My wife and I are among many who will be celebrating fortieth anniversaries in 2013. Unfortunately, the insidious 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion is also on that list of anniversaries. Some 55 million babies have been killed since that January 22nd ruling. Seventeen million of those babies came from predominantly black communities.
To commemorate the 40th year of this scourge, tens of thousands of people showed up in Washington and other cities for a “March for Life.” Such support for anything would be big news – not this time. The reporting was sparse. Why? Simply put, the lack of coverage was consistent with the media bias for the pro-abortion perspective.
The media will quicker cover stories of a few hundreds showing-up for minor liberal issues. The absence of coverage of the recent “March for Life” by the major broadcast networks should be big news - news of bias and cronyism in the media.
Where is the media outrage about the following? After 40 years, it can be confirmed that some 80% of the facilities run by Planned Parenthood are located in minority communities. After 40 years, it is now evident that African Americans represent the only ethnic group whose numbers are declining. After 40 years, it can be verified that more than 1,200 babies die daily in African American communities. Why is the media silent?
Dr. Clenard Childress, a pastor and national advocate for life, believes, “for every two African-American women who get pregnant, one will choose to abort.” Imagine, about 60% of abortions done in New York City are done on black women. The Pennsylvania Department of Health reports that about 50% of black babies are aborted each year since 1973. Like me, the major networks have access to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – then, where is the outrage?
Like many in America, I was of the opinion that cases of rape provided a valid ground for abortion. That opinion was formed by the media’s portrayal of the abortion narrative. Well, I now know that less than 1% of abortions is as a result of rape.
Studies conducted by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute indicate that 14,000 abortions per year are due to rape or incest – that figure represents only 1% of all abortions.
From that same Guttmacher study (2005), women were asked to provide reasons why they chose to have an abortion – 74% of these women felt “having a baby would dramatically change my life.” Some women felt that an unwanted child would interrupt their education or interfere with careers. Others cited their unmarried status and their inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life.
Those reasons provide enough reason for outrage. The decision to abort would never have been necessary had our lifestyle choices been different. Because of those choices the medical industry is faced with an increasing variety of sexually transmitted diseases. Honestly, we have been duped to believe that abortion enables our women to correct errors and to move on with their lives.
But that is not true – what about the post-abortion trauma issues? One British researcher described legal abortion as the best predictor of breast cancer trends. Actually, abortion is the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer. A black woman in America has a 10% risk of contracting breast cancer during her lifetime. However, black women under 40, who had an abortion, have a 50% increased risk of contracting breast cancer. The risk jumped to 370% for black women over fifty, who have an abortion.
In order to protect the abortion industry from litigation, women are not being told the truth about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Somebody needs to demand objective investigative journalism on this matter.
On this 40th anniversary of legalizing abortion, we must ask ourselves if we are better off as a nation. We have ignored the rights of the unborn and championed the rights of the woman. We have been dishonest in suggesting that abortion brings healing to victims of rape and incest. We have been led to believe that pregnancy due to rape is common, rather than rare.
I wish I did not have to celebrate the nobility of marriage at the same time with the scourge of legalized abortion. Whereas one event celebrates life, the other honors death. Whereas one recognizes the sanctity of life, the other destroys life for convenience.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
“So Help Me God!”
At his request, President Barack Obama ended his inaugural oath with the words: "So help me God." Interestingly, those four words are not legally or constitutionally required.
According to the Congressional Record, the words, "So help me God," are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the Almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception.” In other words, the decision to add the words was the decision of the President.
The President’s only obligation was to recite the oath laid our in the US Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Then, why would the President choose to add words that are not required? Historians have wrangled over whether George Washington established precedence by adding the phrase on his own during his first inaugural acceptance; but the Library of Congress website states he did. Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861 and other presidents over the years have followed suit.
President Lincoln openly addressed the concept of divine guidance in the Gettysburg address: "This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." When the pledge of allegiance added the phrase "under God" in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower commented, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
American history is replete with examples of public appeals to a higher being for guidance and protection. For instance, The Declaration of Independence includes an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the world."
When used, the term “So help me God” implies an appeal for mercy because of the retribution that will come if vows are not faithfully kept. The appeal for mercy affirms the sovereign hand of God in human affairs. The term acknowledges God’s right to control and judge the life of the person swearing. In essence, no higher authority exists.
What a contrast when compared with the oath of office in the former Soviet Union: "If I break this solemn vow, may I be severely punished by the Soviet people, universally hated, and despised by the working people." Although that is quite a condemnation, in actuality it is less severe than the potential consequences for someone who has a strong moral or religious foundation.
According to one reference work, an oath is "a solemn appeal to God to witness the truth of a statement or the sincerity of a promise, coupled with an imprecation of divine judgment in the event of falsehood or breach of obligation."
This definition is captured in the Hippocratic Oath, one of the world's oldest and most famous: "I swear... according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath with purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art... While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!”
Four years ago, a California atheist, Dr. Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from prompting the president-elect to repeat the "so help me God phrase." Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued that the words violate the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion. The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit two years ago. Interestingly, no such legal challenges showed up this time.
In light of the President’s decision to ask God’s mercy, should he fail to uphold the Constitution, it is now our responsibility to pray for him. Firstly, we need to thank God for the President’s willingness to acknowledge an authority higher than the Office of the President and even the US Constitution. We also need to pray that God would grant to him wisdom to preside over this great nation. Pray for his health, his family and the ability to balance the kaleidoscopic variety of activities in his life.
According to the Congressional Record, the words, "So help me God," are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the Almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception.” In other words, the decision to add the words was the decision of the President.
The President’s only obligation was to recite the oath laid our in the US Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Then, why would the President choose to add words that are not required? Historians have wrangled over whether George Washington established precedence by adding the phrase on his own during his first inaugural acceptance; but the Library of Congress website states he did. Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861 and other presidents over the years have followed suit.
President Lincoln openly addressed the concept of divine guidance in the Gettysburg address: "This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." When the pledge of allegiance added the phrase "under God" in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower commented, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
American history is replete with examples of public appeals to a higher being for guidance and protection. For instance, The Declaration of Independence includes an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the world."
When used, the term “So help me God” implies an appeal for mercy because of the retribution that will come if vows are not faithfully kept. The appeal for mercy affirms the sovereign hand of God in human affairs. The term acknowledges God’s right to control and judge the life of the person swearing. In essence, no higher authority exists.
What a contrast when compared with the oath of office in the former Soviet Union: "If I break this solemn vow, may I be severely punished by the Soviet people, universally hated, and despised by the working people." Although that is quite a condemnation, in actuality it is less severe than the potential consequences for someone who has a strong moral or religious foundation.
According to one reference work, an oath is "a solemn appeal to God to witness the truth of a statement or the sincerity of a promise, coupled with an imprecation of divine judgment in the event of falsehood or breach of obligation."
This definition is captured in the Hippocratic Oath, one of the world's oldest and most famous: "I swear... according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath with purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art... While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!”
Four years ago, a California atheist, Dr. Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from prompting the president-elect to repeat the "so help me God phrase." Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued that the words violate the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion. The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit two years ago. Interestingly, no such legal challenges showed up this time.
In light of the President’s decision to ask God’s mercy, should he fail to uphold the Constitution, it is now our responsibility to pray for him. Firstly, we need to thank God for the President’s willingness to acknowledge an authority higher than the Office of the President and even the US Constitution. We also need to pray that God would grant to him wisdom to preside over this great nation. Pray for his health, his family and the ability to balance the kaleidoscopic variety of activities in his life.
Monday, January 14, 2013
YOUR TYPE...Not Qualified to Pray
Last week Louie Giglio was effectively disinvited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches what the Bible says.
In a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, "We were not aware of Pastor Louie Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection, and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged Wednesday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost 20 years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the "only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus."
Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, further commented that "due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."
What Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times on Wednesday explains the issue: "It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues."
The statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee would seem to agree with Besen. The views of the person praying must “reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In essence, the person praying must pass a litmus test like – are you now or ever have been one who believes that any sexual behavior, other than what the Bible endorses, is morally unacceptable? Or, have your views evolved to the point where you now reject your biblical position and endorse what is inclusive and acceptable?
According to Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, “The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata.”
“By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program.”
“Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations, is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama's first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.”
From my current pulpit series on the Book of Romans, it is obvious that the Apostle Paul would not have been eligible to pray at the President’s inauguration. What Wayne Besen and the White House view as an evolution of ideas, Paul described as “indecent acts” and “perversion” (Romans 1:27).
It is very sad to admit, that this type of discourse is now the new normal. Christians are being challenged to choose between their beliefs and contemporary behavior. It is just shocking to see how intolerant the White House is in forcing acceptance of homosexuality, while disregarding Giglio's sterling work to combat human trafficking.
From all appearances, 2013 does not seem as though it would be a Happy New Year for many religious voices in the marketplace. For Christians, hatred and revenge are not options – like Pastor Giglio, we must continue to preach “the healing power of Jesus Christ.”
In a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, "We were not aware of Pastor Louie Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection, and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged Wednesday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost 20 years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the "only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus."
Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, further commented that "due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."
What Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times on Wednesday explains the issue: "It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues."
The statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee would seem to agree with Besen. The views of the person praying must “reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In essence, the person praying must pass a litmus test like – are you now or ever have been one who believes that any sexual behavior, other than what the Bible endorses, is morally unacceptable? Or, have your views evolved to the point where you now reject your biblical position and endorse what is inclusive and acceptable?
According to Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, “The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata.”
“By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program.”
“Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations, is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama's first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.”
From my current pulpit series on the Book of Romans, it is obvious that the Apostle Paul would not have been eligible to pray at the President’s inauguration. What Wayne Besen and the White House view as an evolution of ideas, Paul described as “indecent acts” and “perversion” (Romans 1:27).
It is very sad to admit, that this type of discourse is now the new normal. Christians are being challenged to choose between their beliefs and contemporary behavior. It is just shocking to see how intolerant the White House is in forcing acceptance of homosexuality, while disregarding Giglio's sterling work to combat human trafficking.
From all appearances, 2013 does not seem as though it would be a Happy New Year for many religious voices in the marketplace. For Christians, hatred and revenge are not options – like Pastor Giglio, we must continue to preach “the healing power of Jesus Christ.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)