Discerning Ideologies in Political Positions – Reagan and “Spreading the Wealth”

How do you tell the difference between Democratic and Republican principles and those of the socialist and communist caste? What’s the difference between a private organization giving grants to individuals or other organizations and the government doing it? What is the role of government in people’s lives? Who are the government servants suppose to serve – themselves or the people?

This video is a brief but outstanding examination of the current competing ideologies at war for the right of entrance into the White House. Take some time to educate yourself on them. Compare them to your Constitution… how do they measure up?

“MAN IS NOT FREE UNLESS GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED.” Ronald Reagan in his farewell address to the nation.

Advertisements

Death By Legal Abortion

You might have thought when you read the title of this post that I was referring to the babies involved in the abortion procedure. Everyone knows that an abortion ends the life of a human being (and I am using scientific terminology when I call a “fetus” a human being. Check your biology textbooks…), but I was actually referring to deaths involving the patient… women seeking legal abortions dying along with their “fetus” (baby).

A great majority of the public has a very limited understanding about abortion and everything it entails. Many consider it the “right” of a woman to determine what she does with her own body, and unless you are thinking truly in biblical terms, I suppose that it is the right of a woman to do what she wants to with her own body… but what about someone else’s body? But I’m not even going to get into that here. I’m talking about women who have died at the hands of abortionists… as a direct result of seeking out a legal abortion.

These women were not seeking out a back-alley abortionist. They went to storefront abortion clinics and licensed hospitals. They went in thinking they were making their lives easier and ending unwanted pregnancies. They exited either in ambulances or body bags. These are REAL WOMEN, making a choice they believed in enough to walk into a clinic, thinking that abortion is always safe.

They were wrong.

THE TOMBSTONE PROJECT is a list of women who have died from an abortion procedure. Life Dynamics sells a poster of this list with these tragic occurrences up to the year 1998. This is not a complete list, and the list has been lengthened since the poster was designed and printed.

So, if you think that no one gets hurt by legal abortion, think again. The life you save may be your own…

“Health” Abortion Kills Two Instead of One – A Look Into One Tiller Abortion and How It Effected A Woman’s Life… Forever.

It is said by many pro-lifers that when a woman gets an abortion, two walk into the clinic, but only one comes out alive.

In January of 2005, an ambulance was called to one of George Tiller’s clinics. The body of a 19 year old down syndrome woman was taken by that ambulance to a local hospital, but it was too late. She was dead before she ever left Tiller’s clinic. (Please! No Sirens! was the plea of the clinic worker calling for an ambulance… those kinds of things draw too much attention, don’t they?)

The clinic apparently showed considerable negligence when contacting EMS, claiming the patient was not in any serious, life-threatening danger, when in fact she had already gone into septic shock and was well on her way to death’s door… she was in cardiac arrest and the person trying to revive her was performing CPR on a clinically dead patient.

Christin Gilbert is just one example of a women who went into an abortion clinic for an “elective” abortion who was irreversibly harmed by the abortion she “chose”. One must note that Miss Gilbert, although 19 years old and considered an adult, had down syndrome and was considered incompetent and so her parents made the decision to abort her child. Unfortunately for the child, it was the product of a sexual assault. I’m sure the parents reasoned that the child’s birth would have been too traumatic for their daughter.

One must also make a note (and highlight it in very florescent yellow ink) that in order to do a late-term abortion as Tiller was once able to legally perform until the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on them, the parents (or husband, friend, or other caretaker) are charged with the care of the individual (NOT a medical professional) in a hotel room for the entire three day abortion process, with the exception of the short period of time the patient is actually undergoing the direct “medical” procedures, such as the injection of a lethal substance into the heart of the pre-born “fetus”, premature dilation of the cervix, and labor induction.

The facts in Christin’s case show the flimsy logic of many pro-abortion proponents who argue that abortion should be allowed at any stage for the “health of the mother”, claiming that if a woman’s health is at stake, she should be able to get an abortion, even if the fetus is at a viable stage. This abortion was stamped big as day with an okay for health reasons. Perhaps Christin’s loss is an acceptable one for them, but I doubt her poor parents felt the same way once it was all over.

Christin was healthy and had no other disorders or health issues other than being a down syndrome person. She was not in any immediate danger because of her pregnancy. The child’s DNA was not tested to determine whether it would also have Down Syndrome… but even if it were tested, is a person’s value based on whether or not they have Down Syndrome? Was Christin less valuable because of her condition? And WHY was this not NATIONAL NEWS considering the charges that have been leveled at Tiller and his clinics?

Read more about the details of this case at REAL CHOICE.

This incident gives new meaning to the term assigned to George Tiller by many pro-life workers… Tiller the Killer, and for this case especially, that unsavory moniker rings so very true.

A Little Political History – Dismantling the Slave Trade in America – Great Black Patriots – Wallbuilders

(Posted by Administrator)

Peter after his recovery from a severe whipping. April 2, 1863, photo from National Archives and Records Administration

Peter, who was whipped by an overseer, took two months to recover from his wounds. The overseer was subsequently fired. (April 2, 1863 – photo from National Archives and Records Administration)

Were the Founding Fathers racist? What about the 3/5ths clause? Did the Constitution promote slavery or did it work against slavery? How did the two present-day major political parties form and why? What was the position of the political parties regarding slavery and whether it should remain an institution supported by the government? What happened between Sumner and Brooks on the Senate floor while Sumner was pointing the finger at the slave owners in the Senate (all democrats)? Who were the first blacks in congress and what party did they join?

Hear David Barton from Wallbuilders explain how each of the major political parties were formed, the history behind many aspects of the Constitution, with information including the infamous Dred Scott decision and how it affected anti-slavery efforts and promoted further discrimination, and the systematic political dismantling of the slave trade by Republicans (yes, Republicans.) – Historically accurate information that many people never learn in American public schools.

THESE ARE THE FULL LENGTH VIDEOS by Wallbuilders – Not you tube clips! Each video is approximately 1 hour in length. Lucky you…

VIDEO: “SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT – PART 1”

VIDEO: “SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT – PART 2

Check out the Wallbuilders African-American history store page for great gifts or historical examinations of this much misunderstood part of this nation’s history, such as the book
Setting the Record Straight – American History in Black and White

and it’s 2 & 1/2 hour companion DVD, a great resource for anybody’s educational and DVD library.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be sure to visit the Reformed Faith Weblog Home Page for devotionals, news and commentary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2008 National Prayer Breakfast: Who’s God Is It Anyway? …OR (The D.C.P.C.N.P.B. (Huh?))

Okay, I admit I am being a bit silly in the headline, but let me explain. Okay, there’s really no explanation – I was just being silly.

BUT, what it means is this… There was a prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C. recently, and the writer of This Article couldn’t really tell what god all the people were praying to. So he commented on it and I thought (according to his description) that the 2008 N.P.B. (National Prayer Breakfast) sounded like it was very P.C. (Politically Correct)… but just go read the article and you’ll see what I mean. It had me S.S.M.H. (Sadly Shaking My Head).

TTFN. (If you don’t already know what this means, I can’t help you.)

Atheism’s Aggressive Political Agenda

BY JOEL MCDURMON

The Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon

Note from Reformed Faith Weblog Administrator: I read this post by Joel McDurmon today and felt it extremely important to post this to the blog asap. You’ll see an “editorial plea” about 2 thirds of the way into the article to repost this quote wherever it can be posted… but I will go one better and just post the whole article. I feel if the quote is not posted in context of it’s background, the weight of what the man said will not come down and bring us to a realization of what kind of mindset, and yes, social agenda, Christians are and will be dealing with. So on that note, here is the post in it’s entirety…

“We don’t care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court . . . I don’t care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that’s what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court.” — (Atheist, Edward Tabash, on Democratic Candidates)

From my very first encounter with the writings of the modern atheists I have argued that the movement is not philosophically sophisticated, nor intellectually rigorous, and it was never intended to be. Despite their pretense to a monopoly on “reason” and “honesty,” these guys’ motivation has been a political agenda from day one.

Nowhere have I seen this agenda as brazenly presented as in the recent Convention “Crystal Clear Atheism” 2007, organized by the Atheist Alliance International. The Alliance, which claims as its purpose to “help establish and strengthen the religion-free community,” invited all the big names of atheism to address a crowd of — judging by the videos and audience applause — 200 people max. The convention was a mirror image of similar conferences put on by religious groups, with plenary speakers, nightly movies, a “secular parenting” workshop, advice on how to start local atheist cell-groups, and, believe it or not, even an atheist apologetics workshop entitled, “Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings.”

Admittedly, I’m guessing about the small number of attendees, but there was no need to guess about the message these speakers where there to promote. Far from merely a rehearsal of their typical jokes and name-calling, the speakers spilled an overt agenda to insulate American public life from any and all religious influence (as if that is what the First Amendment meant), called for a concentrated effort to establish and solidify the U.S. Supreme Court as a secular and anti-religious tyranny, and appealed for a radical leftist vision of America.

Well, OK, you may think that as one who has an interest in painting these atheists as bad guys that I have exaggerated my description of their party. Not in the least. Hearing this has again confirmed my presentation in Return of the Village Atheist that the current popular atheism is a reincarnated Marxism. Let the reader decide.

Atheism, Socialism, Marxism: the Hope of America?

The link between atheism and tyrannical socialism became very obvious when former Hollywood screen writer and author Matthew Chapman made an overt plea for American to be made into an openly atheistic and socialistic country. I say socialist, but the whole talk sounded openly Marxist to me. Chapman argued that religion won’t die away in America because it still provides so many great things for its people: community, support, help for the needy, etc. If the delusion of superstition were to be taken away, and government institutions were to take over the support roles, then the need for religion would die away too. He put it like this,

“The church takes care of people . . . and how does atheism compete with that? I don’t think it can. I don’t believe atheism actually can ever succeed in isolation; only as a result of a much larger political change.
. . . It’s quite clear that the better a country takes care of its citizens, the less religion there is. . . . I don’t think atheism can succeed in a country as primitive as this one [the U.S.] now is; a country where politicians deride their own profession, sneering at the political process as if it was the problem not the solution, who deride the idea that government should help, protect, and raise up its weaker citizens; where the current government has turned over the delivery of basic needs to religion and made them a matter of charity.”

Get that. We need less religion, less charity, and more government care-taking. Indeed, he argued that, “without gigantic social change, the church will have to remain the only place where ordinary people can go to find community, and equality (albeit under the eye of a very stern god) . . .”

Now if this sounds openly Marxist, it is for good reason: it is a direct repetition of one of Marx’s most famous ideas, that religion is the “opium of the people.” Marx wrote, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness.” This is the core of the atheist political agenda: religion is a false hope which must be destroyed in order to society to progress. Religion must go, and all the functions of religion must be replaced by non-religious institutions in order to convince people that religion was wrong to begin with. Thus, Marx assessed, “The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.” (Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Now, it seems to me that this is exactly the type of “social change” that Chapman calls for. Build society upon decidedly atheistic institutions, hijack the role of religion in society, and push religious groups to the fringes, then claim victory for atheism. Equally, with anti-capitalist odor, Chapman followed up, “If atheism, if reason is to flourish, it will only do so when people feel protected by a rational system in which they have involvement, and which is run on principles of compassion, not profit.” It is this profit, he argued — the greed and fear allegedly nurtured by the free market — that enables religious hunger to grow also.

Let me translate: for atheism to flourish in the marketplace, we must destroy the marketplace, and bring its role under the direct supervision of atheists.

All of this leads me to the obvious conclusion: big-government socialism is the opiate of atheism.

Chapman was hardly coy about this idea. He literally cursed the idea that “big-government” should be frowned upon, and retorted, “I am for big-government,” and to even my surprise — and having studied them for a while now, I usually am not surprised by the continued antics of the atheist crowd — the audience heartily applauded.

A View of the Atheistic Agenda

The second overt rally cry was given by crusading anti-religion lawyer Edward Tabash. Tabash caught my attention by name at first because I am familiar with his active role as a debater of the existence of God. I have heard a few of his debates, particularly one many years ago in which he did not fair too well under the acumen of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Nevertheless, Tabash continues, primarily as chair of the activist legal group “Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

At first Tabash merely called for the atheists to have two objectives:

1) “To secure an America in which the separation of church and state is absolute (in the words of John F. Kennedy), and to make sure that no branch of government is able to treat the believer and non-believer differently”
2) “To promote the atheistic idea to society at large, and use our powerful scientific and philosophical arguments to explain why the supernatural is non-existent.”

Related to these objectives Tabash foresees two possible futures:

1) One where “secular government” secures that “religion will be left as a matter of private conscience to the individual, and not be legislated by government,” or, conversely,
2) one where “by a shift of only one vote on the United States Supreme Court, we will essentially become a theocracy, in which all branches of government will be freed to favor religion collectively over non-belief.”

Tabash’s inability not to editorialize was already showing through. But his real feelings came out much later. For now, let us rehearse quickly what awful things Tabash fears that imminent “theocracy” threatens to take away. What is Tabash afraid such a “freed” government will cause atheists to lose? He gives a list:

1) “We will lose autonomy in every area of our private lives if the Supreme Court in a new decision nullifies government neutrality in matters of religion. We will not just lose the right of abortion for women, we will lose the right to use birth control even for married women . . . we would lose the morning after pill, … [and] all post-fertilization forms of birth control.”

2) America will be plunged into scientific ignorance: citing a “shocking example of the attack on evolution,” Tabash added, “Not only would they bring about oppression here at home in America, the Religious Right is in danger of being able to actually cripple our competitiveness worldwide by destroying rational modern scientific education here at home.”

3) This includes stem-cell research: “we are going to forfeit our leading role in science to those nations who do not have a religious right that hampers the development of this most important aspect of modern biotechnology.”

4) Worst of all is the “overt effort to oppress gays and lesbians.” Referring to a 6-3 Supreme Court decision that decriminalized homosexual behavior to the extent that “no state can punish what two adults do with each other in private,” and lamenting that a more recent ruling reduced that decision to 5-4, Tabash gave the awful news : “Justice Scalia very chillingly said that the people of a state should be able to use their sense of tradition to criminalize all sexual behavior they regard as deviant.” (Imagine that. States actually determining their own laws without the Supreme Court forcing them! Why, it sounds almost like the Tenth Amendment.) Tabash will have none of that: “We don’t want this man to have a majority on the United States Supreme Court.”

5) Further, “We will lose modern sex education.”

6) “End of life issues” (read: euthanasia)

7) Further, tax money to “faith-based initiatives.” Eddie expounds on this one: “It is not the business of the President of the United States to appropriate billions of dollars of tax money to fund charitable programs through religious institutions, when it should be secular government that provides social welfare services to the people.”

So, in short, this is what Tabash fears his atheistic community will lose: abortion, post-fertilization contraceptives, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality, sex education, euthanasia, government socialism, and tax money. Condensing these into their fundamental concerns, Tabash fears the loss of atheistic powers to define and arbitrate life, family, and wealth.

In the face of imminent danger, how can atheists preserve these great delights of free society? Tabash advises: “This is what we must do. We must make sure that the next president of the United States supports church-state separation.” Further,

“Every single time there is a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, we must deluge our Unites States senators with as many letters as we possibly can, and phone calls, to make sure that they do not pass through a religious right-winger,” and, “we must vigorously oppose all United States Senate nominees who indicate a willingness to support the confirmation of religious right-wing judges.”

The agenda was becoming more clear. Rather than peaceful, freedom-loving people who simply have a “lack of belief in God,” the atheist conference courted and promoted a radical political agenda: to gain control of political power in strategic places.

Lying to Win

Then Tabash got really scary. It was not until the question and answer session when he revealed his most ominous side; perhaps due to the more informal nature of the format, he spoke as unguardedly as any liberal I’ve heard. One questioner asked that due to the abundance of religious talk coming from not just Republican (which is to be expected) but Democratic candidates as well, whether atheists should be concerned. Tabash responded with this gem:

“We don’t care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court, because only the Supreme Court determines if we’ll have secular government.” So, he expanded, “Don’t look to the rhetoric they need to pander to, remember what country they’re running in. I don’t care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that’s what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court.”

[Editorial plea: Please mark the preceding quote down, copy it to every website you can imagine, email it to everyone you know, mail it to those who have no email. Distribute!]

Tabash’s endorsement of blatant dishonesty was unsettling even for an atheist audience. One questioner pushed the issue, arguing that we should hold the candidates’ “feet to the fire” for what they say as well as do. Tabash would not budge: “When it comes to Democratic presidential candidates, they all will give us the right judges on the Court, courts [emphasizing the plural, and thus the entire federal court system] . . . so let’s not make the fire too hot.”

Tabash could not get off the issue. When another questioner asked for his comments on how to stop the “the proliferation of church-based law schools,” like Regent and Liberty, and their “influx into government legal roles,” Tabash continued his campaign: “The only way to do that is to have a president who disfavors the Religious Right and will not be accepting those people into White House positions.”

Here is a good point to note the hypocrisy in our crusader’s agenda. Aside from his open endorsement of lying when pragmatic for his cause, in his opening “objective,” he claimed to fight “to make sure that no branch of government is able to treat the believer and non-believer differently.” By the end of his talk, however, his agenda was noticeably opposite. Apparently, for him, it’s OK to reverse the prejudice and disfavor the Religious Right and bar them from White House positions.

When it seemed as if his rhetoric could sink no lower, Tabash closed his atheistic spin with this completely debasing comment: “We [atheists], the true First-Amendment patriots, cannot allow these vicious fanatics to take over our country.” He made no attempt to hide the atheistic political agenda, “Let us make saving the United States of America from the Religious Right our absolute number one priority.”

Conclusion

What have our atheists told us in just this one brief conference? Far from docile citizens hoping to live their lives quietly in private peace, these atheistic leaders have your government, your children, and your money in their sights, and they are serious about things. Society can only progress when religion is eradicated from society (Chapman) or at least driven to the dark corners of something called “private conscience” (Tabash). In addition, they say, we must fight for atheistic control over the definitions of life, death, family, sex, and taxes.

Worst of all, we have learned that these atheists believe it is acceptable for a presidential candidate to consciously deceive religious people in order to gain votes, and then work to promote a secular atheistic society in opposition to those who voted them in. As we have know all along, and now have Tabash’s own words, an atheistic society must be built on the foundations of deception and political strong-arming. Apparently, the only thing stronger than a Christian faith is the atheist’s faith in the dishonesty of Democratic candidates. Blessed be the lie than binds!

And we, Christians, we are the ones they call vicious fanatics.

Joel McDurmon is the author of Return of the Village Atheist
He is a graduate of Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and an adjunct speaker, writer, and researcher for American Vision.