The following is actual correspondence between me and a friend who was going through the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults (RCIA) at a local Catholic College. Most universities (even Catholic ones) lean left, but I was pretty shocked that this RCIA group was learning this brand of “social justice” instead of the doctrines of their faith.

Following the initial email is my attempt to deconstruct the subtle heresy of this movement. We must prevent Christians from being tricked into adopting far left (im)moral values.

 

From:
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:43 PM
To:
Subject: FW: RCIA

Jerry: I got this about a month ago, but I forgot to forward it on to you. It might give you some guidance of how a person of faith ought vote his faith and conscience. (Hint: the poor, the environment, the promotion of peace, fiscal responsibility, human rights, combating corruption, and other issues will not be helped by voting Republican).

I'm Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics. I was surprised and grateful when Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called to say his party wanted to set a new tone and invite, for the first time, a non-partisan religious leader to deliver their weekly radio address and speak about the values that could unite Americans at this critical time.

So, I want to be clear that I am not speaking for the Democratic Party, but as a person of faith who feels the hunger in America for a new vision of our life together, and sees the opportunity to apply our best moral values to the urgent problems we face. I am not an elected official or political partisan, but a religious leader who believes that real solutions must transcend partisan politics. For too long, we have had a politics of blame and fear, while America is eager for a politics of solutions and hope. It is time to find common ground by moving to higher ground.

Because we have lost a commitment to the common good, politics is failing to solve the deepest crises of our time. Real solutions will require our best thinking and dialogue, but also call us to transformation and renewal.

Most Americans know that the important issues we confront have an essential moral character. It is the role of faith communities to remind us of that fact. But religion has no monopoly on morality. We need a new, morally-centered discourse on politics that welcomes each of us to the table.

A government that works for the common good is central. There is a growing desire for integrity in our government across the political spectrum. Corruption in government violates our basic principles. Money and power distort our political decision-making and even our elections. We must restore trust in our government and reclaim the integrity of our democratic system.

At this moment in history, we need new directions.

Who is left out and left behind is always a religious and moral question. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the health of a society was measured by how it cared for its weakest and most vulnerable, and prosperity was to be shared by all. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that was "good news to the poor."

I am an evangelical Christian, and a commitment to "the least of these" is central to my personal faith and compels my public actions. It is time to lift up practical policies and effective practices that "make work work" for low-income families and challenge the increasing wealth gap between rich and poor. We must find a new moral and political will to overcome poverty that combines personal and social responsibility with a commitment to support strong families.

Answering the call to lift people out of poverty will require spiritual commitment and bipartisan political leadership. Since the election, I have spoken with leaders from both parties about creating a real anti-poverty agenda in Congress. We need a grand alliance between liberals and conservatives to produce new and effective strategies.

This week, President Bush met with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, seeking solutions to the rapidly deteriorating situation in that civil-war torn nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war are moral issues our country must address. Leaders in both parties are acknowledging that the only moral and practical course is to dramatically change the direction of U.S. policy, starting with an honest national debate about how to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq with the least possible damage to everyone involved.

Our earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God's good creation. Yet, our environment is in jeopardy as global warming continues unchecked and our air and water are polluted. Good stewardship of our resources is a religious and moral question. Energy conservation and less dependence on fossil fuels are commitments that could change our future- from the renewal of our lifestyles to the moral redemption of our foreign policies.

A culture that promotes healthy families is necessary to raise our children with strong values, and the breakdown of family and community in our society must be addressed. But we need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others. And wouldn't coming together to find common ground that dramatically reduces the number of abortions be better than both the left and the right using it as an issue to divide us?

We need a new politics inspired by our deepest held values. We must summon the best in the American people, and unite to solve some of the moral issues of our time. Americans are much less concerned about what is liberal or conservative, what is Democrat or Republican. Rather, we care about what is right and what works.

The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America. Building that new America will require greater moral leadership from both Democrats and Republicans, and also from each and every one of us.

I'm Jim Wallis. Thank you and God bless you.

 

 

Thanks for sending me the Jim Wallace article.

 

If you read between the lines, here is what is being said:

 

"I'm Jim Wallace, Author of Gods Politics, and I am attempting to implement the Democrat's strategy of appearing to be concerned about Christian moral values. This strategy has three tenents. First, I elevate the importance of real Christian values that the Democrats agree with: Fighting poverty. Second, I creatively argue that Democratic values are in fact Christian values: The environment. And third, I gloss over the Christian and moral values that Democrats do not agree with: Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage.

 

This strategy surfaced or re-surfaced shortly after the 2004 elections when exit-polling showed that many voted for President Bush because of their "faith and values." If you read carefully you can see that I also attempt to appear bipartisan, but at the same time, I praise the Democrats: "I was surprised and grateful when Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid..." And bash the Republicans: "Nearly 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war are moral issues our country must address..."

 

I am pro-abortion, pro euthanasia, pro gay marriage and I want you feel the same. I will start by convincing you that these issues are more divisive than they are worth, and that we live in a pluralistic society where it is OK to sacrifice the moral law so that we don't offend those with opposing views.

 

---

 

Plato and Aristotle called this sort of argument sophistry, after the sophists who used rhetoric to persuade for personal gain, where as Plato and Aristotle argued that rhetoric should only be used to seek the truth. In my college persuasion classes, we called it contingency theory. The idea being that to persuade a listener you must seek to begin at a point as close as possible to something that the listener already believes, and then lead them further away from that position to what you want them to believe. Mr. Wallace identifies with the reader by proclaiming himself a Christian and by leading with a discussion of those Christian values for which there is little or no disagreement. He then moves on to pull the reader away from other Christian Values that he wishes the reader to abandon, or at least not concentrate on. It is the twisting of the relative importance of these values that makes Mr. Wallace's argument so heinous.

 

The church recognizes "Moral (and cultural) Relativism" as one of the greatest evils in the world today and this article is a fine example of arguing "Moral Relativism" as justification for abortion and other attacks on the family.

 

An excellent article commissioned and approved by John Paul II and written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which summarizes Church teaching on this issue is: "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life," from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It can be found at the Vatican web site -

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

At it's essence the article encourages political involvement, and makes clear that the Church does not take a position on every temporal political question. However, it is also a crystal clear rejection of moral relativism in making political choices.

 

"A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defense of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law... If Christians must recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs, they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society...

While democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible.”

 

The article speaks specifically to abortion and gay marriage:

 

"When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children...;"

 

 

Reviewing the Catechism's position on war and abortion illustrates the point further:

 

 

 

Here is the Church's teaching on War:

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.¹⁰⁵

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."¹⁰⁶

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

 

Here is the Church's position on abortion:

 

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.⁷²

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.⁷³

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.⁷⁴

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁶

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"⁷⁷ "by the very commission of the offense,"⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."⁸⁰

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."⁸¹

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

------

 

If nothing else, all must agree that as to the Churches unchanging position on the issues of abortion and war - one is always wrong and one is to be avoided, but has exceptions. Both implicate the moral law, but only the right to life is a natural moral principle, not allowing for "exception, compromise, or derogation."

 

The author of your article argues the opposite - that the war is clearly wrong and we must find a way out of it, while abortion is something that we shouldn't spend our time creating political division over, but should work to reduce. Clearly the author is pro-abortion in the sense that he is for legalized abortion. He attempts to convince Christians that abortion relative to the Iraq war is not something that needs to be eliminated at all costs, while the war (or at least this war) is something that we must eliminate at all costs.

 

Even more disturbing is that the ozone layer, is credited as "God's Good Creation," while the unborn are mentioned only as a divisive political tool. The poor are credited with being "the weakest and most vulnerable." Yet, does anyone care to argue that the poor are more weak or vulnerable than the unborn? Furthermore, isn't it patently obvious that you can "dramatically reduce" abortion, by making it illegal to perform one? Whereas reducing or ending poverty is much more difficult problem, for which the author offers no solution? Moreover, haven't we largely ended the problem of "death by poverty" in America? There are roughly 1.3 million babies intentionally killed each year through abortion. When was the last time you read about somebody in America starving to death, because of poverty?

 

Of course we can work to further reduce poverty, end wars, and improve the environment, but the grave danger is being lulled into a belief that "helping the poor," "pulling out of Iraq," or "reducing CO2" are adequate counterbalances to being pro-abortion. Also, let me be clear that helping the poor can be a great vocation, and not everyone has to focus all philanthropic energies onto ending abortion. My point is not that one effort is greater or lesser than the other. My point is that a Catholic cannot in good conscience allow the justification of abortion through a relative re-ordering of values, anymore than one could justify Hitler's killing of the Jews, because he was a good provider to the poor who weren't Jews.

 

Furthermore, the inherent moral benefit and Christian vocation of helping the poor - is found by in fact helping the poor - not in voting for politicians who use compulsory taxation to redistribute wealth, in a way that more closely approximates a violation of God's commandment not to steal, than it does implementing any teaching of Jesus. Social services to the poor are a moral value to be sure, but socialism and/or the welfare state are not.

 

It is classic culture of death stuff with sheep’s clothing. Grounded with an understanding of the natural moral law, this man's true positions leap off the page. Perhaps he has been duped himself, but be sure he is trying to dupe the reader. There is a reason why a speeding ticket will cost you a fine and Murder can cost you your life. The moral relativist argument is that we are concerned with the poor or the environment and so we don't have to worry about abortion, because that is a divisive issue. This is like arguing the death penalty for speeding and a fine for murder.

 

The Pontical Council for the Family made the case plainly in 2000 (

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001014_rome-jubilee-of-families-index_en.html

 

when it stated:

An abominable crime.

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime". But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor!

"The interuption of pregnancy".

In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is "the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth".

It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience. Nonetheless, no motives, no matter how serious or dramatic, can ever justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human life.

Prenatal testing, if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed towards its safeguarding or healing as an individual, is morally licit. On the other hand, it is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending on the results. Therefore, when one requests a prenatal diagnosis with the intention of having an abortion should the results confirm the existence of a malformation or hereditary illness, one commits a gravely illicit act.

Other responsibilities.

As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he leaves her alone to face the problems of pregnancy. Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life. But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws, and on the administrators of the health-care centers where abortions are performed. A general and no less serious responsibility lies with international institutions, foundations and associations which systematically campaign for the legalization and spread of abortion in the world.

-----------

The line, "The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake." is at the heart of my point.

It is why, I am so vehemently opposed to the propositions of the article you sent me. Most significantly this article being sent about to an RCIA class, in the very midst of learning their faith. It teaches exactly the opposite of the truth. Catholics are clearly free to accept varying propositions on how best to help the environment, the poor, and to some degree the acceptability of particular wars. However a Catholic is not free to engage in moral relativism and disregard the moral law (based on the dignity of the person). Mr. Wallis has turned the truth upside down, in order to justify his candidate.

Learn the Catholic faith from the Bible, the Catechism, and the Magesterium - at least in your RCIA class, without the influence of charlatans who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" and convince you that the ozone needs protected more than human beings.

Yours In Christ,

Jerry

 

 

 

... that democracies are only viable until the people realize that they can vote that the coffers of the treasury be distributed to themselves? 

 Great article about "diversity training".

It reminds of an experience I had as a law clerk for GE Aircraft Engines. I worked at GE while attending the University Of Cincinnati College Of Law. While working on an issue regarding the hiring of law clerks for the following year, I came across two things.

First was a binder portfolio from the University of Cincinnati that highlighted minority candidates. Nice of my law school to develop special aids for the minority students that I did not get.

Then was a letter from a Professor Brown at the law school, actually scolding GE for not hiring enough minorities! She informed by boss in the letter that GE needed to make an effort to hire more minorities as law clerks. My own college was arguing that I should not have been hired because I was a white male!

 

There is some discussion regarding Trojan’s new frog-prince ad with the bar full of beautiful women and real live pigs. One able pig is able to unlock chastity’s secret by rolling a quarter into the condom vending machine and turning into a “lucky” man. SOME PIG! Unfortunately the ad was a little too boarish for the likes of Fox and CBS, who both refused to run the ad.

Several themes worth addressing have come up with this ad. One of which is the idea that networks are being hypocritical considering the sexual content on their own shows and other commercials (Brent Bozell).

Another is the voices decrying the decriers on the grounds that “at least the ads promote safe sex, something we could use more of.” These aren’t the people who think meaningless sex is honky dory (another worthwhile topic, but not one I am addressing here.) These people are arguing that the message of casual sex is bad – but that the message is redeemed because safe sex is promoted.

My belief is that there is truth that addresses these concerns.

That truth is that you don’t ever do what is wrong or immoral with the justification that you are creating a higher good or preventing a greater evil. In other words the ends don’t justify the means).

If we agree that having sex with someone you just met at a bar is immoral then we know why this ad is wrong. It is using the promise of sex with someone you just met in a bar to sell a condom. If we call "sex with someone you just met at a bar" immoral, then we know the ad is using immorality to sell a condom. This is wrong.

But then we have the argument that it is important for people who are "going to be immoral anyway" to do it safely to prevent disease or pregnancy. Therefore we justify immorality by its usefulness in preventing inconvenience and sickness. This is still wrong. Because the ends justify the means is not a valid argument. Period.

The equation is simple but we live in a world where no principle, no moral, no standard of decency or self-evident truth is safe because the elucidation of the principle is to label the elucidator an intolerant religious freak. As we know it would be highly horrific of me to demand that others “follow my religious beliefs."

For that reason, the argument will appeal to a wider audience if argued from a logical base rather than a religious base. Beginning with our original premise: That we agree that sex with someone you just met in a bar (casual sex) is immoral (I realize that this premise could be argued against as well, but we have to start somewhere). So the argument goes that even though the act is immoral, using a condom is better than not using a condom. Any means that get people to wear condoms is worth pursuing.

This assumes some people would be having condomless sex but for this brilliant advertising campaign. This, it is argued, is because they receive the message “girls like to have one-night stands, with guys who have condoms.”

The biggest flaw in this ends justify the means message, is that upon even modest reflection, one realizes that condoms don’t come into play in the seduction phase of the one night stand. No one is really just going to buy the condom and waive it around in the bar? Are they? Of course not. The reality is that by the time you are in position to use a condom, the girl has already pretty much committed to the one night stand. The message in its entirety is so illogical that it cannot be accepted in total.

The message therefore will be truncated to “girls like to have one-night stands.” There is not even a moral benefit because the message about wearing a condom is so illogical as to be lost. Passions are stirred and girls are portrayed as objects for the selfish male to conquer: with or without their Trojans.

Furthermore the logic involved by the supposed “responsible” crowd is the tacit acceptance that one night stands are bad… but people just cannot control themselves when it comes to sex, so we need to educate regarding condom use, “just in case.”

Does anyone in America really not know of the existence of condoms? Of course not. Are the guys not using condoms going to start because of this commercial? Of course not. Look at the recent news that high schoolers are having less sex AND are using condoms when they do. This is due to abstinence programs which promote abstinence because it is right and responsible and moral and the safest. But even when kids do fall short – they fall short using condoms. This is because they are more responsible in general. The condom based programs tells kids that they are going to be irresponsible and so they are. Even though they learn about condoms, they are less likely to use them. This is because Guys who don’t use condoms do so because they don’t like to. Period. They are selfish and they want to have free meaningless sex the way they want to. How does a commercial glorifying their selfishness make them less selfish?

As we established, even the cave men from the “it’s so easy even a cave man can do it” commercials aren’t going to think that merely having the condom in their back pocket will get them sex. The concept of invoking selfishness to promote safety is even less effective here than in sex ed. because the selfishness is not even logically linked to safety.

Furthermore, it is the mixed messages on an issue with so much temptation that creates the self-fulfilling prophecy that temptation can’t be avoided. If it is hard for people to avoid one night stands then why is it being advocated as a way to practice safe sex? Ridiculous.

If some individuals want to have one-night stands, but have a conscious and try to resist – then this commercial may give those individuals the OK if they buy the message in the ad. We do immoral things out of selfishness, because we want to do them more than we want to be moral at the time. A bout of selfishness will seek a bout of dishonest justification and this commercial provides such justification for those individuals so inclined. The logic is still weak “Wearing a condom makes casual sex OK,” but the will can be weak too and grasp at any justification. So even if that person uses a condom - this is a person that wasn’t going to have sex at all! So the ad hasn’t increased safe sex, it has increased immoral sex.

What must also be acknowledged is that the makers of the commercial want people to have more casual sex, because that’s how they make their money. The message at the end of the commercial; “evolve” clearly implies that its progress to have more one night stands. That it is not immoral. That the idea that it is immoral is outdated and needs to be “evolved” away from. That the only thing keeping girls from jumping on every guy they see is the fear of unwanted pregnancy or disease – which can be cured with a condom.

What we don’t see so readily is that we are buying this argument if we think the commercial is “doing some good by encouraging safe sex.” If the media was convinced that the message about one night stands was really objectionable, they wouldn’t use it.

Think about it: What if the ad showed a white teenage girl dating a black teenage boy and as the two begin to kiss, we cut to White Girl’s Dad two years later. As white girl walks down the isle with white boy that she is about to marry - dad grins “Thank God I gave her Trojans when she was going through that black boy phase!” HOW REPULSIVE we would say and rightly so because THIS IS REPULSIVE AND RACIST. But the difference is that no one would argue it’s OK to play on racist fears to achieve the noble goal of encouraging safe sex. So why is it OK to advocate casual sex as long as you are encouraging safe sex?

As to hypocrisy of the networks – I do not think that the networks are being completely hypocritical, because this commercial uses condoms to promote casual sex as much as it uses casual sex to promote condoms. Men who use women for sex are plainly glorified here. Other commercials use sex appeal to sell products and certainly prime time is always PG13. But this commercial implies that the man without a condom is a pig and the man with a condom is a prince deserving of sex with strange women he meets at a bar. Don’t we all really know that the pig is really the guy who only thinks of sex when he sees the woman? Don’t we know this internally to the point that the turning of this moral truth upside down is just a little too much? I don’t think FOX and CBS are taking an especially high road here, I think they just realize that this ad could offend an entire segment of viewers.

The lesson here is that at its inception the argument that the ends justify the means is a lie. The organizations that begin the lie have been duped, and they need to dupe you too.

Need to see more truth turned upside down? Look at Amnesty International today.

Thomas More Law Center has the right idea! 


http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=764


INTENTIONAL BLANK SPACE

 

THIS MESSAGE IS NOT SUITED FOR CHILDREN

 

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES OF ABORTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AWAKENING THE CONSCIENCE AND MOVING THE INDIVIDUAL INTO ACTION

 

 

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR THE MESSAGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court of the United Stated of America issued a decision in the case of

 

GONZALES v. CARHART & PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, on April 18^th, 2007.

 

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the partial birth abortion ban. Henceforth it will be mostly illegal to kill babies using this method which is seen below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the more common dilation and evacuation method where the baby is removed piece by piece is still allowed. This method has been considered more tasteful because you don't have to deal with watching the baby kick and squirm as the scissors are being jammed into its scull and its brains being suctioned out. The baby is ripped apart inside the womb and therefore does not squirm as visibly. The type of abortion below is therefore still allowed:

 

 

 

 

 

So is the saline method whereby the baby is scorched inside and out by a Saline solution and then delivered dead, as seen below:

 

 

Of course the downside of the saline burn method is that it doesn’t always work and babies who fight for their lives have survived these abortions. For example, see the stories of Gianni Jesse and Amy Charlton at http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/survivors.asp. You may have heard of the more recent case where the mother is suing Planned Parenthood because they failed to kill her baby and now she has the inconvenience of a baby to take care of. "Wrongful life" it’s called.

 

---

 

It’s anybody's guess whether the abortion seen below is still legal. This is either a Partial Birth Abortion where the scissors were opened so widely as to completely decapitate the baby, which would now be illegal. Or a standard D&E where a large chunk of the baby remained intact - which would be legal. I am not a Doctor - I am sure the Doctors could tell the difference.

 

 

 

One of the great things about the Supreme Court’s opinion is that it was honest about the horrors of abortion. For instance this nurse’s description of the procedure was fully printed in the opinion.

“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

The following diagrams also help differentiate the procedures:

The Partial Birth Abortion Procedure (not allowed anymore):

 

 

 

 

 

 

	Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
	The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
	The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
	The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...
	The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

While the standard Dilation and Evacuation procedure (below) is still allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

It is good that it has been deemed constitutional to ban the killing of babies that have been delivered alive (except for the head). Unfortunately we still have the insanity of Roe v. Wade creating the fiction that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the killing of babies in so many other ways. At over 40,000,000 abortions we have surpassed the great mass murderers like Hitler (12,000,000), Russian Communists (30,000,000), Polpot (2,000,000), and Saddam (1,000,000). Only the death toll in Mao's communist government in China remains above our abortion numbers at 60,000,000.

 

There remains no justification for killing our young. The politicians, the college professors, the feminists, the media - give all kinds of reasons, they scream their reasons - but which one, which one reason really justifies the killing of our young? Abortion on demand as mandated by Roe v. Wade in America began a trek down a slippery slope that has no end in sight. "Slippery slope" is a term describing when a wrongful act is justified due to extenuating circumstances that seem sufficient to warrant the exception. Unfortunately if the act is truly wrong, it cannot be done to achieve "good". The slope is slippery because once you accept the initial proposition that good can come from evil, evil is embraced more and more for lesser and lesser goods. Abortion for the health of the mother, becomes abortion for rape or incest, becomes abortion for economic reasons, becomes abortion as birth control, becomes abortion to control the "fitness" of our children, becomes abortion to control the sex of our babies, becomes leaving babies in the trash can at prom, becomes killing elderly and terminal patients by starvation, becomes killing non-terminal vegetative patients by starvation, becomes killing live trauma patients so that their organs can be harvested in time, becomes using babies to experiment on (to "save" other more valuable lives), which becomes creating babies so that they can be killed and experimented on, which becomes....

 

"In times past, abortion took the life of one, for other-wise two would die. Today, abortion takes the life of one, where otherwise two would live." H. Ratner, M.D.

 

It's not too hard to project the future; these are just the things that have already come to pass. It is also properly analogized as the boiled frog syndrome, because a Frog will immediately jump out of boiling water if you throw him in - but will be boiled alive if you put him in luke warm water and turn on the burner. He won't notice the gradual temperature change until its too late.

 

The slippery slope is created by controlling information, by calling babies - "tissue", by coming up with procedure names such as "therapeutic abortion," making it sound almost like going to the spa. By making it about "choice," something we all like to have, ignoring the reality that no one can "choose" to do that which is morally wrong (killing) in other circumstances. By making it about women’s rights, which we all have to respect for fear of being sexist or politically incorrect, while ignoring the rights of the women who are aborted, and the enduring pain of the women who get the abortions. By naming an organization dedicated to the killing of babies - "planned parenthood" when it has nothing to do with planning or parenthood. By repeating over and over that Americans support abortion - when the reality is that there has never been a majority of people supporting abortion on demand. Depending on how the question is asked, a majority, at worst, supports abortion for the life/health of the mother, rape and incest. Abortions for these reasons accounts for less than 3% of all abortions.

 

The point is that you are not going to get the truth from the people supporting abortion, which is most of the people in the information business. Every day the only news we hear about IRAQ is the American death toll, creating a perception that the media is highly concerned about the # of Americans killed in action. But more babies are killed in the US every 2 days through abortion than US soldiers during the entire IRAQ war. You won't hear daily, weekly, or monthly updates of the abortion numbers. The statistics are there for anyone to find. We are left with the conclusion that the media doesn't want us in Iraq, but they do want us aborting babies.

 

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY CREATED

A case like this Supreme Court Case may mean little in the actual number of abortions reduced. But it can be everything if it reverses the trek down the slippery slope. It can do that. If people agree that leaving a live baby's head inside the womb as it is killed, just so that it can be called abortion versus murder (which it would be if the head came out). Then they may wonder why pulling apart a live baby inside the womb is any better. The question is begged - did this become less of a human person because we left it in the womb when killing it? Technology gets in the way as we can now see what a baby in the womb looks like (in the womb at 5 months, below) -

 

 

 

 

- And it is hard to call it "tissue". We may wonder why we ever said it was OK to kill babies in the first place? We may really really want to end this holocaust. In the boiled frog analogy - it is like waking up frog and telling him that it’s getting really really hot and he might want to get out of the water. If the frog takes advantage he will use all his might to get out of the water. If the frog doesn’t comprehend fully - he will likely stay in the water a little longer, not believing that it will really ever reach a boiling point, not knowing that it already has.

 

Into my twenties, I sat on the fence on the abortion issue, I can recall thinking that the issue was just too close to call and therefore I was justified in taking no action one way or the other. I weighted the woman’s right to chose against an unidentified mass of cells that may be a burden to society, which was overpopulated anyway, and I didn't really object to abortion. Deep down I also possessed the same selfishness that really creates apathy in the case of abortion - I liked he idea, the concept, and the ability if necessary to be able to take care of "mistakes" that might be made. Deep down, I liked the idea that the welfare rolls were a little lighter because of abortion. Deep down I never told myself the truth, because I hadn’t ever really heard the truth.

 

I can say with absolute conviction that all the reasons I used, and all the reasons that are used - are nonsensical. The reality is we are killing the most innocent members of our society. We have accepted this for generations now. We throw up our hands. We move onto other issues.

 

I recently read a book; That Reminds Me of a Story... Reflections of a Pro-Life Warrior, by Robert Cetrulo. At a point in my reading this book, I understood at a new level of urgency the gravity of the abortion problem. I have been ardently pro-life for years, but the gravity of the evil of abortion had not sunk in. I think it was reading side by side comparisons of Nazi justifications to the killing of Jews and abortion justifications that got me. It could have been -

 

Only persons of German or related blood can be citizens: this does not include the Jews.

- Reich Citizenship Law, 1935

 

Compared to -

 

The word person as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.

- US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade 1973

 

Or it could have been -

 

It was nothing to do with Humanity - it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals.

- Franz Strangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971

 

Compared to -

 

What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass and not a real, live grown-up individual.

- Drs. Walter Char and John McDermott, 1972

 

Or it could have been -

 

Removal of the Jewish element.

-Hans Frank, 1943

 

Compared to -

 

Remove the products of conception

- Dr. Thomas Dillon, 1974

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or it could have been any of a thousand other truths made clear in this compelling book. abortionfacts.com or priestsforlife.org are other solid sources of information that most of us are blissfully ignorant of.

The new Supreme Court has opened the door for us to think about what we are doing. Will we learn that:

 

1. We cannot rely on the press to report the truth about abortion:

2. We must learn the truth ourselves because willful ignorance is insufficient:

3. We must begin talking about the truth, despite the consequences (people who are opposed to the truth get very angry when it is stated. Not having truth as a defense, they often use hatred :)

4. We must demand that abortion (all abortion) be prohibited by law:

5. We must recognize that there are no greater issues in America than this issue:

6. Our actions must demonstrate that there are no greater issues in America than this issue:

 

Ending the mass murder of our children?

 

America will either sink into an infinite morass of lies, death, and destruction, or God will pull us out before it’s too late. If you believe the first - then do nothing. But if you believe the second - then picture the world where truth and light have been restored and we are being compared to the Germans who acquiesced in the holocaust and the earlier American's who acquiesced in slavery.

 

And the future generations are looking back and asking, "How did they justify this?"

 

I believe God will pull us out. I believe American's will realize we are being fooled, being tricked, being slowly boiled out of our humanity. When a critical mass reaches that realization, I don't think we will be bullied into eternal submission by the purveyors of death anymore than our ancestors were willing to be bullied into submitting to taxation without representation.

 

We have already created a great nation. So great that for awhile, many of us believed we didn’t even need to be involved - it pretty much ran itself. Many have toiled for decades, trying to wake up Americans to the fact that America is not running itself well. That our morality and our humanity are being boiled off layer by layer by layer and that those who would tell us of the problem (the media) are the ones stoking the fire under the pot.

 

Well, the Supreme Court has presented some chunks of truth for us to digest. It is up to us – to all of us: Not just those who have tirelessly worked the trenches for so many years: But to those of us who have existed in the various degrees of apathy:

 

Its time for all Americans of good will to get involved again and to take back our humanity. Do something.

 

 

God bless.

 

Ps: In initial distributions of this letter, I received comments insinuating that most abortions don't involve “full grown babies" like the ones I have pictured. For those people I provide the following picture of an 8 week old aborted baby. If someone can argue why this baby is less deserving of life than a bigger one, have at it.