Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Monday, December 31, 2012

Top 5 Blog Posts of 2012 - #3

This book review was published in April of 2012 and has consistently been high on the hit list. It is especially relevant in light of the difficulties south of the border. This book is definitely worth the read.


Book Review: "The Harbinger"
theharbingerIf the author is right, this is a truly frightening book with profound implications. Jonathan Cahn, a Pastor and Messianic Jew, has written, in narrative form, a book that connects the recent crises in America (9/11; Wall Street) with Biblical prophecy.

I must admit that I tend to be somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to this type of thing. I have seen and heard more than my share of kooks and wing-nuts in my time. However, I do believe that Jonathan has seen something here that is real - the convergence of the details is far too precise to be accidental. Look up the details for yourself.

Here it is in a nutshell. "The Harbinger" is a prophetic book, written to reveal that the United States is under the judgment of God because it has turned away from its dependence upon Him, and has given itself to idolatry, carnality, selfishness and pride. It is a call to repentance for America, and it's pretty convincing.

The book is written as a novel, though with actual events, and keys around an ancient prophecy found in Isaiah 9:10 -
"The bricks have fallen,
But we will rebuild with hewn stone; 
The sycamores have been cut down, 
But we will plant cedars in their place." 
These verses refer to the response of the nation of Israel after an attack by the Assyrians. The attack was allowed by God as a warning for the nation to return to Him. Instead, their answer was that they would build again, stronger than before. They would not turn back to God but would, instead, defy their enemies in their own strength.
"The Harbinger" speaks of a number of remarkable similarities between the two, but also, a converging of the two events, applying ancient meaning to recent happenings. The word "harbinger" means warning or sign, and there are actually a number of signs that are given.
Using his understanding of Jewish culture and Biblical tradition Cahn makes a convincing case.
  • America's leaders actually quoted Isaiah 9:10 in speeches related to 9/11, not realizing that they were speaking judgment on their own nation. They did this on three separate occasions, including the day after 9/11 by the Senate majority leader. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
  • Some bricks that fell from the Twin Towers took down a sycamore tree on grounds adjacent to Ground Zero.
  • The roots of the tree became a memorial and a symbol of defiance.
  • A cedar tree was planted in its place.
  • A hewn stone was symbolically placed at the site of Ground Zero, accompanied by a ceremony.
  • Biblically, judgment tends to take place where the original covenant (agreement) took place.
  • When the United States began, New York City was its capital.
  • On April 30, 1789, George Washington became President and the first official government was established at Federal Hall (at Wall Street). On that day, Washington declared: "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained."
  • After his inauguration, Washington lead a procession of his government to a little stone church just blocks away to pray a blessing on the nation. The entire nation had received a pronouncement to attend church and pray for the country at the same time.
  • The church where they prayed was at the site of 9/11 - the only small building in close proximity that was left standing after the collapse of the towers. The sycamore tree was in the church yard. The church is now a museum of sorts.
  • At the time of the inauguration the church grounds extended through the site of the twin towers.
  • When the towers fell, the impact was felt for miles; the foundation of the old Federal Hall was cracked by the force. 
  • The Founding Fathers recognized that the United States would only be blessed and protected by God if the nation obeyed His commands.
  • God is a God of order and uses specific days to convey a message.
  • On a specific day (the 29th day of the Hebrew month Elul) every seven years the Jewish nation was commanded to release all debt, It was called "The Lord's release" or "Shemitah."
  • The greatest single stock market crash in Wall Street history, up to that time, took place on the 29th day of Elul - September 17, 2001.
  • Seven years later to the day, in the Jewish calendar (the 29th of Elul again), on September 29th, 2008 that record was beaten as the stock market plunged again. It fell 7 percent in one day. It dropped 777 points, precisely 7 years from the previous event by the Jewish calendar on the day of "Shemitah." 
"So then the two greatest Wall Street stock market crashes not only happened on the same day on the biblical calendar, and on the one day of the biblical year ordained to wipe away credit and debt, but each one fell seven years apart on the exact once in seven years occurrence of that one Hebrew day. It's beyond amazing..."     
Judgment is intended for warning. God's desire is always for people to turn back to Him, witness the case of Nineveh, the great city of the Assyrians, that repented after Jonah preached to them. This is God's desire for all of us.

In 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 God spoke to Solomon on the occasion of the dedication of the temple and told him what the nation was to do should they fall under judgement. It's something we would all do well to heed: "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

By the way, the fact that the book refers to judgment in no way implies that Al Qaeda was right. They are morally culpable for their actions, just as the Assyrians were who attacked ancient Israel. They simply played a part in this drama.

There is obviously much that I left out, for the sake of space, but I encourage you to read the book for yourself and make your own decision. I include here a link to a site that converts our calendar to the Jewish calendar. At the very least, this novel provides an opportunity for sober reflection.

Related Articles:
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
Some Books Worth Reading
The Manhattan Declaration
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Wading Into the Chic-Fil-A Battle

I've been watching our friends to the South go into convulsions over Chic-Fil-A and their stance on marriage. I figured I'd give it a little while to cool down before I weighed in. The media have had a field day declaring their indignation that Dan Cathy would dare oppose same sex marriage, and various organizations - even politicians - have been taking turns blasting the company. A couple of weeks ago, friends of Chic-Fil-A helped them set a one day sales record as a show of support. So, what's the story?

First of all, Chic-Fil-A has always been known as a Christian company - their long-standing refusal to open on Sundays is evidence of strongly held convictions. Here's what actually happened just before President Dan Cathy set off a firestorm of media attention. Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit..."

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.” The subject of same sex marriage was never addressed in the original interview. He did not "condemn same-sex marriage" as has been claimed. He simply reaffirmed their support of "the biblical definition of the family unit."

I've been observing the debate and collecting articles from various writers coming from different angles of the debate. It makes for some interesting reading and leads to some good questions. For example, should company presidents be allowed to state their opinions and should their private companies be allowed to support what they choose? should the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, etc... be able to block new Chic-Fil-A restaurants from being built simply because they disagree with their position on marriage? What are the other issues that company presidents are not allowed to comment on? Is there a list? Should we divide our cities along political lines? What about the church's response? What is your definition of tolerance? How do you engage someone in conversation when you disagree on a sensitive topic?

I'm going to give the links to a few different articles for your reading pleasure. Think about it, recognizing that very few issues are as simple as the media make them out to be.

This first article is a blog post by Perry Noble calling out the activists on both sides of the political spectrum. It's called "Ben & Jerry’s, Chick-fil-A & Political Correctness"

The second one is by Mark Hemingway looking at the origins of the story. His title makes it clear about his views: "Media Invents Story That Chick-fil-A President Condemned Gay Marriage"

This next one includes a video. It shows how passionate this debate is becoming. The title says it all:  "Exec Bullies Chick-fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It"

I have good friends on both sides of this debate. I think we can - and should - differ and still like each other. I think that there's still a place for reasoned debate in our culture, though we have lost the stomach for it and, seemingly, would rather yell at and boycott each other. Take a step back, breath, and talk.

I do like what Rick Warren (who's had his own share of criticism) said: "Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Related Articles:
Election Rambling... Arggghhhh!
No Justice in Canada for the Unborn
Heads In The Sand
Why I Still Believe in Marriage
Defending Marriage

 





 

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Top Blog Posts For June 2012

Here are the top 5 blog posts by views for June 2012 in reverse order.


#5 "Take Out The Trash" - The Principle of Transformation 

This article is from a series I did based on Chip Ingram's book: "Good to Great in God's Eyes." It talks about dealing with the junk in our lives in order that we can move on. You can't change what has happened to you, but you can give it a different meaning.

#4 Akiane Kramarik

Akiane just keeps on going. Ever since I started following her career on my blog, the interest just keeps on growing. If you've never checked out her work or read her story, you should.


#3 Book Review: "The Harbinger" 

This is the first book review that has consistently ranked among the top choices of readers. It's a prophetic book written by a Messianic Jewish Rabbi named Jonathon Cahn. It's a book that has attracted a great deal of attention because of its attempts to tie Biblical prophecy to the events of 9/11 and the collapse of the American economy. It's an arresting read.


#2 Akiane Kramarik - 2012

This is my latest piece on Akiane - now 17. It attempts to sort through some of the more common questions about her faith and how it is expressed in her art. 


#1 Akiane
 
You guessed it. It's Akiane again! I wish I had discovered this young artist. She has an incredible talent and has appeared repeatedly on the major U.S. talk shows. I started writing about her because I was intrigued by the spiritual nature of her art. Having started her art at 5 years old, she already has quite the portfolio - certainly worth a look.

Friday, April 06, 2012

Book Review: "The Harbinger"

theharbingerIf the author is right, this is a truly frightening book with profound implications. Jonathan Cahn, a Pastor and Messianic Jew, has written, in narrative form, a book that connects the recent crises in America (9/11; Wall Street) with Biblical prophecy.

I must admit that I tend to be somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to this type of thing. I have seen and heard more than my share of kooks and wing-nuts in my time. However, I do believe that Jonathan has seen something here that is real - the convergence of the details is far too precise to be accidental. Look up the details for yourself.

Here it is in a nutshell. "The Harbinger" is a prophetic book, written to reveal that the United States is under the judgment of God because it has turned away from its dependence upon Him, and has given itself to idolatry, carnality, selfishness and pride. It is a call to repentance for America, and it's pretty convincing.

The book is written as a novel, though with actual events, and keys around an ancient prophecy found in Isaiah 9:10 -
"The bricks have fallen,
But we will rebuild with hewn stone; 
The sycamores have been cut down, 
But we will plant cedars in their place." 
These verses refer to the response of the nation of Israel after an attack by the Assyrians. The attack was allowed by God as a warning for the nation to return to Him. Instead, their answer was that they would build again, stronger than before. They would not turn back to God but would, instead, defy their enemies in their own strength.
"The Harbinger" speaks of a number of remarkable similarities between the two, but also, a converging of the two events, applying ancient meaning to recent happenings. The word "harbinger" means warning or sign, and there are actually a number of signs that are given.

Using his understanding of Jewish culture and Biblical tradition Cahn makes a convincing case.

  • America's leaders actually quoted Isaiah 9:10 in speeches related to 9/11, not realizing that they were speaking judgment on their own nation. They did this on three separate occasions, including the day after 9/11 by the Senate majority leader. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
  • Some bricks that fell from the Twin Towers took down a sycamore tree on grounds adjacent to Ground Zero.
  • The roots of the tree became a memorial and a symbol of defiance.
  • A cedar tree was planted in its place.
  • A hewn stone was symbolically placed at the site of Ground Zero, accompanied by a ceremony.
  • Biblically, judgment tends to take place where the original covenant (agreement) took place.
  • When the United States began, New York City was its capital.
  • On April 30, 1789, George Washington became President and the first official government was established at Federal Hall (at Wall Street). On that day, Washington declared: "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained."
  • After his inauguration, Washington lead a procession of his government to a little stone church just blocks away to pray a blessing on the nation. The entire nation had received a pronouncement to attend church and pray for the country at the same time.
  • The church where they prayed was at the site of 9/11 - the only small building in close proximity that was left standing after the collapse of the towers. The sycamore tree was in the church yard. The church is now a museum of sorts.
  • At the time of the inauguration the church grounds extended through the site of the twin towers.
  • When the towers fell, the impact was felt for miles; the foundation of the old Federal Hall was cracked by the force. 
  • The Founding Fathers recognized that the United States would only be blessed and protected by God if the nation obeyed His commands.
  • God is a God of order and uses specific days to convey a message.
  • On a specific day (the 29th day of the Hebrew month Elul) every seven years the Jewish nation was commanded to release all debt, It was called "The Lord's release" or "Shemitah."
  • The greatest single stock market crash in Wall Street history, up to that time, took place on the 29th day of Elul - September 17, 2001.
  • Seven years later to the day, in the Jewish calendar (the 29th of Elul again), on September 29th, 2008 that record was beaten as the stock market plunged again. It fell 7 percent in one day. It dropped 777 points, precisely 7 years from the previous event by the Jewish calendar on the day of "Shemitah." 
"So then the two greatest Wall Street stock market crashes not only happened on the same day on the biblical calendar, and on the one day of the biblical year ordained to wipe away credit and debt, but each one fell seven years apart on the exact once in seven years occurrence of that one Hebrew day. It's beyond amazing..."     
Judgment is intended for warning. God's desire is always for people to turn back to Him, witness the case of Nineveh, the great city of the Assyrians, that repented after Jonah preached to them. This is God's desire for all of us.

In 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 God spoke to Solomon on the occasion of the dedication of the temple and told him what the nation was to do should they fall under judgement. It's something we would all do well to heed: "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

By the way, the fact that the book refers to judgment in no way implies that Al Qaeda was right. They are morally culpable for their actions, just as the Assyrians were who attacked ancient Israel. They simply played a part in this drama.

There is obviously much that I left out, for the sake of space, but I encourage you to read the book for yourself and make your own decision. I include here a link to a site that converts our calendar to the Jewish calendar. At the very least, this novel provides an opportunity for sober reflection.

Related Articles:
Book Review: "Why Jesus?"
Some Books Worth Reading
The Manhattan Declaration
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias

Saturday, February 25, 2012

"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look

I just read a very disturbing article by, Allison Pearson, a British journalist writing for The Telegraph. The article was following up on the same subject I posted about yesterday - the fact that girls are being aborted now in the U.K. simply based on their sex.

The article is disturbing enough based upon the fundamental facts discussed - sex-selection abortions. What was also disturbing to me was the line of reasoning followed by the writer, who can't seem to follow a logical argument. She rightly criticized this practice of killing girl foetuses because it was against the law. She called the practice "Unbelievable. Horrifying." I couldn't agree more.

But this is where Allison and I part company. She went on to declare that she was in favour of abortion in general, based apparently on the "kind of life" some of these babies would have if carried to term. She goes on to rail against those women who use abortion as a form of contraception, giving examples of many who have had multiple abortions. She also quotes this alarming stat: "Over the past 40 years, there has been a 3,700 per cent increase in abortions." (Emphasis mine)

Here's a shocker, the medical director of the largest abortion provider in the U.K. shared this statement: "I’ve had a consultant colleague in the north of England who expressed a view – that consultant was from an ethnic minority –… he didn’t think [gender selection] was ethically wrong because he thought that the cultural reason why some communities may prefer to have four male babies is as good a reason as the, if you like, Anglo-Saxon cultural view of: 'Well I’m pregnant, I just don’t want it anyway’.”


The problem with this statement by the "ethnic minority" consultant was that he's absolutely right. We in the West have lost the moral ground to defend the life of a baby girl in the womb. It brings Psalm 11:3 to mind,
"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” What indeed?

Allison makes reference to the "slippery slope" that Western Civilization has been on but doesn't seem to recognize the fundamental issues involved. A history lesson is necessary here.

Our basic principles in the West have been based upon a Christian consensus. This is true of the U.K., most of Europe, Canada, and particularly the U.S. There was a common framework and worldview upon which to establish the role of government and even the laws by which we are governed.   

Delegates to the Charlottetown Conference assembled on the steps of Government House, also known as Fanningbank, the Lieutenant Governor's residence, 1864.
Delegates to the Charlottetown Conference
This worldview accepted the fact that there is a Creator God who is sovereign and who has established boundaries within which mankind should function in a civilized society. In Canada, our founding fathers looked to Psalm 72:8 to paint a picture of the future of the nation. Today the following words hang in the corridor near the Confederation Chamber in Province House: ‘In the hearts of the delegates who assembled in this room on September 1, 1864, was born the Dominion of Canada.  Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew.’” 

The Us. Declaration of Independence presented, within it's preamble, the foundation for the decisions of future generations: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It was God who provided life - an inalienable right!

Over the past 50 years or so we have seen a rapid change in how we view government and its role and how we view ourselves and our rights. We have focused on individual rights versus the common good. We have "created" rights never intended by our forefathers, which have promoted selfishness and the breakdown of the family - the building block of a civilized society. We have denied that there is a role for God in culture and have therefore removed the very ground under our feet.

The result of our folly is the kind of faulty reasoning that Allison Pearson is using that says, in effect, "It's okay to kill babies in the womb, as long as you're not killing them just because they're girls." It also leaves us in the position of having to explain to those in India and China why it's wrong for them to kill their baby girls because they're girls, but it's okay for us to kill our girls or boys because it's inconvenient for us to raise children right now.

Face it, Allison, you have nowhere to stand. It's simply your opinion against theirs.

Why is sex-selection abortion wrong? It's wrong because that is a living child that is being killed, and that child has a God-given right to life. It's the same reason that abortion is wrong - period. If you deny that there is a God-given right to anything, prepare to lose your own rights, because they have no sustaining force other than the changing opinions of men.

We took the top off the bottle a long time ago and the genie doesn't want to return. This moral relativism we have been left with has given rise to organizations like NAMBLA, lobbying for the right to have sex with minors. What is our moral ground to refuse them? What about polygamy? Why can't a man have as many wives as he can support? And while we're at it, our health care system is under strain, wouldn't euthenasia take a lot of pressure off by doing away with the sick and frail? According to recent stats, 90% of all pregnancies of Down Syndrome children in the U.S. end in abortion. What if we end the lives of all children with a high likelihood of abnormality, even after they are born? After all, who are you to tell me that I should have to raise a child that I fathered? Isn't that my business, not yours?

It's a scary world when we remove an objective moral standard from the table. It was T.S. Eliot who said, "If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin." What he was saying was that in the absence of a moral consensus, it is simply survival of the fittest, and strong men rise to rule with an iron fist.

As Dostoevsky so eloquently put it: "If God is dead, then all things are possible!" Victims Against Crime, a South African organization, states that. "At least 180 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century. And that is a very conservative estimate. We are not here talking about people who have died in wars caused by secular humanist states, because that would massively increase the body count. No, over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century... More people were killed by their own governments in peace time than were killed by foreign invaders in war time."


We rightly condemned Hitler for his barbarism during World War II, in his attempted annihilation of the Jews and others, but on what basis? Was Stalin wrong to kill millions of his own people during his reign of terror? What about communist China and their strict one child policy? This has resulted in millions of cases of infanticide, little girls murdered at birth. Of course these are wrong - all of them. They are wrong because they violate God's law.

We, all of us, have been created in the image of God. Every human being has rights that have been endowed by God, rights which no-one else has the right to violate. If we do not grasp this fundamental truth, we will continue down this road which leads to the victimization of the weak and the vulnerable.

Yes, it is wrong to kill our unborn baby girls. But please, Allison, understand this. It's wrong to kill the boys too.

Related Articles: 
Why the abortion issue won't go away
The Manhattan Declaration
Following Up - The Latest News






Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Manhattan Declaration


I reread this the other day and wanted to give all of you an opportunity to read it as well. This document was drafted by a committee of Christian leaders including: Robert George - Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University; Timothy George - Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University and Chuck Colson - Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA).

I recognize that it is an American document, but the issues and sentiments being dealt with are common among all Western democracies. I welcome your feedback on this as there are several talking points. Should you like to go to the actual site for more in-depth research, click here.


MANHATTAN DECLARATION

Drafted October 20, 2009 & Released November 20, 2009

PREAMBLE
Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

DECLARATION
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

LIFE
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro- abortion ideology prevails today in our government. Many in the present administration want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the "need" for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as "the culture of death." We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called "therapeutic cloning." This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and "voluntary" euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben ("life unworthy of life") were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of "liberty," "autonomy," and "choice."

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and "ethnic cleansing," the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

MARRIAGE
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God's creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as "holy matrimony" to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out- of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents' marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God's intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God's patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to "a more excellent way." As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being "married." It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as "marriages" sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not "animus") and prudent concern for the common good (not "prejudice"), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: "Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God" (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these "rights" are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti- discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital "civil unions" scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one's own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King's willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.

Related Articles:
The Truth About Easter
Are Christianity & Science Incompatible? (Thank you Nancy Pearcey)
I Love Me!
Restoring Sanity - It's A Start!
The Issue That Just Won't Go Away

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Issue That Just Won't Go Away
I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the information given below was such a good snapshot of the division in our culture that it needed to be shared. I highly encourage you to check out Lifesite's web-site for related stories. There are many which you will rarely, if ever hear covered in the national media.
For example, in Canada we have the Conservative government making fools of themselves by trying to submit another bill in place of Jake Epp's "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act. Epp is a Conservative who refuses to bend to political correctness and his own party is trying to pull the carpet out from under him. We also have numerous winners of the Order of Canada who are turning in their medals in protest over the naming of abortionist Henry Morgantaler to their ranks.
This issue is the elephant in the room that the media will not deal with rationally. Science has now clearly proven that a new life is formed from the moment of conception. Doctors are now doing surgery on babies in the womb at early gestation to save their lives while doctors in another part of the hospital are killing babies who are older. How do we rationalize this? We just don't talk about it and hope it all goes away.
Let me know what you think of the article.

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion

By Tim WaggonerWASHINGTON, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)

"Catholic" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blatantly fallacious remarks on August 24 regarding the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion have triggered a tidal wave of criticisms from clergymen, congressmen and Catholics nationwide.Responding to a question from NBC's Meet the Press moderator Tom Brokaw about when human life begins, Pelsosi appealed to her extensive research on the issue as well as her "ardent" Catholic faith to claim that, "I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins." She asserted that "over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition," in attempt to support her pro-abortion and pro-contraception stance. Watch the full interview here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUSt7dfj5I)
The response to Pelosi's statements has been intense as Catholic leaders across America are wondering how a "Catholic" with a self-proclaimed broad understanding of the Catholic Church's position on human life could have overseen the straightforward teaching contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).
Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl quoted this teaching (section 2270-2271 of the CCC) in a letter responding to Pelosi's comments: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." (Catechism, 2270-2271)
Rebuking her, Archbishop Wuerl said that, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion." For the full letter see: (http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=569&Year=2008)
Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, also issued a release on Pelosi's remarks, explaining that Pelosi's belief that a woman has the "right to choose" to end her baby's life contradicts Catholic teaching and addressing her comments suggesting the Catholic Church has been polarized on the issue over the course of history.None of the early Fathers "diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong," said Archbishop Chaput. "Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith," he added.
Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine also wrote a response letter.After mentioning the fact that scientists are certain that "a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization," the bishops wrote, "In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life." For the full letter see: (http://www.usccb.org/)
Edward Cardinal Egan of the Archdiocese of New York is another Church leader that has stepped up to defend the faith of his people. Please see upcoming separate LifeSiteNews.com coverage on his comments.It was not only the leaders of the Church that felt the need to correct Pelosi. Ten congressmen have sent Pelosi a letter asking her to publicly rectify her misrepresentation of Catholic teachings.
"As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you (Pelosi) would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority," said the congressmen. "Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error." "To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church's actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life," concluded their letter, which contained the following signatures.
Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI)
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH)
Hon. Virginia Foxx (NC)
Hon. Phil Gingrey (GA)
Hon. Peter King (NY)
Hon. Steve King (IA)
Hon. Daniel Lungren (CA)
Hon. Devin Nunes (CA)
Hon. John Sullivan (OK)
Hon. Patrick Tiberi (OH)
See the full letter from the congressmen here: (http://www.americanpapist.com/Pelosi%20Letter.pdf)

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Restoring Sanity - It's A Start!

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the "partial-birth" abortion ban, making the procedure illegal in the United States. The real question is, why did it take so long? During the procedure, the cervix is dilated, the fetus is partially extracted, the skull is punctured and the brain tissue removed before the fetus is fully removed from the birth canal. It is typically done late in the second trimester or in some cases during the last three months. It is now known that the fetus at this stage of development feels excruciating pain.
The response from the usual suspects has been typical. Hilary Clinton was disappointed because it inhibited a woman's right to choose. Barrack Obama "strongly disagreed" with the ruling, fearing that it would erode the rights of women. There are many other voices being raised in support of partial birth abortion in the name of "women's rights" but the arguments don't hold water.
The universal fear seems to be that somehow a woman's life might be at risk if this procedure is not allowed, yet, in the time that it has been allowed, in not one situation that I've heard of has it been considered medically necessary. Yet in each case someone died - the child! There have been approximately 2,200 partial birth abortions done yearly, according to R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
Exactly where are we as a society when it is considered reasonable to debate that somehow this "procedure" is acceptable? It is merely a short step from this to infanticide - and merely a matter of degree. Yet some of those vying for the top office in the U.S. would actually speak out in favour. Scary.
North of the border the situation is even more obscene. There is absolutely no law governing abortion in Canada and a child is not considered human in law until he or she emerges fully from the birth canal. The politicians who are even concerned about this are few and far between. More than 100,000 abortions take place in Canada each year - paid for by the taxpayers!
I believe that history will look back on our time and consider the abortion mills in the same light as the gas chambers of World War II. With what we now know about the unborn child, and with the ability of doctors to do surgery on younger and younger fetuses, how is it possible to justify abortion? It seems to me to be schizophrenic that we can do surgery on a fetus (using pain medication) in one part of a hospital, while aborting a fetus of the same age in another part of the same hospital. Please someone - explain to me the rationale.
My prayer is that I live to see the end of legalized abortion.