Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Thursday, June 07, 2012
In 1970, a pregnant woman in Dallas sought an abortion. It was denied under an 1854 Texas law denying abortions except when the mother's life was at stake. She fought the law, using the pseudonym "Jane Roe." The Supreme Court heard her case twice. In 1973, the Court announced its 7-2 vote to strike down the Texas law on the grounds that the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to choice in the matter and the 9th Amendment reserves to the people all rights not specifically restricted. The argument for the defense (i.e., the state of Texas) argued that the state of Texas had an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child after a certain point, which was determined to be the first trimester. Sarah Weddington was the counsel of "Jane Roe," and Jay Floyd and Robert Flowers were lawyers on the staff of the attorney general of Texas. Since the Supreme Court's decision on that fateful day in 1973, women in America, with the consent of and advice from their doctors, have been instrumental in murdering millions of unborn children. Permit me, now, to provide you with a couple of statements from the transcript of the lengthy court session that led to the final decision on the part of the Supreme Court. This little tidbit comes from a book entitled, "Eyewitnesses to America," edited by David Colbert. On December 13, 1971, Counselor for the defense, Sarah Weddington argued: "We feel that because of the impact on the woman, this certainly, inasfar [sic] as there are any rights which are fundamental, is a matter which is of fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy." Lawyers for the State of Texas rightly responded: "I think she makes her choice prior to the time she becomes pregnant. That is the time of the choice ... once a child is born, a woman no longer has a choice, and I think pregnancy may terminate that choice ... We say there is life from the moment of impregnation." Justice Thurgood Marshall responded: "And do you have any scientific data to support that?" Evidently Jay Floyd, lawyer for the State, did not present sufficient or satisfying "scientific data," and as a consequence, "the rest is history," as they say. But let us now tell you "the rest of the story." In late 1972, only three months before the final decision regarding Roe vs. Wade, the following argument took place between the "Court" and Weddington (remember, Sarah Weddington was the Counselor for Jane Roe, the woman seeking the abortion).
Weddington: "The Court has in the past held that it is the right of the parents to determine whether or not they will send their child to private school; whether or not their children will be taught foreign languages; whether or not they will have offspring ... So there is a great body of cases, decided by this Court, in the areas of marriage, sex, contraception, procreation, childbearing, and education, which says that there are certain things that are so much a part of the individual concern that they should be left to the determination of the individual. If the state could show that the fetus was a person under the Fourteenth Amendment, or under some other amendment or part of the Constitution, then ... the state would have compelling interest, which in some instances can outweigh a fundamental right."
Court to Weddington: "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have an impossible case here, would you not?" To which Sarah Weddington admitted, "I would have a very difficult case."
The Court to Flowers: "And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn't it?"
Robert Flowers: (lawyer for the State of Texas): "Yes, and entitled to the constitutional protections."
Court: "That's critical to this case, is it not?"
Flowers: "Yes sir, it is ... I think that here is exactly what we're facing in this case: Is the life of this unborn fetus paramount over the woman's right to determine whether or not she shall bear a child? This Court has been delight in protecting the rights of the minorities, and, gentlemen, we say that this is a minority, a silent minority, the true silent minority. Who is speaking for these children? Where is the counsel for those unborn children, whose life is being taken? Where is the safeguard of the right to trial by jury? Are we to place this power in the hands of a mother, in a doctor? What would keep a legislator, under this grounds, from deciding who else might or might not be a human being, or might not be a person?"
With the medical technology now available it can be clearly established that from the point of conception there is sentient life in the womb. We can now look into the womb with cameras and sound equipment, and watch that precious infant as he/she breathes, moves, laughs and cries. Maybe 2012 will be the year that this horrible holocaust will come to an end. Maybe our prayers will be heard by God, and those men now sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land will realize that life does begin at conception. Let us pray that those men will live up to their God-given responsibility, and pass down a decision that is in accord with God’s will. Oh yes, "If wombs had windows!"
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
"A gospel feast is better for the church that a religious spree."
"In churches, as in nations, peace at any price generally reults in war at any cost."
"Making the world safe for democracy may be the proper thing, but no church was ever made better by democracy."
"Some additions to the church are not conversions to the Lord."
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to “Coat-hanger Deaths”
Of course, these assertions have been from day one based on fabrications generated by the abortion industry. As Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, admitted:
We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.Of course, the revelation that these facts were made up out of thin air has not in the least dissuaded the abortion industry from insisting that they nonetheless conveyed a true story – “fake, but accurate” did not originate with Dan Rather. Problematically, no one had conducted a scientific study to evaluate the evidence one way or another, so these lies took root in the public’s mind and the burden fell on opponents of abortion to disprove an assertion that had never been founded in fact in the first place.
“Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.
Enter Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist from the Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Chile. Chile provides a somewhat unique opportunity to study the issue of the effects of making abortion illegal. In recent history (in particular since a number of advances that have overall reduced maternal mortality worldwide), most countries that have changed their abortion laws have made abortion more widely accessible, not less. Chile, on the other hand, has moved in the opposite direction. Before 1989 in Chile, abortion was largely legal, but in 1989, Chile banned all “therapeutic” abortions, thus providing an actual laboratory in which we might study the question, “What happens when abortion is made illegal?”
The study by Dr. Koch and his team is vitally important and should be read in its entirety. Most importantly, the study conclusively showed that a) outlawing abortion is remarkably effective at reducing the number of abortions that take place in a country, including clandestine ones, and b) there is absolutely no link between making abortion illegal and an increase in the number of deaths from clandestine abortions. In Koch’s own words about the conclusions of his study:
In Chile, therapeutic abortion was prohibited in 1989 since it was considered unnecessary for protecting the life of the mother and her baby. From the perspective of the Chilean medical practice, the exceptional cases in which the life of the mother is at risk are regarded as a medical ethics problem to be solved by applying the principle of double effect and the concept of indirect abortion.Read, as they say, the whole thing.
Thus, in Chile, exceptional problems that require medical intervention to save the life of the mother are considered a decision of medical ethics and not a legal issue. Therefore, any kind of directly provoked abortion was prohibited in 1989, in agreement with Article 19 of the Chilean Constitution which protects the life of the unborn.
The second question — does it save lives? — is very complex and important. We can address this important issue from different perspectives.
First, from a public health view, restrictive laws are hypothesized to cause a dissuasive effect on the population, similar to restrictions on tobacco or alcohol consumption. We observed that reduction of maternal mortality in Chile was paralleled by the number of hospitalizations attributable to complications of clandestine abortions. While over 50% of all abortion-related hospitalizations were attributable to complications of clandestine abortions during the 1960s, this proportion decreased rapidly in the following decades.
Indeed, only 12-19% of all hospitalization from abortion can be attributable to clandestine abortions between 2001 and 2008. These data suggest that over time, restrictive laws may have a restraining effect on the practice of abortion and promote its decrease. In fact, Chile exhibits today one of the lowest abortion-related maternal deaths in the world, with a 92.3% decrease since 1989 and a 99.1% accumulated decrease over 50 years.
Second, from the perspective of human life, especially if a developing country is looking to simultaneously protect the life of the mother and the unborn child, a plausible hypothesis after the Chilean study is that abortion restriction may be effective when is combined with adequately-implemented public policies to increase educational levels of women and to improve access to maternal health facilities. A restrictive law may discourage practice, which is suggested by the decrease of hospitalizations due to clandestine abortions estimated in Chile.
Third, from the perspective of protecting human life from the very beginning, obviously, abortion restriction saves many lives, in contrast to countries where elective — on demand — abortion is allowed, because in these countries all the unborn lose their lives.
Finally, it is necessary to remark that our study confirms that abortion prohibition is not related to overall rates of maternal mortality. In other words, making abortion illegal does not increase maternal deaths: it is a matter of scientific fact in our study.
Not, mind you, that anything as pedantic as scientific evidence is expected to have any impact on the rhetoric of the same charming people who manufactured and sold “coathanger pendants” a couple years ago. The abortion industry has never been about truth, facts or logic. But to the extent that people in the middle remain persuadable by objectivity, a major arrow in the quiver of the merchants of death has been irretrievably destroyed.
Friday, May 04, 2012
“We can learn to ignore the bulls— in the Bible about gay people… the same way we have learned to ignore the bulls— in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bulls— in the Bible about all sorts of things.”
One of the attendees, Rick Tuttle, a journalism advisor from Sutter Union High School in California, told Fox News his students were surprised that instead of an anti-bullying message, they received “a vulgar, profanity-laced attack on Christians.” The event’s organizers, the National Scholastic Press Association and Journalism Education Association, later apologized. How ironic that no one stood up against the bullying tactics at an anti-bullying event. I guess, better to apologize than to confront wickedness when it occurs. Savages' rant is a form of aggressive propaganda.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
With the exceptions of Peter and Paul, we know very little about the men who would serve as the ambassadors of Christ. There are plenty of fanciful traditions and pseudo writings regarding these men but little biblical historical evidence. This is certainly true of the one known as Thomas. Yet, there are a few things we know about “Thomas, which is called Didymus” (meaning, “the twin” (Jho. 11:6; 20:24; 21:2). Outside of the general events which record Thomas’ activities with the disciples there are three occasions in which Thomas occupies a vital speaking role.
In the first passage (John 11), when Jesus learned that His friend Lazarus was dead at Bethany, He announced that He intended to go there and “awake him” (v. 11). Now these were perilous times in the Lord’s public ministry, because His enemies were set to kill Him (v. 8). When Thomas saw that Jesus was willing to take that risk, he said, to fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (v. 16). What great faith!
The second speaking role was (John 14), when Jesus said He was about to leave the disciples, but that they knew where He was going and they also knew the way. Thomas asserted that they did not know where He was going and therefore they could not know the way (v. 5). Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the father but by me” (v. 6). What remarkable misunderstanding!
The best-known passage about Thomas (John 20), relates his reaction to the resurrection. After missing the resurrection-day meeting when the risen Christ appeared to the other apostles (v. 24), he declared to them that he would not believe them unless he could put his “finger into the print of the nails” and thrust his “hand into his side” (v. 25). It is because of his absence, that Thomas has been branded, “Doubting Thomas”. Why was Thomas absent that day? Was he fishing? Working? Did he have company? We will not know this side of eternity. What we do know is this: Thomas did not miss out on the events of the resurrection of Lazarus or the Last Supper. And even though he did not miss out on the resurrection of Jesus, he did miss out on the events of the resurrection evening. Thomas, was the only apostle save Paul, one born out of due time (1 Cor. 15:8), not to see Jesus on the resurrection day. What a bitter-sweet absence!
We can learn many great lessons from Thomas. First, every event in which the saints are gathered together in His name has the potential of being a great event. Don’t miss out by being absent from the worship and work of the church. Second, even a man of great faith can miss out on an important event simply by not participating. So, as Thomas would tell his fellow disciples, “Let us also go” (11:16).