fact, it is easy to spot the biases of those reporting on the controversy, by the labels they use. Most of the media use “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion,” showing themselves to be on that same side. Conservative or Christian reporters will say “pro-life” and “pro-abortion.” The rare but objective reporter [1] will respect all parties, using “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” The divergence and duplicity extends throughout the controversy. The pro-choice su

Everyone thinks he or she is right. As long as facts are correct, information given is true, and reasoning is logical, most people will possess accurate knowledge to the level of their age, experience, education, and abilities. Of course, none of that controls the opinions people may hold. Children believe what their parents tell them, whether it is the existence of Santa Claus or their assurance of love. Adolescents may refuse, for a time, to believe anything their parents say. Some hold ideological or religious opinions uncritically, but wise adults usually learn never to assume that any person, organization, or party may be trusted unconditionally. An ideology or system of thought is only as good as the mind or minds that create it, and a wise person takes care even with one’s own beliefs. Since nobody is perfect, no one’s system of beliefs is perfect either. While Christians may be confident that that God and His Word are perfect, none of us sinners can be trusted always to