How Smoothly the Sinister Puzzle Pieces Fit Together

http://vimeo.com/52009124

Respecting Women is Respecting Life

 What a beautiful essay from Pat Gohn!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/respecting-women-is-respecting-life/2013/01/22/a37e3b92-64c2-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html?wp_login_redirect=0

Children and the Culture of Pornography

 Jesus, come quickly!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/9828589/Children-and-the-culture-of-pornography-Boys-will-ask-you-every-day-until-you-say-yes.html

Dr. James Dobson, Abortion and the Sandy Hook Massacre

Dr. James Dobson speaks on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves, especially vulnerable, defenseless unborn babies.  That's what all disciples of Jesus are called to do.  Yes, they are just as valuable as the precious children who were killed at Sandy Hook.  No life is any more valuable or any less valuable than any other.  It's evil when some are not attributed dignity and worth by narcissistic fools, and nihilism results.  Each life begins at conception.

Your thinking, Fred, is convoluted if you think Dr. Dobson said that the defenseless young children gunned down in their elementary school were ruthlessly slaughtered due to God's judgment on our wayward country!  That is most definitely not what he meant.  We cannot continue to live in outright rebellion to God, and His precepts, and expect to continually be blessed by Him as a nation.  That is what Dr. Dobson was saying.  There are natural laws that govern this world, and we are reaping the consequences of rejecting Jesus, King of kings and Lord of lords.  We are reaping the expected consequences of not surrendering our allegiance to Him as Master and Saviour.  You are knowingly misleading your readers, and they are relishing every false nugget.  You are well aware that they want more reason to hate on Dr. Dobson, and you seem to delight in providing them with hateful, intolerant, judgmental, false information.  As a Christian, how do you feel free to slam such a righteous man as Dr. Dobson?  Where's your brotherly love?  How can you say that the Newtown massacre was any more horrific than is our unrelenting American holocaust of abortion that has killed over 54 million humans?  Granted, there are differences between the two atrocities.  The massacre took place in a public setting for our entire nation to be made aware of, not tucked covertly away, like abortion, under cover of darkness, in an abortion mill.   Had this diabolical deed gone unreported to the general public, just like abortion is, we would not all be outraged, for we would not know about it, just like we are not made aware of the evil daily perpetration of the violent slaughtering of unborn humans.  Reporting opposed to lack of reporting is pertinent to understanding how these two situations differ.  Pathetically, the ruthless slaughtering of the unborn is not something that is reported much at all.  If it is reported, it is done so in a manipulative way so as to brainwash people.  This brainwashing has been going on for decades now, and unthinking, uncaring, immature individuals who irresponsibly care more about their right to "free love" than they do about the lives of the most defenseless among us, have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by such poison.  Those lies that are perpetrated upon the American people that not all life is valuable are what's rotting our hearts, minds and souls, Fred.  That evil MUST stop!  The massacre was seen as wrong by all, while abortion is viewed as right according to law.  Just because something is legal does not make it right.  The families of the 20 children, whose lives were snuffed out last Friday, were blessed with time to get to know them.  TIME.  The families of aborted babies are not afforded the gift of time in the presence of their children.  TIME spent together is a main difference between the deaths of babies and the deaths of older children.  They are all wanted by someone!  The main difference, of course, is that the 20 children who died too soon had worth attributed to their lives.  Babies in the womb do not, according to the heinous law of our faltering nation.  How diabolical for those bent on spreading the poison of abortion to cause naive females to believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to have their own babies killed in their safe havens.  That is the epitome of evil.  The deep sadness that will inevitably come due to the killing of one's own flesh and blood is one that will never go away, just like the sadness that will never leave the families egregiously wounded at Sandy Hook.  Unborn babies, whether allowed the dignity of their right to life, or violently killed in what's meant to be their safest haven of nurturing on earth, are actual babies, actual children.  For a mother to do something so against nature as to have her own child ripped from her womb is the most unnatural of acts.   

My daughter's baby girl was born still at full term.  The morning she delivered her much-anticipated, much-loved daughter, we were on our merry way rejoicing to the birthing center, hearts full of delight about a new member joining our family.  Within minutes of our arrival, it was discovered that Lily's tiny heart that had been beating strongly and steadily for 40 weeks was beating no more.  With that devastating news, it was if the life was sucked out of us as well.  How could our hearts go on beating without her?  How could the sun go on shining without her?  How could the wind go on blowing without her?  It was even difficult to breathe.  We will never have, with our Lily, the blessing of time, like the families at Sandy Hook experienced with their children.  We didn't get to hear her cry after delivery.  We never gazed into Lily's blue eyes.  We never heard her talk or laugh, or watch while she took her first steps.  My daughter was not afforded the beautiful gift of breast-feeding her baby girl.  We never felt her hugs or her kisses.  We never got to celebrate even one birthday with our little flower.  Along with the Sandy Hook families, we won't get to celebrate Christmas with our missing child.  Just like them, we will not see Lily graduate, or marry or have children of her own.  Like them, we have been forced to live with shattered dreams, and we will never forget the hopes we had for her.  Lily's brief life was just as significant as each of the lives of the 20 children who were murdered at Sandy Hook.  We will never stop missing her.  Children are not supposed to die before their parents or grandparents.  Death is such an unnatural robber, and it is difficult at any stage, any age, for any reason, anywhere in the world.    

Dr. James Dobson cares deeply about children just as much as anyone else in this world, and more than many.  He is not pretending anything.  He is a genuine servant of Jesus.   There is no pro-life rhetoric.  It is truth.  It is factual.  It is simple.  Life does begin at conception.  Period.  There is no distinction made between a new person just conceived or a six year old or a ninety-nine year old.  Every single life has the exact same value in God's sight, for it is He that creates every life, and that is what counts!  Every abortion that ends a sacred life developing in the womb does sadden me just as much as each of the lives ended on Friday.  I am not pretending.  Abortion is evil too.  It sends the message that human life is not sacred at any stage of development.  After all, we are just animals fighting for survival, right?  Tragically, the legalization of abortion was born out of the teaching of atheistic evolution.  The unfathomable repercussions of that egregious lie are many and far flung, like feathers in the wind.  Common sense is no longer common.  I am willing to stand with Dr. Dobson, for why should he take all of the heat?

Exemplary Robbie Parker's Interview

Jesus' strength and grace shine though this devastated father's exceedingly wounded heart!  To God be the glory for forgiveness and love!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcNEbszYlM0

The Tyranny of 'Reproductive Justice'

The Tyranny of 'Reproductive Justice'

All Things Examined

By: Regis Nicoll|Published: November 12, 2012 4:29 PM

Topics: Life Issues, Politics & Government, Religion & Society, Sexual Ethics

 PRINT

 RSS

Share on facebook_likeEMAIL

37

Ever since Sandra Fluke made a splash at the congressional hearings on the Affordable Care Act, we’ve been hearing a lot about “reproductive justice.” Not so surprising, perhaps, given that Fluke is a past president of the Georgetown chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

But what is “reproductive justice”?

It strikes me as a rather strange pairing of words, for what does justice have to do with a basic biological function? And if reproductive justice exists, why not respirative, digestive, or cardio-vascular justice? If you find yourself similarly puzzled, SisterSong, a self-described “women of color” advocacy group, explains,

“Reproductive justice [is] the right to have children, not have children, and to parent the children we have in safe and healthy environments . . . based on the human right to make personal decisions about one’s life.”

And where is the right to have children, or not, a problem, outside of China with its “one-child” policy? Certainly not in the United States, where a 40 percent birth rate to unwed mothers is evidence that neither marital status, church teaching, nor social stigma is a barrier to those “personal decisions about one’s life.”

What’s more, with over 1 million abortions per year, even a woman who is carrying a child doesn’t have to bear it if she doesn’t want to—and that includes pregnant minors who can so decide, free from parental permission or notification.

Considering the recently passed legislation in New York City to restrict the sale of sugary drinks, maybe a bigger threat is to “dietary justice”—that is, “the right to drink, not to drink, and to enjoy the beverages of our choice.”

What about . . .

Conspicuously absent from the Cause is any mention of the other essential party in reproduction: men. For instance, SisterSong goes on to say that “the obligation of government and society to ensure that the conditions are suitable for implementing one’s decisions is important for women of color.” (Emphasis added). But not for men, or at least men of color?

What about the injustice to the man who has no legal recourse to oppose his girlfriend’s or wife’s decision to abort his child? What about the gender bias in a court system that awards child custody preferentially to mothers, even in cases where real differences in parental fitness and ability are documented? What about a health care law that requires women’s, but not men’s, contraception services to be provided for free?

True justice requires that if one party in the reproduction process is owed duty, so is the other. Applying “reproductive justice” exclusively to the “rights” of women is like applying criminal justice only to the rights of plaintiffs and not defendants, or vice versa.

Then there’s that “obligation of government and society” part. What about personal obligation? You know, the responsibility of individuals to control their passions and behaviors for their good and that of society, with particular concern in this case for those born, those waiting to be born, and those who could be born. Again, the Cause is silent.

What it is not silent about is the desire for sexual expression unencumbered by personal consequences and cost.

Consequence-free sex

In Sandra Fluke’s congressional testimony, she defended the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, a requirement under the ACA that unburdens women from the financial costs of consequence-free (via contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization) sex at their employers’ expense, despite any religious objections their employers might have.

Emerging from the hearing as the fresh, new face of the lifestyle left, Fluke so charmed the Democratic National Committee that she was awarded a prime-time speaking slot at their convention, where she extended her 15 minutes of fame for a few minutes more.

But the goal of the Cause goes beyond liberating women from the costs and consequences of their “personal decisions about life”; it aims to free them from shame of those decisions as well.

For instance, A Is For is a reproductive justice movement “challenging the traditional meaning of the scarlet letter by encouraging women, and the men who support them, to wear the A proudly.” (Men, it will be noted, are referenced only in the context of supporting the decisions of the women in their lives.) Their inspiration comes from “Nathaniel Hawthorne’s fictional heroine . . . Hester Prynne,” a woman who, as they put it, was “branded by her fellows for daring to live a life according to her own conscience.”

So, a married woman who commits adultery and has another man’s child is not immoral, impious, or even imprudent; she's heroic for following her own moral lights. That takes calling good evil and evil good to a whole new level.

A Is For parallels the tasteless “I had an abortion” T-shirt drive started by Jennifer Baumgardner, promoted by Planned Parenthood, and currently causing quite a stir at one college campus.

According to Glora Feldt of PP, the purpose of the T-shirt is “to challenge the silence and shame” surrounding abortion. I’m sure the effect that shame has on the balance sheet of the nation’s top abortion provider is of no concern to Ms. Feldt.

That shame, Baumgardner tells us, is that:

“We’re called ‘sluts’ and ‘prostitutes.’” [I’m with you here, Jennifer—name-calling, and those who do it, are wrong.]

“We’re told to ‘put an aspirin’ between our legs.” [Well, if you’re unmarried or not ready for children or other “consequences,” it’s a surefire method—in fact, the surest.]

“We’re made to believe that it’s our ignorance, and not our experience, that drives our desire for autonomy and freedom from forced procreation.” [Now, just who is it that’s forcing you to procreate? I’m ready to take names.]

“We’re lectured that we shouldn’t have had sex in the first place, as if sex were not a natural aspect of our humanity that we have every right to express.” [You’re right, sex is a natural part of our humanness—but more than that, it is essential, not because it serves to satisfy our sensual desires, but because without it, the human race would quickly join the ranks of endangered species.]

“We’re told we must face the ‘consequences’ of our sexual actions, as if we weren’t already painfully aware of the consequences of life without contraception, having lived, and died, without it for centuries.” [You want freedom from personal consequences, not by restricting your sexual behaviors, but by “protections” paid for by others. Got it.]

In lockstep with Baumgardner, A Is For urges followers to proudly wear the A against the “aggressive legislative assault” on women’s health and freedom by, among other things, “personhood bills.” Granted, legislation aimed at protecting the unborn is an inconvenience to a woman seeking total sexual freedom, but an “assault” on her health? Really?

If you’ve been wondering what the A stands for? “The A is for Autonomy. It’s for Allegiance. It’s for Action” or whatever strikes your fancy. A is for . . . you fill in the blank.

A few words that occur to me are “arrogant,” “autocratic,” “appalling,” and “abominable.” Too harsh? I don’t think so.

When others are forced to pay for protecting me against consequences I find undesirable for behaviors I’ve willingly chosen, it’s robbery.

When my “right” to free sexual expression overrides someone else’s right to free religious exercise, it’s religious oppression.

When a mother’s autonomy over her body trumps the right to life of the child in her body, it’s pedicide.

And when such things are done in the name of “justice,” it is not justice at all, but tyranny.

Image copyright CNN.

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a BreakPoint Centurion. Serving as a men’s ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at centurion51@aol.com.

Forgetting the Holy; The Feast of the Intransitive Verb

The Washington Times
Forgetting the holy; The Feast of the Intransitive Verb
Published Thursday, November 25, 1999.
By Kevin "Seamus" Hasson

Every fourth Thursday in November work and school are canceled so that families can gather together for the day and thank - well, we'll get to just who it is they may be thanking in a minute. They also enjoy good food, good company and good football. The holiday is currently called Thanksgiving, although there is reason to think that may have to change.
Just about every other religious holiday has been stripped of its original meaning and transformed into a more secular version of its former self. Why should Thanksgiving be any different? In Pittsburgh, Christmas and Hanukkah morphed into "Sparkle Season" and then disintegrated further into "Downtown Pittsburgh Sparkles." Public school systems across the country are renaming the Easter Bunny the "Special Bunny." Even Halloween is being transformed out of concern for its rampant religiosity. In many places it is now the "Fall Festival Celebration." Surely Thanksgiving, a state-sanctioned holiday that purports to give the nation a day to thank God, cannot withstand the small, furious army of radical secularists determined to take the "holy" out of our holidays. A day set aside to thank God can hardly be appropriate when the celebration of Christmas, Hanukkah and even Halloween has become taboo. Something will have to be done.
So I have a modest proposal: Let's practice truth-in-labeling and call the November holiday that was formerly Thanksgiving, "The Feast of the Intransitive Verb." Intransitive verbs, as we all remember from those unpleasant days of diagramming sentences in grammar school, are verbs that do not require an object. Verbs in sentences like "The horse ran" and "The wind blows" are intransitive because the horse doesn't have to run anything or the wind blow anything. They can simply run and blow without any object at all. Well, what about the verb "to thank"? It's supposed to have an object. You can't just sit there and "thank." You have to thank someone. Which is why secularists don't use that word much in late November anymore. Their creed requires them to celebrate the day by being grateful while thanking no one. And it's embarrassing to have to choose between being politically and grammatically correct. So secularists prefer the circumlocution "to give thanks." It doesn't require an object. You can get away with "giving thanks" without having to be grateful to anyone in particular. It's much more comfortable that way. Thank whomever you want. Or, don't thank anyone; it's entirely up to you. Either way you can still "give thanks." That's the beauty of using an intransitive verb; it doesn't need any object.
Of course, once the object of our gratitude is out of the way it's all downhill. The rest of the day is uncommonly easy to secularize. It has none of the outward trappings of a religious holiday. There are no babes in mangers or symbolic candles to remove from courthouse steps. No one is ringing church bells that require silencing or allowing children to hunt for eggs that must be renamed. The staples of Thanksgiving - turkeys, cornucopias and pumpkin pies - in and of themselves present no real threat to the secularist ascendancy. And the football games are an absolute godsend (so to speak) for secularists. After all, the more distracted we all are the easier it is to forget about the one to whom we owe gratitude.
So let's hear it for the Feast of the Intransitive Verb. It's a worthy companion to "Sparkle Season" (formerly known as Christmas), "Special Person Day" (previously St. Valentine's Day), and the "Spring Festival," which was once Easter. Of course, if all this isn't agreeable to you, if it all seems just a little bit extreme, or even if you're just worried that turkey and cranberries may never taste the same again, you could always
be a thumb in the eye of the radical secularists. You could insist on thanking God, and not settle for
generically "giving thanks." You could tell your neighbors that you're grateful to God for all He's done for
you. You could even go so far as to tell your children to do the same - to make sure that amidst all the
construction paper turkeys they fashion in school they get the message across that they, too, are thanking
God.
Defending the public integrity of our holidays is not just petulance. Cultures are built, and eroded, by a
succession of public acts both great and small. Everything from the arts we exhibit to the table manners we
display makes a difference in building up or wearing down our culture. Public holiday celebrations are
particularly potent engines of culture - which is why the secularists have poured so much energy into
changing ours. Pittsburgh's "sparkle season," for example, has done great damage, not only to Christmas in
Pennsylvania, but to our culture nationally. But the fight is far from over. So this weekend enlist in the
culture war and thank God.

Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson is the president emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.