Catholics & St. Patrick's Day: Reverence or Revelry?

CNN has this story about this year's Catholic conundrum. It isn't whether to chew the host or let it melt in your mouth or even whether to serve communion to pro-abortion politicians.

For the first time since 1940, St. Patrick's Day falls during Holy Week. So, will Catholics be reverent or reveling this year?

* Firefighters pass Saint Patrick's Cathedral during the Saint Patrick's Day Parade in New York City in 2006.

Carnahan Rebuffed: Judge Joyce Sides With Cures Without Cloning

“The ballot summary language in this case is insufficient and unfair.”

Patricia S. Joyce—Circuit Court Judge, Division IV
Cures Without Cloning, et al. v. Robin Carnahan

Justice seems so very rare these days. But while Missouri Governor Matt Blunt was lauding praise on Jim Stowers, a billionaire cloner who bankrolled Amendment 2 and who’s been throwing money into the treasuries of virtually every would-be politician in Missouri, a circuit court judge in Jefferson City was considering whether Missouri’s Secretary of State (Robin Carnahan) was fair in discharging her elected duty of summarizing a citizen’s initiative petition.

Cures Without Cloning presented a rather straightforward proposal and sent it off for the necessary technicality of the Secretary of State signing off on the ballot summary. Their proposed language was:

1. It shall be unlawful to clone or attempt to clone a human being as that term is defined in subsection 2 of this section. Researchers may conduct stem cell research to discover cures for disease and develop stem cell therapies and cures, provided that the research complies with the limitations of this section and the limitations of Section 38(d). The prohibition of this section shall be in addition to the prohibitions of Section 38(d).

2. For all purposes within this article, “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means create or attempt to create a human embryo at any stage, which shall include the one-cell stage onward, by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.

When Ms. Carnahan was finished with her review, she had prepared a rather different summary (I won’t mention she’s received money from Stowers & Company):

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to repeal the current ban on human cloning or attempted cloning and to limit Missouri patients’ access to stem cell research, therapies and cures approved by voters in November 2006 by:

• redefining the ban on human cloning or attempted cloning to criminalize and impose civil penalties for some existing research, therapies and cures; and
• prohibiting hospitals or other institutions from using public funds to conduct such research?

Hence the lawsuit. It doesn’t take a Harvard legal scholar to tell that Ms. Carnahan seems more than a little biased on the cloning/Amendment 2 debate. Her attempts to poison the minds of Missouri’s voters were hardly veiled and yesterday were rebuffed by Cole County’s Circuit Judge.

I don’t know if this is the first time in Missouri history that the Secretary of State was overturned in the discharge of their official duty, but it certainly would be a rare and almost impossible occurrence. But Carnahan’s summary was so egregious inaccurate, Judge Joyce had little choice but expose Carnahan’s ineptitude.

Dr. Lori Buffa, chairwoman of Cures Without Cloning, released a statement which said, in part:

“We are pleased that the courts have upheld our challenge to Secretary of State Carnahan’s blatant attempt to mislead the Missouri voters with her inaccurate ballot summary. It is unfortunate that Ms. Carnahan’s actions have needlessly delayed the democratic process, but we are now prepared to move forward with our efforts to prohibit the cloning of human beings here in Missouri.”

For now, the legal summary of the proposed ballot, as prepared by the court is:

Should the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the definition of cloning and ban some of the research as approved by voters in November, 2006 by:

• prohibiting human cloning that is conducted by creating a human embryo at any stage from the one-cell stage forward;
• prohibiting expenditure of taxpayer dollars on research or experimentation on human cloning; and
• allowing stem cell research for therapies and cures that complies with these prohibitions and the prohibitions of Section 38(d) of the Constitution?

It is doubtful the State will not appeal the ruling. So far, Stowers’ money has been very influential in determining the actions of Missouri politicians.

But I’d expect Cures Without Cloning to proceed immediately in gathering the necessary signatures for the measure to appear on November’s ballot.

North Carolina Professor--Abort Babies with Down Syndrome

North Carolina’s The News & Observer wrote this story on University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill biology professor Albert Harris who believes down syndrome babies should be aborted.

“In my opinion, the moral thing for older mothers to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome #21, and abort the fetus if it does. The brain is the last organ to become functional.”

Evidently, the good professor has been making the comment for several of his 35 years of teaching at UNC-CH. For whatever reason, the comment gained some publicity this year.

Maybe it’s because of Lara Frame. She is a senior anthropology and Spanish major who is taking Harris’ Biology 441 class. She also has an 18 year old brother, who happens to have Down syndrome.

"Biology is not an opinion subject," said Frame. "It's a facts-based subject. And though abortion is legal, it's not a fact that you should abort every baby with Down syndrome. If this had been a philosophy class, I wouldn't have said anything."

Frame, who wrote this letter to the editor, makes quite a point. Why is a biology professor making (immoral) philosophical arguments in his biology class? Has Peter Singer started a fan club? Rather, I think, this is further evidence of the strengthening of America’s culture of death.

Like Singer (a tenured professor at Princeton University), Harris is from a reputable school and is allowed to make extreme comments without any correction.

The heart of Professor Harris’ problematic thinking is simply this: how can we qualify what life is worth living? Down syndrome children may lack a certain chromosome that most humans have, but that hardly is evidence that they must die.

If Harris wants to make a biological argument, then he cannot stop with abortion. If Down syndrome children should morally be put to death inside the womb, then they should morally be put to death outside the womb.

But the fact is, putting Down syndrome children to death within the womb (or any other baby for any other reason) is reprehensible and immoral.

Interestingly, Harris doesn’t make a biological argument (at least within the news article). Rather, he relies on a subjective argument—that is ruins families. "I know somebody who had a child like this, and it ruined their life," Harris said. I wonder if we dialed up this family whether they’d have the same opinion. Frankly, every family I’ve ever known with a Down syndrome child, in spite of the difficulties they’ve endured, know they’ve been enriched by some of the most delightful humans that have ever graced our planet.

Me? I’ll take a Down syndrome person over a tenured biology professor any day of the week.

Senator McCain--We're Calm But Still Have Convictions

Senator John McCain is the Republican presidential hopeful who is quickly emerging as the party's nominee.

Still, even McCain recognizes his troubles, telling reporters at a press conference in Phoenix "I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on." Evidently, he was referring mostly to Rush Limbaugh and Dr. James Dobson.

Dobson released a statement yesterday in which he stated:

I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

Dobson and Focus on the Family have gone even further by seeking to enlist 1,000,000 "values voters" who pledge to vote only for candidates who value human life, traditional marriage and faith in the public square.

McCain's comment, with its condescending tone, betrays his lack of understanding of moral conservatives. We are neither irrate nor emotive. We are conviction-driven. We will not vote for a candidate who will not protect traditional marriage and who does not protect human life at all stages of development. For McCain to presume that we'll vote for him simply because we have more in common with him than Clinton or Obama will be the reason a Democrat will become the next President should McCain win the nomination.

Blog Poll Goes to Huckabee

Well, the Press On poll has officially closed—coinciding with the voting polls of Super Tuesday. While most readers chose not to cast a vote, some did.

The election results are in the right column. You’ll see that 16 readers voted. They chose former Governor Mike Huckabee with 68% (or 11 votes) of the vote. John McCain received 3 votes (18%); Mitt Romney and Ron Paul each received 1 vote (6% each); and Rudy Guiliani received 0.

Surprisingly, John McCain picked up some steam on my poll today, scoring two additional votes in the last hours of polling. Mitt Romney, previously on the big goose egg, also got a vote.

Though all my readers aren’t from West Virginia, they did side with the Mountain State’s delegates.

All the predictions are slanting towards John McCain. I believe we are watching the dismantling of Reagan’s Coalition.

Huckabee Wins West Virginia's 18 Delegates

Well, we're off to a good start, though I pessimistically predict a rather sad and dismal evening.

The AP has reported Huckabee's coup here.

Thoughts on the New Baptist Covenant Celebration

Sometime this afternoon, President Bill Clinton will deliver the concluding address for former President Carter’s recently convened “New Baptist Covenant Celebration.”

There are several elements that have intrigued me about this event, but I’ll comment on just one (for now): former Vice-President Al Gore’s delivery of his environmental propaganda.


“Green” Gore passionately delivered his mantra:

“The evidence is there. The signal is on the mountain. The trumpet has blown. The scientists are screaming from the rooftops. The ice is melting. The land is parched. The seas are rising. The storms are getting stronger. Why do we not judge what is right?”

But rather than picking apart his flawed analysis of environmental issues, I just want to make one point.

Here’s his classic statement of the day [speaking of Republican-leaning, conservative Southern Baptist leaders] :

"When did people of faith get so locked in to an ideological coalition that they got to go along with the wealthiest and most powerful who don't want to see change of the kind that's aimed at helping the people and protecting God's green earth?”

That was said at a $35 a plate luncheon [salad and chicken], that excluded at least half of the registered participants. I’m left wondering, has “Green” Gore starting waiving his speaking fee?

Sources from this entry were Baptist Press and The News&Observer

Sam Storms: The Hope of Glory

The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by author Sam Storms is set to be released by Crossway Books next month.

The Hope of Glory is a wonderful substitute to the trite non-sense common to so many so-called devotional books. It is a devotional book you would do well to read.

Far superior to most standard devotional reading, Storms challenges his readers to think deeply and practice passionately their Christian faith. Storms isn’t into spiritual pop-tarts. He’s into helping Christians live their faith.

For instance, in his chapter entitled: “Salty” Speech and the Salvation of Souls, Storms comments on Colossians 4:5-6:

I’m convinced he [Paul] is talking about evangelistic witness, and for three reasons. First, as noted, evangelism is on his mind in the immediately preceding context (see vv. 2–4). Second, he wants all of us to be fully equipped to “answer each person,” those he calls “outsiders” (undoubtedly a reference to those outside the church, i.e., non-Christians). And third, the word translated “speech” in verse 6 is the same Greek word (logos) used in verse 3 where he asks that God open a door for the “word,” i.e., that he be granted opportunities to preach the “word” of the gospel, the mystery of Christ.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, pages 329-330. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Devotional books normally don’t challenge Christians on their spiritual deficiencies, but then again The Hope of Glory isn’t a normal devotional book. Storms then gives five points about sharing our faith.

First, we are exhorted to conduct ourselves wisely toward outsiders. I think at least two things are in view here. I’m immediately reminded of our Lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you” (Matt. 7:6). Wisdom requires that we be discerning as to when we speak and to whom. Sometimes we need to be bold and forthright, while on other occasions, because of the calloused and hostile posture of our audience, we need to keep our mouths shut.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 330. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

That comment alone ought to root you to the Holy Spirit. “Discernment”, a concept virtually consigned to evangelical obscurity, is freely advanced by Storms. No “one-size-fits-all” “cookie-cutter” evangelism here. Wise reliance on the Holy Spirit is what is necessary.

Second, we mustn’t lose sight of the urgency of our task. The ESV renders this, “making the best use of the time,” while older translations retain the more literal translation, “redeeming the time” (KJV). Commentators do a good job of highlighting Paul’s emphasis. Peter O’Brien renders it, “snapping up every opportunity that comes.” Murray Harris is even more to the point: “In the open market where the commodity of ‘kairos’ [time] is on sale, Christians are to make a ‘timely’ purchase for themselves. In other words, they are to seize eagerly and use wisely every opportunity afforded them by time to promote the kingdom of God.”

Don’t waste any opportunity that comes your way or squander the chance to walk boldly through an open door into the heart of an unbeliever! Every encounter has the potential to be soul-saving. Don’t let fear or hesitation or lack of preparation steal that moment.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, pages 330-331. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Storms confronts the reader with another word all but lost to evangelicals—“urgency”—and graciously reminds us “Every encounter has the potential to be soul-saving.” No statement could be sweeter, more encouraging and yet more convicting at the same time. Evangelism must recover its sense of urgency.

Third, our witness must always be “gracious” (v. 6), which is to say, as charming as possible without crossing the line into compromise. Be accommodating and kind, says Paul, but not at the expense of truth.

What matters is not simply the content but the manner or spirit in which you speak of Christ to others. We are to be both pointed and pleasant in our witness. Sadly, many embrace one to the exclusion of the other, finding it difficult to embrace both in delicate balance. Either they care for nothing but the truth, regardless of how it is conveyed, or they are so afraid of sounding offensive or pushy that they end up diluting the truth and fail to articulate the realities of sin, death, and hell.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 331. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

Well, if Fred Phelps would promise to read this chapter, I’d buy him a copy. Sadly, Storms is accurate. These are virtually the only two extremes modern evangelism knows. Of course, to say Phelps cares “for nothing but the truth” would be extremely generous. But the point is that the angry, “you’re going to hell, sinner” type approach seems to be the only alternative to silent apathy.

Fourth, our proclamation of the mystery of Christ must be “seasoned with salt” (v. 6). Let there be a pungency to our preaching, a flavor worthy to savor. There’s no virtue in being dull or insipid or lukewarm in the presentation of the gospel.

My former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary Howard Hendricks was often heard to say: “According to the old adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. That’s true, but you can feed him salt!” Do you talk of Jesus in a way that makes people’s mouths water? Do your words and manner create the opportunity for a spiritual thirst to emerge?

The psalmist said, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Ps. 34:8a). Do people see and sense the sweetness of the Savior when we speak of him? He is altogether lovely and should not be made known in an unlovely or unappealing manner. Jesus tastes good! Don’t spoil the flavor by sinful additives and sour dispositions.

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 331. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

To borrow from a book title from John Piper, there is too much duty in our evangelism and not enough delight. Christians used to testify because Jesus had changed them; because they were so in love with Him; because they adored and worshipped him. Now, we have to get ourselves worked into a frenzy, overcoming our cowardice but a dutiful delivery of a “gospel presentation” which is all too often stale and dispassionate.

Fifth, and finally, we must be diligent to answer “each person” (v. 6). He doesn’t mean that we should speak the same way to “everyone,” but that we ought to speak appropriately to “each separate person” as he or she has need. We must supply perceptive and discerning answers in accordance with the unique circumstance of each individual. Not everyone hears the gospel the same way. Some encounter Christ with probing intellectual objections, while others are struggling with deeply entrenched sinful habits.

Evangelism should never be monolithic, as if one mode or manner of presentation is suitable for all souls. Yes, each is in need of a savior from sin. Of course, there is but one Savior and his name is Jesus. But each person is also at a different stage of life, facing a unique set of trials and troubles, each with varying degrees of understanding of who Jesus is and what he has accomplished. In sum, be adept to adapt, and pray that the Spirit would awaken all hearts to see and celebrate the mystery of Christ!

From The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians by Sam Storms, © 2008, page 331-332. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

With such meditations, The Hope of Glory promises to do a gentle, but effective work in stretching the Christian’s devotional life by deepening our resolve to live true to our professions. It’s a book that is truly devotional.

Chalk Up a Win for Free Religious Speech

When Choose Life of Missouri Inc. applied for a specialty license plate in 2006, they were about to experience cold-hearted discrimination from two very powerful feminist state Senators.

Missouri has two ways you can get a specialty license plate through the Department of Revenue. The first is to have a legislator file a bill that gets approved by a majority vote of the entire Legislature. Some 70 specialty license plates have been created through this process, many of them very obscure, including those for the Knights of Columbus, the Grand Chapter of the Missouri Order of the Eastern Star, the Grand Lodge Ancient Arabic Order or Nobles of the Mystic Shrine and such.

The second process is the one Choose Life used and that is by making an application with the Department of Revenue. The application must 1) generally describe the specialty license plate; 2) have a sponsor of at least one current member of the Missouri Legislature; 3) list at least 200 people who intend to buy the plate; 4) include a $5,000 application fee.

The application then goes to the Joint Committee for Transportation Oversight for required unanimous approval. The Joint Committee is composed of seven senators, seven representatives and three ex-officio members (the state auditor, the director of the oversight division of the committee of legislative research and the commissioner of the office of administration).

That’s where the Choose Life application stopped being a routine matter and turned into a denial of First Amendment rights. Two senators, Joan Bray and Rita Heard Days, both radical, pro-abortion politicians, decided to flex their muscle and squash free speech. They used a new Missouri law that allowed two senators to object and stopped the application dead in its tracks.

Interestingly, Senator Bray had sponsored a bill in 2005 to allow a pro-choice license plate, so she wasn’t objecting that political speech or abortion speech was being inserted into the specialty license program. She was clearly objecting that pro-life speech was being allowed. In her kind of liberal thinking, only her side of the argument should be represented.

The Joint Committee held its hearing on February 21, 2006 to review the applications for specialty license plates. Four applications were approved: Choose Life, Ethan and Friends for Autism, Missouri Cattlemen Foundation, Missouri Caves and Karst Conservatory, Missouri Support our Troops; one was denied.

Hence a one-and-a-half year law suit filed by Choose Life of Missouri Inc which concluded last week when another well known Missouri liberal, Scott O. Wright, Senior Judge for the US District Court of Western Missouri, wrote:

ORDERED that Missouri Statute 21.795(6) is hereby deemed unconstitutional and an injunction shall be entered requiring the defendant to issue the Choose Life specialty license plate.

Judge Wright's decision siding with pro-lifers can only mean this was one of the worst abuses of power Missouri has ever endured. Thankfully, the wrong has been righted.

I, for one, would love to see Missouri’s specialty license plate program abolished. With some 200 to choose from, can anyone say “bumper sticker”? But as long as the state allows one non-profit group to utilize this program, it must allow all. So why not order your specialty license plate and support the pro-life cause?

By the way, Bray and Days often tag team to destroy our heritage. This session, they are hopeful to outlaw Missouri’s death penalty and have jointly filed Senate Bill No. 835.

From Spurgeon's Catechism

How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?

A. The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days (Lev. 23:3), and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship (Ps. 92:1-2; Isa. 58:13-14), except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy (Matt. 12:11-12).

What’s Your Human Life IQ?

Family Research Council developed this short, three question multiple choice quiz:

Question 1: Since 1973, how many induced abortions have been carried out in the United States?
◦ 20,000,000 to 25,000,000
◦ 30,000,000 to 35,000,000
◦ 45,000,000 to 50,000,000

Question 2: The percentage of Americans who say that abortion should be legal at any time for any reason (current law) is:
◦ 31%
◦ 22%
◦ 16%

Question 3: The percentage of U.S. abortions done for reasons other than "health" or "rape and incest" is:
◦ 54.2%
◦ 73.6%
◦ 93.5%

The answers might surprise many Americans unfamiliar with our great national sin of abortion.
(respectively, the answers are: 45--50,000,000; 16%, 93.5%). You can request from FRC a free source "The Top Ten Myths of Abortion" either in PDF download or a hard copy to read and pass along to others.

And if you want to learn even more, take this test developed by Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America.

The Church has been pretty powerless to end abortion. We’ve curtailed it, slowed it, depopularized it, but still abortion continues. While we continue our zealous efforts, we must appeal to “the governor among the nations” (Psa. 22:28) for help. Only He can grant America a repentant heart. Only He can heal our national blindness and replace our cold cruelty with love for children. May our God do so with the United States of America.

“Your baptism and your confirmation and your name on the church roll and the big Bible you carry--

these are not the things that are important to God. You can train a chimpanzee to carry a Bible.”

A.W. Tozer, Faith Beyond Reason, 96

ABC's anti-Christian Hypocrisy

The American Family Association reports the following:

ABC fired an actor because of an anti-gay comment, but gave anchorwoman who told an audience 'F---Jesus' what amounted to a one-week vacation.

Last June, when actor Isaiah Washington, star of ABC's show Grey's Anatomy, made an anti-gay slur in reference to openly homosexual T.R. Knight, the network immediately fired Washington.

But when ESPN (owned by ABC) anchorwoman Dana Jacobson publicly said "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus," the network gave her a one week suspension. In essence, ABC gave Jacobson a one week vacation.

ABC has two standards, one for anti-gay comments and one for anti-Christian comments. Those who use anti-gay comments are punished. Those who use anti-Christian comments are supported. If ABC refuses to fire Jacobson, would you be willing to support a one-year boycott of the sponsor of her program?

Take the AFA poll and read background information.

Roe v. Wade

Today marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a 7-2 decision by the United States Supreme Court that would plunge America into its darkest and most evil sin.

Abortion had long been practiced before 1973, but on January 22 the Court gave it sanctuary and enshrined it into the fabric of American jurisprudence as a constitutional right.

Writing for the majority, Justice Harry A. Blackmun opined that the 14th Amendment contains a right to privacy "broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Justice Potter Stewart, with a concurring opinion, blasted the Texas statute protecting the developing baby. “…it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, a rather conservative jurist at the time, surprisingly joined the majority. In his concurring opinion, he wrote what was perhaps the most inaccurate prognostication in the court’s entire history. “I do not read the Court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.”

Yet, Roe did have “sweeping consequences” by immediately changing the laws of 46 states. Millions of babies have been brutally killed; thousands of women have been physically and emotionally damaged; most physicians will not perform the heinous abortion procedures; Planned Parenthood and like minded abortionists break the law as well as “the standards of their profession”; and “abortion on demand” is now understood to be a Constitutional right. Burger could not have been more wrong.

Roe did have two dissenting voices. Justice William Rehnquist, who would later become Chief Justice, writing the dissenting opinion was prophetic. “Unless I misapprehend the consequences of this transplanting of the ‘compelling state interest test,’ the Court's opinion will accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of leaving this area of the law more confused than it found it.”

The other dissenter Justice Byron White, was even more scathing. “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

White accused his colleagues of an “exercise of raw judicial power” and wrote concerning the majority that “its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

White also clearly saw past the ideology of activist judges, realizing the case lacked merit. “It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health.”

And so today, because of America’s new culture that seeks “to serve only their convenience” we mourn the brutal, tortuous deaths of 50 million Americans because of Roe v. Wade.

PS: The other Supreme Court Justices who voted in the majority are William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell

PS2: In case you don't think abortion brutally kills developing babies, go here for pictorial evidence of its heinous barbarity (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC & DISTURBING PHOTOS)

AND: Byron White’s dissenting opinion is worth reading in its entirety, so I’ve listed it below.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.*

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons -- convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion
statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims no threat to her mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of those women [410 U.S. 223] whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), dictates reversal of the judgment of the District Court.

Likewise, because Georgia may constitutionally forbid abortions to putative mothers who, like the plaintiff in this case, do not fall within the reach of § 26-1202(a) of its criminal code, I have no occasion, and the District Court had none, to consider the constitutionality of the procedural requirements of the Georgia statute as applied to those pregnancies posing substantial hazards to either life or health. I would reverse the judgment of the District Court in the Georgia case.

Martin Luther King Day

I can still remember stepping out of my back door in Adrian, Missouri, one cool January and seeing a confederate flag hanging from a neighbor’s porch. I hadn’t remembered seeing it before and thought it strange then, this new banner flapping in the breeze. It wasn’t until several hours into my work day that I realized the day was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a federal holiday.

Neither Adrian nor my neighbor was especially racist, at least to my recollection. And I never discovered why he displayed his Stars & Bars. I’m of the opinion that perhaps Dr. King should not have a federal holiday in his honor. Not even the great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln gets his own day. He’s lumped into “Washington’s Birthday” with the common renaming of “President’s Day”. And I certainly realize credible evidence exists regarding Dr. King’s moral character, though much of it is embellished.

However, nothing can detract from certain facts. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man and led a great movement.

He is perhaps best known for his “I Have a Dream” speech, but his “Letter From Birmingham Jail” ranks higher in my mind, in terms of great literature.

Racism is ugly. I am thankful that Dr. King did much to assault it.

Trivia Answer

For the answer to yesterday's trivia question, Jefferson noted as his three greatest achievements, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as referenced yesterday), the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia.

See his tombstone here.

Religious Freedom

I may be a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, but yesterday was our country’s Religious Freedom Day. I’m fairly savvy about these things, but frankly I wasn’t aware of such a thing. January 16 is a good day for sipping hot chocolate by the fire (at least for the part of the country I live in). There’s even a website for the day, complete with all kinds of tshirts, coffee mugs and backpacks to help with promotion.

It seems the day was designated in 2003 by Senate Joint Resolution 154 and is a commemoration of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the statute into the state's law.

Of course, the real story behind Jefferson, Madison, Virginia, the First Amendment and Religious Freedom are Baptist preachers, particularly one named John Leland. Leland left his native Massachusetts in 1775 to help Baptists contend with the established Episcopalian church in Virginia.

As early as 1768, five Baptist preachers (John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, James Reed, and William Marsh) were arrested in Fredericksburg for “preaching contrary to the law.” The Spotsylvania County prosecutor argued to the Virginia magistrates that the defendants “cannot meet a man upon the road, but they must ram a text of Scripture down his throat.” They were offered parole if they would agree to preach no more in the county for one year, and after refusing the offer, the Baptists were held 43 days in jail.

By the time Leland arrived, Baptist civil disobedience was strong and united. Leland thrived and help organize their resistance into political clout. Near the end of his life, he stated: “Next to the salvation of the soul, the civil and religious rights of men have summoned my attention more than the acquisition of wealth or seats of honor.”

Leland was so effective, that he influenced the history of the United States. When the Constitution was presented for ratification, Baptist opposition was fierce. The author of the U.S. Constitution was the Virginia James Madison, who was in New York City. But with Baptist opposition, particularly in John Leland’s home turf of Orange County, Madison’s election as a Virginian delegate to the ratifying Congress was in jeopardy and without the author’s presence, particularly in counteracting the eloquence of Patrick Henry who was opposed to ratification, the Constitution was doomed to failure.

Madison’s father wrote his son: “The sentiments of the people of Orange are much divided the best men in my judgment are for the constitution but several of those who have much weight with the people are opposed, Parson Bledsoe & Leeland with Colo. Z. Burnley. Upon the whole I think it is incumbent on you without delay, to repair to this state, as the loss of the constitution in this state may involve consequences the most alarming to every citizen in America.”

Well, Madison beat it home and had several private discussions with John Leland, who secured Madison’s commitment to present a Bill of Rights protecting religious freedom and eventually threw his support behind Madison’s election.

While religious freedom belongs to everyone, Baptists particularly have reason to celebrate its presence in American history. The English historian, Skeats wrote, “It is the singular and distinguished honor of the Baptists to have repudiated from their earliest history all coercive power over the consciences and actions of men with reference to religion. They were the proto-evangelists of the voluntary principle.”

= = = = = = = = = =

Trivia: Thomas Jefferson requested the Statute for Religious Freedom be one of three of his accomplishments named on his epitaph. What were the other two? (check back tomorrow).

And...click here and here. Which sounds more spiritual? Surprised?

Also, the text of Jefferson’s Statute is below:

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

The MBC—Southern Baptists’ Most Liberal State?

According to Baptist Press, messengers to this month’s Florida Baptist Convention “overwhelmingly” passed a by-law change requiring all trustee nominees to "agree to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages and using any other recreational drugs." It passed “with few dissenting votes.”

Southern Baptists of Texas also changed their bylaws, replacing the word “drunkenness” with “the use of alcohol as a beverage” stipulating that drinking is unacceptable for paid staff members and all elected offices of their convention.

These events underscore the problem of alcohol within the Missouri Baptist Convention. At its annual meeting, a resolution was proposed (the exact one approved at the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting) and was not even reported out of committee. A motion was made to by-pass the Resolution’s Committee unfortunate recommendation to squash the issue. When messengers finally voted on the Resolution, it barely passed 506-360 (58%/42%).

Florida and Texas can inscribe alcohol abstinence into their governing documents and Missouri can barely pass a resolution. Houston, Jeff City, we have a problem!

Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Students Against Destructive Decisions
US Surgeon General's Plea
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
The Marin Institute

Confusingly Crazy: The Religious Right and the ’08 Election

By now, we’ve seen/heard it all.

Pat Robertson has backed Rudy Giuliani.

And to believe I backed Robertson in the ’88 Republican primary. Oh well, I worked for John Danforth’s Senatorial election too. My sins will some day catch up with me. I’ll only say—read this—and you’ll better understand his recent endorsement


Fred Thompson got NRL’s endorsement

And it came after the most convoluted diatribe defending abortion I’ve ever heard from a so-called “pro-lifer.” Dr. Wanda Franz, president of National Right to Life (NRL) said: "Since announcing his candidacy in September, Fred Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination in the overwhelming majority of national polls. As pro-lifers throughout the nation begin to unite behind his candidacy, he will be well positioned to win the nomination and the presidency."

Interestingly, NRL was livid when the McCain-Feingold bill passed Congress in 2002, severely limiting what pro-life groups could do in a presidential election. Anyone remember who the enthusiastic supporting Senator from Tennessee was?

See my previous blog entry on why I think NRL just sold its soul.


Mitt Romney gets the nod from a couple of heavy weights.

"You know I've looked at his work with the Olympics…I think he could make a good president." says conservation leader of Free Congress Foundation, Paul Weyrich. Yeah, Weyrich, I’m convinced. Getting that torch lit and burning for a couple of weeks certainly qualifies one for leader of the free world.

And conservative, fundamentalist Bob Jones also backed the Mormon from Massachusetts. I guess believing in the angel Moroni’s revelation to Joseph Smith isn’t that big of a disqualifer for evangelicals. Isn’t Jones buying into a moralist position?

And to shore up his ‘evangelical’ credentials, Romney intimated that he has the endorsement of Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This prompted a terse press release from Land out of his Nashville office:

“I have defended various candidates from time to time when I’ve felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate’s chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates.”


Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee snagged backing from Don Wildmon, president of American Family Association

"I feel that Governor Huckabee understands the needs of our country and has the ability to lead us in meeting those needs," Wildmon said. Also jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon: Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas Texas and well as Missouri activist and reformer, Pastor Scott Weldon.

Horton Hears It: Why Can’t Fred Thompson?

Dr. Seuss hardly meant to pontificate on America’s current abortion debate when he wrote some very poignant words in his story, Horton Hears A Who. In fact, Seuss wrote the story almost two decades before the Supreme Court’s doltish decision in Roe v. Wade.

Seuss fans will remember that Horton, an elephant from the Jungle of Nool, heard voices from a speck of dust. Horton’s friends ridiculed him and told him to discard the tiny speck, yet Horton replied:

"‘Should I put this speck down…..," Horton thought with alarm.
‘If I do, these small persons may come to great harm.
I can't put it down. And I won't. After all,
a person's a person. No matter how small.'"

In this past Sunday’s interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson began to opine on his views regarding abortion. You can watch it here.

The Senator was having some great difficulty embracing a fundamental ethic in pro-life thinking, vis-à-vis, “a person’s a person. No matter how small.”

Thompson was able to find great consternation that we may criminalize a young woman and/or her parents with a federal life amendment. In fact, he did such a fine job of keeping attention off of the small, innocent, developing baby one wonders if he was taking his talking points from a Planned Parenthood talking point memo.

In fact, after this interview, pro-life Americans will have great trouble embracing Fred Thompson as a sincere, pro-life politician.

When Russert asked Thompson whether he could run on the Republican Party’s 2004 platform regarding a human life amendment, the former Senator gave a curt and blunt reply: “No.”

Thompson then started with the mantra of how complex a federal life amendment would be, throwing in the necessary platitudes to appease his pro-life constituency, longing for the “pre-Roe v. Wade days”. His desire for those days, however, seems predicated upon an issue of federalism, rather than a life ethic. That is, Thompson wants the states to settle the issue. He seems content to allow some states to give abortion legal protection.

Time warp Fred Thompson to another arena of American history with a change of time and issue and you’ll see clearly what a moral lightweight he is. Can’t you hear him arguing in 1858 that slavery is morally wrong but that it is a matter for the states to decide? I for one am glad Abraham Lincoln took a decidedly different view. Lincoln knew slavery was so morally reprehensible that is must be outlawed. I wish Thompson embraced the moral reprehensibility of abortion.

Frankly, all “complexities” aside, anyone willing to allow abortion in any community in any county in any region of any state in America understands neither the pro-life ethic nor the horrendous brutality of abortion. Fred Thompson is playing both sides.

When Russert began to “call him out” the dancing began. As late as 1994, Fred Thompson didn’t know what every pro-lifer knows, what every seventh grade biology student knows and what every embryologist in the world knows: life begins at conception. And after watching this part of the interview several times and reading the transcript almost as much, I am still uncertain whether Thompson believes now in 2007 that life begins at conception. I know he has a “100 percent pro-life” voting record. But I do not know
a) whether Thompson believes life begins at conception; and if so
b) how he can justify allowing states to destroy innocent human life.

And while we are on the subject of Thompson and human life, Russert also asked some questions about the Terry Schiavo affair. Thompson was infuriatingly stupid saying “it was the same general end-of-life kind of consideration.” Anyone remotely familiar with the Terry Schiavo situation knows that precious woman was nowhere near the end of her life. Thompson’s most revealing moment came when he regretted Congress’s involvement saying: “It gave federal court jurisdiction. Federal court didn’t need jurisdiction, in my opinion.”

Terry Schiavo was sentenced to die by a Florida State Judge. Congress simply gave her the same right that convicted felons sentenced to death have—the right to federal court review. I wonder whether Thompson believes convicted murderers and rapists should also be deprived of this long-standing constitutional right?

Fred Thompson cannot be supported by serious minded, sincerely devoted pro-life persons unless he has a genuine epiphany within the next few months.