For Republicans, Rape Is Still Rape

I am a proud Republican, and more than that, a proud Conservative, which I happily type with a capital 'C' in front. I do not support every plank that the party puts forth, nor do I support every politician that takes up the 'Red' banner. And those who get my vote, such as George W. Bush, sometimes only get it because they are better than the lousy liberal alternatives.

I am also a proud father and grandfather of three beautiful daughters and a wonderful granddaughter, the husband of a loving wife, and a brother-in-law, cousin, uncle, nephew, co-worker, neighbor, and friend to many outstanding women.

All that prefaces my position now in full support of a bill (HR3) put forth by New Jersey's outstanding congressman Chris Smith that would essentially end any taxpayer funding of abortions, as well as any tax breaks for health insurance that covers the same.

You see, the usual suspects in the liberal community, from the radical fringe such as MoveOn to the agenda-driven Planned Parenthood to supposedly mainstream Democrats looking to protect their political power, are predictably against this legislative initiative. However, as usual, they don't stop at simply voicing common sense opposition in a debate of ideas. Instead they have stooped to the usual tactics of code words, divisiveness, and misinterpretation.

The tactic chosen to oppose the anti-abortion legislation, or as those of us firmly on the side of right and good choose to call it, the pro-life legislation, is incredibly and intentionally ugly. They have chosen to paint Republicans as somehow supporting, denying, or minimizing the crime of rape.
They are saying that Republicans are trying to "redefine rape", and have actually stated in some forums that to Republicans, rape is no longer rape.

I find that kind of rhetoric, and that's all it is, political and social rhetoric, to be patently offensive. As a man who has all of the above listed women in his life, I can tell you for a fact that to me and all Republicans, rape is rape is rape. I would be wholly sympathetic to and supportive of any woman in my own life who might experience this crime, in fact, a couple of them have experienced it. The same statement of sympathy and support can be said for Representative Smith, Republican leader John Boehner, and every other Republican politician.

This is, of course, not the issue that the legislation relates to at all. The legislation aims to back up with concrete action one of the basic platform items in the party's 'Pledge to America' when it won control of congress in the elections of November 2010. As Boehner has stated "Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life."

A simple reading of the actual legislation easily shows that Republicans indeed have a heart. The first handful of sections, 301-304, state the long-held party position against the murder of innocent babies in the womb as they call for a prohibition on the funding of abortions themselves, for health care plans that cover abortions, on tax benefits relating to abortion, and on federal facilities and employees being used in the killings.

Then section 309 clearly reads that these limitations shall not apply to "situations where the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incense." It further reads that the limitations shall not apply in the case "where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Common sense legislation that respects and allows provisions for women who have been attacked, abused, taken advantage of, or placed in danger while also standing up against the killing of innocent lives simply because someone was irresponsible, lazy, careless, negligent, or just plain-old heartless and uncaring. Once again, and per usual, a simple actual reading of the actual legislation being presented shows the truth for those who are willing to seek it out.

So do not allow yourself to be persuaded by headline-grabbing, blog-clogging, radical lefty propaganda campaigns currently underway. Read the legislation yourself by simply clicking on the title of this article, which is a link to that legislation as actually proposed in it's entirety. Then make your own decision. But make no mistake, we Republicans love and care for the women in our lives, and we will not be "redefining rape" at all. Rape is rape, and it is morally wrong. Just as morally wrong is the murder of innocent children whose only "fault" is one of being an inconvenient burden to an irresponsible parent.

Understanding the God Gap

The census report is out and from what I've heard a number of "blue states" will lose

Congressional representation, while a number of "red states" will gain representatives.  This, according to the pundits bodes ill for Barack Obama's reelection chances.  I really can't comment on the latter, the next election is two years away, so who knows how this all will work out.  But I'd like to think about some of the assumptions, like the idea that the God Gap we currently see in our political landscape will have long lasting governing implications.

I'm reading American Grace by Robert Putnam and David Campbell, and have been reporting from my experiences reading this tremendously important book.  I've reached the section of the book that looks at the relationship of religion to American Politics.  One of the interesting points that the authors make is that prior to 1980 there really wasn't much of a God Gap between the two parties.  Things changed around 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and the decision of the two political parties to place in their platforms planks both pro and con abortion.  The authors write:

Remember, though, that a political issue can only divide the electorate when voters are presented with a choice on that particular issue.  In the case of abortion, the Democratic and Republican parties did not diverge sharply on the issue until the 1980s.  In 1976, the Republican platform was more or less neutral on abortion.  By 1980 it unequivocally endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, language that has been preserved ever since.  Meanwhile, as described by political scientist Christina Wolbrecht, 1980 was "the first time the Democratic party firmly established itself as pro-choice and expressed its opposition to the curtailment of federal funding for abortions."  Beginning in the 1980s, voters had a choice on abortion.  The battle lines had been drawn. (American Grace, p. 391). 

  

From then on the GOP became the party of "moral traditionalism," and at least for religiously observant whites, it became the "God party."  The authors of this book note that Blacks, who are the most religiously observant group within American society, are the exception to this rule -- with few blacks voting GOP!  Although many Blacks share the GOP view on abortion and gay marriage, their list of social issues is much broader and thus they do not find themselves able to make common cause on these issues.  

So, what does that portend for the future?  Does it mean that you can't be religious and a Democrat?  I hope that's not true, but those who take a more secular view are more likely to be Democrat than Republican.  

And then the question is -- what is the electoral impact of this Gap?  Here is where the future is uncertain -- with a growing number of voters declaring themselves Independents -- religion apparently plays little role in their views.  So, with this growing swing group making itself felt, maybe religion will fade into the background in the near future?  Only time will tell, but I think this is a conversation worth having for both the sake of the church and the state!

Split Ticket -- A Review

SPLIT TICKET: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics. Edited by Amy Gopp, Christian Piatt, and Brandon Gilvin. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010. viii + 184 pp.

If the reports are to be believed, young adults are leaving the church, either because it has become too politicized or because institutional religion has become corrupt and moribund. They are, for instance, turned off by their perception that churches tend to be anti-homosexual. And if truth be told, they’re probably correct in this perception, for at most, a majority of churches have followed the lead of the military and have instituted a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In other words, stay in the closet.

Of course, not all young adults are leaving the church. Neither are all young adults rejecting what some would call political agendas (definitions are important here, because many consider social justice advocacy/action to be political, while others see it as a proper extension of the gospel). As is true of people of every generation, today’s young adults are not of one mind when it comes to the question of politics and religion. Things are complex!

Split Ticket, the book that is under review here, is the second book in Chalice Press’s WTF (Where’s the Faith?) Series, a series that is edited by, authored by, and intended for young adults. The first book in the series, provocatively titled O God! O God! O God!, (reviewed here) looked at the issue of sex, and this book will be just as provocative as the first. Focusing here on the relationship between faith and politics, we are presented with a series of nineteen essays that range from anarchist to prophetic to politically engaged. The theology evidenced by the writers runs from evangelical to liberationist. Authors are gay and straight, male and female, clergy and laity, and from most every ethnic community. As is true in the first volume in this series, the essays are extremely personal. These volumes are designed to start a conversation, which is why each chapter ends with three discussion questions.

This volume is divided into three sections – “From Awakenings to Activism”; “God in the Voting Booth”; and “We’ve Got Issues.” To give a flavor of the essays comprising each section, consider that the first section includes essays about connecting faith to activism, including an essay by David Ball entitled “Thy Revolution Come: An Invitation to Radical Discipleship.” Ball frames his essay with the Lord’s Prayer, and suggests that radical discipleship is best expressed through “Christian Anarchism.” Christian anarchism, as the phrase suggests, calls for radical, even revolutionary action, even against one’s own government. Amy Gopp, one of the three co-editors, on the other hand reflects back to her time spent in Bosnia, and speaks of building bridges between groups and peoples in the pursuit of peace.

In the second section the essays range from the provocative essay by John Edgerton and Vince Amlin that charges that voting itself is an act of violence and coercion, and thus as Christians they have decided not to vote. They suggest that a better way of making decisions is one of consensus-building. As one who has long believed that voting is a national responsibility, this essay was disturbing to say the least, and yet it is a view that many are considering in our day. On the other hand, others see the value of one’s faith in influencing not just voting, but political action. If there is a consensus here is that, as Gabriel Saguero writes, “the Gospel challenges all political ideologies and denounces any obedience to any Lord but Christ” (p. 113).

In the final section, the essayists reflect on the leading issues of our time, from abortion to health care reform, and the way that we deal with them from a perspective of faith. What is clear from the essays is that this isn’t a clear-cut process. There is gray area to be considered, and the role of the church needs to be weighed carefully. Christian Piatt writes an intriguing and extremely personal essay about his own struggle with the pro-life/pro-choice debate in the context of the births of his own two children. Being strongly pro-choice, he found himself equally pro-life, as he fell in love with the “it” that was the fetus being carried by his wife. Christian reminds us that personal experience is a powerful contributor to the way we look at issues. Things become much less cut and dry, once one is personally engaged. As Christian puts it:

I’m not ready to jump the pro-choice ship, but the experiences of parenthood have had a permanent change on my understanding of life, the human soul, and our responsibility as joint stewards of those lives. . . . I may wrestle with this subject until the end of my days, but one thing is for sure: I love my kids, both of them. Even if one of them had never been able to join us in the world, and had never had the opportunity of loving and being loved, I would still love “It” all the same (p. 134).

So, are young adults calling for the church to be apolitical? No, however, they want the church to deal honestly with issues such as homosexuality, abortion, justice, the environment. They decry hypocrisy and want issues to be dealt with in light of faith and not just politics as usual being baptized into the church. They are passionate, but they also seem to want to keep the bridges standing (unless you’re an anarchist and the bridges lead to injustice). Perhaps Earle Fisher states it best:

Political truths may be something we’re willing to fight for, campaign for, or give money to. But a personal, spiritual truth, truly embraced as a foundational tenet of our identity as God-created beings, is something to which we’re willing to give our entire lives to, and perhaps die for (p. 148).

In other words, for these young adults, faith is the foundation, the guide, for their political engagement, even if that means deciding not to participate in the political process, because to do so would be to participate in a coercive, and therefore violent, system.

I heartily recommend this book to anyone wishing to understand the relationship of faith and politics. These essays may be written by and for young adults, but the issues they raise, and the solutions they suggest, are as pertinent to those who are well into their retirement years as those who are just entering the adult world.

While my recommendation of this book would not be any different, I should note that the editors, all members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) are people whom I know and have worked with in the past (and in the present). I have high regards for all of them as individuals and for the work that they do in the church and outside it. Two of them, Amy Gopp and Brandon Gilvin, are Disciples clergy, while the third, Christian Piatt, is married to one. They are all committed to the church and to social justice (Gopp and Gilvin are in leadership at Week of Compassion, the relief and development arm of the Disciples).

As for the authors, many of the contributors are unknown to me, and while I agree with some and not with others, each of them offered insightful and challenging words that demand my attention, and the attention of any reader. If we’re to accept the premise that young adults are tired of politicized churches, then we must first understand what they mean by their critique, and this is a good place to start!

 

Teen Activists Champion Life

James Balch has had female friends tell him that abortion is none of his business, nor anyone else’s.
But Balch, 15, makes it his business.

“This is not just a women’s issue,” he told Our Sunday Visitor. “This is a human issue, and the effects of abortion are incomprehensible.”

Balch, who lives in Fredericksburg, Va., is a member of his local Teens for Life chapter, and in June, he joined young people from across the country at the 38th Annual National Right to Life Committee’s Convention held in Pittsburgh, Pa.

It also was the 25th anniversary of the founding of National Teens For Life, part of NRLC based in Washington, D.C. Guest speakers included Jack St. Martin, of Maryland, the founding president of NTL when he was 16.

Humanitarian issue

“There’s a lot that young people can do to support pro-life,” Balch said. “It’s an issue so fully integrated into our society that any of us on the front lines, when we speak to our friends and peers, can have an effect on them now and in the future.”

His parents, Burke and Mary Balch, are pro-life, and both spoke at the Teens for Life convention. His sister, Bridget, 18, was president of a pro-life group in high school and is a member of another group in college.

“I was always taught to appreciate the value of life, and I know the very harmful effects that abortion and other things that degrade life have on our society,” Balch told OSV. “My Catholic faith has played into this, to a certain extent, but this isn’t strictly a religious issue. This is very much a humanitarian issue.”

Armed with facts

One of the biggest challenges for a pro-life teen, he said, is facing “animosity, preconceived, judgmental and even extreme” reactions from peers who are pro-choice. So NTL members are prepared with solid facts — for instance, accurate details about the stages of development of an unborn child.

“I know how to respond to these people,” said Bethany Schumacher, 19, of Menasha, Wis., who will be a junior at University of Wisconsin in Madison this fall. “Our organization encourages members to be loving, compassionate and calm, and I have an answer and a fact for every argument that my peers can throw at me. Getting past their emotional defense is probably the hardest part.”

However, she added, “apathy is their biggest defense.”

“They say that they would never have an abortion, but that they wouldn’t stand in the way of someone else’s rights,” she said. “Obviously, that’s not how we [in pro-life] feel about it. It really is an injustice that needs to be corrected, no matter who is involved.”
Schumacher comes from a “big Catholic family” of nine children, including two who are adopted. Her parents are Phil and Karen Schumacher.

“I really didn’t know much about pro-life and abortion when I was little,” she said. “When my sister Maria was a freshman in high school, they started learning about it, and she asked our mom and started investigating on her own. To her, abortion seemed inherently wrong.”

Maria Schumacher became involved in a pro-life group for teens, and when she died at age 14 after being struck by a car while walking with a friend, Bethany Schumacher, then in the sixth grade, joined the movement. She is a member of the Fox Valley chapter of Wisconsin Right To Life, and is involved in teen leadership camps for state members.

“This movement is the most important issue of our day,” she said. “There’s poverty and there’s war, and there are injustices all across the world. This is a fundamental issue that’s happening in our neighborhoods, our schools and in our churches. It’s so easy to get involved and to share the simple message of life, love and hope. You can impact so many people.”

Derrick Jones

Derrick Jones of Washington, D.C., grew up in the pro-life movement and came of age moving up the ranks. At 14, he co-founded a teen group in Springfield, Ill., served on the national board and in 1994, at 16, was president of National Teens for Life. He is now NTL communications director and co-adviser.

“Our adult chapters mentor the younger generations, and many of those teens go on to help lead the movement, myself included,” he told OSV during the convention in Pittsburgh. “There really is a continuity, and it’s training the next generation to one day take over the leadership reins and take the movement further into the 21st century.”

The teens, he said, are very educated on end of life, euthanasia and assisted suicide issues, too.

“The issues we deal with are very challenging and there are different ones every year,” Jones said. “We are not battling just political or legal reality. We are dealing with a cultural reality as well, and it’s a battle to change hearts and minds. But I am confident that we will see the day that legal protection is returned to unborn children.”

Jones, raised a Catholic, has a personal interest in the pro-life movement. His mother, he said, was young, unmarried and pregnant — “a prime target for the abortion industry.”

She chose life.

“You realize that you are one of the lucky ones,” he said. “A lot of us have stories like that and become pro-life almost as a sense of duty. You realize that something has to give, something has to stop, so you get involved and educate your peers about what abortion has done to our generation and what it has done to our friends.”

Joleigh Little

Joleigh Little didn’t have a strong opinion about pro-life issues when she was in high school, she said, “But I started researching it and talking about it, and I realized how important it was. I prayed about it and told God that if he wanted me to do something about it, I would. And 25 years later, I still am.”

In 1984, Little, now 39, of Solon Springs, Wis., was one of the founders of a pro-life group for teens in her area. She is now a co-adviser for National Teens For Life and also the Teens For Life director for the Wisconsin Right To Life.

“This is the greatest cause of our time, and it’s a privilege to see young people standing up and speaking out, because it’s their generation that’s being destroyed by abortion,” she said.

Little, who belongs to a non-denominational church, has praise for the unity that binds pro-life people of different faiths, and even no faith at all.

“There are a lot of denominational differences among Christians,” she said. “But when it comes to life, you don’t notice who’s Catholic, Protestant, or anything else.”

WRITTEN BY: Maryann Gogniat Eidemiller with original article at Our Sunday Visitor available by clicking on the title of this posting

America's Pro-Life Movement Gaining Steam

There is little doubt that abortion is a complex and multifaceted issue. With divergent viewpoints and a muddled “middle ground," it is common for public opinion polls to yield seemingly contradictory results.

Despite the perceived difficulties in definitively determining abortion perspectives, recent developments expose a public that is steadily growing warmer to the pro-life point of view. If this trend continues, there will be intriguing social and political implications, especially considering the surprising stance Millennials are taking on the issue.

One could argue that the nation's ongoing abortion debate re-fueled and intensified following President Obama's controversial speech at the University of Notre Dame in May 2009. Since the widely publicized event, journalists and researchers have attempted to qualify recent polls that corroborate an increase in pro-life sentiments. In May 2009 Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, wrote, abortion is “a highly fraught subject—and one of those on which a single polling number does not begin to describe the complexity of Americans' attitudes.”

Langer says that the majority of Americans are actually pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously. For instance, some people may believe that abortion should be legal, but only in specific cases (i.e. rape or if the woman's life is in danger). In this case, the stance calls for legal abortion (pro-choice sentiment), but only in very specific circumstances (pro-life sentiment). In either case, an individual who subscribes to these beliefs is essentially aligning him or herself with both poles of the abortion debate—albeit, to different degrees.
Interestingly, Langer is not alone in his conclusions. In May 2009, New York Times journalist Dalia Sussman urged readers to be cautious when jumping to the conclusion that America may actually be embracive of pro-life tenants. According to Sussman, “[Asking if someone is “pro-life” or “pro-choice”] creates absolutes, when in reality, abortion really represents an issue in which there aren’t any absolutes for many (if not most) people.”

While this may be a valid argument in terms of recognizing complexities in perception, it is entirely possible that a slight majority of Americans are still avoiding absolutes, while sliding, albeit slowly, toward a more pro-life world view. Statistics from multiple sources corroborate this notion. One does not have to be “absolute” in a belief to lean more in one direction than another.

Imagine a line on which one charts his or her support on a scale from zero to 10 (10 being “extremely favorable” of abortion rights). Now, picture millions of people plotted along this continuum. While individuals may hold diverse beliefs on the subject, chances are that a majority would find itself on either end (this is to say before or after the five, or middle ground, placement) of the spectrum. For instance, an individual who opposes abortion, yet thinks that it should be legal in cases of rape, may choose a three on the continuum, instead of a zero. Here, this person clearly opposes abortion, while possessing some sense that it should be permitted in select circumstances. Even though his or her opinion isn't an extreme (a zero or 10), the individual still leans more in favor of pro-life sentiments.

Despite resistance from some journalists and researchers who cannot fathom a reduction in support for pro-abortion arguments, public opinion polls continue to reflect a collective, albeit slow, movement away from pro-choice-ism. In Oct. 2009, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life was one of many reputable sources to recognize a drop in support for abortion. Pew found that, while abortion supporters outnumbered foes in 2007 and 2008, the two sides are now equal in number. Additionally, Pew wrote that “there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain.” And most surprisingly: “Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.”
Perhaps most intriguing is the closure in the generational gap. According to Gallup, those Americans aged 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 were most supportive of abortion rights in the late 1970s. This pattern has evolved since 2000, with all age groups aside from seniors (65 and older), sharing similar views on abortion. Not surprisingly, seniors remain the “least likely to favor legal abortion.”

Now for the bombshell:

Gallup found that between 2005 and 2009, among those individuals who are 18 to 29 years of age, there has been a nine-percentage-point increase in the belief that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances.” This essentially means that young Americans are nearly tied with seniors in their belief that abortion should be eradicated.

Interestingly, this group is also frequently pointed out by the left to be strongly in favor of more liberal social and political policy. However, young people appear to be moving more in line with conservatives on this issue, further corroborating the notion that Millennials may not be sold on progressive policies.

Make no mistake, opinions about abortion have not shifted radically on the whole. That said, public perception appears to be sliding in the pro-life direction. In 2001, Gallup asked respondents if they saw abortion has morally acceptable or morally unacceptable; 42% said that abortion is morally acceptable, with 45% stating the contrary. In 2010, this same poll found only 38% claiming that abortion is moral, with 50% stating the opposing view, that abortion is immoral.

Abortion will continue to be a highly controversial topic in American political and social circles, as both sides argue in support of their respective stances. With Millennials poised to inherit future leadership posts, the generation's less-favorable abortion perspective offers an intriguing conundrum to the left. In the end, it is the Millennial generation that will create the laws and monitor the policies that govern this highly contentious subject.

WRITTEN BY: Billy Hallowell with original article at Human Events available by clicking on the title of this blog entry

Thanks Mom?

My mother was a very good woman, of that I am as certain as anything I have ever known in this life. She loved God, loved her family, and despite being overwhelmed by a debilitating illness that robbed her of much of her life's full enjoyment, she never ceased to express that love to either.

My mom mattered. She mattered in my life, the life of my brother, the lives of my children, and the lives of a great number of other friends and family members. She touched us all in a way that will always be with us. But for as much as she was to everyone else, what she was to my brother Mike and I was extra special. But did she choose life for us? Roe did not exist then, should it have, should we have been her 'choice'?

This is an important idea to discuss, as yesterday was the awful anniversary of the 'Roe v Wade' court decision that made abortion a legal medical procedure here in the United States. What 'Roe' effectively did was lead to the mass slaughter of more than 50 million American babies over the next three and a half decades.

Supporters of that decision would argue that had 'Roe' been in effect in 1961, my birth would not have been the miracle from God that it was considered at that time, but instead it would have been a medical 'choice' made by my mom. And it would have been a 'choice' that she could make regardless of what my dad wanted.

Of course her 'choosing' to nurture and birth me out into the world should probably be something that would make me happy, right? What is better, to be considered just some random accident of nature, or something forced on her by God, or a conscious choice made by one's mother or parents together?

The fact of the matter is that having been born, in the end my own 'choice' has to be that I would rather my mom did not have such a one herself. For with that 'choice' comes the possibility that hers could have been different. Play a little game with me here.

Had my mother made the choice to not have me, I would never have been born in the first place. Without even considering myself as anything special in the grand scheme of existence, it is a simple fact that the world would never be the same. My brother either would not have been born either, or his life would also be completely different if for no other reason than his growing up without my interactions.

Anyone with whom I came in contact over the course of my life would be different, particularly if there was anyone: a friend, girlfriend, co-worker with whom I interacted and made some even small difference in their lives. My children would not have been born, nor my grandchildren. Generations would not exist. What could their contributions have been to the world?

What about her own mother? What if her mother had chosen not to have my mom? What if somehow there was a test that could have told my grandmother that my mom would end up as sick as she was? Would that have been a legitimate reason to 'choose' to terminate the pregnancy, to kill my mom? Was my mom's life worth less somehow because some illness would eventually overwhelm her?

For those who consider 'choice' as a woman's natural 'right', have you ever bothered to take a minute to consider the 'right' of the unborn child to actually have a life? You know, the life that is enabling you to read this posting right now? The gift of your life is not a gift of your mother's choice. It is a gift from God Himself, to your parents, your family, your friends, and to you.

The arguments on behalf of abortion always come down to a handful: saving the life of the mother or terminating a pregnancy that happened due to rape or incest. These arguments simply do not hold up under close examination. The fact of the matter is that abortion is used as birth control.

In both 1987 and 2004, the AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) surveyed women who had actually had abortions as to the reasons that they did it. Feel free to do the research yourself as to the validity of the organization or their methods, but you will find that they are professional, reputable and scientifically sound.

In 1987, only 1% of respondents had an abortion due to rape or incest, and only 3% due to some medical condition of the mother. Even taking into account the 3% additional who claimed that some fetal health issue was the reason, this means that 93% of those who had abortions did so simply because it would make their lives easier. They killed their child so that things would supposedly be easier on them.

In 2004, the respondents only claimed that rape or incest was the reason in less than half of one percent of the cases. Mother's health was the reason in 4%, fetal health issues in 3%. So once again, roughly 93% of respondents gave reasons for their 'choice' that boiled down to making their own lives easier at the cost of the life of the baby.

Women who support a 'right' to a 'choice', who are you kidding? The only 'choice' that you want to be able to make is to reverse the effects of some decision to have unprotected sex that you made in an irresponsible moment. That is the simple fact for more than 9 out of 10 women who walk into an abortion clinic or hospital to take this action.

It would be easy for you to get mad at me and say that my position is easy for some man to take. But the fact of the matter is that those who fight for life include tens of millions of women and girls, so save that attack for someone who will be intimidated. If you are 'pro-abortion' then you have made the decision to support the killing of babies so that irresponsible people can have supposedly easier lives. Live with it, or change.

Of course the fact is also an ironic one, that a large number of women who do have abortions simply do not have easier lives. Survey after survey reveals that many women suffer for years, decades, even the rest of their lives due to the effects of the guilt feelings that follow this 'choice'. Why would that be so? Is it just that society makes them feel guilty, or do they know inside that their 'choice' was morally bankrupt?

These are harsh words for some to hear, but when more than 50 million babies have been slaughtered across the United States of America for reasons that end up not being valid in the end anyway, that is nothing short of a holocaust. The unknown and untold loss of their lives and what they may have brought to their individual families and to humanity in general will never be known or measurable, but they are indeed missed, and their lives while in the womb are indeed worth fighting over.

The babies that should have been born in the most painful situations and under the most awful circumstances could have been given up for adoption, or could have been kept, raised, nurtured lovingly, and become the very blessing that would have made an intolerable and impossible situation into a healing and healthy one.

There is always another side to every story. For too long the side of the baby has been silent. The baby cannot speak for itself. Anyone who has ever had a child, held a fragile young infant in their arms, especially one that they themselves have given birth to or whom they have loved knows this instinctively. Someone needs to stand up and speak for their right to live.

If you have ever had an abortion or been a party to one, it is not too late for you to ask for forgiveness, to seek your own healing, and to begin to join the fight for life. If there is one thing that Jesus Christ taught us it was that the reason He died for us all on the cross was for the forgiveness and healing of our sins. You can make that 'choice' right now.

So in the end, I thank my mom for many things. For the good woman that she was in her life. For her love of God and family that rubbed off on me and eventually helped to make me the man that I am today. But one thing that I do not thank her for is my life. That life was given to her, to me, by God. It is all of our responsibility to stand up for life, not as a 'choice', but as every human beings real natural right.

NOTE: this is a continuation of the regular 'Sunday Sermon' series, all articles of which can be read by clicking on the link below this article at the www.mattveasey.com website

Christmas Thanks to a Young Mother

We began to celebrate the Christmas season over the past week, the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Providing for humanity to be saved by God taking on a human role, however, required first a perfect vessel to deliver that physical birth to the earth.

In his gospel, Saint Luke tells us the story of how the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary saying "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed art thou among women!" Gabriel was sent by God Himself to the teenage virgin who had been chosen as being worthy of body, mind, and spirit to bear the Lord in her womb, give birth to the infant, and be responsible for raising Him as a child.

At the point at which Mary is presented with the idea of becoming the Mother of God, she has a choice. Mary's body wasn't taken over by God, she was not forced to take on this responsibility. She was not herself bred for this sole purpose. She was a normal, young, human woman.

One thing that we know about human beings in their relationship to God is that we have been given a 'free will', the ability to make our own choices and decisions. We have the choice to accept or reject God and His plan for the world and for us as individuals. Mary was given this same choice, and she chose to say "Yes" to God.

This is not at all the same idea of 'choice' involving a pregnancy that has become a hot political and social topic in todays world. In todays arguments, the 'choice' is not between becoming pregnant or not, in having a child or not. Today the alleged 'choice' is between killing a baby that is already in a mothers womb, or of delivering that baby fully and allowing it a chance at a full life.

But what a brief look at the difference between Mary's very real choice and that of women today in the abortion debate does highlight is the idea of consequence. If a woman today chooses to continue her pregnancy, she is allowing the natural process to go forward, and allowing another human being an opportunity at a full life. If she chooses to kill the baby, the baby is dead and has no chance at life.

What would the consequences have been for humanity had Mary said "No" to God? Could anyone have blamed her? She was, after all, just a teenager, already engaged to be married to an older man. How would she explain the pregancy to her fiancee', to her family, to her community? Would anyone, even the most ardent of believers in the idea that God would one day send a Savior, believe her story?

At the point that she made her choice, Mary did not know that God would send his angel to Joseph in order to ease his own mind. In fact, she had no idea exactly what God's ultimate plan would be for the baby as He grew into adulthood and beyond. Would God have moved on to another young woman? Would God have delayed his plan for mankind's salvation for years, decades, generations?

All of that is pure speculation, of course. But considering the idea that Mary had a choice, and that Mary said that "Yes" to God, provides us with an example. During this Christmas season more than any other, God is calling us all to say "Yes" to Him and to His Son, Jesus Christ. Every one of us now has the same choice as given to Mary.

Over the next few weeks most of us will be pretty active in preparing for the Christmas holiday. We will be shopping for toys, games, and gifts for family members and friends. We will be decorating our homes. We will be buying food and cleaning our houses in preparation for parties, guests, family gatherings. We will be taking pictures and wrapping presents and attending parties at which we will drink too much.

How much time will you take over these next few weeks to consider the reason that all of this is happening? How much time will you be taking to think about the birth of Mary's baby, your Savior, Jesus Christ? Will you give him an hour every Sunday? Will you give him an hour or so on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day? Are you willing to give Him even that little bit? Is that even enough?

Maybe all of those gift, decoration, and party considerations should really be secondary considerations for us. Perhaps we should be thinking about Mary's initial decision to choose to accept Jesus into her life, and about Jesus' ultimate gift to all of us in his death for our sins.

I hope and pray that during this Christmas season while doing all of the fun things in today's commercial world, we truly keep with us at all times that 'reason for the season', the welcoming in to the world of the infant baby Jesus, and give thanks to a young mother who made the right choice two thousand years ago.

You Lie!

Congressman Joe Wilson had enough of the lies, and could no longer contain himself. The Republican from South Carolina had sat patiently in his chair while trying to endure 45 minutes of President Barack Obama droning on about extending his Socialist vision of America into the health care industry.

But then Obama told one lie too many for Wilson during last night's nationally televised attempt at indoctrination and bullying. The President let slip that his proposed government option would not cover illegal aliens. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for the Congressman.

"You Lie!" shouted Wilson.

If you were watching on television, you heard it plain as day. The uproar in response was immediate and boisterous as various members of Congress either gasped in astonishment, hollered their disapproval, or mildly cheered the outburst. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, seated immediately over Obama's left shoulder, shot an icy stare in Wilson's direction.

Obama was also stunned by the outburst and momentarily glanced away from his teleprompter, causing him to stumble and mumble a weak "That's not true" as a response. Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats, particularly the ultra-liberals on the far left who are pushing the President further and further towards that Socialist disaster, Joe Wilson was the only one actually speaking truth.

On the issue that caused Wilson's outburst, Obama has repeatedly rebuffed calls for individuals to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive health care under the proposed government option. This will undoubtedly result in illegals receiving such care, and increased numbers of them as Mexicans and others stream across our southern borders to receive better medical care here at no cost.

Well, it's at no cost to the illegal aliens. It will, however, cost every single taxpaying American as money is sucked from our paychecks in order to provide health care for people who are not even citizens of our country.

The funding for this project is another of it's controversial elements, and was addressed last night with another of Obama's lies. He spoke of increasing costs by $900 billion over the next decade, and compared that amount to the same amount to fund the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His point was that it is affordable if we choose to take care of uninsured sick Americans instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy or going to war.

As usual, Obama was lying. The $900 billion dollars over the next decade figure comes from adding up to 18 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. But that is just the rock bottom basic cost. Everyone involved knows that costs will rise and that the plan would end up costing at least hundreds of billions of more dollars. And then there is the fact that the plan doesn't go away after a decade.

Harsh to say that Obama is lying? Not at all. I am going to give Barack Obama credit where liberals were unwilling to give George W. Bush credit by saying that Obama is smart. Fact is, so was Bush, but you'll never convince most libs of that notion. But they would definitely agree with me that Obama is both intelligent and informed.

To even contemplate that Obama does not know all of the facts involving his health plan would be ludicrous. So when he tells you that it will be affordable, that there will be no increase in the federal deficit, that illegal aliens won't be covered, and that abortions won't be covered he is quite simply not telling the truth as he knows it to be. The word we all use for such a person is 'liar' in other instances, and it applies here as well, whether you like the sound of Obama being called one or not.

As to the controversial abortion topic, for instance, the President claims that the language of his health bill is 'neutral' on the issue. Fair enough, but fact is that most Americans have already spoken their minds that they do not want a publicly funded abortion option as part of any taxpayer funded plan. So Republicans tried to insert amendments that would specifically prohibit the plan from covering abortions. The amendments were voted down by the Democrats. So much for the President' bill being 'neutral' on abortion. What is to keep it from covering the procedure, Mr. President?

Mr. President, it might make Nance Pelosi cringe, your fellow Democrats bellow, and even moderate Republicans feign public indignance, but the facts are the facts and the American public deserves more than you and your administration are giving us on issue after issue. A 'Change' to Socialism was not what they voted for last November. I can't blame Joe Wilson for his outburst because frankly, Mr. President, he simply was telling the frustrating truth when he shouted "You Lie!"

A Critical Role for Fathers

The celebration of Father's Day allows our nation a moment to pause and reflect on the memories and experiences of childhood and fatherhood alike.

Aside from the typical gift selection of a new tie, putter or power tools, no serious consideration is given to this holiday. This Father's Day, take a break from the barbecue grill, playing catch or listening to another one of dad's widely exaggerated stories (that you've already heard at least a thousand times), and ponder a more broad subject, the rights of a father.

A father's rights have remained a largely hidden issue, tucked away beneath America's fiery and passionate opinions on abortion. In many ways, the parental rights of expectant fathers are blatantly ignored, and fathers are, in a court of law, unable to voice their opinion in regard to childbirth.

A fundamental assumption leading to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was that because women are biologically tied to the birth process, they should therefore bear all responsibility in deciding the life or death of their children. The reason for this perspective is straightforward: Roe v. Wade rejected the idea that another person controlled a woman's body.

On the one hand, this shattered patriarchal stereotypes that regarded women as little more than vessels. Plainly, that is a good thing. But in the continued fight for equality, various feminist groups have refused to acknowledge the basic human rights of the co-equal contributors to pregnancy: the unborn child and the father. Plainly, that is a bad thing.

Just ask John Stachokus.

Not long ago, Mr. Stachokus planned to have a child with his 23-year-old girlfriend. Together, they picked out the child's name and godparents. He proudly imagined what it would be like to start a family; this made him happy. Then one day, his girlfriend abruptly decided to terminate her pregnancy. She was reacting to pressure from her parents, Mr. Stachokus says. He responded by obtaining an injunction, temporarily prohibiting her from having an abortion, which a court rejected. And just that quickly, Mr. Stachokus' hopes and dreams for his child dissolved.

It did not matter to the court that Mr. Stachokus was willing to take full responsibility for nurturing and providing for the child. His basic human rights did not factor into the court's decision. All that mattered was that his girlfriend suddenly changed her mind and decided to murder their unborn baby. As far as the court was concerned, Mr. Stachokus had no say in the life of his own child. The court regarded him as little more than a soulless contributor of DNA.

Of course, the response of abortion rights advocates is predictable. They greeted news of the demise of Mr. Stachokus' child with cheers and the standard rhetoric about a woman's right to choose. "An adult woman has a fundamental constitutional right to privacy," said Linda Rosenthal, an attorney representing the girlfriend.

Indeed, it is her body, but her body does not exist in a vacuum. She shared that body with Mr. Stachokus - as he did with her - and together they made a decision that led to the creation of a baby (a feat neither of them could have accomplished individually).

Doesn't this symbiotic act give the father some say in the matter of whether his girlfriend may have an abortion? After all, if the baby had been carried to term, Mr. Stachokus, irrespective of his own preferences, would have been legally obligated to pay child support. Society would have demanded that he take responsibility. And yet when it comes to the decision of whether to abort that same child, he is denied any say whatsoever. That is an appalling contradiction.

We live in an age of eroding family values, in which fathers routinely abandon their children and disregard their familial responsibilities. Mr. Stachokus' desire to raise and care responsibly for his child should be commended and encouraged. Instead, the law brutally and arbitrarily denies that he has any right to his child whatsoever.

Countless men are faced with the same nightmare of having no voice in the execution of their children.

"Men's rights are trampled on all the time when it comes to reproductive rights," said Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. It is time to fight back, to force our government to re-evaluate the logic of treating men as little more than fertilizers.

This case raises serious questions about a father's say in the life of his own child, as well as the extent of the government's duty to help project human rights and encourage the family unit. Sadly, these profound questions fall by the wayside in a society that worships at the golden calf of individual choice, and relegates the voice of fathers and unborn babies to the margin.

The outcome of the Stachokus case and other, similar cases points to a need to widen the consideration of abortion beyond just the rights of the mother to the rights of fathers and - of central importance - the unborn child. Only by placing abortion within its proper context will we get a better understanding of its full implications.

Fatherhood is a lifetime commitment, deserving of much more than a single day's celebration. We should not allow the failed father figures of these modern times, or the negative examples of parenting portrayed on television to define or represent every father in the country. This Father's Day, don't limit your thoughts to only fatherhood. Instead, reflect upon the larger concept at hand, the celebration of two individuals uniting together, prayerfully in marriage, to perform one of the most challenging tasks ever known, parenthood.

WRITTEN by Armstrong Williams at The Washington Times on June 17th, 2009

The Canonization of George Tiller

Late-term abortionist George Tiller has been buried. His clinic has been permanently closed. It is being reported that candlelight vigils were held across America for him and that another late-term abortionist has compared him to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Pro-choice” Christian ministers called him a “martyr in the classical sense.” One even called him a “saint.” That he was killed in a church certainly contributed to the hagiography.

Anyone who claims to value all human life should condemn his murder, but that does not mean we should refrain from telling the truth about this alleged saint.

Let’s assume he was not in it for the reported $6,000-$20,000 he charged per late-term abortion, or the fees he charged for the other abortions, 60,000 total, which left him a well-heeled man by all accounts.

Let’s stipulate that he believed in abortion on the level of religious commitment, that abortion was for him what one of his minister-supporters called it: a sacrament.

Let’s say he was a believer in abortion on the order of the Christian martyrs of the second century who were torn apart by wild beasts for their refusal to reject the Christian God. Let us stipulate to all of that. But for what cause, exactly, was he a martyr?

We are told he was a martyr for women. But not one of the late-term abortions he did was to save a woman’s life, according to Kansas health department records. Tiller was not in the life-saving business.

Was he a martyr for some postmodern notion of freedom? Those celebrating his life’s work are most comfortable with abstract terms like “choice,” but we understand that there is real flesh and blood behind the sloganeering – that they are celebrating the work of this man’s hands. Tiller’s late-term abortions were described to the Kansas state legislature:

Tiller or his staff would inject a drug called digoxin through the mother’s abdomen and into the heart of the living baby, killing the child. The mother then has a dead baby in her womb for up to four days as she waits to deliver. The mothers would wait in a local hotel. When the time came to expel her dead baby one Tiller patient, Michele Armesto-Berge, told Kansas lawmakers that Tiller’s staff made her sit over and give “birth” to her dead baby into a toilet.

This is what Tiller did to countless vulnerable women and to countless viable children, children who felt pain, children who could have lived outside the womb if given the chance. If George Tiller was a martyr, he was a martyr to this.

Indeed, Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King, said of the comparisons of Tiller to her uncle: “to mention the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked through peaceful and nonviolent means, in the same breath with that of George Tiller, whose work ended peace and brought violence to babies in the womb, is offensive beyond belief.”

Until Sunday morning, public opinion about abortion was moving towards pro-life positions. Three recent polls confirmed that Americans’ views on abortion had shifted dramatically. One poll showed that 51 percent of Americans – an absolute majority – call themselves pro-life, and that the pro-choice designation trails by nine percentage points. Another poll showed that, even in the highly important 18-to-29-year-old demographic, pro-lifers outnumber supporters of choice. And when you drill down into the polling data, you discover that most Americans are against most of the abortions that occur each year and believe they should be made illegal.

This change has come about through advances in science and medicine that allow new mothers actually to see their developing infants. It also happened because pro-lifers have been wise and patient, and have done their work in large part quietly, head to head and heart to heart. The pro-life movement has been successful against all odds in not only keeping the issue alive despite massive opposition in the media and popular culture, but also in changing hearts and minds.

Will the murder of George Tiller halt this steady and solid progress? It’s too soon to tell. But we should brace for the possibility that a violent act committed by a mentally disturbed man (as his family describes him) will change the playing field profoundly on the most important human rights issue of our day. Abortion activists are already trying to use this crime to discredit and to thwart our efforts. Will the Obama Administration exploit this – another crisis – to try to silence our voices and further its pro-abortion agenda cloaked in “common ground” rhetoric?

Those of us in the pro-life movement know this: We are not going anywhere. We will continue to be peaceful and persistent. Even now, young people on college campuses are coming up with creative ways to advance our cause. Even now, elderly men and women are standing outside of abortion clinics praying for young women to turn around. Even now, young women are turning around, and their lives and the lives of their babies are being saved. Our work will go on.

WRITTEN by Cathy & Austin Ruse at The Catholic Thing webiste on June 12th, 2009

Minimalizing Mothering

While no one in his right mind would dare degrade moms during the week we celebrate Mother's Day, the reality is that modern culture constantly attacks both the authority and honor of motherhood.

Mothers are increasingly expected to be benchwarmers in the lives of our children so we don't get in the way of the "professionals." Many public educators believe they know what is best for your son or daughter. But they can't possibly understand the unique history, gifts and needs of each child shuffled through a system built for the masses. When moms do step in, they are often accused of "interfering," being "overprotective" or "close-minded."

Girls are most vulnerable when moms are shut out - some are given contraceptives, referred for abortions, and on life's biggest questions, are taught the worldview of the "professional" in charge.

Many in pediatrics are intentionally driving wedges between moms and their children. During my own daughter's sports physical when she was 13, the doctor asked me to leave the room so they could have a "private" chat.

When I refused to go, the doctor right there, in front of my child, said, "There are some things I need to talk to her about and you can't be in the room." I firmly responded, "I need to be here for any conversation you have." A third time the woman ordered, "But you can't. We're going to be talking about private things and you have to leave." I shot back, "She's a minor. I'm her mother. And I will be in the room."

The woman sat stunned for a nano-second, then turned to my daughter and said, "You're getting to the age where girls are having boyfriends, and some of them will be kissing and doing other things. You have to do what is right for you." When I interrupted and told the doctor that my daughter knows sex is only for marriage, she looked my precious girl in the eye and said, "Well, that's what some people think, but you have to do what is comfortable for you."

Another doctor later confirmed that such incidents are becoming commonplace.

Don't ever give your authority or influence in the life of your child to someone else. It is you that bears the ultimate responsibility for shaping your child's values and character. God chose you to be the mother - not the government, not the schools, not the doctors.

As I reminded my daughter on the way home the day my mothering was undermined, "If something bad were to happen to you, it's not the doctor that will be here to help. It's me and your dad that will always be here for you. She might be a 'professional,' but she's not your mom. She is a bystander who doesn't truly know or love you. Your dad and I love you more than anyone else in the world possibly could. And I refuse to let anyone interfere with my commitment to you, or with my ability to protect and teach you."

Will you also pledge today to protect your children by standing up to those who would contradict your values or try to relegate you to the back bench? Children need to know that you are committed to them for the long haul, and that you will not leave them to fend for themselves. It's been said that the most powerful word in any language is "mother." May you show your children the depths of your love by exercising your power to the fullest.

WRITTEN by Rebecca Hagelin at The Heritage Foundation on May 5th, 2009

Obama-Dem Mistake #4

Another week, another big mistake by an increasingly radical President Barack Obama and his leftist Congressional cohorts in the Democratic Party. The latest follows fast on the heels of the first three major mistakes during Obama's first 100 days in office: the closing of the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, the ending of the 'Mexico City policy prohibiting the funding of foreign abortions, and the irresponsibly bloated Federal budget that has been mischaracterized and misnamed as a 'stimulus' plan. This week's entry? The President's ending of the ban on human embryonic stem cell research. In their 'Mistake #1', the Prez and the Dems set a course towards the release into the United States or other nations of individuals who have proven by their actions and words that they have made and intend to continue attacks on the U.S. and American citizens. In their 'Mistake #2', the Obama administration took its first actions against human life by opening the door for U.S. funds to flow towards entities that will provide abortions. In their 'Mistake #3', the President and his Congressional allies have foisted a massive budget on the people that can only be considered a first step towards the Socialism of the American government. Here in 'Mistake #4', the most far-left President in U.S. history again attacks human life under his usual guise of trying to better the human condition. In defending and even in promoting his decision he tosses out his old, reliable 'I am a man of faith too' argument. But what faith? What is it that Barack Obama has faith in, in what does he believe and hold sacred? Certainly not in the Word of God, or in the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught us to respect and care for all human life at all times. No, this is a decision based purely on pressure from the very special-interest groups that the President swore with one side of his forked tongue to fight against, and yet with the other side embraces with abandon. This time it is morality itself that he is abandoning to those special interests in the science world. The fact of the matter is that in order to harvest the stem cells which his actions will allow experimentation upon will require the destruction of that human being embryo. Definite, no-doubt-about-it killing in order to potentially, possibly, maybe take some type of step forward in the research towards cures for diseases, illnesses, and conditions. And all for no reason. As quoted by The Washington Times, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn stated "There is no valid reason for destroying human life when science is continually proving that the same cures and treatments can be achieved by using other, more ethical, avenues." This is a purely political and ideological move by Obama and his backers. They frame it as a progressive, humanist overturning of an ultra-conservative and religious-based Bush policy when in fact it is far more simplistic than that. It is a choice by the Obama administration to embrace the death of humans in pursuit of potential help to others. The President and backers of his new policy call the Bush policy barbaric in that they say it represented Bush's choice of ethics over science. In fact, President George W. Bush fully supported scientific research and advancements, when consideration of ethical matters was a part of the equation. Obama and his followers have tossed ethics out the window completely. You cannot claim to be trying to save lives when in doing so you are at the same time ending them. Obama and his ultra-liberal supporters believe in life only when you can cradle it in your arms, and in so doing forget from where we all came. And all of that killing with no guarantees, and as Coburn stated when there are other options for this research. So why do these scientific lobbying groups want to destroy more human life when they know there are other methods and sources? Because the current supply of embryos is not enough for them. They want more. More embryos means more research which means more funding which keeps them in business. Damn the lives lost, they will continue to put on their sham of a research program by directly destroying lives. They have foisted the lie on the American people that this research will lead to cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and any other bugaboo that they can use to conjure up sympathy from the American public. They have no proof of this whatsoever. If these scientists fail, they can always say "hey, we only said that it was possible." Meanwhile, just as in the abortion ruse, millions of human being embryos will have paid with their lives. They hate to hear it framed this way, but it really is quite simple. This is a direct matter of life and death. The lives and deaths of the human embryos involved. Philadelphia's own Cardinal Justin Rigali had this to say after the Obama decision was announced: "President Obama's new executive order on embryonic stem cell research is a sad victory of politics over science and ethics. This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested. It also disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life. Finally, it ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support." This choice of scientific experimentation over human life is the 2nd time that Barack Obama has chosen against life. I am certainly glad that whatever faith it is that he is practicing is not a part of mainstream America. I also hope that those average Americans are keeping an eye on all of the mistakes being made by President Obama and his Democratic colleagues in the Congress. The most heinous and irresponsible will continue to be listed here in the ongoing 'Obama-Dem Mistake' series, the entries for which you can access by clicking in to that below label.

A Heart That Plots Wicked Schemes

On this Sunday morning we continue the discussion of Proverbs 6:16-19 in the Bible which lists those things which the Lord hates. The fourth item in the list journeys deep into our hearts. Not our physical hearts, but those things which can be found at our very inner core - for each of us, the heart of the matter in all things that we consider in our lives. Those whom the Lord hates in this item are plotters and schemers of sin. Those who plan to do someone else ill. Those who plan to take what is not theirs. Those who intentionally and with malice aforethought actually take the time to sit down and think about their sin and how to make it happen. The man who sees a way to deceive his business partners of money, and then goes about the planning and execution of his embezzelment. A woman who feels the desire and sees an opportunity to steal the body and possibly even the heart of a man who is already married to another, and then begins to lay the bait for her seduction. The first human schemes occurred way back in the beginning of man himself. Eve used her seductiveness to get Adam to take a bite of the apple, the very act of defiance of God's will that drove man from paradise. She knew they were different, man and woman, for God had made them that way on purpose in order that they might procreate and populate the earth. Eve had been led into this plot by the whisperings of the great deceiver Satan, who had lied and manipulated her as only he can to pull man away from God. Eve knew that her feminine charms would be enough to coax Adam into the bite, and went about the task of using them for that very purpose. Soon after man was driven from the Garden of Eden for this defiance came the second human plot. Adam and Eve began to populate the earth when they gave birth to a pair of sons, first Cain and then Abel. Jealous of what he perceived to be favored attention towards his brother, Cain plotted in his heart against Abel saying to him: "Let's go out to the field", where Cain subsequently killed his own brother. It is the wickedness of sin that keeps man apart from God. What God is revealing to us in this fourth of the things He hates is the fact that while the commission of sin is bad enough, the person who thinks over a sin and then devises the means to make it happen is committing a separate, particularly evil act. Think of Mohamed Atta and the other terrorists who sat down together and devised the intricate plan to first hijack and then fly airliners into American buildings on September 11th, 2001. Think of O.J. Simpson gathering a face mask, leather gloves, and a large knife before driving to his estranged wife's home to murder her. Think of men like Andrew Fastow, Jeffrey Skilling and others involved in the Enron scheme to hoodwink the entire financial services industry during the 1990's. Think of any married man or woman who becomes sexually attracted to someone in their workplace or their neighborhood, and then begins to formulate a plan to begin a relationship with that person. Or a single person who does the same with another who is married. Think of the woman who learns that she is pregnant, and goes to the phone book to find an abortion clinic. Think simply of someone who, no matter the circumstances, allows a wedge to be driven in the relationship with their parents, and then intentionally perpetuates that heart-hardening. "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not commit adultery", "Honor your father and mother" are all commandments given to man by God Himself. All are involved in the sins just mentioned. All involved some amount of plotting, planning, and scheming in order to make them happen. We have all done things like this during the course of our lives. Some who are reading this are taking actions such as this right at this very moment. You are continuing estrangement from your family. You are having an adulterous affair. You are taking things that do not belong to you. We are sinning in a way that God tells us is particularly hurtful to Him when we allow our hearts to be filled with such wicked plots. If you find that you are involved in any actions such as these, you need to put an end to your involvement in them immediately. If not, you just may find that your continued insistence on doing these things which God hates will end in a much worse way than you could ever imagine, either in this life or the next.
NOTE: This is the continuation of the regular 'Sunday Sermon' feature, each entry of which can be viewed by clicking in to that below label.

Hands That Shed Innocent Blood

For the past couple of weeks this 'Sunday Sermon' series (each entry can be read by clicking on the label at the bottom of this post) has been focusing on Proverbs 6:16-19 which covers the six things that the Lord hates, and a 7th which is an abomination. The 3rd item in this list would be "hands that shed innocent blood" which is sadly ironic considering Friday night's murder of Philadelphia police officer John Pawlowski. Whether or not John's killer will end up spending an eternity in hell, whether anyone who takes an innocent human life will suffer that fate, is not for us to say or know. But one thing that Proverbs makes undeniably clear is that this murder of innocents is particularly detestable to God Himself. On Friday night, John Pawlowski was an innocent man. Perhaps more than that, he was working actively to try and help keep peace and order in his community. He was a police officer in an increasingly violent major American city that is itself ironically nicknamed 'The City of Brotherly Love'. It is a moniker that is no longer appropriate. John and his partner exited their police vehicle after being flagged down to handle a disturbance on the highway. While handling this dispute, one of the individuals involved reached into his own pocket and shot right through his jacket, killing John Pawlowski there and then. Innocent blood once again shed in one of the acts that God hates. Each year, hundreds and hundreds of Philadelphians are murdered in cold blood by their fellow citizens. Webster defines 'murder' as "unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Sometimes as a legal definition it has been divided into 'degrees' of murder based on the intent of the killer as well as other accompanying actions. But it is not only murder which sheds innocent blood. The taking of another life is, as a legal matter, usually acceptable to the larger society when that action comes in self-defense or in a justifiable military or police action. A police officer who kills someone that is trying to kill that officer or someone else is justified. A member of the military fighting in a war in defense of the overall freedom and liberty of others is justified. A regular citizen taking the life of someone who is actively attempting to take the life of that person is justified. There are times in each of those actions when the taking of life is not justified. Any time that any of those actions is taken and innocent blood is shed, this God hates. A military or police action that results in the death of someone truly innocent, what is sometimes referred to as 'collateral damage', is no different to God just because the intent of the actor did not involve killing those innocents. That isn't to say that the person acting in what most would deem to be a just manner, and who in doing so takes the life of an innocent by mistake or happenstance, will answer to God for that life in eternity. But it is nonetheless something that God hates, and it is something that we should always take the time to evaluate within our own conscience. There is no one on earth more innocent than a tiny child, one that has had no opportunity to commit evil. Yet the fact is that over 11 million Americans have had their innocent blood shed in the womb just since the turn of the century in the act of abortion. Hundreds of millions of Americans have been murdered in the womb since the SCOTUS decision of Roe vs. Wade legalized this type of killing. God does not distinguish using human terms such as 'legal' or 'moral', He is concerned with 'innocence', and there is no one more innocent than a baby in the womb. To take such a life, one that has done nothing wrong, one that is rarely threatening the life of the mother, may indeed be the most selfish and immoral act someone can take. It most certainly is the shedding of innocent blood, no matter how we might try to justify it in our own minds and to our own conscience. Catholic and most Christian morality speaks to the taking of innocent blood in the topics of murder, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide as always wrong. Certainly God sees all of these situations as resulting in the shedding of innocent blood, which He hates. Be it that of an innocent police officer just doing his job of protecting and serving others, or an innocent baby in the womb, God hates the shedding of innocent blood as much as He hates anything. NOTE: This series from Proverbs will continue with the 4th item as next week's entry in the 'Sunday Sermon' series.

Obama-Dem Mistake #2

It's bad enough that the United States supports by law the murder of our most innocent citizens, the helpless babies aborted by the millions each year simply to make their parents lives a bit easier. As we discussed last week during the 'March for Life' recognition, with the 'Roe vs. Wade' decision by the SCOTUS in 1973 the U.S. began officially supporting the legality of most forms of abortion. But now we are no longer happy with actively supporting this policy creating a culture of death in our own country. Now we are actively supporting the policy worldwide, not just with ideals, but with taxpayer dollars. During the administration of perhaps the greatest President of the last century, Ronald Reagan, the 'Great Communicator' instituted what became known as the 'Mexico City Policy'. In this policy, Reagan made it clear that any recipient of U.S. foreign aid would not be permitted to promote abortion as a method of family planning. According to ABC News, the American "government under Reagan would not provide funding for family planning services to clinics or groups that offered abortion-related services overseas." When Bill Clinton was elected the policy was overturned, but it was reinstated under President George W. Bush and has been in place for the past eight years. In renewing the policy, President Bush stated "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." This past week, on the January 22nd anniversary of the 'Roe' decision, new U.S. President Barack Obama again reversed the policy. In announcing his decision, Obama once again made the classic liberal Democrat philosophical and moral mistake. He only recognized one party in this process when he said that the decision "protects women's health and reproductive freedom", ignoring the rights and the very life of the unborn child who it is his sworn duty to protect to the best of his ability. The closing of Guantanamo Bay highlighted in last week's 'Obama-Dem Mistake #1' article is likely to result in American deaths. This decision on allowing taxpayer funding of overseas abortions will absolutely result in the deaths of Americans and foreigners. It is hard to believe that any self-respecting Catholic could possibly support Obama or any congressional Democrat who would actively and outwardly support the murder of innocents as a key part of their agenda. It is another clear difference in liberal and conservative positions in American politics. It is a moral stain on the American way of life. And it is clearly the 'Obama-Dem Mistake #2'. As each one is highlighted and explained you can click on the below label of that name to see the full listing of the accumulated mistakes of the Obama administration and the Democratic congress that is supporting them.

Marching For Life

January 22nd, 1973 was one of the worst dates in the history of the United States of America. On that date 36 years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered its opinion in the case of 'Roe vs. Wade'. According to the SCOTUS decision, most laws restricting abortion in America violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling basically overturned all state and federal laws restricting abortions. It centrally held that a mother could abort her pregnancy for any reason up until the point at which the baby, referred to in the ruling by its scientific developmental stage name 'fetus', became 'viable'. It defined viability as the baby having the potential to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid, and placed this term at between 24-28 weeks. The court also held that abortion after viability must also be available in order to protect a woman's health, and this 'health' was defined broadly in a companion case called 'Doe vs. Bolton'. The court based its ruling on its desire to protect personal freedoms and privacy. A woman should be able to make medical decisions involving her health along with her doctor, and the government should in no way be interfering in this process. Of course never anywhere in their ruling did the court recognize the very apparent fact that there is not just one life, not just one person's health, being affected by a decision to abort. There is a baby alive inside of the mother. Unfortunately for that baby, it can not yet speak for itself. It cannot stand up for its own rights. It cannot vote for politicians who will support its cause. And there is, of course, only one 'cause' for which these babies are fighting at this early stage of their development - their very lives. A year after the 'Roe v. Wade' ruling was handed down a group of grassroots Americans who recognized the fundamental importance of standing up for these lives got together and organized a relatively small memorial. On January 22nd, 1974 the very first 'March for Life' took place with 20,000 participants marching on the U.S. Capitol in protest of the SCOTUS decision. By the following year of 1975, that number more than doubled to 50,000 and has grown now to the point where approximately 200,000 people regularly flood the Capitol steps and the surrounding areas each year. The 'March for Life' movement supports a set of 'Life Principles' that simply sound like common sense. They support the self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life. They support the preservation of every human life by every other human life, from the moment that the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's ovum. This factually and truthfully results in the creation of life, which will result in the birth of a human being, which will result in that human being growing into a child, and finally into an adult. The actual march begins on 4th Street in Washington, D.C. near the U.S. District Court. It then proceeds along Constitution Avenue past the U.S. Capitol and on to 7th Street, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. This evening the annual 'Rose Dinner' (the rose being the symbol of the movement) will be held at the Hyatt Regency. There will be speeches by a few key players in the movement, awards for a half dozen student activists, learning opportunities on the issues, some fine dining, and a toast to success for life issues during the coming year. You know, it just seems to me to be incredible that we need a 'movement' dedicated to life itself. I mean, where would all of the pro-abortion folks be if their parents had made what they determine to be the 'choice' not to give birth to them? Dead, that's where they would be today. Just like the hundreds of millions of babies who have been killed since that infamously egregious 'Roe v. Wade' decision decades ago. Approximately 47 years ago, a young single mother gave birth to a child whose father had abandoned them both. Three months later, my own mother gave birth to me. The son of that single mother, who raised him sometimes in poverty, often in difficulty, was sworn in this week as the 44th President of the United States of America. Many of his supporters decry the more than 4,000 American lives lost by people who by their own choice fought and died for our country. But most of those same supporters hold their tongues for the 7.5 million babies killed by abortion in America since the war began in Iraq. Or worse, they support these deaths. The same streets on which Barack Obama was inaugurated and on which parades honored him just two short days ago were filled today with people marching for human life. Thanks to the hundreds of thousands who flooded the streets of Washington, D.C. today we may one day live to see Americans overturn that immoral and murderous court ruling.

New Life in Death for a Moral Compass

"He has now been gathered by the Lord, in whom he trusted." Those are the words of Fr. George Butler, who administered the last rites of the Church on Thursday to one Richard John Neuhaus. At age 72, the former Lutheran clergyman turned Catholic priest died after a short battle against the cancer with which he had been diagnosed in late 2008. If you moved past after having caught a blurb of his passing in the news, or having seen a headline in a newspaper the past couple days, wondering why the big deal about a priest's death from cancer, you moved past too quickly. This was not simply the death of your Average Joe after one of life's most common end games. This was, as Philadelphia's great newspaper The Bulletin called it, the loss of a "moral compass." Fr. Neuhaus was one of the leading voices in the Church and in the country in defense of the millions of innocent children butchered each year in abortion procedures. He was said to be an articulate defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and perhaps the leading conservative Catholic voice in the country. Fr. Neuhaus also had a vision, the dream of many of today's Catholics, to see the Lord's Church whole again. In the 1990's, Fr. Neuhaus joined with leading Protestant voice Chuck Colson in editing the work 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission' which was an effort to highlight the common mission and shared values of the two Christian traditions, including their opposition to abortion. It should be one of the fervent prayers of all Christians to again one day see the differences that led to the great schism in the Church set aside, and for Protestants to end their 'protest' and return to the Mother Church. Fr. Neuhaus shared this dream, this vision, this hope. Fr. Neuhaus knew well the traditions of both Protestants and Catholics. He was born into a Lutheran family as one of eight children. He became ordained as a Lutheran minister and served as an activist pastor in New York in the Bedford-Stuyvesant ghettos of Brooklyn. In the 1970's he preached against the Vietnam war, then turned his attention towards the growing genocide created by legalized abortion. Then in 1990, Lutheran minister Richard Neuhaus had his great conversion, becoming a Catholic. A year later he was ordained as a Catholic priest. He became a highly regarded writer, particularly on life issues, and became an unofficial advisor on these to President George W. Bush who called him 'Fr. Richard', helping the President to articulate religious principles. President Bush correctly summed it up by stating that Fr. Neuhaus "devoted his life to the service of the Almighty and to the betterment of our world." Humanity lost a great voice on Thursday, particularly that part of humanity that still lies in the wombs of women the world over and cannot yet speak for itself. It should be all of our goal, as Fr. Neuhaus wished, to see that those voices get the same chance to actually speak one day as we ourselves have received. By moving in the direction set by this great moral compass of a man, by maintaining and spreading his mission to defend unborn children, we assure that his life's mission goes on. And as Christians we understand full well that this is not the end for this great believer. Father Richard Neuhaus may be lost to us here on earth for now, but he now begins a new life in the presence of God.