The Democracy Dilemma (Part 2)

In my last post, I considered the following scenario – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do?

The dilemma here is that we can: 1) vote for the least offensive candidate (assuming he/she has a more “agreeable” stance on the topic, like only supporting instances where the life of the mother is threatened) and still be a party to the murder of innocent children, or 2) don’t vote for either candidate, and leave the election to others. My point in the previous post is that there is no call in the Bible for Christians to be politically active in all instances – Jesus seems to be rather ambivalent about politics altogether (Matthew 22:15-22). The failure to cast a vote for either candidate still leaves the issue in the capable hands of God alone. Do we trust that He has a bigger plan?

This very scenario confronts us in our gubernatorial race in Colorado this November. Democrat John Hickenlooper will face the Republican candidate, Dan Maes, in the election. I’ve seen Dan Maes speak at the Christian Family Conference in Denver this summer – he seemed like a standup guy, supportive of so many of the sides of issues that I favor, like homeschooling and smaller government.

Most importantly, Dan Maes is pro-life. While politics covers many issues, I am most insistent on two topics alone – 1) a firm stand against all forms of abortion and a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 2) a clear statement that the candidate will not support any legislation that legitimizes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Any candidate who doesn’t support these two points should not bother to seek my vote. They will never get my support, under any circumstances.

But the state gubernatorial race, like the Presidential race, does not contain just one name in each spot on the ballot – there are two. One is for governor and one is for lieutenant governor. And Dan Maes has chosen his lieutenant governor to be Tambor Williams – a clear, pro-choice candidate. Williams does not support the Colorado Personhood Amendment, she has urged former state governors to send funds to Planned Parenthood, and she has voted to oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions (for more on Williams, visit this Colorado Right-to-Life page).

Is Dan Maes committed to a pro-life stance? Consider his words, spoken recently to a pro-abortion outlet:

“People are overestimating the personhood amendment. It simply defines life as beginning at conception. That’s it. Who knows what the intent of it is? They are simply making a statement. That is all I see it as. Do they have another agenda? I don’t know... Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and people tend to forget that. I would not try to undo that.”

And then, shortly after making this statement, he claimed that he misspoke and “took it back”. I have to ask – how can you misspeak by so great a margin? Could it be that Dan Maes, like so many other politicians, is simply saying whatever he must in order to get elected? In a recent newspaper article, other “conservatives” make it clear that the end justifies the means, when they say that Republicans may have to make compromises if they want to win back the governor’s office.

As a Christian, I am not in a position to make compromises where God’s Word is concerned. And God’s word is clear on the topic of the sanctity of life – “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13,16). If Dan Maes does not have the moral character, nor the tenacity to name a pro-life running mate, then he does not get my vote. It appears that Colorado Right-to-Life is withdrawing their earlier support of Maes. In their words, “the only justifiable abortion policy is zero tolerance for child killing.” I agree.

And this brings me back to my earlier point – I believe there are times when we are called upon to vote, and there are times when we are not. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. In November, when I reach the gubernatorial part of the ballot, I will leave it blank – and I will, instead, take a moment to pray – and trust that God is bigger than anything I can do with my elective right. Does God need my vote to make things happen? No. Prayer, and God's leading, will trump mere politics. Isn’t that the very definition of faith?

A time of prayer, instead of political involvement? Think about it – what would Jesus have done?

What If I Tell Them I Refuse To Pay Abortion Taxes?

During the recent passage of the House healthcare bill, there was a lot of uproar over whether or not public funds would go toward financing abortion on demand (the debate now swings to the Senate). Some more conservative House leaders introduced the Stupak amendment – a measure which limited (but did not completely eliminate) healthcare funds from being used for abortion. As I read the news, a thought occurred to me - what would I have done if the government had placed an abortion free-for-all in the bill, effectively being paid for with my taxes?

Is there a time when we say, “Enough! I refuse to pay for that!” Is there ever a time when we would be justified in NOT paying our taxes?

The Bible tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and also that God puts government officials in their place at his bidding. Jesus told us in Matthew 22 that it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. But it makes me wonder - what were taxes used for by the Roman government two thousand years ago? Did they spend tax money on the same things that our government spends it on today?

In ancient Rome, the tax rate varied between 1% and 5%, with a 1% sales tax being the norm (the higher rates up to 5% were levied on one-time events, such as inheritance taxes). And where did this tax money get spent? I can only find reference to the tax money being used to fund the Roman legions – the military used by the emperors to provide national security and preserve order. The Roman government, the one we hear about as being controlling and oppressive, did not use tax money for public healthcare, arts endowment…or to fund abortion.

Is there a difference today? If Roman taxes were being used to fund abortions, would Jesus’ answer have been different when asked about paying taxes? The point that Jesus was making in Matthew seems to be more about the concern of individuals and their love of money. This event was also a simple ploy that the Pharisees were using to try to trap Jesus into being arrested. Would he have given the same answer if the subject was about what the tax money was being spent on? Would Jesus have felt outrage and decry the payment of taxes if the Roman government had been funding abortions?

It angers me to the point of tears that some of my tax money – right now – goes to fund abortions in instances of rape, incest, or “the health of the mother”. Money that I work hard for is collected by a government which legalizes and even promotes the murder of our nation’s children. To this I say, “Enough!”

I wonder what would happen if I sent in my taxes next year with this note:

Dear U.S. Government,

I have calculated my taxes for last year to be $20,000. I have also calculated that $1,200 of this money will be allocated, proportionally, to the funding of abortions. You should be made aware that the practice of abortion is morally reprehensible to me. I cannot in good conscience allow you to spend my tax money on this procedure. I believe it is tantamount to murder. Please accept this short-payment of my tax debt with the understanding of why I am refusing to pay the full amount. To assist you in any budget shortfall, I will be doing everything in my power over the next few years to help reduce the number of abortions taking place – through discussions, volunteer work, or political activism. I hope that this more than makes up for the amount of my money that you would have spent on abortion had I not been working diligently to teach people about the outrage of this practice. I encourage you to get out of the abortion business and look to God for forgiveness and direction.

Well, I would probably be risking some jail time. I’ve probably guaranteed myself an audit just by posting this.

Pray for our nation.
***********************
Previous posts on abortion - here, here, and here.

Ten Thoughts on the House Health Care Bill

Ten random thoughts on the healthcare initiative...

1) The same government that can’t get for-profit labs to create H1N1 vaccine in a timely manner wants to take over the whole healthcare shebang. And half of the people want to let them have it…

2) Nancy Pelosi promised on September 24, 2009 that she would let the bill be published for 72 hours before calling for a vote. “Absolutely. Without question”, were her very words. But she decided in the end not to do that. Why? There can be only one reason – she believed that three days of discussion time could only result in the bill’s defeat. So she broke her promise and drove through a bill that should have been debated – and defeated.

3) I cannot for the life of me figure out WHO is going to get the $1.2 trillion that they want to set aside for the program. But I’m willing to bet it is the people and organizations which come out in favor of the bill in the coming weeks. Once someone actually reads it.

4) Can anyone really explain what a “public option” is? Does anyone really know how healthcare will change if such a bill were to pass? I’m willing to bet that 95% of the American people (and 80% of the people in Congress) don’t know what we’re talking about. I’ll admit that I don’t.

5) Name for me one country which has adopted a public health plan which has been deemed a success. Canadians still cross the border to get a lot of their surgeries performed in the States.

6) The most telling words of all that I read when news articles were announcing the removal of funds for free-for-all abortion under the plan were “For now”. Abortion foes were given an incentive to vote for the current plan when this language - the Stupak amendment - was introduced (abortions will still be covered for rape, incest, and “the health of the mother”). But I’m guessing that pro-abortion Congressmen were told to “Just wait – we’ll get that wording back in there in the final version.” If you have no inkling about what the rest of this legislation means, please pressure your Congressmen and Senators to vote against it for this one reason – public funds are being used to fund abortions. This is the single most important topic in this whole debate.

7) $1.2 trillion over ten years. An average of $120 billion per year of new taxes. There are 105 million people a year who pay taxes. That’s an average of $1,143 per year, per tax-paying person in each household. For ten years. Hey, where did we think the money was going to come from? French taxpayers? The sale of Chris Dodd’s Irish cottage?

8) If you have reached your credit limit on five credit cards – is the solution to get another card? Or is it to control your costs? For healthcare, the primary problem that I see is runaway costs in the industry. It is NOT that some people don’t have health coverage (because there are ways around not having formal coverage). Fix the cost issue first, make healthcare more affordable for everyone, and more people will be able to get on board.

9) The best single method I have heard to get healthcare costs down is to enact tort law reform. Minimize and limit the amount of damages for which people can sue – malpractice insurance costs will plummet for the doctors – this savings will be passed on to the customer. I am led to believe that this cost is not insignificant. The only people to be hurt by this reform will be the lawyers. That’s a good reason to implement tort reform right there! (Sorry – to all my lawyer friends out there…)

10) It’s not too late to put pressure on your Congressmen and Senators. Find out their positions and write them at this link. March on their offices. Go to a Tea Party. And remember – “Abortion is not ‘healthcare’”.

Ten Random Thoughts – Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

Incredibly, President Obama came away with the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. Was it deserved? Has he done anything to earn it? Were others more deserving than he? Does the prize have meaning anymore? Here are ten random thoughts I had yesterday about the issue.

1) I am told that submissions for the prize were due on February 1 (thanks to Carrie Cox for pointing this out to me). That was 11 days into Obama’s presidency. Someone must have had a lot of foresight to nominate him…or else you could conclude that the prize isn’t really going to the most deserving individual. Maybe it’s now just a popularity contest like those student council elections in junior high?

2) Clearly, we have witnessed the dumbing down of the Nobel Peace Prize in our lifetime. I doubt that the committee that awarded the first prize in 1901 would have given the award to someone with so “ethereal” a list of accomplishments.

3) At least the U.S. is going to see some additional tax money from the $1.4 million prize – assuming the President pays taxes. Which is kind of big assumption, considering the taxpaying records of many of his cabinet nominees. Thanks to Sweden and Norway for the cash.

4) Hillary must be livid. She’s the Secretary of State, and she is the one who has to travel to all of those peace-needing, oppressed places for the President. But once again, he gets the credit. The only thing funnier would have been if Bill Clinton had won the prize for his work to free the two journalists in North Korea back in August. That would really send Hillary over the top.

5) I would like to know what the other eligible winners for the prize had accomplished in comparison to President Obama. Unfortunately, the committee doesn’t release the names to the public for fifty years. Check back in 2059.

6) How do you win a prize for peace because you provided HOPE for the people needing it (but no peace as of yet)? That’s what the prize committee announced as their basis for the award. I mean that would be like awarding Al Gore a Peace Prize for making a movie about global warming. Oh, wait…

7) I assume this award was decided before Europe turned on Obama last week and denied him the Olympics in Chicago. Maybe the Nobel committee wishes they could change their mind.

8) This might actually hurt Obama when he comes up for re-election – it will further polarize those who didn’t support him, and will embarrass many of those who did. Even many of his loyal supporters admit that this award was not yet deserved. An astute political move would have been to turn down the award. Then, he would have still gotten the credit for winning it, but he could have silenced his critics who think it wasn’t deserved. Now, he just looks incompetent and arrogant.

9) I ‘m thinking Obama is probably the favorite to win the Heisman trophy this year. And maybe the FIFA World Cup in South Africa next year. After all, soccer really is an international sport.

10) And finally, on a serious note, it is clear to me that the world and its values are upside-down from what God intended. On January 23 – four days into his presidency, and a mere nine days before his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was due – Obama signed into law an order reversing the ban on the funding of international abortions using U.S. taxpayer money (see picture above). While it was truly a global decision, it is hardly an act of peace. See my thoughts on that act here.

What’s The Worst Thing That Could Happen To Our Country?

Those of us who have grown up in the United States have experienced a time in history like no other. Tremendous prosperity, a large measure of freedom, and incredible technological advances have graced our nation throughout its history. We live in a time where we can drive 50 miles each way to work, in under an hour, in the comfort of our car heater or air conditioner, listening to classic books on compact disk that we can pick up, free of charge, from our local library, enjoying paved roads and highways designed for both comfort and safety. For less than $150, I carry around a device, barely bigger than a credit card, which contains nearly every music album that I listened to in college. I can take pictures of my kids at their church play, and post them on the web, for free, for all to see that same afternoon. Our lifestyle and the freedom we enjoy in this country is unsurpassed.

So what’s the worst thing that can happen to our country? Is it economic failure? Politics, cable news, and water cooler discussion seem to focus on the state of our nation’s economy. We see a lot of people paying attention to their stock portfolios and the recent jobs report. Loss of our economic leadership and wealth could be viewed by some as the most terrible thing which could happen to the United States. Could China be the next economic world power?

Is it the threat of war with another country? Is it the possibility of losing both a war and our country’s role as an international leader on the global stage? Many people have intense moral opposition to one nation asserting influence over another sovereign nation, especially when it comes to firing weapons at each other. If Russia became a superpower once again and won a war with the United States, would that be the worst thing that could happen to us?

Is it the breakdown of an educational system that no longer produces the world’s brightest students - one where 27% of graduating high school students are rated “Below Basic” on standardized reading level assessment tests (Center for Public Education study here)? Have we failed our children and doomed our nation to a second-class future? Is that the worst thing that can happen to the United States?

No, I think the worst thing that could happen to our nation is the loss of God’s blessing. It is my opinion that for the last 250 years, God has given the United States special favor because our nation was founded first on His principles, and by men who were not afraid to mention His name in their speeches and writings. Witness the following:

“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Patrick Henry

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison, fourth President of the United States

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied together in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States

“God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

I believe that it was these men, and their unwavering grasp that God and politics do mix well together that has enabled us to enjoy a special, divine blessing for over two centuries. This is not the first example of God showering a nation with special attention and success. Like Israel of old, God has blessed the United States with wealth, freedom, and a leadership role.

But now, we have elected a president who openly says that we are no longer a Christian nation, intimating that other gods are acceptable. We elect leaders who have demonstrated poor ethical choices, who are perverted, or who have no regard for God the Creator. I ask you – when you read the words of the founding fathers above, do you see the difference between then and now?

Above all, we now live in a nation where it is acceptable to kill our unborn children. In fact, our government is now considering taxing the practice of abortion. Our leaders have become so twisted that they strive to collect money – legally – on infanticide. I know this one thing – the founders of our nation would have been horrified at what we have become. It is certain that God is profaned as we promote this practice (Leviticus 18:21).

Has God already removed our blessing? Perhaps. When you look at the recent economic and moral record of our nation, does it seem inconceivable that He would take away this blessing that we have enjoyed for so long? I find it is no coincidence that our struggles – economic, educational, and moral – correspond with the time frame when Roe vs. Wade was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973. To be sure, the 1960’s put us on a downhill slide preceding that time.

It is not too late to rescue our nation from a godless, blessing-deprived existence. I believe it is time for revival and revolution. It is time for men and women who are devoted to God to stand up and say “Enough!” It is time to cast out the current leaders in our Capitol and state houses – all of them - who refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of God– and start over. It is time to unabashedly insist on laws which honor God’s purpose. It is time to stop ignoring our children under the assumption that school and church youth group are enough to mold them into the next generation of godly leaders, and spend time in deep family conversation and prayer with them. It is time to believe and act toward the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. It is time to be on our knees in prayer for the eternal salvation of this world.

.

Who will join with me?

Obama Pledges “Everything Possible” to Limit Abortion

Our president recently met with the pope at the Vatican. It was the first meeting of the two men – two men who are diametrically opposed in so many areas.

In a bold move, the pope gave the president a booklet explaining the Catholic opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I’m glad that the pope didn’t just resort to the simple and expected formalities. He had an agenda, and he pursued it because he believes it is vitally important. Obama’s response to the pope’s request, according to the Vatican, was that the president would do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.

I got a little excited when I saw that. If I promise someone that I’m going to do “everything possible” to get something done, I tend to…well…do everything possible. But it looks like that was wishful thinking on my part.

Obama has stated that his method of doing everything possible is to improve the economic climate in the U.S., so that fewer women will feel the ‘economic need’ to have an abortion. Such an indirect method is a lot like me saying that I will commit to spending more time each day with my kids – by working for hours a day on a time machine that increases the number of hours in a day to twenty-six, instead of the usual twenty-four. The proposed solution is completely out of touch with the objective, and doesn’t guarantee the objective will be attained even if such a machine could be invented (I might use the two extra hours to sleep, or go fishing).

Obama’s comment is predicated on the belief that abortions occur because of economic hardship. But is this really the reason? According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute study in 2004, only 23% of all women electing to have an abortion cited economics as their primary motivator. In the same study, 59% gave their primary reason as one of convenience (not ready for motherhood, already has all the children she wants, etc.). Only 7% gave health as a primary reason.

Further, assume for a moment that economic times get better. Will this really lessen the number of abortions performed? Or will they increase? It seems to me that the more money a family has, the fewer children that family has. More children brought to term does not necessarily follow as a result of increased economic wealth. In fact, one could make the case that better economic times will increase the number of abortions in this country, as more families can afford to have them, and as their selfishness for more time with their boat or fancy car is increased. I think there is a strong case to be made that links better economic circumstances with an increase in the incidence of abortions. It would make an interesting case study. Just check out the graph above which shows abortion rates have declined somewhat in Michigan…during a period where Michigan’s economy has soured.

If President Obama really means what he says when he will do “everything possible” to reduce abortions in this country, then he should start by supporting the reversal of Roe vs. Wade from every aspect in his power. He should appoint strict constructionist judges who support this reversal. He should promise support to lawmakers who will sponsor legislation to help overturn the practice of abortion. He could hold a press conference (or one of his free infomercials on CBS) boldly stating that he believes abortion to be wrong and a stain on our country’s history. Don’t get me wrong – I truly believe that our president and our congressional leaders could have exactly this change of heart. I pray for it nearly every day. Maybe we all should. God can change men’s hearts in mighty ways.

Is It Possible To Be Fair-Minded About Abortion?

President Obama gave the graduation commencement speech last weekend at Notre Dame. The bitter irony is that Notre Dame professes to be a Catholic university and the Catholic faith is staunchly opposed to abortion - a procedure to which our President is clearly not opposed. While there were many protests over him being allowed to speak and to receive an honorary degree from the institution, the university officials decided to proceed with the address.

The president made a remarkable statement during his speech regarding the abortion issue. He encouraged both sides of the issue to have a “fair-minded” discussion about the issue. He wants them to “work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions”. I must ask this question – has the president heeded his own words? Has he done anything but work to increase the availability and public funding of abortions? Tragically, with heart breaking and tears flowing, I must say that he has not (see “Weep With Me” for specifics).

How does one go about being fair-minded about abortion? For people like me, abortion is as evil and reprehensible as is murder or rape (I believe it is murder). So what would happen if I substituted these equivalent words into his statement? “Let’s work together to reduce the number of parents committing murder”, or “Let’s work together to reduce the number of women being raped. Let’s have everyone be fair-minded about the issue and not resort to caricature.” Such words would be offensive to nearly everyone. And as such, when the president uses these same words in an attempt to straddle the proverbial abortion issue fence, I am deeply offended. I cannot help how strongly I feel about a procedure which destroys life made by God and which further promotes the removal of God’s blessing from our nation. The president has the power within his hands to do the right thing…and he has wasted it.

It’s not a politically correct thing to be so intently one-sided on an issue. Influences from all around, and even from friends and family, can make us soft on a topic which has enormous importance to God. Several years ago, I participated in a pro-life rally and was given a sign reading “Abortion Kills”. I was instructed to hold it high and wave it at passing cars on the street. I admit that I felt guilty waving the sign, because part of me didn’t want to offend, part of me didn’t want to be the one to remind women driving down the street of their role in a past abortion, and part of me wanted to find a way to be more “fair-minded” about the issue. I’m still not convinced that holding a sign up on the street corner is the correct or best way to make my statement. But I know that Jesus Christ would not shun the chance to boldly proclaim God’s truth when necessary. Neither would other great men of faith – Noah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, and Paul. There may be a more ethical and caring way to get out the message – but the fact remains that I need to work to ensure that God’s side of the story is fearlessly preached. This is a hard thing sometimes.

John Piper (desiringGod.org), author of countless books about the joyous relationship with God and a bold preacher of God’s truth, has recently posted a chilling and inspirational video of words he preached on the topic of abortion. The name of the sermon was “The Baby in My Womb Leaped for Joy”. Mitch Majeski, who I am proud to call a good friend and who is a bold preacher of God’s Word as well, tipped me to this this video on his blog recently. After watching it, I was moved beyond anything I have ever felt about the abortion issue – and am motivated more by this video clip than any other I have ever viewed. These words are powerful. Piper leads up to a crescendo of reason and truth, and then humbly vows to…pray for our president. It’s a remarkable conclusion for such a powerful three minutes of build-up. It has inspired me to spend time each week praying specifically for all those families considering an abortion, and for all the doctors who will pick up the knife tomorrow to perform the procedure. Please watch….and join me in praying for God’s divine will to be done.

Committed to Christian Principles, or Rightwing Terrorist?

The United States Department of Homeland Security, led by Janet Napolitano, is taking some heat over a recent assessment released as an unclassified document. The news outlets have focused most intently on the report’s fear that terrorist cells may spring from returning US military personnel, who may be disgruntled over the new administration or who find it difficult to integrate back into non-military society.

The report is titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" and is a fairly short read. It is interesting that in a time where Homeland Security has insisted that we not label radical Muslim or Islamist groups as “terrorists”, the article uses the phrase “domestic rightwing terrorist” three times. If the World Trade Center attack was not terrorism, what was it? Are we really in more danger from our own people who have conservative principles than those with an agenda of viewing our country as “The Great Satan”? I remain unconvinced.

Having read the assessment, I am struck the most by a paragraph at the bottom of page three. It states, “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” Within this paragraph, I find two items of concern.

The first item has to do with “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority”. It is clear to me that the federal government is interested in usurping as much power as possible – perhaps beyond the powers granted within the US Constitution. Our Constitution is very clear on this point. The Tenth Amendment very succinctly states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The founders’ intent was for states to individually enact laws that governed the people, leaving very little for the federal government executive branch to do beyond making treaties, appointing ambassadors, and commanding the military. It’s ironic that the majority of this report demeans returning military veterans by proclaiming that they pose the greatest terrorist risk to our nation at the moment. For more on states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment, visit this previous blog installment.

Even more disturbing is the implication of danger emanating from people who are passionate about an issue such as abortion. Do I need to fear that my own government will label me as an “extremist” because I am willing to march, protest, write, and preach about the evils of abortion? Who are the terrorists on this subject - the people trying to prevent the murder of unborn babies, or the people who make it perfectly legal and divert tax dollars toward its subsidy? I wonder how the baby would answer that question.

As a dedicated God-follower, I will not deviate from the principles that He has given. If I must defy my own government to remain faithful to God’s ways, then I will happily do that. Watering down our Christian beliefs in the name of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness” are traps set by Satan himself. I’m reminded of a quote I recently read from Dante – “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”. Satan is working through some of the laws in our own beloved country to attempt an attack on God’s purpose. If I don’t stand against this onslaught and am labeled as an extremist for my beliefs, so be it. In the end, when the trumpet sounds, where do I want to be found standing?

I recognize that this government report most certainly falls short of labeling every pro-life advocate as a terrorist. But it represents just one more step away from the godly principles upon which our country was founded, and which God lays out in His Word. A step here, a step there, and we will find ourselves outside of God’s grace because of our own neutrality. Stay vigilant, be aware of the constant erosion of Christian morals, and look for opportunities to take a stand against evil!

To read the entire nine-page government article, just click here.

Weep With Me

In ancient Middle-Eastern times, certain cultures invoked the practice of sacrificing their children to the god Molech. The statue of Molech took many forms, depending on the culture, but a common configuration was to construct a red-hot brazier in the front of an idol, where the live child could be placed. While holding the screaming child down, and after making motions of an offering, the priests would release the child to roll down the sloped brazier and through a hole into the flaming interior of the bronze statue. Other priests would beat drums, partially to prevent the parents of the child from having a change of heart after hearing the screams of their own child. One Greek historian tells us that relatives were forbidden to weep during the process. The purpose for this horrific procedure was to satisfy the cravings of the god, and to restore blessings on the nation.

This is not fantasy. It really happened. Countless archaeological excavations confirm it, as do historical writings. The Bible makes mention of it in several places, most notably in Leviticus 18:21 – “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God.” It seems a terrifying practice to us today – and would certainly be condemned by any rational group of people. And yet…

Our nation continues this practice. The procedure we call abortion is today’s equivalent of the sacrifice to Molech. Oh, there will be those who say they are not the same. They are wrong. Our nation is condoning, and even encouraging, the sacrifice of our own children at the altar of convenience. If a child in the womb is thought to be an inconvenience, or if the parents become fearful of any ailments the child may have, or even if there is no reason behind it, we are allowing parents to kill their own children. Politicians hide behind excuses involving the health of the mother, but ignore the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed for other reasons. And far from prosecuting those who would go through with such an abomination, many in our nation advertise and rally for it. Government-funded clinics provide counseling in an effort to encourage mothers to terminate their children, and then government funds are made ready to pay for the procedure. My tax dollars are being used to fund a practice I find morally reprehensible – and there is nothing I can do to prevent it. Put simply – a part of my paycheck funds abortions. I cry out in protest.

Our new president made the claim that decisions regarding abortion were really “above his pay grade” during the election run-up. And yet, three days into his presidency, he signed back into law the funding of abortions in other countries, using American tax dollars. Forget the fact that this is an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money. Forget that we are already in the largest deficit spending situation in history. The bottom line is this – more babies will die because he put his signature on that piece of paper. And that is nothing short of an abomination. God told us in Leviticus – it profanes the name of God. And guess what? We are told that we should not weep over the process – it’s just a mass of cells. Is this sounding familiar?

My initial reaction was anger. That has passed, and all I’m left with is profound sorrow. We should be weeping over the murder of our children, and the pagan sacrifice that is being made in every city of our nation – every day. It is estimated that over 50 million babies have been killed in the United States alone since 1926. And over 950 million babies have lost their lives globally during that period. God save us! What is happening to our children?

The time to act is now. What can we do in the face of legalized practice and precedent in one of the most “civilized” nations on earth? I would suggest three things. First, drop to your knees right now, weep, and ask God for forgiveness and clarity of purpose for our nation and our world. Don’t wait – our first step should be toward God, because only He holds the future and has promised that righteous prayers are effective. Second, find the local pro-life pregnancy counseling center in your town and volunteer time and money to help with the fight. And third, do not ever cast another vote for an elected official who does not wholeheartedly support the reversal of the practice of abortion. One by one, we need to install leaders who understand the everlasting curse that is abortion – and the abiding blessing that children provide us. And by God’s grace, we will return to a world that sees the truth of this concept.

We can read ancient history, and be incensed at the pagan practices we see there. The parallels between sacrifices to Molech and our nation’s own abortion practices are striking. And none is more startling to me than the one that tells parents that they should not feel remorse over the loss. Weep with me over the lost children…and help change the world.