Boston Legal

Nothing really deep today, I just got to see the show "Boston Legal" for the first time in a while, and I remember why I loved that show (it's not that good when you don't see it every week, but it was still good tonight). They tackle tough issues. They make you think. They have trials that no one would touch in real life.

Like tonight's. Here's the basic premise. A woman in India lost her child because the health care clinic didn't have the right equipment. They used to have the equipment but lost it because a U.S. agent went there and saw a poster that he interpreted to be pro-abortion. Many of you may not know this, but the U.S. will pull international funding for health care if any clinic is pro-abortion, instead they promote pro-life.

And herein is the debate. One side saying the woman should be compensated for losing her baby since the U.S. pulled it's funding on a law that they don't even support in their own country. Makes sense, we have abortion here, how can we be so hypocritical to say that it's wrong for someone else to do it? (To give a little history, the original reason for the law was to stop euthanasia by countries such as China who have a limit on the children you can have thereby causing people to kill their children if they aren't men and cannot carry on the family name, etc.) But then there was the other side? Why should the U.S. compensate? Why is it our job to supply the world with everything? The U.S. gives $55 BILLION a year to help other countries, while here at home, we are below the top 50 countries in literacy, we have over 30 million people in poverty, we are $8 trillion in debt and we can't even provide for our own people that suffered in hurricane Katrina. Why is it automatically the U.S.'s fault if someone doesn't have the tools they need when the U.S. was generous to give those tools in the first place (and how dare the government make stipulations for those they give money to).

So who is right? Come on all you black and white believers with no room for grey. Which side is right? And after you come up with an answer, imagine you're not an American citizen. Who's right then?

Honestly, the saddest part in all this to me, is this. If everyone around the world who says they're a Christian, who goes to church once a month, who takes Christmas as a vacation, but still would say they believe in God, if all those people were to give the money to the church that God asks them to (10% of their income), would we have this problem? Would there be any corner of the globe without the medical supplies they need? So why are there still places that need financial aid?

Where's that black and white theology now...?

T