I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s vision for the future of America. His words and actions, and his past, are clearly aligned with Saul Alinsky’s “community organizing,” which really means community agitating. For Alinsky, the issue was never the issue. The issue was always the revolution. That meant that issues were always merely a means to agitate and stir up people, cause chaos, and take power from the chaos.
Obama, like Alinsky before him, believes in a Marxist utopia where there is perfect justice, equality, and no hunger or poverty. Obama, like Alinsky before him, believes that getting us to that perfect, heaven-on-earth utopia is an end that justifies any means necessary. To get us to his Marxist/socialist utopia, President Obama, like Alinsky before him, believes that we must have a revolution.
Obama is using the Cloward-Piven strategy of utilizing the weight of the poor to drown our society by overwhelming our entitlement programs. Just look at the record-setting rolls of our welfare & disability programs, which are being used to hide our real unemployment figures. This explains why President Obama and so-called “Progressives” think it’s a good idea to burden a fragile economy by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and immediately qualifying them for our government handout programs.
We’ve all heard the “give a man a fish” vs “teach a man to fish” analogy. Why did President Obama remove all of the “teach a man to fish” aspects of our welfare program?
Leading America into an Alinskyan revolution to destroy capitalism is bad for America. There have been many, many Marxist revolutions, but none have come near to achieving their utopia. What makes President Obama think that his Marxist revolution will succeed where every other one has failed? What makes him think that we will get to his utopia and justify all of the destruction it has taken and will take to get us there?
Is destroying America with the weight of our entitlement programs worth the destruction we see across our nation?
Mr. President, the problem with destroying America in order to save it is the destruction. Oh, and your method of salvation resulted in more deaths in times of peace in the 20th century than have died during all of the wars in the history of the world combined!
Your salvation by destruction has been repeatedly proven to really be destruction that only leads to more destruction. If your plans are really so good for America, why did you not tell us the truth when you were running for President? If America knew the truth about your “American Dream,” you never would have been elected President in the first place. If the Cloward-Piven Strategy is so great for America, why don’t you just come out and tell us that it is a scheme to redistribute American wealth and overburden our economy until it collapses, so that our capitalist, free-market society can be replaced with Socialism?
Your “American Dream” doesn’t quite make for much of a press conference, does it?
If you’re like me, you’ve had a hard time understanding Westboro Baptist Church.
They are portrayed as fundamentalist Christians who are making a stand against homosexuality. Nothing unusual so far, right? The extremely unusual part is that they picket funerals of AIDS victims holding signs that say “God Hates Fags!”
But apparently picketing the funerals of AIDS victims was not extreme enough for them, so they moved on to picketing military funerals. They say that military deaths are the just wrath of God against people who fight to defend a nation that accepts gays. In recent news, Westboro Baptist Church has said they will picket the funeral of one of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing as well as a memorial service for the victims of the explosion last week at a West, TX fertilizer plant. More of the just wrath of God against our gay loving nation, according to Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church.
Whenever these people picket and protest in un-Christian, un-Biblical ways, the media announces that “Westboro Baptist Church,” “pastor Fred Phelps,” and their “members” are at it again. But there is a lot that the media is not telling you.
For example, “right-wing” Fred Phelps is actually a lifelong Democrat. He unsuccessfuly ran for office as a Democrat on five different occasions. He supported Al Gore and Bill Clinton, before later opposing each of them when they each switched their position on gay marriage. I wonder why the media always says “right-wing Fred Phelps” instead of “Democrat Fred Phelps.”
Also, Phelps isn’t exactly a pastor and Westboro Baptist Church isn’t exactly a church. Phelps and his wife moved to Topeka, KS when he was called to pastor a church there. However, he was kicked out of the church and then founded the original Westboro Baptist Church. When that church failed, Phelps tried door-to-door sales, fathered 13 children, became a lawyer, and was disbarred by the Kansas Supreme Court before he began picketing funerals of AIDS victims in the early 90′s. His so-called church is now only made up of his family members. It doesn’t take much research to discover these facts about Phelps. I wonder why the media continues to call his family a “church” and Phelps a “pastor,” when neither are accurate.
I had a lot of trouble understanding “Westboro Baptist Church” until I read a story about Saul Alinsky in a pamphlet by David Horowitz. I think the story about Alinsky will help you understand what is really going on with “Westboro Baptist Church.”
Alinsky was speaking to students at Tulane University about community organizing, and a group mentioned that they were considering picketing in protest at an upcoming speech by George H.W. Bush (before he was President) about the situation in Vietnam (before the war). Alinsky advised against picketing the speech, because the students could potentially find themselves in trouble with their school and, more importantly, picketing would not be very effective. Instead, Alinsky suggested, the students should attend the speech dressed as members of the K.K.K., cheer every time Bush said something they disagreed with, and wave signs that said “The K.K.K. supports Bush.” Rather than directly oppose Bush, Alinsky advised politically destroying him by causing him to be wrongly associated with the evil of the K.K.K.
When you consider the fact that nobody else in the history of Christendom has interpreted the Bible, Christianity, sin, etc. the way that so-called “Westboro Baptist Church” does, and the fact that Phelps and his “church” have been enemies of gay rights who have really only helped the gay rights movement, the most logical conclusion is that Phelps is basically doing the same thing Alinsky told those Tulane students to do.
Rather than directly oppose Christians and those who believe in a definition of marriage that means, well, marriage, Phelps and his “church” are seeking to politically destroy Christians, Baptists, and those who oppose gay rights by wrongly associating them with a staged religious wacko and his fake church.
A lot of people see Phelps, his “church,” and his “God Hates Fags” signs, and they think, “people who oppose gay rights are like that guy? I don’t want to be like him.” The lie feeds on the false dichotomy that either you support gay rights or you are a lunatic like Fred Phelps. The lie ignores the fact that there’s at least one other plausible position on gay rights: the Biblical Christian position.
This “most logical conclusion” is admittedly an illogical one. But is it more illogical than it would have been to suggest that George Bush’s K.K.K. “supporters” were actually disguised anti-war college students??
Regardless of their motives, the most important thing to remember about the Phelps family (a.k.a. Westboro Baptist Church) is that opposing the family/”church” is not the same thing as opposing Biblical Christianity. Biblical Christians oppose them too, and find it both absurd and insensitive when they picket funerals with those signs!
Fred Phelps at DiscoverTheNetworks.org
“The ‘God Hates Fags’ Left“
“Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model” by David Horowitz
You read the title right.
If you’ve been following along, not much would surprise you more than to find out that President Obama came to the rescue of “Big Oil.” Heck, it would be surprising to find out that just about any national Democrat came to the rescue of Big Oil. The DNC just released an attack ad portraying Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a friend of Big Oil, as if that friendship should disqualify Romney from being President.
So surely Obama would not be guilty of friendship with Big Oil, would he?
Not publicly, no. But what if he had to choose between befriending Big Oil and the job losses, higher gas prices, and overall political anchor that would have resulted from the closure of the largest oil refinery on the east coast? When push comes to shove, the fact is that Obama, the federal government, and we the people need the jobs, the energy, and the economic benefits of so-called Big Oil.
Our President, the champion of “green energy” and archenemy of “dirty energy” and Big Oil, recently found himself betwixt precisely that rock and that hard place. If Sunoco’s Philadelphia refinery closed this month- as was scheduled unless they found a buyer- Obama would have seen 850 lost jobs and higher gas prices in an election year, and he would have had a much tougher row to hoe in convincing us that he is a better man for his job than Governor Romney.
Obama already demonstrated his need for the Oil & Gas industry- at least during an election year- when he flip-flopped on the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama rejected the pipeline, then amid pressure from terrible jobs and unemployment numbers and soaring gas prices he went to pipeline hub Cushing, OK to announce the pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico would be expedited.
Now, anti-oil Obama helped broker a deal to save the Philadelphia refinery, and the EPA even agreed to “relax emission limits” as the Carlyle Group tries to return the refinery to profitability. This is very significant, since Obama’s sharpest weapon against Big Oil has been the EPA regulations and fines. Here the White House indirectly admits that the EPA is a substantial obstacle to running a profitable refinery.
At least in an election year, Obama sees that this country needs Big Oil, their jobs, their ability to provide gasoline and other products at low prices, as well as the fact that the EPA is a huge obstacle in their ability to do so.
Apparently, Big Oil has a savior in the White House- at least when he knows he can’t win an election witout them.
(The Carlyle Group’s David Marchick thanked the White House first in a list of people and organizations that made the deal possible, quoted in this Downstream Today article; which piqued my interest to find out how and why the anti-oil White House would help save an oil refinery)
If you live in Houston, and if you leave your home much, you see homeless beggars. At just about every stoplight at just about every highway intersection, you will see a man or woman with a sign. Some are handicapped, all are dirty.
Some people give them money, some don’t.
Whether or not people give money in this situation is entirely up to them. I have heard stories of people in such situations “living the good life.” Somebody told me that they saw one such man push his shopping cart around a corner and get in an SUV. Somebody else told me that when he apologized to such a man for not having any money to give him, the man said not to worry and assured him it would be okay because he made about $40,000 a year begging. I have also heard stories of them spending the money they’re given on drugs and alcohol.
Also, many beggars appear to be perfectly capable of working, although appearances can certainly be deceiving. One time my dad, who has a small lawnmowing business, offered a group of three beggars money. The condition was that they had to work for it, which they looked perfectly capable of doing. They would mow and weed-eat for one of his customers. The leader of the group refused, and said somebody else would come along who would just give them the money without making them work for it.
All of these are possible reasons not to give them money. There are also plenty of reasons to give them money. Many people are moved by compassion when they see people in such situations. They won’t miss the handfull of change or couple of dollars, and even small amounts could buy the next meal for the beggar.
Whether you give them money or not is entirely up to you. What cannot be said under any circumstance, however, is that they deserve your money. If we follow the money, we see that your employer gave you/your parent(s)/your spouse the money in question as wages for work performed. Somebody worked for that money, and that somebody was not the beggar. You have every right to give the beggar your money if you so choose, but no one can say the beggar has a right to your money.
The so-called “Buffett Rule” championed by President Obama and named for Warren Buffett is absurd because it is like saying that everybody who works should pay their “fair share” to every beggar on the street corner. Just as no one has a right to demand that you give your money to a beggar, no one has the right to demand that Warren Buffett or any other business owner or executive pay a higher per centage of taxes. No notion of “fairness” can make sense of this.
Just like we followed the money from your/your parent(s)/your spouse(s) employer to you and found no way that any beggar deserves your money, following the money debunks any notion that wealthy individuals should pay more taxes than they already pay. These are some of the problems I have with the “Buffett Rule” and its attempted justifications.
First of all, in following the money, we see that Buffett pays far more taxes than his secretary ever will. His income is taxed. Although much fuss has been made about the lower rate, his capital gains are still taxed. He pays a payroll tax for employing his secretary and every other employee he has. Like the rest of us, he pays taxes on everything he buys. As we follow the money we must also ask where his secretary’s income- including the portion that pays her taxes- comes from. From Mr. Buffett. He pays her salary, and her salary pays her taxes. So we could say that he both creates her job and pays her taxes.
Second, the only way to look at the tax rates of these two individuals and conclude that the secretary pays more is if we isolate the tax per centages and look at nothing else. While the tax rate may be higher, Buffett very likely pays drastically more in taxes than his secretary earns in an entire year- not to mention a lot more than she pays in taxes. The “Buffett Rule” proponents position their argument as if by paying a lower per centage of their income the wealthy pay less in taxes than middle class Americans. This is not the case. A small per centage of a lot of money can be more than a larger per centage of a little money.
Would you rather have 28% of $40,000 or 15% of $1 million dollars. If we only look at per centages like Obama and company are doing, that 28% sure looks a lot better than the 15%. But if we do the actual math, by choosing the lower per centage we end up with $150,000 versus the $11,200 we get from the higher per centage. Likewise, just because higher income individuals pay a lower per centage tax rate does not mean that they pay a lesser amount of taxes.
Just like a beggar does not have any right to your money, the government does not have any right to a higher per centage of anybody’s income. You are free to give your money to a beggar if you want to, and Warren Buffett and President Obama can each pay whatever “fair share” per centage they want to on top of the per centage they already pay.
Lastly and most importantly, the economic impacts of the “Buffett Rule” would be terrible. Increasing tax rates on people with the money to create jobs and make sizable investments means they will have less money to do either. Also, secretaries throughout this country may win a moral victory if Buffett’s secretary is the reason this tax law comes into play. However, such a moral victory would likely cost them in the long run. If the people who pay the salaries of those secretaries have to pay more of their income to the government in taxes, it is safe to assume that wages and raises will take a hit.
Congratulations, Mrs. Secretary, your boss now pays the same tax rate you do! Sorry to hear that your salary was cut and you’ll never again get a raise, but hey at least you got that moral victory to hang your hat on.
The bottom line is this. Do you think that business owners, job creators, and investors in this country should pay more money to a government that has no idea how to manage money? Or do you think these people should be free to use that money to run their businesses, create jobs, and invest in rebuilding our nation’s economy?
Depending on your answer, more of us might have to find a street corner to beg on!
Bobby Petrino has a lot of enemies in the football world.
Former ESPN and current Yahoo! Sports journalist Pat Forde had this to say when Arkansas first hired who he called the “disingenuous drifter” in 2007, and this to say after Petrino’s recent failed motorcycle ride with a 25-year-old female assistant. Lawyer Milloy, one of the players Petrino abandoned when he quit mid-season as head coach of the Atlanta Falcons, chalked Petrino’s current situation up as karma.
Petrino lied about being alone on the motorcycle he wrecked before fessing up just before a police report revealed the truth. It turns out that Petrino had what he admitted was an “inappropriate relationship” with the young lady, gave her $20,000 in cash, gave her a job in the Arkansas athletics department, and then gave her a ride on his Harley.
These actions cost Petrino his job, and probably earned him a few more enemies.
However, none of these enemies are Petrino’s worst. His actions resulted from the sinister schemes of his two worst enemies, enemies we share with Mr. Petrino, and they are out to get you and me just like they got him.
I’m not saying that Petrino is not responsible for his decisions, his actions, and their consequences. He is, and so are the rest of us. What I am saying is that Bobby Petrino was deceived and defeated by an opponent more formidable than any Honey Badger (the other one, either), and the same opponent has us on his schedule.
Not only is this opponent greater than any who’s ever stepped on a football field, he also has a spy; a better system of knowing you and your plays than Bill Belichick and his “spygate” (come to think of it, the same two enemies got Belichick on that one, too!).
These two enemies are the devil and Petrino himself, specifically Petrino’s human, innate desire for sin. Each and every one of us has the same desire for sin, and as a result we are each sometimes our own worst enemy. We each got it from our mommy & daddy, they each got it from their mommy & daddy, and so on all the way back to Adam & Eve. The apostle Paul explains it better than I ever could at the end of Romans seven.
I certainly don’t condone Petrino’s actions, and I’m not out to defend him. However, with the same slithery serpent hissing in your ear and mine, and with each of us sharing the same defective human nature Petrino has from our first and common ancestors (Adam & Eve), let us not rush to pass judgment on his sins while we each try to QB sneak our own sins past The Judge.
It’s very easy to point a finger at Petrino right now. It’s not so easy to say, as we should and as my Mama would say, “but for the grace of God, there go I.” But for the grace of God, each one of us could be in his shoes right now.
If the worst thing you have done in the last month were on the front page of every paper, all over the internet, and looping on national television, you would bear every bit as much shame as Petrino does. The temptation to lie and deny it would be every bit as strong for you and me as it was for him. The only difference between his high-profile sins and our low-profile sins is that we won’t have to answer for his on judgment day.
Dreadfully and thankfully, there is a friend who is greater than our worst enemies, a friend who can save us from them. He bore such great shame, for our sake and for our sins, that his shame would put Petrino’s shame to shame. He lived the perfect life that you couldn’t live, that I couldn’t live, that Bobby Petrino couldn’t live; and he died the death that each of us deserves for our sins.
We need Him, because like Petrino we’ve all been deceived and defeated more than we care to admit. We need Him, because like me none of us have any chance on our own on the day of judgment before almighty God, who is too just and holy and righteous to even look on sin. We need Him, because there is no other hope for sinners like us. We need Him, because we either pay the eternal penalty for sinning against the eternal, living God on our own; or we trust in the One who paid our penalty, who took our shame, who died for all who would believe in Him before rising three days later in victory.
Your enemies would have you believe that sin is worth it, whatever “it” may be. Ask Bobby Petrino if being deceived and defeated by “it” was worth it.
In Christian theology, “the fall” refers to the sin of our first ancestors (Adam and Eve), God’s judgment of their sin, and the resulting strained “relationship status” that all of Adam and Eve’s posterity have been born into.
In Genesis 1, after God created man, male and female, He said His creation was good. The rest of the Bible, the word of God, could be accurately summed up by saying that mankind is not good. The massive and total shift in our relationship status is referred to as “the fall.”
After Adam and Eve sinned they were ejected from the garden of Eden. Apparently, if they had not sinned then God would obviously not have judged their sin (there would have been none), and all subsequent generations would have been born “good” like Adam and Eve were when God spoke them into being. Instead, through Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience, the “problem of evil” came to be. That first sin was the catalyst for every evil and every calamity since.
Naturally, God did not plan for the fall to happen from the beginning, right? Obviously, Adam and Eve disobeyed and caused God to change from His plan of eternal Eden which resulted in this fallen and broken world, problem of evil and all- right? Typically, the free will of Satan and the free will of Adam and Eve have been blamed for the fall. Satan attempted to “set his throne above God’s” and was cast out of heaven. He then entered the Garden of Eden and tempted Eve, who ate the forbidden fruit and gave it to her husband who also ate. That is where the explanation of the fall ends, right?
I think that, while Satan, Adam, and Eve freely chose to do what they did, and bear the blame for bringing evil into the world, the explanation does not end there. I think that the fall was part of God’s predestined plan from before the foundation of the world- yet in such a way that He did not sin.
Why would I think such a thing, and why would God predestine the event that brought every evil in the history of mankind into the world, you ask?
Glad you asked! Tune in next time!
Get the “facts” on abortion, straight from America’s largest abortion provider here.
“Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.”
Tragic. This “everybody is doing it” thing is illegal with cigarettes. It should be with abortion, too. The argument against peer pressure marketing with cigarettes was that it could lead to the deaths of children…
A link to your “options” if you are pregnant.
This part is rather interesting:
“But beware of so-called ”crisis pregnancy centers”. These are fake clinics run by people who are anti-abortion. They often don’t give women all their options. They have a history of scaring women into not having abortions.”
It was well-documented this past spring that the director of a Planned Parenthood here in Texas quit her job, the two major reasons being that 1) she watched an ultrasound abortion being performed and could no longer suppress the truth about what she did for a living and 2) her company was pressuring her to perform more and more abortions in order to garner more profits. This made it clear to her that her “pro-choice” company was not in the business of helping women, rather they were merely in the business of helping women have abortions in order to line their pocket books.
Yes, crisis pregnancy centers are anti-abortion, but they have nothing to gain financially by trying to dissuade women with unplanned pregnancies away from “ending their pregnancies” by killing their unborn children. Most, if not all, provide their services free-of-charge. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood has much to gain financially by steering these same women with unplanned pregnancies toward abortion.
The radically anti-crisis pregnancy center page on Planned Parenthood‘s site ends with this:
“No health care provider should pressure you into a decision about your pregnancy. All real family planning clinics will give you information about all your options.
Staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center can help. They can give you information on all of your options — abortion, adoption, and parenting. And they can talk through your options with you so that you can make the decision that is best for you.”
According to Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director, they should listen to their own advice. Not only does Planned Parenthood pressure women into having abortions, they pressure their directors into pressuring women into having abortions. According to Planned Parenthood‘s definition of “real family planning clinics,” Planned Parenthood‘s clinics are not “real family planning clinics.”
If you or somebody you know has an unplanned pregnancy, get the “facts on abortion” from somebody who does not have a financial interest in your “private, personal decision.” Oh, and if you do end up at Planned Parenthood or some other abortion provider, ask them to let you see your ultrasound. You will pay for the ultrasound, but they will likely refuse to let you see it. Why? Because they are not interested in helping women make the best decision by giving them all the necessary information. They are merely interested in helping women have abortions in order to profit financially.
Just ask Abby Johnson.
There is pretty much universal agreement that Hitler was evil. But, I wonder if Hitler saw himself that way. Do you think that he looked at himself in the mirror every day, while shaving around the edges of that infamous mustache, and thought, “you wicked, evil man!”
I doubt it. But we all see it now. How could he not see it then?
What about the slave owners in our own country, or the people who hung “WHITES ONLY” signs in their businesses. Our ancestors thought that, on no other basis than the color of their skin, people of a certain race either deserved no better than to be their “help,” or did not deserve to eat in their restaurants or sleep in their hotels. We condemn them now, but did they know we would see them the way we do?
We stand together and call their racism evil today, but just like Hitler before them, I doubt they saw their own evil.
You know one thing that Hitler and our racist ancestors had in common? Armed with “scientific” arguments, they denied the humanity of their victims. Using Darwinian theories and survival-of-the-fittest arguments, the Nazis believed that their desire for a pure race of Germans justified their abominations. Like racist, Nazi Germany, our racist ancestors used similar arguments to deny the humanity, or at least full humanity, of our darker-complected brothers and sisters. Because the black race was considered to be less fit than the white race, one generation enslaved them and another segregated them.
But surely we’re not evil like they were… are we?
A powerful letter from Adoniram Judson to John Hasseltine, asking for permission to marry his daughter:
“…I have now to ask whether you can consent to part with your daughter early next spring, to see her no more in this world? Whether you can consent to see her departure to a heathen land, and her subjection to the hardships and sufferings of a missionary life? Whether you can consent to her exposure to the dangers of the ocean; to the fatal influence of the southern climate of India; to every kind of want and distress; to degradation, insult, persecution, and perhaps a violent death? Can you consent to all this, for the sake of perishing immortal souls; for the sake of Zion and the glory of God? Can you consent to all this, in hope of soon meeting your daughter in the world of glory, with a crown of righteousness brightened by the acclamations of praise which shall redound to her Saviour from heathens saved, through her means, from eternal woe and despair?”
I am not pro-choice, neither when it comes to rape nor when it comes to abortion. I hate rape, and I hate abortion.
What I wrote was insensitive and offensive, and I intended for it to cause people to be outraged. They were.
I wrote what I wrote to help people see how foolish pro-choice arguments are, and to help them see the inconsistencies in pro-choice arguments- inconsistencies that they don’t see because they have been indoctrinated by the abortion movement.
I first denied that being “pro-choice” when it comes to rape is equal to being “pro-rape.” This is obviously foolish. Just because I said I would never rape anybody does not make what I wrote any less pro-rape. Likewise, a person who is “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion is pro-abortion. You cannot simply be pro-choice. Murder is a choice. Rape is a choice. Theft is a choice. We are all in favor of some choices and opposed to others. If a person claims to be pro-choice, you must ask what choice they are referring to- and a person who claims to be pro-choice referring to abortion is pro-abortion, regardless of how they try to justify identifying as pro-choice.
Then I made the claim that rape is a private and personal decision, and that government should not be involved with our private and personal decisions. People try to make this argument with abortion, but if we stop and think about it we see how blatantly foolish it is. All crimes are personal decisions, and rape is a perfect example of a private decision that is wrong. So, just because a decision is “personal” and/or “private” does not make it right, and does not mean that the government should or should not be involved in such decisions. Government should be and is involved in personal and private decisions to rape. Such personal and private decisions are identified as crimes, and those who commit them are identified as criminals. Killing a 1-year-old child is identified as a crime, even if his parents made a personal and private decision to kill him, and his parents are called criminals. It should be the same when parents make a personal and private decision to kill their child in the womb.
Next, I made the ridiculous suggestion that there should be rape clinics. Although rape clinics might in some ways be “cleaner” and “safer,” there would still be a person getting raped. The supposed inevitability of rape and the danger of back-alley rape do not justify rape-on-demand clinics, and such clinics would certainly not be a good thing for the victims of the rapes. So it is with abortion. Abortion clinics in some ways make abortion “cleaner” and “safer,” but not for the babies. The baby still bleeds and the baby still dies, meaning abortion is never clean or safe for the baby. Those babies are alive, and unless someone kills them they will live- with the obvious exceptions of miscarriages and complications. The supposed inevitability of abortion and the danger of back-alley abortion do not justify abortion-on-demand clinics, and such clinics are certainly not a good thing for the victims of the abortions- which includes both mothers and babies. Women who have abortions have to wake up every day for the rest of their lives as the mothers of dead babies, in addition to being mothers who paid doctors to kill their babies. People often tell pregnant women to “deal with it,” by which they mean “go have an abortion,” but I don’t know how they “deal with it” for the rest of their lives. Abortion-on-demand clinics are just as evil as rape-on-demand clinics would be, and we should be repulsed by the idea of each.
I concluded by using two popular pro-abortion slogans in my pro-choice regarding rape discourse: “Against rape? Don’t do it” and “his body, his choice.” We see the absurdity when the arguments are used to defend rape, but not when they are used to defend abortion. Why? Because we clearly see that the liberty of the rapist ends where justice for the victim begins, whereas we do not see that the liberty of the mother ends where justice for the baby begins.
If you felt that what I wrote about rape was insensitive and offensive, and if you were outraged by it, then you responded exactly the way you should have. However, you should respond in the exact same way when people say the same things about abortion. Just as my words were insensitive and offensive to victims of rape and their loved ones, these pro-choice arguments are insensitive and offensive to the victims of abortion, as well as to justice.
This nation was once divided on the issue of slavery, to our shame. We are now divided on the issue of abortion, to our shame. May we all be as unified against the evil of abortion as we are against the evils of slavery and rape.
- "The Dawkins Letters"
- "The God Delusion"
- 2 Samuel 20
- 2008 Presidential election
- Acts 17:24-31
- Anglican Church
- Anthony Flew
- Australian Christian music
- Ayn Rand
- Charles Darwin
- child of God
- Christ crucified
- Chuck Norris
- Church History
- David Robertson
- Desiring God
- Doers of the Word
- Dr. Jim Hamilton
- expository preaching
- Gene Robinson
- glory of God
- I Was There
- Intelligent Design
- James Hamilton
- Jesus Christ
- Joel Osteen
- John Piper
- justification by faith
- King David
- Lee Strobel
- Mark Driscoll
- Mars Hill Church
- Mike Huckabee
- Nathan Tasker
- preach the Word
- Psalm 1
- Richard Dawkins
- roe v. wade
- seminary professor
- Sermon on Mars Hill
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- the apostle Paul
- the Bible
- The Case for Faith
- The Law of the Lord
- the rebellion of Sheba
- The Resurrection
- the Word of God
- William Tyndale