In a recent issue of The Conservative Voice, my Friend, Nathan Tabor, published an article titled "Finding Faith on the Campaign Trail" in which Nathan clearly points out the fallacy of the newly created "Christian Democrat Presidential Candidate." If ever there was an oxymoron, this is it.
Below is an excerpt from Nathan's article: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27189.html
Underline and italic emphasize in the excerpt is mine.
The 2008 election is already emerging as a faith-filled affair — if you are to believe the rhetoric coming out of some candidate camps this campaign season.
The Democratic candidates for President in particular are attempting to be "born again" in the media spotlight. This phenomenon appears to be the direct result of the success of "values voters" at the polls. These "values voters" are sincere Americans who believe quite strongly that public policy should reflect traditional values such as love of God, love of family, and love of country.
But an interesting thing appears to be happening on the way to the candidate altar call. As the president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, Mark Earley, has pointed out, there's something amiss when candidates talk about God in one breath and killing God's children through abortion in the next.
In a recent column, Earley noted, "The problem is that all of this ‘God Talk’ misses the point: what Christians want – or should want – is a candidate who shares their moral and culture concerns, not just their religious vocabulary."
Earley recognizes the ideological disconnect which occurs when candidates speak solemnly about religious faith, then flock to Planned Parenthood events to announce their unbridled support for abortion on demand.
Upon reading Nathan's article in The Conservative Voice, I decided to look at the comments posted. Normally I resist the urge to jump into the comment, chat room, or blog mud puddles; for all that is normally accomplished is that you get muddy. However, although most comment/chat/blog mud puddles are just spitting contests; Nathan's article "Finding Faith on the Campaign Trail" seemed to generate a couple of good comments.
I want to respond to two of those comments. First, Mr. Paul wrote:
These are the important issues dividing both religion and politics in America, with abortion being number 1. Following abortion; gay rights; the separation of church and state (including aid to parochial schools, evolution v creationism, Christian Nation v. secular republic); Iraq war v. protecting America`s borders, and economic and domestic security.
I find Mr. Paul's comment to be true. Although I would have broken "Christian Nation vs. Secular Humanism" out as the number one issue, with Abortion, Gay Activism, Evolution vs. Creationism, and Separation of Church and State all being integral parts or sub-chapters under this major battle. While I agree that the Iraq war, economics, and domestic security are major issues -- they fall far behind the battle between Christian Nation vs. Secular Humanism; for this is easily defined as the battle between God and Satan -- and anyone who is not hiding his/her head in the sand realizes that this battle was won on the cross at Calvary, over 2000 years ago.
As I have often stated, I would rather live in a poor Christian (Godly) nation than in a rich Secular (Satanic) nation. Therefore, for me, God issues come first -- but, we do not neglect the rest.
The second comment which I wish to address is from Ken Hughes:
A strong religious belief has always been a crop issue with presidential candidates. It usually lasts until the day after the election, then it is gingerly folded and tucked away with the promises candidates make, where they stay until the next election. As for Roe v Wade the majority of Americans are comfortable with the ruling, until that changes no politician is going to seriously tackle the ruling. As for those who aren’t comfortable they can simply refrain from the practice of abortion.
While I totally agree with Ken that presidential campaign promises, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee -- we cannot stop having a strong litmus test for those who aspire to be president of the United States.
The issues I want to address in Ken's comment are the ones I have underlined above:
1. "As for Roe v Wade the majority of Americans are comfortable with the ruling." I do not agree with this statement. However, if we Christians are giving this impression to the world by our passive attitude and inactivity -- then, shame on us! We, as Christians, as followers of Jesus Christ, must lay aside our passive mantle, replace it with our "full armor of God" (Ephesians 6:10-20), and start actively fighting to save those 1.6 MILLION babies who are murdered each year in America via abortion. A key way we must engage this fight is to elect a solid, absolutely PRO-LIFE president -- and give him a solid, absolutely PRO-LIFE congress and senate to support his efforts.
2. "As for those who aren’t comfortable they can simply refrain from the practice of abortion." That, in my mind, is analogous to saying, "If you are not comfortable seeing a person murdered; then just turn your head so that you do not have to watch!"
Killing a baby, for whatever reason, is murder. How does the abortionist justify his/her position? Their first justification is money. Yes, money! For there are billions of dollars being made in this mass infanticide called abortion. Many beautiful mansions, many fancy cars, and many luxury boats have been purchased with this blood money.
Publicly, how do they justify their position? Well, a major portion of the foundation supporting their position comes from an erroneous, outdated, theory in biology first espoused in 1866 by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin. This theory states: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Isn't that a mouth full?
What Ernst Haeckel was stating in his "theory of recapitulation" is that from the moment of conception, the embryo is not human, but instead progresses through stages of animal, reptile, and fowl growth before becoming human.
In biology, ontogeny is the embryonic development process of a certain species. In other words, what that fertilized egg, turned embryo, looks like as it develops and moves toward birth.
Phylogeny is the process of a species' evolutionary history. In other words, how did this animal, fowl, reptile, or human evolve?
Many secular scientists, even today, see various connections between phylogeny and ontogeny, explain them with evolutionary theory, and then, take them as supporting evidence for that theory.
What does all this rhetoric about Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny mean? It means that, even today, we have highly educated people who still follow the erroneous teaching of an 1866 German zoologist and believe:
This will tickle your funny bone. When a female egg is fertilized by the male sperm, it first becomes a single primordial cell (shades of evolution!), then it becomes a fish, then a reptile or frog, then a bird, then an ape or monkey -- and then, after thirty-eight weeks -- viola, it becomes a human being. That is the recapitulation theory: during ontogeny (your birth process) you follow your original phylogeny, your evolutionary stages of growth. In other words, your ontogeny recapitulates (or follows) your phylogeny. By this logic, you could not have been born without first going through all your stages of evolution -- before you became a human being. I have heard the saying "Life repeats art" -- but, "Life repeats fantasy" is a bit of a stretch.
When I shared this at a recent Bible study, the very obvious question was asked, "What about ultrasound? That is proof of the human infant growth."
That is true; but haven't you had friends and associates who, in effect, tell you, "Don't bother me with facts. My mind is made up!"
That is what our Secular Humanist scientists and their supporters are telling us, "Don't bother me with facts. My mind is made up!"
By supporting this reasoning, Planned Parenthood, Liberal Politicians, and Secular Humanist can reap the financial benefits generated by abortion -- and prove to you that their position is supported by science. Their mantra: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny! Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny! Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!
And, this is the mindset which was underlying the United States Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision in 1973 which allowed abortion to become the law of our land. The argument: During the first thirty-eight weeks of a pregnancy, the abortionist is not killing a human being. He/she is killing a fish, a frog, a bird, or a monkey -- for the embryo is not yet a human. "Don't bother me with facts. My mind is made up!"
I wonder how they defend Partial Birth Abortion -- when the child is already fully developed and in or near the birthing process. How do they defend taking that fully developed baby, stabbing scissors or another sharp instrument into the back of that baby's head, and then, through the hole created by that sharp instrument, suctioning out the baby's brain -- before discarding the mutilated body?
So, when you hear liberal college professors and scientists speak; you may hear them telling you that, during your personal birth experience, you were a single primordial cell, then you became a fish, then you became a frog, then you became a bird, then you became a monkey -- and, after thirty-eight weeks, you became your cute little human self. Now, doesn't that give you great comfort, coming from our academic and scientific leaders?
But, of course you can believe it -- for your Liberal Politicians will confirm that this is true -- if they believe it will get them even one vote. Remember, our leading Liberal Presidential hopefuls recently joined in a Gay/Lesbian sponsored debate. I wonder what was on the mind of the sponsors? Do you think that they wanted to be promised that Same-Sex Marriage will become the law of our nation if one of these politicians is elected president? Do you ever wonder what promises these Liberal Politicians made behind closed doors? I do.
Such as: "Sure, I will support Same-Sex Marriage" or "Sure, I will support Abortion On Demand" or "Sure, I will sell out the majority of Americans -- just to get your minority vote."
I have a suggestion. Why don't we decide the 2008 presidential election today!
We will give the Liberals all of the Gay/Lesbian votes -- and we will give the Conservatives the rest of the votes. Let me see; that is 5% of the votes for the Liberal candidates -- and 95% of the votes for the Conservatives. That sounds fair to me. How about you?
If you agree, please share this message with your Friends, Relatives, Associates, and Neighbors --- all your FRANs. Let's divide the 2008 votes just as the Liberal and Secular Humanist want: 5% for them -- 95% for us.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Bill & Dory's Ministry Web Site: http://www.BillDory-Christian-Ministries.com
To be added to my Friends Ministry mail list, or to add a friend,
please e-mail me at billdory@pacbell.netIf you would like to become a prayer partner
in the Worldwide Prayer Chain,
or would like more info on this intercessory prayer chain,
please e-mail me at billdory@pacbell.netI pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.