Moral Action Committee
6273 Miller Road
Swartz Creek, MI 48473
Executive Director:  Dr. Roy L. McLaughlin  

California’s Robed Radicals

On May 15, 2008, a group of robed radicals, otherwise known as the California Supreme Court, issued a 4-to-3 opinion finding a new constitutional right for men to “marry” other men and for women to “marry” other women.  It is tragic that four unelected robed radicals can invalidate the overwhelming majority opinion of California’s citizens, who voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Once again, we see an exercise in judicial activism – of judges wielding raw political power to redefine our most basic values.  We should not be shocked; this is the way the Left always wins.  Liberals very seldom achieve their goals through the democratic process via the elected legislatures, so they by-pass the people and go to the courts, where they can rely on political activists cloaked in black, who answer to no one.  Liberals succeed most often by using the most undemocratic methods possible.

The three judges who were not in agreement with this decision denounced the majority’s ruling as a “profound error,” that violates the separation of powers.  Justice Marvin Baxter wrote: 

“The majority . . . simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.  The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  On the contrary, as the majority concedes, ‘our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.’” 

Sadly, too few of California’s “best” legal minds shared this common sense view, and the majority’s “profound error” in judgment could have profound implications coast-to-coast.  Recently, homosexual activist Wayne Besen described the tremendous impact this decision could have.  Here’s what he wrote:

“If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America’s largest and most influential state – and is not overturned by a Constitutional Amendment – it will be the biggest earthquake to hit in years.  The sheer number of couples who will marry (and divorce, it is California, after all) will forever change this debate.  It will cause a legal mess, as many of these married couples – often with children – migrate to states that still discriminate.  The consequences of such relocations will force the entire country to grapple with this issue.  No longer will the debate be theoretical, but will focus on the discrimination endured by families whose married status vanishes the moment they cross state lines.”

Besen does not overstate his case.  Challenges to state marriage amendments and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act are coming.  Even though the voters of 27 states have approved the inclusion of marriage protection amendments to their state constitutions, those state amendments are still subject to review in the federal courts.  Unfortunately, that is where the issue is likely headed unless the people of California take decisive action this November.

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no law restricting marriage to state residents.  Professor Douglas Kmeic, a law professor at Pepperdine University, said “The Massachusetts ruling was confined, more or less to its own state. . . . Homosexuals can’t get married in Massachusetts if they aren’t already state residents, or they don’t come from a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.  In California, there’s no waiting period, there’s no residency requirement, and so this decision doesn’t just affect a single state with a very large population, it has the capacity to be exported into other states.”

The result could be chaos from coast-to-coast if thousands of homosexuals from all over the country go to California to get “married” and then return to their native states and file suit to have their “marriages” recognized.  Such litigation will result in challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and will end up before the United States Supreme Court.  Few pro-family leaders would be willing to risk allowing the current make-up of the Supreme Court to define the meaning of marriage.

This nightmare scenario could be snatched away from the evil doing of judicial activism of liberal robed radicals (liberal federal judges).  The citizens of California have the opportunity this November to constitutionally protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  The fight will not be easy, but if that amendment passes, the California Supreme Court’s arrogant decision will be negated.

Do not be afraid, my friends, but let this same-sex ruling be a big time wake-up call.  We cannot be complacent.  This is our nation too, and the culture war over our values is real.  Do not forget, only one side will prevail, and that is why it is so important for men and women who cherish faith, family and freedom to be engaged and willing to “fight the good fight” for our values.  The Moral Action Committee will be actively involved in this battle, and I hope you will support us as we fight to defend marriage and family in America!

The “Religious Wright-Wing”

The good and the bad news is that Senator Hillary Clinton has finally found her “religious right wing conspiracy” which she had blamed for trying to discredit her and Bill’s co-presidency.  You do remember their time in the White House.  Who can forget the days when we heard the sad stories of Whitewater, Travelgate, Monicagate, FBI Filegate, etc?  During those days they were even using the Lincoln bedroom as a reward hotel for their big donors.

The point is Hillary Clinton was always blaming a massive “religious right-wing conspiracy” for stirring up all their problems.  Even some who read this article probably bought into the concept that America would have been better off without all the religious leaders who tried to influence voters to retire their co-presidency before their eight year term was complete.  Anyone who bought into her rantings about the wrongness of the “religious right wing”.  They blamed Republicans and preachers who pointed out some improper acts of the Bill and Hillary’s co-presidency for violating the bogus “separation of church and state” clause in the Constitution.

Well guess what, Hillary has finally found her “religious right-wing conspiracy,” but it is actually spelled, “Wright-Wing Conspiracy.”  She was right, it is a religious leader who is behind this movement and he does have enormous influence on the U.S. government.  However, he happens to be a flaming liberal.  His name is Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his influence is over a leading Senator of America, by the name of Senator Barack Obama.  This “Religious Wright-Wing Conspiracy” may be the biggest treat to her long-time dream to be president.

Who would ever question Hillary’s ability to speak the truth?  After all, we know she was not named Hillary, as she claimed, after Sir Edmond Hillary, who became famous for being the first person to climb Mt Everest.  The truth was that she was already five years old when he accomplished that feat.  We also know that she did not fly into Bosnia under gun fire as she claimed on the campaign trail and only told the truth when the press produced video showing her being greeted by children, not bullets.  So, who would dare question her about this new discovery of the “Religious Wright-Wing”?

What about this “Religious Wright-Wing Conspiracy”?  Somehow the other candidate running for the Democratic nomination had “Rev. Wright” as his pastor for 20 years, but we are being told that Senator Obama never really knew his pastor believed that the U. S. government invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks.  Obama also claims he was not aware of the Rev. Wright’s claim that the terrorist’s 9/11 attack on American was God’s judgment for the way blacks have been mistreated.  By the way, I wonder why the Senator from Illinois hasn’t grown the courage to speak with his pastor and tell him that black people also died in the 9/11 attack.  “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness…”  [Is. 5:20]

At least we know where Obama stands on abortion.  On March 29, 2008, Obama said, "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old.  I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.” So according to Obama a baby is a “punishment”, not a precious life.  “My substance was not hid form thee when I was made in secret…[Ps. 139:15]

Where is the cry for “separation of church and state” from either Senator or from the media.  I guess racism and mixing religion is OK if you are a liberal.  Being a liberal also means that you are suppose to be in favor of so called “hate crimes” and “hate speech”.  When the  Hate Crimes Bill was voted on in Congress, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama voted for its passage and spoke of how it was a moral issue.

Just think, if the bill had been passed into law, anyone who heard Rev. Wright’s sermons against the wrongness of white people, had later gone out and shot anyone other than a black person, they would hopefully be in jail, but so would Rev. Wright, because some of his sermons contain “hate speech” toward a race of people. 

I must be balanced in my article, and I fully intend to be.  On the other side of the aisle, as they say in politics, the Republicans do not have high ground to stand on either.   Consider the apparent nominee for the Republicans, Senator John McCain.  He is no Sunday School teacher.  His wife and he continue to make a fortune off the liquor industry, and he has not been consistent in his stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment.  Nor has he been strong on the immigration issue or embryonic stem cell research.

Then consider our current President, George W. Bush, who last year made the most unbelievable statement while speaking at the dedication service of a Muslim mosque in Washington D.C.   He said, "I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God."  Our hope is that the President had not read his speech until he opened it for the first time before his audience.  Regardless, a Christian should never make such a heretical statement.  Jesus Christ and Allah are not the same!  “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.: [Ex. 20:3 ; John 14:6]

When you consider McCain, Hillary and Obama, who should a Christian vote for?  I cannot answer that question for anyone but myself.  I have never endorsed any candidate and will always vote for a candidate based on their values and principles and not their political party.  Politicians change, principles do not.  This is certainly true when it comes to moral issues and is absolutely true when it comes to moral issues clearly addressed in the Word of God.

I want to close with addressing a very important statement you will hear frequently during any election.  People often say:  “I will just vote for the lesser of two evils”, which means that you are still voting for evil.  Here is the way I personally approach an election.  I try to vote for the candidate who will demonstrate the best influence on the office they seek.  When it comes to the Presidency, the next president will have enormous influence on the Supreme Court, federal judges, the right to life, stem cell research, biblical traditional marriage, private, public and home schooling, as well as national security.  So I ask myself, which candidate by their words and actions demonstrates that they will influence our nation with a Judeo-Christian perspective.

So there is a “Religious Wright-Wing Conspiracy” and this one is frightening!  Let us watch everyone who has screamed “separation of church and state” to see if they now scream as loudly about the real “Religious Wright-Wing”.  The point is that there is in this country an Anti-Christian movement and a double standard when it comes to preachers and politics.  Both politicians and the media have turned their heads away from the liberal religious activities and have pretended they did not even exist.  Wake Up America, before it is too late!

It’s Not About “Rights” It Is About Being Called “Normal!”

It could well be said that the courts are the most undemocratic arenas for settling public policy disputes.  This is certainly true when it comes to the California State Supreme Court which began hearing a consolidated case seeking to overturn the Golden State’s law on traditional marriage on March 4, 2008.  The law supporting traditional marriage was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000.  The far ranging effect of this State Supreme Court’s decision will have tremendous national implications.  Here is how one homosexual rights activist described the importance of this case:

“Because it’s California, where one-eighth of the U.S. population lives, with its enormous influence on culture and politics, the stakes are huge.  If we can win marriage in California and see the next Congress have one-eighth of its membership from a state where same-sex couples can marry, that changes everything politically and it will vastly accelerate the general momentum already in our favor.”

It is a tragedy anytime a court gives a “stamp of approval” to the radical notion of homosexual “marriage” and undermines the fundamental principle that boys and girls deserve a mother and a father.  This fact is not based on bigotry, but common sense supported by biology.  The courts in California have approved of men “marrying” other men before.  In 2005, a judge in San Francisco struck down the state’s marriage laws, a decision that was later overturned by a state appeals court.  Now the case is going before the State Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a ruling in 90 days.  I’m not optimistic.  The militant homosexual movement and the radical Left generally are very good at cherry-picking their cases and courts.

On March 5, 2008, a report in the Los Angeles Times suggests the justices were very divided based on the questions they were posing to the attorneys.  According to the Times, “at least three of the seven justices repeatedly noted that California voters have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and that the public might not be ready to embrace same-sex marriage.”  One Justice, Carol Corrigan asked the pro-homosexual attorneys arguing for the court to invalidate the law “to show here where the state constitution addressed same-sex marriage.”  To all of us who are pro-biblical marriage, this is a sign that she may be unwilling to invent a new right that has clearly not been recognized in law or tradition.   

It was Justice Carlos Moreno who exposed the true motivation behind this lawsuit to overturn traditional marriage.  Justice Moreno asked the San Francisco city attorney if the state’s domestic partnership law, which provides the legal rights of marriage to homosexual couples, was sufficient.  The city attorney said it was not, and Justice Moreno asked, “Doesn’t this just boil down to the use of the ‘M’ word, marriage?”  (There you have it, dear reader.)  The San Francisco attorney conceded, “That symbol has deep meaning.”  Indeed it does, which is why the militant homosexual rights movement has focused so much attention on achieving what it refers to as “marriage equality.”  But equality in terms of legal rights and privileges simply isn’t enough.

The homosexual movement is not seeking legal rights.  Most of the rights that are frequently bandied about in this debate can be achieved through simple legal instruments widely available to anyone for any reason, such as wills and power of attorney.  What the militant homosexual movement is seeking is the acceptance and normalization of its lifestyle.  I am sure praying that this never happens.  For all of recorded history, marriage has meant one thing, and it has a sacred connotation in virtually all societies.  By circumventing the elected legislatures, the homosexual rights lobby is asking our courts to use the brute force of big government to overrule popular opinion, biblical teaching and biology when it comes to the meaning of marriage and the common sense understanding of family.  But the government does not possess such power and not even a unanimous ruling from the United States Supreme Court can overturn “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

It is sad but true, that too many liberal judicial activists do not have the wisdom, nor the humility to clearly understand the limits of their own power and strangely seem to lack the ability to comprehend the true meaning of written law.  Therefore, it is absolutely essential that every committed Christian educate himself on how their elected representatives vote on all key moral issues.  May each of us encourage our elected representatives in State and National office to put a marriage protection on the ballot.

The Triumph Of Liberalism?

The city known for its “avant garde” culture is an example of decadence run amok.  The city which recently openly mocked the Last Supper in a vile advertising campaign.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, refused to condemn the ad mocking the Last Supper.

But most disturbing is the growing hostility toward Christianity in the city named for a saint.  According to several press reports, a “performance artist,” Paul Addis, was caught the last week in October trying to set fire to a historic cathedral.  Deputy Police Chief Morris Tabak said authorities have no known motive for the attempted arson, but Addis reportedly did say “something about it was his religious right.”  Two weeks prior, an 18 year-old man was arrested for trying to set a convent on fire, while six nuns were sleeping inside.

Now, let’s just put our hypothetical hat on.  If there were two attempts to burn abortion centers or “gay bars,” in say, Dallas, Texas, and if there were constant mockery of liberal iconic causes there, we would be subjected to regular items on the evening news about mean-spirited conservatives in Dallas and how their hatred is fomenting violence.  There would be demands for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and conservatives everywhere to denounce the attacks.

But when it goes on in San Francisco and the targets are Christians, there is silence.  The triumph of the radical left in San Francisco has created an atmosphere of hate against Christians - - and no one in Big Media cares.

ENDA Legislation Would Enshrine Homosexuality in Federal Law

On November 7, 2007, the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would give homosexuals and bisexuals special rights in the workplace.  The liberals in the Democratic-controlled House have displayed extreme arrogance by apparently believing they have the authority to nullify any constitutional provisions which it finds bothersome.  Thirty-five liberal Republicans broke with conservatives to help draw a line through the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, passing it 235-184.

On November 7, 2007, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):

“This legislation drastically weakens religious freedom in the workplace and puts activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states.  Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past - liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country.  I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.”

According to a White House statement, this legislation threatens to add federal recognition to homosexual “marriages” recognized under state law, as in Massachusetts.  “Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law.  These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman.  The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”

House Republican Whip Roy Blount, R-MO., Wednesday said the legislation “takes dead aim at religious freedom” and creates conflict between one’s right to religious freedom and another’s right to sue you for exercising it.”

“The so-called ‘Employment Non-Discrimination Act’ creates a legal quagmire for employees who practice, or even acknowledge, their religious beliefs – depending on where they happen to work and subject to judicial interpretation,” Blount said.  “In the process, it erodes a basic, fundamental right bestowed upon us by our Creator and a right guaranteed to every American under the U.S. Constitution.”

Once more, the liberals in Congress are attempting to join hands with like-minded judges and all others who continue to drive a proverbial knife into everything good and God honoring.  Even attempting to destroy Churches and Christian enterprise, the Boy Scouts, and anything that respects or honors biblical truth.  It is time that we call on Congress to pass a “Hate Crimes Law” to protect morality.

By the way, here is the vote tally:

                        Yea  /  Nay

Democrats:       200        25

Republicans:       35      159

White House comment line:  202-456-1111         White House switchboard:  202-456-1414

White House fax line:  202-456-2461                  White House e-mail:  comments@whitehouse.gov  

YOU WILL HATE THE “HATE CRIMES” LAW

Here is an issue on which it is imperative we take a stand, right now, today.

Federal “Gay Rights” and “Hate Crime” Laws

The Hate Crimes bill sounds good on the surface; but it gives preferential protection to homosexuals  . . . whereas we should all receive equal protection under the law.  And should it become law, it would open the door to prohibiting churches from preaching that homosexuality is a sin – thereby possibly subjecting churches that do so to losing their tax-exempt status, and heavy penalties.  In addition, Hate Crimes legislation would pave the way for the government to later tell churches what else they can and cannot preach from the pulpit.  Pastors would then be put into the difficult position of choosing to obey man’s law or God’s laws – not to mention all of the other ramifications of this dangerous bill.

This radical “hate crimes” law would threaten to treat pastors as an “accessory” to acts of violence against individuals who engage in homosexual behavior.  In places where it’s already been enacted, such “hate crime” laws have resulted in a Swedish pastor being jailed, a Catholic bishop in Canada being hauled before a “human rights” tribunal for saying marriage should remain between a man and a woman, a dozen Christians - - including two grandmothers, one black, one white - - being arrested and facing 40 years in prison in Philadelphia for reading Bible verses on a public street during a “gay pride” festival.

Not only does this bill clearly threaten religious freedom, its very premise is an offense to the American tradition of equal justice under law.  It would literally mean that under federal law, a criminal who physically attacks a pregnant mother, senior citizen, or small child would be punished less severely – receive a shorter prison sentence – than someone who assaults a grown man . . . if that grown man engages in homosexual behavior.

On October 2, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted to attach this so-called “hate crime” law to the bill that provides funding to our American military in a time of war.

Now our only hope to stop that bill from becoming law is to urge President Bush to veto the Defense Reauthorization Act.

Please – today – urge President Bush to VETO the Defense Reauthorization Act,

forcing Congress to pass it again without the “hate crime” amendment attached to it.

White House comment line:  202-456-1111         White House switchboard:  202-456-1414

White House fax line:  202-456-2461                  White House e-mail:  comments@whitehouse.gov  

Which Way America

I heard of an admiral – whose ship was making its way during the dark night through the deep ocean waters.  Now, the admiral had retired for the evening, but an urgent message was brought to the admiral.  The message was, “Admiral, there is a bright light directly I front of us.  What do you instruct us to do?”  The admiral replied, “Send out this message:  ‘alter your course 30 degrees to the south, and do it immediately.’”  As soon as they sent out the message, just that quickly, in a flash, came back this response, “You alter your course 30 degrees to the north.”

Well, that angered the old admiral and so he sent out another message.  The new message was. “You tell them that I am an admiral and you tell them that I said to alter their course 30 degrees to the south.”  Again, a message came back, “I am a second class seaman, you alter your course north.”  The admiral said in anger, send this message:  “I am an admiral.  I am on a battleship.  You alter your course 30 degrees south.”  A message came back:  “I am a second class seaman.  You alter your course 30 degrees to the north.  I am in a lighthouse.”

Well friend, I must tell you – God is in His lighthouse saying to America:  “America, you are on a collision course,” yet we as Americans may be saying, ”God, would you alter the course a little bit?”  But God says, “No, your ship is on the wrong course, and if you refuse to alter your course, you are going to sink into the graveyard of all Nations that have forgotten God.  I am the lighthouse – you must alter your course according to My principles.”

On July 4, 1775, this nation, the United States of America – I believe the greatest nation to ever exist – was born from a dream.  I believe that dream was placed in the hearts of our founding fathers.  God has blessed America!  No other nation has been so bountifully blessed as has the United States of America!  Our nation was founded upon the principles of the Bible and reliance upon Almighty God.  As George Washington said in his first inaugural address:  “It would be highly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to the Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aid can supply every human defect.”  Now it seems that the judgment of God is setting in upon America.  May each of us today answer God’s call to every red-blooded American patriot and pray, like the patriot of old, “O God, send us a revival.”  The Bible says in Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

One “?” . . . Who Will Be The Conservative Candidate . . .

Many people are wondering about the state of the conservative movement and wondering what to make of all the polls.  While the MAC will never endorse a candidate, my advise is to stick to the issues and ignore the polls. 

I believe it is ill-advised for conservatives to support someone at this stage of the race solely because the polls suggest that person can “win” in November of 2008.  Why do I say that?  First, the polls are virtually meaningless, testing little more than name identification, with no focus on the issues that actually drive primary voters to the polls.  Second, the race has just begun and it is likely that not all of the contenders are in, and some who are in now will likely drop out.  Third, history is littered with “failed frontrunners.”  At this stage of the 1996 presidential contest, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas was the Republican “frontrunner.”  In 2004, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was the Democrat “frontrunner.”  Both men lost, while few seriously thought the governor of Arkansas had much of a chance in 1992.  Fourth, there are facts about the candidates that remain unknown by the great bulk of voters, which will come up as time goes on, and we have yet to see a serious debate testing how these candidates will hold up under the spotlight. 

Lastly, I would stress again that issues do matter and “values voters” should not allow themselves to get caught up in “cults of personality.”  The willingness of some to back a candidate now just because the polls suggest that person can “win” suggests a gross lack of confidence in the ability of pro-family, pro-life issues to carry the day.  In fact, over the past few decades, we’ve proved the exact opposite.

The bottom line here is, there are still 19 months until Election Day 2008, the first primary is still 9 months away, and anything can happen. 

Just So You Know . . .

For those who may be thinking that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is a conservative candidate – you need to know of her March 2, 2007, keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign (a homosexual group) for a glimpse into her political priorities.  Clinton proudly proclaimed that she “wants a partnership with gays if elected president.”  She added, “I am proud to stand by your side.”  Among her comments, Clinton took issue with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and promised to fight for homosexuals to serve openly in the military.  Although she has worked to make her image more moderate, Clinton could not resist taking credit for helping to defeat the federal marriage amendment.  “ . . . This is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am President.”

_______________________________________________________________

I am sure you have herd of the (HRC) to whom Senator Clinton said she would be proud to stand by and form a partnership with when she is President!  They are the homosexual activists who want Marine General Pace forced out of the Military because he called sex between two homosexuals immoral.

Exactly what did General Pace say which upset the homosexual leaders?  Here is what he said:  “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.  I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

“I would not want acceptance of overt homosexual behavior to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not.  We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.”

Homosexual leaders said that General Pace’s comments were “insulting and offensive to the men and women who are serving in the military honorably.”  Homosexual groups are putting tremendous pressure on Congressmen and Senators and President Bush to punish General Pace.  The liberal media is strongly supporting the homosexual efforts.

Now – To Be Sure . . . Republicans . . .

 . . . Are not any better off when it comes to front runners.  Although presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is quick to say that he “hates” abortion, his recent choice of words shows little enmity for the practice.  In an interview with CNN, the former New York City mayor reaffirmed that he supports taxpayer funding for abortion.  “I’m in the same position now that I was 12 years ago…which is, personally opposed to abortion, don’t like it, hate it, would advise [women] to have an adoption rather than abortion.”  He went on to say, “But it is your choice, an individual right.  You get to make that choice, and I don’t think society should be putting you in jail.”

American women have not been at risk of jail under past abortion laws, nor are they in the future.  This canard is what the radical feminists have long said in attempt to frighten and mislead.  Then he added, “Ultimately, [abortion] is a constitutional right, and therefore…even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure that people are protected.”

I have some questions for Mr. Rudy Giuliani . . .

1.  You say abortion is a constitutional right and we have to make sure that people are protected.  Mr. Giuliani, has it ever occurred to you that the baby has a constitutional “right to life” and that right needs to be protected?

2.  If abortion is a “private” act, what business does the government have funding it?  If it is hateful, what other hateful things merit tax subsidies?

Is This Single-Issue Politics?

My Answer:  What a candidate believes about abortion tells us how he will treat other issues.  You ask, aren’t there other issues we should consider than just abortion?  A particular political office may not even have anything to do with abortion.  Might a pro-choice politician be worth voting for if he has good stands on other issues of more immediate relevance?

But voting on the basis of a single issue is perfectly legitimate.  And abortion makes a good single issue.  What a candidate believes about abortion tells us a great deal about him and how he will treat other issues.

A candidate’s position on life issues reveals whether or not he is a moral relativist.  Consider, for example, the politician who waxes eloquent about how he personally opposes abortion.  But, he goes on to say, that is just his view.  He feels he does not have the right to impose his belief on anyone else.  Every woman should have the right to her own views.  Therefore, abortion needs to be legal.

Notice what this candidate believes about morality.  The moral realm is something that exists within his own head and heads of other people.  To him, a moral principle does not have the statue of “objective truth.”  To his way of thinking, morality is not a “reality” that transcends individuals, governments, and cultures, and according to which they must be judged.

What a candidate says about abortion reveals much of his moral philosophy.  He is likely to say, “I am not pro-abortion.  I am pro-choice.”  This is a sign of the postmodernist.  The assumption here is that we construct our own reality, including our moral reality, by our will.

If a woman chooses to have the baby, that is right for her.  If a woman chooses to have an abortion, that is right for her.  But there are no moral absolutes that apply for everyone.

Postmodernists generally apply this line of reasoning to every truth claim.  They say there is no truth that is valid for everyone.  We choose our own truths.  Religion then, is not a matter of what is true of false.  People choose their religious beliefs according to what they want.

For example, some politicians are anti-abortion.  But they nevertheless support embryonic stem-cell research.  They have become persuaded that destroying human embryos to “harvest” their stem cells is morally justified.  This is because those cells could do so much good.  Isn’t killing babies of only a few cells in size worth it, they reason, if their stem cells could help cure diseases in adults?

These politicians may have pro-life records and even think they are still pro-life because they think stem-cell therapy can save lives or improve the quality of lives.  But in their moral philosophy, they are utilitarians. 

According to utilitarian ethics, something is good if it is useful.  Instead of considering an issue in terms of objective moral truth – such as, “Thou shalt not kill” – utilitarians value what “works.”

For utilitarians, the end literally justifies the means.  In politics, this position has always been the philosophy of tyrants.

A candidate’s position on this single issue also reveals whether a person is a strict constructionist when it comes to constitutional law or a judicial activist.

Abortion is the single issue that tells us about all other issues.

The Mass Media And The Intolerance Hypocrites

Losing Its Grip

There is more evidence today that the liberal “mainstream” media is losing its grip over the sources of information the American people rely on for news.  According to a new Harris poll, 50% of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior the U.S. invasion in 2003.  That is up from 36% recorded last year, and the findings surprised pollsters “in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.”  What accounts for this change?  The emergence of alternate sources of information.

The War Over The War Rages On

In the four years since coalition troops first invaded Iraq, it has become painfully obvious that some Americans have short memories and even shorter attention spans.  The liberal press has brainwashed too many Americans into saying this is not our war.  They have forgotten that this is not just a war of weapons—but a clash of moral visions and world views.  Popular or not, this is a long-term battle against radical Islam—not only for Middle East democracy but for American survival.  Bringing our soldiers home will not end the fight against terrorists, it will merely relocate it.  As President Bush often says:  “It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that our best option is to pack up and go home.  That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences to American security would be devastating.”

A New Hostage Drill . . . To Prepare . . . Christian Terrorists

It is common today for schools to conduct “hostage drills” in order to prepare kids in the event of a terrorist attack.  But you will never guess what group one high school portrayed as terrorists in a recent hostage drill:  Conservative Christians.  A drill at Burlington Township High School in New Jersey involved police depicting mock gunmen described as “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the “New Crusaders” who don’t believe in the separation of church and state.”  The mock gunman were said to have been “seeking justice because the daughter of one [member] had been expelled for praying before class.”  I say, Give me a break!

We’ve grown accustomed to the public schools indoctrinating our children with politically correct views on moral issues.  And now that every last vestige of faith has been abolished from the public schools, they’ve brought God back-but only to scare our children with the idea that conservative Christians are terrorists.

Imus, Race, and The Hip-Hop Hypocrites

By now everyone has heard about the Don Imus flap.  Imus, on of the deans of shock-jock radio & TV, referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team, in an obvious racial slur.  I certainly will never shed a tear that Imus lost his job.  Imus has a long record of verbal outrages in the name of “comedy.”  He has regularly enraged in racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian rhetoric.

But the hypocrisy in the current controversy is so deep it would take a bulldozer to move it.  Calling accomplished young black women by immoral degrading terms is disgusting.  But not many black or white youth are listening to Imus in the morning.  What they do listen to is a black “hip hop” culture that uses exactly these terms, and worse, in music and movies to describe black women.  Why hasn’t Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson held a press conference to denounce the Hip-hoppers?  A lot of Hollywood liberals have made a whole lot of money promoting violence, sexism and the degradation of black and white women.

By the way, where were the not so Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse James Jackson when Rosie O’Donnell stated on “The View” (ABC TV) that radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in America?  I guess Al and Jesse are not offended when Rosie or Imus says something about Christians.

Many Other Issues

Senate Bill 5

The Senate voted and passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act S. 5.  This bill authorizes taxpayer dollars to fund the intentional killing of human embryos for the harvesting of stem cells.  The Senate debate and vote on S. 5 is timely.  On April 10, 2007 a study was released showing that adult stem cells were developed into treatments that appear to have reversed type 1 juvenile diabetes in 13 patients.  This breakthrough is just one in a long list of ethical adult and umbilical cord stem cell therapies that have successfully treated over 70 diseases.  President Bush has vowed to veto the bill.

_______________________________________________________________

 How Do Christians Respond?

There Are Five Basic Church And Society Models Of Response

Isolation            This approach advocates a total or near-total isolation of Christians from society.  “If we forget about the world, it won’t bother us.”

Accommodation     This approach encourages the Church to accommodate itself to society in order to influence it.  This has been the general approach of Protestant liberalism.  It seeks its identification within society.  On the one hand, it avoids the extreme of isolation, while conversely it generally succumbs to a capitulation of its values to those of the secular society.

Condemnation       This is the position of many militant fundamentalists who are quick to condemn the ills of society while offering little or nothing to correct them.  They know what they don’t like, but are rarely clear about what to do about it.