Real-Life Religion: A Presentation Sponsored by Bethany Lutheran College's Student Senate

Marie MacPherson
April 10, 2019

On April 7, 2019 Marie MacPherson joined BLC’s campus for a presentation sponsored by the student senate to share some insights regarding misleading “pop-Christian” sentiments. The advertising for the event was as follows:

Join “Mrs. Mac” on her spiritual soapbox in a round robin conversation. An educator, author, speaker, and mother of six (on earth), Marie will guide discussion on real-life implementation of your faith in a discussion format. Topics include following your heart, handling depression, and sharing God’s love with those around you. Come one, come all, and bring your questions!

The provocative statements below served as the outline for the presentation. Each member of the audience picked up a slip of paper with one of the statements, and read it aloud to the group, attempting a Scriptural response. Marie moderated the discussion, adding her own thoughts and perspective as a summary, which are listed below. If you are interested in having Marie present to your group, contact her here.

1. That stuff in the Old Testament misogynist and anti-woman!

Certainly, horrible and tragic things happen to many women in the Old Testament. But, reading the context, it is clear that these accounts are historical, not condoned by God. Even so, some ceremonial or civil laws of the Old Testament, viewed through modern lenses, may seem oppressive to some women. However, Christians of today are bound only by God’s moral laws (The Ten Commandments), which apply equally to men and women.

Rose Adle and Rebekah Curtis write in Ladylike, “The OT is a place where bad things happen to bad and good people, and lots of them women. Ancient Near East ladies find themselves in bad situations: they are taken advantage of, they have their honor stolen and their features ruined, they deal with the physical and social taxes on their complicated biology, nobody remembers their names, and they still have to pick up after everybody. Sounds pretty familiar with today’s society, except that the families of rape victims aren’t allowed to kill rapists anymore. There is nothing new under the sun. Let’s not forget that the Old Testament also speaks tenderly and sensitively of many women, and it even attributes to God the characteristics of a nursing mother. God shows that the female experience is thoroughly human.”

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

Myth vs. Fact: Maternity, Motherhood, and Matrimony: A "Beyond Bethany" Presentation

Marie MacPherson
April 3, 2019

On April 2, 2019 Marie MacPherson join BLC's Beyond Bethany club to share some insights from her nearly 15 years as a wife and mother. The advertising for the event was as follows:

In this round robin conversation, join “Mrs. Mac” on her birth, baby, and bridal soapbox. An educator, author, speaker, and mother of six (on earth), Marie will guide a discussion on how to “have it all” (myth!), with topics including pregnancy, breastfeeding, parenting, marriage, and grace (fact!) … always grace! Informative for both guys and gals, bring your questions!

The (sometimes controversial) statements below served as the outline for the presentation. Each member of the audience picked up a slip of paper with one of the statements, and read it aloud to the group, grappling to answer whether the statement is a myth or a reality. Marie moderated the discussion, adding her own thoughts and perspective as a summary, which are listed below. These summaries do not always directly state a true or false answer, but give additional points to hopefully broaden the audience's horizons.

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

Deny Healthcare to the Unvaccinated?

Marie MacPherson
March 12, 2019

Some are suggesting a “compromise” between those who vaccinate and those who don’t: Deny healthcare to the unvaccinated.

This suggestion varies regarding the players (doctors, ER workers, nurses, clinics, hospitals, individual employees) and the details (deny all healthcare in any form, deny only treatment for vaccine-preventable diseases, or some combination), but in essence, it would force the unvaccinated to “suffer the consequences” for their choices. Besides the glowing discrimination in this suggestion, there are four main reasons to oppose it: 1) It is unethical. 2) It is impossible to implement consistently. 3) It is based on fear and hate; not truth or tolerance. 4) It is won’t actually solve any problem.

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

Minnesota Legislature Threatens to Eliminate Parental Choice in Vaccination Mandate

Ryan MacPherson
February 22, 2019

Quick Summary

Current Minnesota law generally requires K-12 students to receive a standard vaccination schedule, but allows an exemption when parents object on conscientious grounds. A recently introduced bill would revoke the parental choice exemption from current law.

Legislative Analysis

Current Law

• MN Rev. St. 120A.22 Subd. 5 requires: “Every child between seven and 17 years of age must receive instruction unless the child has graduated.”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 1 requires: “Except as provided in subdivisions 3, 4, and 10, no person over two months old may be allowed to enroll or remain enrolled in any elementary or secondary school or child care facility in this state until the person has submitted to the administrator or other person having general control and supervision of the school or child care facility, one of the following statements [verifying vaccination compliance].”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15, Subd. 3(d) allows the following exemption from compulsory vaccination (emphasis added): “If a notarized statement signed by the minor child's parent or guardian or by the emancipated person is submitted to the administrator or other person having general control and supervision of the school or child care facility stating that the person has not been immunized as prescribed in subdivision 1 because of the conscientiously held beliefs of the parent or guardian of the minor child or of the emancipated person, the immunizations specified in the statement shall not be required. This statement must also be forwarded to the commissioner of the Department of Health.”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 9(a) applies the preceding requirement and exemption to private schools and home schools as much as to public schools, by defining “elementary or secondary school” as “includ[ing] any public school, nonpublic school, church, or religious organization, or home school in which a child is provided instruction in compliance with sections 120A.22 and 120A.24.”

Proposed Bill

• SF 1520, as introduced on February 21, 2019, would amend current law by striking MN Rev. St. 121A.15, Subd. 3(d)—the section quoted above that currently protects a parent’s right to conscientiously object.
• In view of the other sections of current law quoted above, this revocation of parental rights obviously intends to apply to children ages 7 through 17, regardless of whether they are enrolled in public, private, or home schools.

Call to Action

Get Informed

• There are at least 16 good reasons why a parent might conscientiously object to mandatory vaccination—including reasons supported by peer-reviewed medical research as well as reasons recognized by federal court rulings that have awarded monetary damages to families who suffered vaccine-induced injuries.

Stay Informed

• Track the progress of SF 1520 in the Minnesota legislature.
• On February 21, 2019, the bill was referred to the Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee.
• (Check back for future updates....)

Share Your Concerns

• Contact members of the committee(s) identified under “Stay Informed” (above) by clinking the link(s) above.
• Contact legislators from your own district, using this handy directory.
• Borrow some talking points from the 16 good reasons why parental choice makes sense for vaccine policy, or follow the research links in that article in order to discover additional talking points.
• Tell your friends through social media: “I am not anti-vaccine; rather, I am pro-freedom. I oppose vaccination mandates, while remaining open to individuals’ choices of whether to vaccinate themselves and their children.”

Print