George Offerman
There have been many allegations made concerning the war over the name Operation Rescue, and much of the contention seems to revolve around what Operation Rescue is, its mission, and who has the ‘God given right” to use this well known moniker. Currently, Troy Newman has the trademark on the name, and is making a claim that he has been using this name since 1991. Mr. Newman has also made the claim that he has ‘rebuilt’ OR to national prominence, and is following on the original ‘vision’ of what OR is and what made it so formidable.
Since this claim is made, it is fair to take a look at this organization and do a compare /contrast of what it was and what it currently is, and if in fact if it is staying true to the original vision of the founder Randall Terry. The sources of information used will be the book wrath Of Angels, information off of both websites, operationrescuetheft, and Mr. Newman’s website, newsletters from OR/ORW and fundraising letters, as well as personal testimony and experiences of those who have known both men for many years.
Operation Rescue was the brainchild of Randall Terry in1986 and he became very active in his hometown of Binghamton, NY. Relatively unknown, he nonetheless became prominent in the movement in short order, and built upon the legacy of people like John Ryan, John O’Keefe and Joan Andrews Bell. Mr. Terry was able to do what no one else was able to do before, and that was to mobilize thousands against the child killers. Mr. Terry called this movement Operation Rescue, and this movement became nationally prominent from 1987 to 1994, until the Clinton Administration, lead by Janet Reno, passed and used the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) mainly to deter the winning strategy of Operation Rescue. This was Mr. Terry’s impact on the pro life movement, and the lists below are the highlights of Operation Rescue, under its founder and at its pinnacle.
- Took activism to a new level by having thousands in front of multiple abortuaries in several cities simultaneously.
- 70,000 arrests over the span of 1987-1993, the most ever recorded in national history for a non violent movement.
- 40 + Affiliate offices throughout the country.
- Linked the gospel and scriptures to action and able to mobilize the evangelical world to the movement
- Changed the way law enforcement dealt with the large number of non violent protestors.
- FACE law enacted as a direct result of OR tactics, changing national laws.
- Politicians being held accountable for their pro life stances, and fearing rejection by this organization if wayward in their word.
This was the mission and the goals of Operation Rescue as envisioned by its founder Randall Terry, and it was very successful until the myriad of law suits by planned parenthood and others, as well as the FACE law, effectively broke the back of the movement. Mr. Terry saw this organization as a national movement; with thousands of pro lifers all over the United States fighting in their communities and operating under the Moniker of Operation Rescue (name your city/state). There was no issue concerning trademarks, as everyone at the time was very aware of who started the movement and who was responsible for the exponential growth.
Mr. Terry owned the name Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue was the title of his book. Operation rescue never was a not for profit corporation with a board. Why not, you ask? It was Mr. Terry’s intention to shield these leaders by having a loose association, and not having the organization in a formal structure, in which others could have been sued, and lose everything, as Mr. Terry has.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Newman’s name is not mentioned anywhere in the history of Operation Rescue during its heyday, nor does it appear he was involved in the movement in at least any leadership role until much later.
The name of Operation Rescue was used by many people; it was understood that it was permissible to use this moniker by adding a city or state behind it, such as Operation Rescue Boston, or Rev. Flip Benham’s Operation Save America. In fact, Mr. Terry helped Rev. Tucci start Operation Rescue National. Operation Rescue has not been used by anyone other than Randall Terry, as a stand alone name until Mr. Newman dropped the West from the name of his California organization in 2007. The majority of pro lifers know that Operation Rescue is associated with Randall Terry, and most believe that Operation Rescue has always been on the cutting edge of the pro life movement, attracting people from all over the country to do things they did not know they were capable of doing. Operation Rescue under Randall Terry was also radical, in that it caused a crisis of consciousness and brought the issue of legalized child killing front and center. OR could not be ignored by the mainstream media or pundits, and no one ever knew what OR would be up to next, but whatever it did, it made national, and sometimes international news.
Now, consider the organization that brands itself Operation Rescue today, and see if it meets the criteria and ‘national standing’ that Mr. Newman claims. Mr. Newman moved headquarters of what was known as Operation Rescue West to Wichita, Kansas in 2002 to directly challenge and close the Women’s Health Care Services, and land George Tiller in jail. For the past 7 + years, this has been the main thrust of Mr. Newman’s energies and that of the Wichita organization. During this time, Mr. Newman also built up a fleet of truth trucks, and has had some success with them. I contributed thousands of dollars to Mr. Newman’s efforts over many years, as well as influencing others to do the same.
Mr Newman’s efforts have been commendable. But the question must be asked: do his efforts meet the criteria and purpose of Operation Rescue, as envisioned by its founder, and those who followed Mr. Terry in the leadership? Mr. Newman’s Wichita organization is focused on a local to regional matter, with the main focus being George Tiller, as evidenced by nearly all of the newsletters and fund raising letters sent out over the past 7 + years. Very little to nothing was mentioned about civil disobedience on a large national scale, nor was there ever a plan in place in which people felt like they could get behind this organization believing it would lead to the overturning of Roe and Doe.
This is what the Mr. Newman’s organization in Wichita has accomplished up until now. The claim to have built the organization back up to its ‘national prominence’ can be tested by looking at the fruits of this organization.
- Little evidence or news stories supporting any efforts at protests at multiple locations simultaneously.
- Very few recorded arrests during the time span of 1999-2010
- Wichita is the only office location in the country with 4 staff and no affiliates.
- Virtual protests instead of actual protests promoted.
- Has made virtually no national news in 7 + years other than the reported association with Roeder after the Tiller shooting.
- Have influenced local and Kansas laws, but not national legislation.
- Politicians do not fear this organization or any other current pro life organization and are not concerned about their endorsements or reprimand.
- No written action plan for ending legalized child killing.
These are just some of the differences in considering Operation Rescue (Randall Terry) as it was at its inception, and what Mr. Newman is doing with the name. There is a stark contrast to the activities and levels of accomplishments. It is apparent that Mr. Newman’s Wichita organization is benefiting from the use of the name Operation Rescue, as it has built in credibility and is nationally known, but not because of their efforts. It is interesting that Mr. Newman decided to trademark the name of another man’s labor, efforts and sacrifices instead of focusing on his own brand of activism, and standing on his own accomplishments.
In considering whether the Operation Rescue ‘brand’ is tarnished, as many anti lifers, and some pro lifers believe, it is really incumbent upon the beholder to make this determination. If one considers the regional efforts and successes of Mr. Newman and company and if this is applied and packaged as a national movement, then the answer is yes, it is tainted and out of date. If Mr. Newman’s efforts are seen in the light of a regional affiliate of a larger vibrant organization, then the answer would have to be that the OR brand is alive and well.
It would seem if one looks at the evidence provided, and does some research, it would become very apparent that Mr. Newman’s accomplishments, although very formidable and positive, do not in any way shape or form, represent a national organization that is on the cutting edge of ending legalized child killing, as it is not being duplicated anywhere. Duplication is what a national organization has if it is to be effective and effect change in society. Mr. Newman should drop the Operation Rescue moniker, as he does not represent what Operation Rescue is, and should name his organization in alignment with his own accomplishments.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
A TALE OF TWO COMMUNION STORIES
George Offerman
Life Site News ran a full transcript of their interview with Boston’s Cardinal O’Mally on the question of denying communion to pro abort politicians who claim to be Catholic. The following is the transcript as appears on the LSN site.
WASHINGTON, DC, February 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The full transcript of LSN's January 2010 conversation with Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley on denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is as follows:
LSN: “A number of Catholics are concerned about Catholics who are pro-abortion and in politics. Some have said the bishops have to deny them communion. But in your estimation, what is exactly is the appropriate pastoral response? How should Catholics understand this?”
O’Malley: “Well I think that the only way that that solution should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole Church. You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”
[Although turning away at an aide's urging to leave the Basilica, the Cardinal returned to clarify that he was concerned about how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians from the very beginning. O’Malley said he asked that question when John Paul II solicited input from bishops for the pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.]
O’Malley: “... I wrote to him [John Paul II] and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic. We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”
LSN: “Do you think something coming forth in Canon Law - would that be helpful?”
O’Malley: “That would be helpful if they did it. But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way. Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”
O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work - this isn’t the only country that has this problem.”
Then we have a statement from Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura that states very clearly, Cannon 915, which is the Churches instructions on safeguarding the administration of communion to those in public grave sin. This interview was done by Randall Terry last year while this group was in Rome Partial tramscript of the interview will be posted, with a site linking the full interview below:
Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?
Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.
Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?
Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.
Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?
Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32815
So here it is, two different versions of the same story, told by two high level prelates in the church and both are Americans and both have been exposed to the ‘pulse’ of what it is that Americans want and expect. One wants to argue that reception of Communion is an issue between the communicant and God, while the other believes there are external factors that should keep one from receiving if in grevious sin.
The catechism I grew up with, coupled with teachings from some of the professors loyal to the magisterial teachings, made it abundantly clear that a Catholic in mortal sin (grave sin now a days) cannot receive communion until they confess their sins and change their ways. There were no exceptions made, and it was incumbent upon the individual, that he also cease and desist in the sinful behaviors. Yes, it is up to the individual to obey the teachings of the church, but the church must first teach what is its doctrine of the faith, then enforce the doctrine. Unfortunately, the church is currently doing neither, and thus, appears to be contradictory and confused in its message.
When examining cannon 915, coupled with traditional church teachings, there really is no confusion on this issue. To receive the body and blood of Christ in the state of mortal sin, is another mortal sin, and a loving church would do well by not allowing one of the faithful to continue in further harming themselves spiritually, as well as adding to already scandalous behaviors. Contrary to many of the Bishops statements that denial of communion is a political and divisive move, it is actually an act of love towards those who are in grave error and need a gentle, but firm hand to guide them back to a state of Grace.
Life Site News ran a full transcript of their interview with Boston’s Cardinal O’Mally on the question of denying communion to pro abort politicians who claim to be Catholic. The following is the transcript as appears on the LSN site.
WASHINGTON, DC, February 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The full transcript of LSN's January 2010 conversation with Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley on denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is as follows:
LSN: “A number of Catholics are concerned about Catholics who are pro-abortion and in politics. Some have said the bishops have to deny them communion. But in your estimation, what is exactly is the appropriate pastoral response? How should Catholics understand this?”
O’Malley: “Well I think that the only way that that solution should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole Church. You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”
[Although turning away at an aide's urging to leave the Basilica, the Cardinal returned to clarify that he was concerned about how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians from the very beginning. O’Malley said he asked that question when John Paul II solicited input from bishops for the pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.]
O’Malley: “... I wrote to him [John Paul II] and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic. We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”
LSN: “Do you think something coming forth in Canon Law - would that be helpful?”
O’Malley: “That would be helpful if they did it. But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way. Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”
O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work - this isn’t the only country that has this problem.”
Then we have a statement from Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura that states very clearly, Cannon 915, which is the Churches instructions on safeguarding the administration of communion to those in public grave sin. This interview was done by Randall Terry last year while this group was in Rome Partial tramscript of the interview will be posted, with a site linking the full interview below:
Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?
Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.
Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?
Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.
Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?
Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=32815
So here it is, two different versions of the same story, told by two high level prelates in the church and both are Americans and both have been exposed to the ‘pulse’ of what it is that Americans want and expect. One wants to argue that reception of Communion is an issue between the communicant and God, while the other believes there are external factors that should keep one from receiving if in grevious sin.
The catechism I grew up with, coupled with teachings from some of the professors loyal to the magisterial teachings, made it abundantly clear that a Catholic in mortal sin (grave sin now a days) cannot receive communion until they confess their sins and change their ways. There were no exceptions made, and it was incumbent upon the individual, that he also cease and desist in the sinful behaviors. Yes, it is up to the individual to obey the teachings of the church, but the church must first teach what is its doctrine of the faith, then enforce the doctrine. Unfortunately, the church is currently doing neither, and thus, appears to be contradictory and confused in its message.
When examining cannon 915, coupled with traditional church teachings, there really is no confusion on this issue. To receive the body and blood of Christ in the state of mortal sin, is another mortal sin, and a loving church would do well by not allowing one of the faithful to continue in further harming themselves spiritually, as well as adding to already scandalous behaviors. Contrary to many of the Bishops statements that denial of communion is a political and divisive move, it is actually an act of love towards those who are in grave error and need a gentle, but firm hand to guide them back to a state of Grace.
Monday, February 22, 2010
REVERBERATIONS OF THE SCANDAL IN THE VATICAN
George Offerman
An article out of Life Site News has recently reported that several members of the Pontifical Academy for Life are fearing for the future of this organization, due to the scandal that occurred last year, when the head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella openly chastised fellow Archbishop Jose Cardosa Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, Brazil for outright ex communicating Doctors and other medical professionals that performed abortion on twins from a 9 year old mother who had been raped.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020802.html
Archbishop Fisichella blasted Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho for his decision, and Archbishop Fisichella essentially went along with the international media in their condemning the Brazilian Archbishop for his move. This ended up causing great harm not only to the hierarchical position of Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho in his own diocese, but a greater scandal to the Church at large, by sending a clear message that upholding the clear mandates and teachings of the church are forbidden, if they cause tension and conflict.
Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho was correct in his interpretations of church teachings, and actually applied the proper Cannons to stop this atrocity. This Brazilian Archbishop was acting in faith and in essence, was chastised for doing so. There is though that this was done, due to wanting to ‘soften’ relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration. If this is true, it goes to show how sin progresses and grows, as this election is having international ramifications.
Archbishop Fisichella’s ‘selling out’ is giving cause for the pro death camps to have hope in legalizing child killing in much of Latin America, including Brazil. This movement is being spurred on by the Obama Administration and others, with the intent to export our debauchery, and it now has the blessings of the Pontifical Academy for Life. This does not bode well for the pro life movement in general, and specifically the work to keep child killing illegal in Latin America, with the assistance of the Catholic Church.
This scandal continues to reverberate through out the Catholic world, as well as the pro life world. To have the top Prelate in such an authorative position undermine the authority of another Archbishop, as well as the church teachings is an abomination. And to do such, under the guise of ‘softening’ the relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration, is the largest admission that the Churches teachings are negotiable and changeable, if it is seen important enough to do so.
What are we, as Christians and Catholics, supposed to make of this? Do we begin to make up our own rules now? Who has the authority to teach on issues of faith and morals? Are we obligated to listen to leaders, even if they are Bishops, when they are in error? These are now questions that are up for discussion, and the secular world now has a great amount of ammunition to shoot at an institution, that has lately shown far too many poor judgments and has had its share of scandals. This is only adding to them.
Where is the faith in the Jesus that we preach? Why are too many, in positions of power, staying silent on this matter? Where are the cries and demands for Archbishop Fisichella’s resignation? This man should be removed from his post immediately, and be taught the basics of the faith that he claims to represent. There aren’t words in the English language accurate enough to describe the treachery and betrayal that Archbishop Fisichella has dealt to the faith and the pro life cause. This is one of the moments that the verse from Mark 9:42 comes to mind: “Whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone be hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea”
An article out of Life Site News has recently reported that several members of the Pontifical Academy for Life are fearing for the future of this organization, due to the scandal that occurred last year, when the head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella openly chastised fellow Archbishop Jose Cardosa Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, Brazil for outright ex communicating Doctors and other medical professionals that performed abortion on twins from a 9 year old mother who had been raped.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020802.html
Archbishop Fisichella blasted Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho for his decision, and Archbishop Fisichella essentially went along with the international media in their condemning the Brazilian Archbishop for his move. This ended up causing great harm not only to the hierarchical position of Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho in his own diocese, but a greater scandal to the Church at large, by sending a clear message that upholding the clear mandates and teachings of the church are forbidden, if they cause tension and conflict.
Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho was correct in his interpretations of church teachings, and actually applied the proper Cannons to stop this atrocity. This Brazilian Archbishop was acting in faith and in essence, was chastised for doing so. There is though that this was done, due to wanting to ‘soften’ relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration. If this is true, it goes to show how sin progresses and grows, as this election is having international ramifications.
Archbishop Fisichella’s ‘selling out’ is giving cause for the pro death camps to have hope in legalizing child killing in much of Latin America, including Brazil. This movement is being spurred on by the Obama Administration and others, with the intent to export our debauchery, and it now has the blessings of the Pontifical Academy for Life. This does not bode well for the pro life movement in general, and specifically the work to keep child killing illegal in Latin America, with the assistance of the Catholic Church.
This scandal continues to reverberate through out the Catholic world, as well as the pro life world. To have the top Prelate in such an authorative position undermine the authority of another Archbishop, as well as the church teachings is an abomination. And to do such, under the guise of ‘softening’ the relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration, is the largest admission that the Churches teachings are negotiable and changeable, if it is seen important enough to do so.
What are we, as Christians and Catholics, supposed to make of this? Do we begin to make up our own rules now? Who has the authority to teach on issues of faith and morals? Are we obligated to listen to leaders, even if they are Bishops, when they are in error? These are now questions that are up for discussion, and the secular world now has a great amount of ammunition to shoot at an institution, that has lately shown far too many poor judgments and has had its share of scandals. This is only adding to them.
Where is the faith in the Jesus that we preach? Why are too many, in positions of power, staying silent on this matter? Where are the cries and demands for Archbishop Fisichella’s resignation? This man should be removed from his post immediately, and be taught the basics of the faith that he claims to represent. There aren’t words in the English language accurate enough to describe the treachery and betrayal that Archbishop Fisichella has dealt to the faith and the pro life cause. This is one of the moments that the verse from Mark 9:42 comes to mind: “Whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone be hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea”
Friday, February 19, 2010
HELL CARE'S REINCARNATION
George Offerman
It seems hell care will not die, or seemingly keeps coming back in different forms. There needs to be pressure put on the so called republican pro lifers to do something about this, instead of staying silent, as they have for the most part. This is the future of our country we are looking at, and if this goes through, there will most likely never be a big enough majority to overturn this, and most likely, very few in public office will have the intestinal fortitude to even try. As stated before, if this goes through, we will have rationing, and the quality of what everyone will receive will be drastically reduced.
There are instructions at the bottom of this article that give some directions in contacting your representatives and senators. We don’t know how much difference we can make in the few days we have, but if this goes through, we will have plenty of time to regret the lack of action taken when there was a possibility of doing something. I hope everyone has been preparing, because if this is written into federal law, and we are unable to overturn this, in effect we have just signed our own ‘death warrant’ as the blood guilt will be nearly insurmountable.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly is now
reporting that the final health care proposal is
expected to be released by the White House "as
early as Feb 21" -- just three days from today.
Abortion proponents are aggressively assembling a
coalition to ram through a health care bill that
is fully expected to mandate abortion coverage and
government funding of abortion.
With a final version expected out as early as
Sunday, it's clear that abortion advocates know they're on
The verge of having the votes they need to force this
Bill through in a way that is filibuster-proof:
"The most likely way forward is for the House to
Clear the Senate's health care bill (HR 3590) and for
The Senate to pass a package of changes to it, using
The filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.
That set of changes would incorporate the deals
Struck with the House, which would then send the new
Package to the White House. Obama would first sign the
original Senate bill, then the 'corrections'
package. The last measure signed into law would be the
one that dictates the final shape of the overhaul."
You see, the House passed the Stupak language that
would save lives and protect taxpayers from
funding abortion -- but it was completely stripped from
the Senate version.
With intense pressure mounting for the House to
Just roll over and pass the Senate version, millions of
lives are at stake!
President Obama has refused to address the issue
Of abortion -- and every indication is that he will
Keep abortion funding as a centerpiece of his proposal.
And with the immense amount of pressure that House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid have been applying to pro-life members of
Their party, we must act NOW!
We've been working around the clock to put
together a coalition of like-minded groups, leaders, and
activists to press for Stupak language -- that protects
innocent human life in the final bill.
Now we need YOU to tell that to Congress!
*** ACTION ITEM ***
Please contact your members of Congress to tell
them: "Do not support any health care reform bill that
does not include the Stupak language to block
government funding of abortion!"
Here's how to reach them:
--> REPRESENTATIVES:
http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/representatives
--> SENATORS:
http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/senators
We're in the final stretch, and this is when your
Voice counts the most. Let's keep up the pressure and
STOP the Abortion Mandate in Health Care!
For Life,
Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition
http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com
It seems hell care will not die, or seemingly keeps coming back in different forms. There needs to be pressure put on the so called republican pro lifers to do something about this, instead of staying silent, as they have for the most part. This is the future of our country we are looking at, and if this goes through, there will most likely never be a big enough majority to overturn this, and most likely, very few in public office will have the intestinal fortitude to even try. As stated before, if this goes through, we will have rationing, and the quality of what everyone will receive will be drastically reduced.
There are instructions at the bottom of this article that give some directions in contacting your representatives and senators. We don’t know how much difference we can make in the few days we have, but if this goes through, we will have plenty of time to regret the lack of action taken when there was a possibility of doing something. I hope everyone has been preparing, because if this is written into federal law, and we are unable to overturn this, in effect we have just signed our own ‘death warrant’ as the blood guilt will be nearly insurmountable.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly is now
reporting that the final health care proposal is
expected to be released by the White House "as
early as Feb 21" -- just three days from today.
Abortion proponents are aggressively assembling a
coalition to ram through a health care bill that
is fully expected to mandate abortion coverage and
government funding of abortion.
With a final version expected out as early as
Sunday, it's clear that abortion advocates know they're on
The verge of having the votes they need to force this
Bill through in a way that is filibuster-proof:
"The most likely way forward is for the House to
Clear the Senate's health care bill (HR 3590) and for
The Senate to pass a package of changes to it, using
The filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.
That set of changes would incorporate the deals
Struck with the House, which would then send the new
Package to the White House. Obama would first sign the
original Senate bill, then the 'corrections'
package. The last measure signed into law would be the
one that dictates the final shape of the overhaul."
You see, the House passed the Stupak language that
would save lives and protect taxpayers from
funding abortion -- but it was completely stripped from
the Senate version.
With intense pressure mounting for the House to
Just roll over and pass the Senate version, millions of
lives are at stake!
President Obama has refused to address the issue
Of abortion -- and every indication is that he will
Keep abortion funding as a centerpiece of his proposal.
And with the immense amount of pressure that House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid have been applying to pro-life members of
Their party, we must act NOW!
We've been working around the clock to put
together a coalition of like-minded groups, leaders, and
activists to press for Stupak language -- that protects
innocent human life in the final bill.
Now we need YOU to tell that to Congress!
*** ACTION ITEM ***
Please contact your members of Congress to tell
them: "Do not support any health care reform bill that
does not include the Stupak language to block
government funding of abortion!"
Here's how to reach them:
--> REPRESENTATIVES:
http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/representatives
--> SENATORS:
http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/senators
We're in the final stretch, and this is when your
Voice counts the most. Let's keep up the pressure and
STOP the Abortion Mandate in Health Care!
For Life,
Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition
http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
THAT PESKY LITTLE MATTER CALLED BLOOD GUILT
George Offerman
While the debates rage on about how to deal with the present situations in the pro life movement, very little attention seems to be paid to the theology behind the thought processes and philosophy of the pro life movement. This is most evident in the idea of glossing over the debate about blood guilt, and the fact that God has given very clear laws pertaining to the slaughtering of the innocent, and the idea that shed innocent blood does cry from the ground, and needs to be avenged.
This theology is at best, minimized, and at worst, denied. The idea of blood guilt and the justice of God goes very contrary to what is being taught by most mainstream Christian Churches, and essentially leaves many very uncomfortable if challenged in their lukewarm ideologies, and comfortable lifestyles. If we take a simple and honest look at scripture, we will begin to see a pattern in which God is the originator of law, and the ultimate judge of the law. Throughout scripture, God has intervened in history to stop the spread of sin, when the church, his representative on earth, fails to do its job.
One often hears how God would not judge us, and the Old Testament times are ancient history. This is a great mischaracterization of God’s nature, as He is unchanging, and knows the beginning from the end, unlike us. It is taught from the pulpits and embraced by our comfort and convenience oriented culture, and is quite woven into its fabric. It is too inconvenient to think about God’s Judgment, and most would rather believe that in the end, we all make it into heaven, and essentially, can pretty much do what we want until then.
This is a grave error. Yes, God is merciful, as has been demonstrated by our 37 year track record of failure and compromise, but this is not a permanent condition. God also balances mercy with judgment, which is essential if God is truly pure love. Love dictates the defense of the weak and infirmed, and the innocent. This love can and does include the destruction of the guilty, as is demonstrated in the Old Testament, and in Revelation in the New Testament.
Scripture is very clear that when God’s patience wears out with mankind, He breaks into history and judges. Judgment can take many different forms, but usually, death is involved, and it is targeted at the perpetrators. The problem is that we no longer see ourselves as perpetrators, but rather as sophisticated, caring, non judgmental people, and believe that a loving God will not do anything against us. Again, this is a mischaracterization of God’s nature, and one that very well may be experienced very soon. It is shameful that the church no longer teaches these truths, and would rather allow the majority of Christians to live a life of ignorance and mediocrity than to be loving, and teach the truth.
Those who want to hold to the ‘fact’ that Jesus abolished the law upon his death and resurrection are gravely mistaken. Jesus himself stated “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Matt 5:17-18. As we can see, there is still an earth, and the end has not yet come, so all is not fulfilled. This is apparent in the many warnings in Revelation pertaining to Babylon and the mark, and culminates in Jesus slaughter (capital punishment) of all the evil people at the time of the second coming. So for people to make the statement that Jesus is all love, and without a sense of justice, and would and does not judge is in great error.
Blood guilt is a difficult and sobering topic, and too often gets in the way of convenience and comfort, and is dismissed too quickly by the mainstream Christian churches and pro life movement. It is very evident in the fact that incrementalism reigns supreme, and the majority see it as acceptable that the Church and pro life movement does not go for the total defeat of legalized child killing in one fell swoop. This is a lack of faith, but more importantly, it demonstrates the poverty of thought in these organizations, and when the consequences of these actions occur, neither will be ready for them.
Blood Guilt requires expiation, and although it is true that one can be forgiven for sinful behavior, that individual or group must still deal with the consequences of the sin. The consequences and debt of 52 million deaths is still outstanding, and like it or not, we will have to pay this price. By refusing to change the laws and end legalized child killing, we make ourselves co conspirators with the killers, and will be held accountable for the lack of actions on our part. Every day that we do little, we heap more coals on our heads, and increase the price of the consequences. This is theology that is not taught in the mainstream churches, and it may be a very common topic of conversation very soon if we don’t repent and change our ways.
While the debates rage on about how to deal with the present situations in the pro life movement, very little attention seems to be paid to the theology behind the thought processes and philosophy of the pro life movement. This is most evident in the idea of glossing over the debate about blood guilt, and the fact that God has given very clear laws pertaining to the slaughtering of the innocent, and the idea that shed innocent blood does cry from the ground, and needs to be avenged.
This theology is at best, minimized, and at worst, denied. The idea of blood guilt and the justice of God goes very contrary to what is being taught by most mainstream Christian Churches, and essentially leaves many very uncomfortable if challenged in their lukewarm ideologies, and comfortable lifestyles. If we take a simple and honest look at scripture, we will begin to see a pattern in which God is the originator of law, and the ultimate judge of the law. Throughout scripture, God has intervened in history to stop the spread of sin, when the church, his representative on earth, fails to do its job.
One often hears how God would not judge us, and the Old Testament times are ancient history. This is a great mischaracterization of God’s nature, as He is unchanging, and knows the beginning from the end, unlike us. It is taught from the pulpits and embraced by our comfort and convenience oriented culture, and is quite woven into its fabric. It is too inconvenient to think about God’s Judgment, and most would rather believe that in the end, we all make it into heaven, and essentially, can pretty much do what we want until then.
This is a grave error. Yes, God is merciful, as has been demonstrated by our 37 year track record of failure and compromise, but this is not a permanent condition. God also balances mercy with judgment, which is essential if God is truly pure love. Love dictates the defense of the weak and infirmed, and the innocent. This love can and does include the destruction of the guilty, as is demonstrated in the Old Testament, and in Revelation in the New Testament.
Scripture is very clear that when God’s patience wears out with mankind, He breaks into history and judges. Judgment can take many different forms, but usually, death is involved, and it is targeted at the perpetrators. The problem is that we no longer see ourselves as perpetrators, but rather as sophisticated, caring, non judgmental people, and believe that a loving God will not do anything against us. Again, this is a mischaracterization of God’s nature, and one that very well may be experienced very soon. It is shameful that the church no longer teaches these truths, and would rather allow the majority of Christians to live a life of ignorance and mediocrity than to be loving, and teach the truth.
Those who want to hold to the ‘fact’ that Jesus abolished the law upon his death and resurrection are gravely mistaken. Jesus himself stated “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Matt 5:17-18. As we can see, there is still an earth, and the end has not yet come, so all is not fulfilled. This is apparent in the many warnings in Revelation pertaining to Babylon and the mark, and culminates in Jesus slaughter (capital punishment) of all the evil people at the time of the second coming. So for people to make the statement that Jesus is all love, and without a sense of justice, and would and does not judge is in great error.
Blood guilt is a difficult and sobering topic, and too often gets in the way of convenience and comfort, and is dismissed too quickly by the mainstream Christian churches and pro life movement. It is very evident in the fact that incrementalism reigns supreme, and the majority see it as acceptable that the Church and pro life movement does not go for the total defeat of legalized child killing in one fell swoop. This is a lack of faith, but more importantly, it demonstrates the poverty of thought in these organizations, and when the consequences of these actions occur, neither will be ready for them.
Blood Guilt requires expiation, and although it is true that one can be forgiven for sinful behavior, that individual or group must still deal with the consequences of the sin. The consequences and debt of 52 million deaths is still outstanding, and like it or not, we will have to pay this price. By refusing to change the laws and end legalized child killing, we make ourselves co conspirators with the killers, and will be held accountable for the lack of actions on our part. Every day that we do little, we heap more coals on our heads, and increase the price of the consequences. This is theology that is not taught in the mainstream churches, and it may be a very common topic of conversation very soon if we don’t repent and change our ways.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
DEFUND VIRGINIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
George Offerman
As reported on the Les Femmes site, the personhood bill was killed in the Virginia house of delegates committee due to two of the Republicans Delegates Albo (R Springfield) and Kilgore (R-Wise) voting no, due mainly to the VCC’s refusal to support this bill. This leaves a black mark on the two Virginia Bishops, Paul Loverde of Arlington, and Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond. See link:
http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2010/02/virginia-bishops-help-defeat-hb-112.html
It is not surprising that either of these Bishops did not back this legislation, as both have had histories of betraying magisterial teachings, with Bishop Loverde having pro lifers arrested fro distributing catholic teachings before the election, and serving communion to baby killers in his diocese. Bishop DiLorenzo has the scandal of Catholic Charities of Richmond taking a ward of the state for an abortion and covering it up.
The personhood bill is about the most effective way to end legalized child killing out there, and the Virginia Catholic Conference, along with the two Bishops, have effectively betrayed the pro life movement, Catholicism, and the efforts of those who put their heart and soul behind the efforts to get this passed. It is unclear as to the exact reason the two Bishops have opted to not support this bill, but it is becoming clearer that these men are not looking out for the best interests of women and unborn children, but their own comfort and convenience. It is shameful that they have disobeyed magisterial teachings in lieu of taking a possibly uncomfortable, but moral position on this issue.
While the two Bishops of Virginia continue to want to hide behind ambiguous statements and contradictory behaviors, it is time for good Catholics of Virginia to defund the Virginia Catholic Conference. It seems the only color these two Bishops see is green, and the only language they understand incorporates the names of dead presidents. So we Catholics of Virginia need to speak their language and see the world in their color and send them a resounding message that ‘enough is enough”.
The language the Church seems to understand loud and clear is the reduction of charitable giving, and it is in this that we the laity have leverage. If the church wants to act in a secular fashion, they should go to the government for funding. If the Church is afraid of losing their tax exempt status and the IRS, then they can go fund raise at the IRS. If the church is going to cave in to this government, with their immoral and unethical laws, then the Church should just make it official and become state sponsored. God’s laws supersede man’s in matters of faith and morals, and if the church wants to play confused in this arena, let them fend for themselves.
When money and funding sources become more important than the integrity of the churches teachings in matters of faith and morals, then it is time to remove this impediment or “god’ from the source of power, and take back what is rightfully ours. The Bishops have no excuse in not fighting for the babies lives, and it is scandalous that they have not supported the personhood amendment. It is difficult to know what exactly motivates them to say little to nothing, but one thing is for sure: it is not biblical or holy.
All of the pushing social agendas by the Church hold no water, when the same body believes that saving babies is minimally equivalent to poverty, economy, health related issues, so called global warming and such. In many instances, it is seen as inferior, and overlooked when their favorite politicians are in town, and they get invited to posh parties. No, there is little incentive to rock the boat, and expect Catholics to act like Catholics, and selling out has become the norm for this group. The Apostles would be very ashamed and embarrassed by the current crop of ‘Shepherds”. Defund them. It’s what they understand.
As reported on the Les Femmes site, the personhood bill was killed in the Virginia house of delegates committee due to two of the Republicans Delegates Albo (R Springfield) and Kilgore (R-Wise) voting no, due mainly to the VCC’s refusal to support this bill. This leaves a black mark on the two Virginia Bishops, Paul Loverde of Arlington, and Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond. See link:
http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2010/02/virginia-bishops-help-defeat-hb-112.html
It is not surprising that either of these Bishops did not back this legislation, as both have had histories of betraying magisterial teachings, with Bishop Loverde having pro lifers arrested fro distributing catholic teachings before the election, and serving communion to baby killers in his diocese. Bishop DiLorenzo has the scandal of Catholic Charities of Richmond taking a ward of the state for an abortion and covering it up.
The personhood bill is about the most effective way to end legalized child killing out there, and the Virginia Catholic Conference, along with the two Bishops, have effectively betrayed the pro life movement, Catholicism, and the efforts of those who put their heart and soul behind the efforts to get this passed. It is unclear as to the exact reason the two Bishops have opted to not support this bill, but it is becoming clearer that these men are not looking out for the best interests of women and unborn children, but their own comfort and convenience. It is shameful that they have disobeyed magisterial teachings in lieu of taking a possibly uncomfortable, but moral position on this issue.
While the two Bishops of Virginia continue to want to hide behind ambiguous statements and contradictory behaviors, it is time for good Catholics of Virginia to defund the Virginia Catholic Conference. It seems the only color these two Bishops see is green, and the only language they understand incorporates the names of dead presidents. So we Catholics of Virginia need to speak their language and see the world in their color and send them a resounding message that ‘enough is enough”.
The language the Church seems to understand loud and clear is the reduction of charitable giving, and it is in this that we the laity have leverage. If the church wants to act in a secular fashion, they should go to the government for funding. If the Church is afraid of losing their tax exempt status and the IRS, then they can go fund raise at the IRS. If the church is going to cave in to this government, with their immoral and unethical laws, then the Church should just make it official and become state sponsored. God’s laws supersede man’s in matters of faith and morals, and if the church wants to play confused in this arena, let them fend for themselves.
When money and funding sources become more important than the integrity of the churches teachings in matters of faith and morals, then it is time to remove this impediment or “god’ from the source of power, and take back what is rightfully ours. The Bishops have no excuse in not fighting for the babies lives, and it is scandalous that they have not supported the personhood amendment. It is difficult to know what exactly motivates them to say little to nothing, but one thing is for sure: it is not biblical or holy.
All of the pushing social agendas by the Church hold no water, when the same body believes that saving babies is minimally equivalent to poverty, economy, health related issues, so called global warming and such. In many instances, it is seen as inferior, and overlooked when their favorite politicians are in town, and they get invited to posh parties. No, there is little incentive to rock the boat, and expect Catholics to act like Catholics, and selling out has become the norm for this group. The Apostles would be very ashamed and embarrassed by the current crop of ‘Shepherds”. Defund them. It’s what they understand.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
PRO LIFER'S CLOSE MINDEDNESS
George Offerman
There continues to be demonstrated confusion among many in the pro life movement about means of conduct in general, and the Roeder situation in particular. It seems more and more, there is rigidity in thought and behavior, and what one should do, be and think if pro life according to their definition. The problem is, this formula is not working, and the seeds of defeat are already sown into this.
One has to look no further than 37 years nearly 52 million dead, increases in every type of debauchery, violence and substance abuse, coupled with the deafening silence of the churches, and the very well known strategy of incrementalism espoused by the mainstream pro life movement. Why many continue to argue we are winning, and the goal of the pro life movement is to change hearts and to educate goes to show how out to lunch the mainstream pro lifers really are.
It is very disturbing to see people of high reputation in this movement, such as Gregg Cunningham, continue to go after those who think differently than him, and it is safe to say that Gregg Cunningham would be a mainstream pro lifer. What is disturbing about Mr. Cunningham in his attacks on Randall Terry, then Jill Stanek, is the intolerance for any thoughts other than his. Neither of these people “condoned” Roeder’s killing of Tiller, yet the rigidity is there. No tolerance for any questions or thoughts outside of Mr. Cunningham’s and this goes to show how highly Mr. Cunningham thinks of his own thoughts.
I came across an article written 3 years ago by Neal Horsley, then a candidate for governor for the state of Georgia. In this article, Mr. Horsley goes into great detail concerning the problems of the pro life movement, and how leaders such as Mr. Cunningham actually do harm by confusion they sow into the debate. Mr. Horsley takes it a step further, and uses the term treason, to describe what Mr. Cunningham and others are doing, and in essence locking in legalized child killing as the law of the land, versus really changing it. I will place a few paragraphs from this article below, and the rest of the article can be found using the link after the quotes.
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONFUSION OF GREGG CUNNINGHAM, ET AL
CBR makes it their business to send a stream of trucks--trucks costing millions of dollars--across the nation and the world. On the side of those trucks in pictures ten feet tall we see the dead, eviscerated bodies of little people, people who were killed in the USA with the full protection of LAW, the full protection of the federal government of the USA. But at the same time CBR does that, CBR issues messages to the Christians and others in this nation that unequivocally tell everyone that they must support the government that creates the conditions leading to the pictures on the side on their trucks. CBR issues definitions of "violence" that make it clear people are not even allowed TO THINK ("justifiable homicide is not cognizable," CBR tells us) about treating the babies who are pictured on their trucks the way we would expect every other person in this nation to be treated if they were in imminent danger of being torn limb from limb like those babies.
With this fundamental contradiction in view, is there anybody alive who fails to see the confusion CBR creates?
While it is true that God sometimes brought confusion into the camp of those who opposed Him. It has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case, that God brings confusion among those who live their lives in His service. The presence of confusion within the Body of Christ is ALWAYS a sign that the Body has been invaded by a virus, an alien trespassing agent, an invader that must in time be cut off from the Body unless the whole Body be destroyed.
http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifetreason.html
The sad part about much of Mr. Cunningham’s writings is the fact he uses the term anti abortion in many instances versus pro life, but seems to use this term as a pejorative to those he does not agree with. In his own definition of violence, Mr. Cunningham states it is “Physical assaults against the person or property of people who perform elective pregnancy terminations”. In looking at this terminology, Mr. Cunningham does not even acknowledge human life and the murderous implications it holds. This language, especially “elective pregnancy terminations’ is more Orwellian and soft petals the whole aspect of child killing. I guess as long as one doesn’t acknowledge that a human being is being brutally murdered, we can agree on this ghastly definition.
By sugarcoating child killing with neutral wording, Mr. Cunningham is actually promoting and propagating legalized child killing. It would seem that Mr. Horsley is correct in stating that Mr. Cunningham does not see an end to the “legalized’ piece of the child killing, for if it were so, the child killer could not have a set office, with set times to do set procedures (murders) and be handsomely paid, for immoral and illegal acts. Like crack houses or moon shiners, force would be used to stop the activities, and the perpetrators would be in jail immediately.
Words mean things. When someone of the stature of Mr. Cunningham uses his legalese to sugarcoat the activities of a heinous enterprise, he is only propagating this system, and may want to use whatever defense he may, but my request to Mr. Cunningham is at least don’t claim to do it in the name of the Living God, when minimizing the destruction of his most precious creation.
There continues to be demonstrated confusion among many in the pro life movement about means of conduct in general, and the Roeder situation in particular. It seems more and more, there is rigidity in thought and behavior, and what one should do, be and think if pro life according to their definition. The problem is, this formula is not working, and the seeds of defeat are already sown into this.
One has to look no further than 37 years nearly 52 million dead, increases in every type of debauchery, violence and substance abuse, coupled with the deafening silence of the churches, and the very well known strategy of incrementalism espoused by the mainstream pro life movement. Why many continue to argue we are winning, and the goal of the pro life movement is to change hearts and to educate goes to show how out to lunch the mainstream pro lifers really are.
It is very disturbing to see people of high reputation in this movement, such as Gregg Cunningham, continue to go after those who think differently than him, and it is safe to say that Gregg Cunningham would be a mainstream pro lifer. What is disturbing about Mr. Cunningham in his attacks on Randall Terry, then Jill Stanek, is the intolerance for any thoughts other than his. Neither of these people “condoned” Roeder’s killing of Tiller, yet the rigidity is there. No tolerance for any questions or thoughts outside of Mr. Cunningham’s and this goes to show how highly Mr. Cunningham thinks of his own thoughts.
I came across an article written 3 years ago by Neal Horsley, then a candidate for governor for the state of Georgia. In this article, Mr. Horsley goes into great detail concerning the problems of the pro life movement, and how leaders such as Mr. Cunningham actually do harm by confusion they sow into the debate. Mr. Horsley takes it a step further, and uses the term treason, to describe what Mr. Cunningham and others are doing, and in essence locking in legalized child killing as the law of the land, versus really changing it. I will place a few paragraphs from this article below, and the rest of the article can be found using the link after the quotes.
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONFUSION OF GREGG CUNNINGHAM, ET AL
CBR makes it their business to send a stream of trucks--trucks costing millions of dollars--across the nation and the world. On the side of those trucks in pictures ten feet tall we see the dead, eviscerated bodies of little people, people who were killed in the USA with the full protection of LAW, the full protection of the federal government of the USA. But at the same time CBR does that, CBR issues messages to the Christians and others in this nation that unequivocally tell everyone that they must support the government that creates the conditions leading to the pictures on the side on their trucks. CBR issues definitions of "violence" that make it clear people are not even allowed TO THINK ("justifiable homicide is not cognizable," CBR tells us) about treating the babies who are pictured on their trucks the way we would expect every other person in this nation to be treated if they were in imminent danger of being torn limb from limb like those babies.
With this fundamental contradiction in view, is there anybody alive who fails to see the confusion CBR creates?
While it is true that God sometimes brought confusion into the camp of those who opposed Him. It has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case, that God brings confusion among those who live their lives in His service. The presence of confusion within the Body of Christ is ALWAYS a sign that the Body has been invaded by a virus, an alien trespassing agent, an invader that must in time be cut off from the Body unless the whole Body be destroyed.
http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifetreason.html
The sad part about much of Mr. Cunningham’s writings is the fact he uses the term anti abortion in many instances versus pro life, but seems to use this term as a pejorative to those he does not agree with. In his own definition of violence, Mr. Cunningham states it is “Physical assaults against the person or property of people who perform elective pregnancy terminations”. In looking at this terminology, Mr. Cunningham does not even acknowledge human life and the murderous implications it holds. This language, especially “elective pregnancy terminations’ is more Orwellian and soft petals the whole aspect of child killing. I guess as long as one doesn’t acknowledge that a human being is being brutally murdered, we can agree on this ghastly definition.
By sugarcoating child killing with neutral wording, Mr. Cunningham is actually promoting and propagating legalized child killing. It would seem that Mr. Horsley is correct in stating that Mr. Cunningham does not see an end to the “legalized’ piece of the child killing, for if it were so, the child killer could not have a set office, with set times to do set procedures (murders) and be handsomely paid, for immoral and illegal acts. Like crack houses or moon shiners, force would be used to stop the activities, and the perpetrators would be in jail immediately.
Words mean things. When someone of the stature of Mr. Cunningham uses his legalese to sugarcoat the activities of a heinous enterprise, he is only propagating this system, and may want to use whatever defense he may, but my request to Mr. Cunningham is at least don’t claim to do it in the name of the Living God, when minimizing the destruction of his most precious creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)