Forty-One Years of Roe v. Wade

Today marks the 41st year since Roe v. Wade decision, which said that women not only have a right to abortion, but it it’s protected by the Constitution.

Since that decision, it is estimated that over 57 million babies in America have been put to death.

Abortion has had a devastating effect on the nation both morally and culturally, but the idea of having a “choice” to end (kill) a preborn baby’s life has had a devastatingly disproportionate impact on the black community.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s position was, according to his father: “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”  I believe that.

It is estimated by the Guttmacher Institute that black women account for 30 percent of abortions performed. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that 40 percent of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and it is also reported that abortion is responsible for more black deaths than heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, accidents, homicides, suicide, HIV and cancer combined.

The so-called “choice” or “right” of an abortion is said to have claimed over 17 million black babies since 1973.  It’s estimated that roughly 1200 babies are aborted each day.  With these ungodly statistics, one may come to the conclusion that – through abortion – blacks are willingly participating in killing their own people.  This was underscored by the Census Bureau report that said the black population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country.”  Blacks are, in the process of accomplishing what the KKK could have only dreamed of achieving.

Blacks are only 13.1% of the population with black women obviously comprising much less.

To make matters worse, a black so-called civil rights organization- the NAACP, with help from the ACLU– has actively sought to overturn an Arizona state law that prohibits race and sex-based abortions.  Calling the law- among other things, “discriminatory,” the NAACP claims that the law violates “women’s rights” under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by “stigmatizing their decision” to kill their preborn babies.

Even after their initial suit was thrown out, the NAACP is appealing the case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which means they just might win this time around.

Again a so-called civil rights organization that purports to represent the best interests of its constituents is suing to overturn a law that would increase the numbers of abortions, which is already decimating the black community.

The so-called leader of the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP is Rev. Oscar Tillman, who’s also a member of the NAACP National Board.

“Reverend”.

And this is after what baby-butcher Kermit Gosnell was accused and found guilty of doing- particularly to poor, black women- in his abortion practice in May, 2013.

Worse still, America’s first black president has whole-heartedly endorsed this practice up to and including abortions performed during the third trimester.

Not only does this paint a sad picture of reality, but it’s unjust as well.  The notion that abortion is a “choice” is purposely misleading.  The aborted baby didn’t choose to be killed.  Furthermore, what about the rights of the preborn children who are murdered by abortion?  All of the politically progressive talk of “justice” and “rights” is nothing more than a charade when it’s not also applied to the preborn – for they are the most defenseless amongst us.

For those of us who are pro-life, it’s best that we forget about arguing about the legalities of abortion.  Instead, we should be concerned with discussing the immorality of abortion and the resulting consequences on the lives of the mothers who have them, the families in which these women belong, the communities where these women live and the nation as a whole.  The immorality of abortion, arbitrarily choosing when life ends- particularly when that decision is based on the convenience of the mother at the expense of the father, the preborn child, and the respective families- disrupts and destroys the cooperative act between God and man in creating new life in God’s image.

Even if one doesn’t believe in God, the immorality of abortion can still be sincerely and intelligently debated and defended from an ethical and moral position.  Most Americans view abortion as morally wrong.  Most of these same Americans believe that life begins at conception, which basic biology teaches.  Again, all the incessant talk about “rights” and “protections” ring extremely hollow if they’re not extended to those who need them the most. It’s impossible  to- with any sincerity or intellectual credibility- literally create “rights” out of thin air that redefines marriage on emotional qualifications, or that guarantees a constitutional protection for abortion, while ignoring the fact that a preborn child containing forty-six chromosomes is somehow immune from protection.

The moral disintegration that accompanies abortion enables men like Kermit Gosnell, Douglas Karpen, Leroy Carhart, Warren Hern, and women like Shelley Sella, and Susan Robinson to continue their gruesome barbarity against preborn children.

Jeremiah 1:5 says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…” Additionally, Psalm 139:13-14 reads: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.  Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”

We should all remember this every time we hear the euphemisms “choice,” “woman’s right” and “a woman’s body” used in conjunctions with abortion.

 

MLK’s Birthday

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would’ve been 85 years old today.  As we reflect on his life, his speeches, sermons and writings; his ministry of public service, and what more he may have accomplished had he lived, or whether or not his dream has become a nightmare, we would do well to keep a few things in mind.

First, Reverend King was indeed that- a reverend. For many reasons obvious and not so obvious, the fact that King was indeed a minister of the gospel has been ignored in reference to him and his accomplishments.  He wasn’t simply “Doctor” King, he was also “Reverend” King. He was a pastor before receiving his doctorate and I would suggest that the movement associated with him would not have been as successful without the employing Christian principles and religiosity. The Christian message and symbolism was peppered through everything he said and did in regards to his public ministry of civil rights activism.  As such, referring to him only as ‘Dr. King’ rather than ‘Rev. King’ minimizes the impact and influence the Christian message had on changing American hearts and minds while achieving long sought civil rights protections and equality.

Second, we must resist the temptation to descend into partisan debates, arguing whether King was a Democrat or a Republican.  Though I don’t believe he was a Democrat, I can’t say for sure if he was a Republican (though his father was); he might have been a political Independent.  Ultimately, none of this matters.  What matters is that he was a proud, self-identified Christian minister who used the Bible as the foundation in his attempts to secure the civil rights of black Americans.  As Ross Douthat has said, the civil rights movement was the last great moral movement in America.  It was so because of Judeo-Christian religious values and Christian theology- in pursuit of liberty, and not because of political partisanship.

Third, when discussing the realization of the dream or whether the dream has become a nightmare, we should answer in the affirmative.  The dream in which King envisioned a country that embraced racial reconciliation predicated on character rather than color, for the most part, has been realized.  The country in which King dreamed that blacks would be accepted into the socio-economic mainstream, has been realized.  Forced segregation is a relic of the past; America for fifty years has attempted to undo her past sins against blacks by implementing countless social and economic policies- even at the expense of liberty- to facilitate upward progress and mobility for blacks (and Mexicans, the poor- regardless of color, etc.). Condensing King’s dream, it has become a reality.

But, the nightmare- of which so many speak- is found in the fact that several generations of blacks haven’t taken advantage of the sacrifices of those, like King, who came before them. Freedom and equality under the law isn’t a guarantee of success or equality of outcome.  Those who believe this have been misguided.  The freedom that King and other antecedents fought and died for, in hopes that we could experience freedom of economic access and social acceptance, doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility to take (positive) advantage of the fruit of their labor.  The convoluted understanding of equality on the front end to guarantee equality on the back end has been disastrous for black America.

It’s time for Americans as a whole to move beyond the silly, unconstructive and time-wasting discussions of Rev. King’s legacy. Honesty obligates us to acknowledge that though America remains imperfect, the progress she has made in a mere fifty years has been extraordinary.  It’s actually historical.  Obviously, we’re still a work in progress; and hopefully, we always will be.  This should be celebrated and shouldn’t be condemned or mourned by those who have a vested interest in maintaining racial and cultural animosity.  Those folks, members of the Racial Grievance Industry and the Black Grievance Industry, should be thoroughly, loudly and boldly shamed and condemned.

Another Episode of Atheists Gone Wild

The University of Wisconsin-Extension in Madison has removed close to 140 Gideon Bibles from all of its guest rooms thanks to an offended guest, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the cowardice of management (Bill Mann, director) at The Lowell Center Conference & Lodging.

 

Rather than tell the guest to act like an adult and put the Bible out of sight, the Lowell Center decided to act- in response and in favor to the offended guest and FFRF intimidation.

 

But, Bill Mann said, “We reviewed the concern raised about the placement of Bibles in our guest rooms and decided to remove them. We want to make sure all guests are comfortable in our lodging.”

 

All guests?  No, just the one atheist who complained.

 

Ray Cross, chancellor of UW Colleges and UW-Extension NS UW System president, said that after reviewing the complaint, all Bibles would be removed by December 1, 2013.

 

Get it? One offended guest can now dictate to a business or organization, who can and can’t read the Bible, and who shouldn’t have to see a Bible.

 

Doubt we’ll hear any mention regarding the potential guests of The Lowell Center Conference & Lodging who’re Christian being offended by the irrationality of removing Bibles.

 

Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of the FFRF said, “Society has changed… there are more non-believers and more non-Christians to be offended.”

 

This is rubbish. Pure, unadulterated rubbish. Who cares if there are more non-believers and more non-Christians today to be offended?  They’re still the minority when compared to “believers” and Christians.

 

Attorney Patrick Elliot, who represents the FFRF, said in a statement, “While private hotels may choose to put any type of literature they want in their guest rooms, state-run colleges have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion.”

 

Ah, yes- the “constitutional obligation” appeal which they think means- freedom from religion.  Funny how these snakes- these acrimonious atheists and their legal co-conspirators- especially the ACLU, never, ever mention the free exercise clause.  They simply distort the original meaning and intent of the amendment with help from various and erroneous judicial interpretations.  In their twisted and irreligious minds- for nefarious reasons- the First Amendment, commonly and inaccurately known as “separation of church and state” (not found in the Constitution, by the way), has come to mean any public institution who accepts public funds, represents or is seen as an extension- however arbitrarily- of some form of government, can’t be involved in religious activities, however oblique.

 

Bullocks.

 

Again, slimy lawyers like this are the reason(s) why the legal community can’t shake its well-deserved, sullied reputation. And as for these atheists, they do themselves and their belief system absolutely no favors being this belligerent and obnoxious.

 

The First Amendment states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  In the truest meaning and understanding of the amendment, until Congress legislates the adherence and reverence of one religion above- and to the exclusion of all others, the Constitution hasn’t been violated, period.  Congress as a body, or congressional members on their own, can even promote a religion of their choice so long as they don’t attempt to legalize and nationalize a specific religion.

 

So public schools that allow prayers during lunch or at sporting events haven’t violated the Constitution nor are public properties that have Nativity scenes in violation either; the cross in the Mojave Desert- a memorial constructed to recognize the soldiers of our country lost in war- is legal, as is the cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego.  Again, promotion of religion- which even the Founders and Framers did, does not amount to a de facto, legalized or nationalized religion.

 

FFRF Co-President Dan Barker says, “We atheists and agnostics do not appreciate paying high prices for lodging, only to find Gideon bibles in our hotel rooms, sometimes prominently displayed, knowing they contain instructions, for instance, to kill ‘infidels’ and ‘blasphemers,’ among other primitive and dangerous teachings,” he asserted.”

 

Then go somewhere else. No one is preventing any atheist from finding lodging, regardless of cost, that doesn’t place Bibles in their rooms.  There are plenty of them.

But kill the infidels? Kill the Blasphemers?  This is embarrassing both of Baker and the spineless management of the Lowell Center.

 

First, kill the infidel? Please; nice try.

 

Kill the blasphemers… aside from referring to this outside of its historical and theological context- yes it’s in the Bible, but what example of a Christian or Jew (specifically Jews, since the punishment for blasphemy is in the Levitical code in the Old Testament) who is actively internalizing these passages and killing infidels or blasphemers today? Or adulterers, for that matter?

 

There is only one prominent religion today who is actively engaging in infidel killing, the killing of apostates and of blasphemers and they’re ironically referred to as “the religion of peace.”

 

So this comes down to two things.  The first is that a single guest, along with the increasingly powerful atheist lobby, was “offended” that Bibles were available in public rooms and they didn’t like it.

 

The second is that as usual, the atheist lobby is perfecting the art of public intimidation- bullying- of those with whom they religiously disagree, specifically Christians, their religion and their Bible. (Yes, I said religiously because atheism is a religion, they just simply lack a common deity.)  And Bill Mann, the director of Extension conference centers, cowardly and quickly acquiesced to their threats, rewarding negative and corrupting behavior which serves to embolden the atheist mafia.

 

It’s ironic that a group of people who- with absolute certainty, claim that God doesn’t exist, spends such an inordinate amount of time publicly arguing, intimidating, and inconveniencing those who do. If God truly doesn’t exist, then shut up; go live your lives in peace.  Don’t go away mad, just go away.

 

But the FFRF, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et.al make the continual and emotional fuss of trying to remove every single public display, mention or acknowledgment of a deity that “isn’t provable” and who “doesn’t exist.”

 

I don’t believe aliens exist, so I spend absolutely zero time in trying to prove it. Nor do I attempt to prevent those who do believe in them from… believing.

 

The idea that atheists are “free thinkers” is an unfunny joke.

 

Based on numerous past and current examples, this won’t be the last time a person, business, group or organization cowers to emotional atheists (who’re a minority) at the expense of common sense and decency.