#1559 (4/14) "Female Fighters on the Navy's Radar"

"FEMALE FIGHTERS ON THE NAVY'S RADAR" -  Tony Perkins, Washington Update, April 13, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16D15&f=WU16D04 [AS I SEE IT: We need to be praying that whoever the next President is, the political tinkering with the nature of our military will either be stopped or at least scaled back. The changes that have been put in place has not made our military stronger and if nothing else has decreased morale and recruitment. Previous posts have described how our military readiness itself has been reduced in light of the growth of those hostile to our country. To then also weaken us from within with decisions such as this latest one makes me wonder if our enemies are not just foreign but domestic  as well. - Stan]

There's no turning back now. That was the message from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus after Defense Secretary Ash Carter decided to ignore the advice of his military chiefs and bring women into the most dangerous, grueling roles in the service. Mabus, who's ushered in years of the president's extremism, dropped by Camp Pendleton this week to start paving the way for the integration that Marines openly oppose. "Once you've set the standards, once you've made them job-related, [then you say], 'We are not going to change no matter what.'"

Despite a year's worth of research about the catastrophic effects of opening infantry jobs to women, Mabus and Carter are charging ahead with a change that everyone agrees will lead to the drafting of women. "Marines," the Navy's top civilian told a crowd of 1,400, "we're past the decision now. The Secretary of Defense has made the decision. Now we're into implementing." Shrugging off criticism from veterans like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who argued that the branch is ignoring the impact on military readiness, Mabus pressed on as chief cheerleader of the new policy. "We are stronger because we have Marines of color," he told the troops sitting cross-legged on the concrete. "Same thing when 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' got repealed. We're stronger because we don't judge people by who they love but on whether they can do the job as Marines. A more diverse force is a stronger force."

Unfortunately for Mabus and his boss, the evidence doesn't exactly bear that out. Then, as now, political operatives openly rejected the opinion of military leaders with battle-tested experience, who cautioned that we were opening up our troops to grave danger. Five years of sexual assaults, suicides, recruitment woes, and low morale later, we see they were right. As with DADT, Tuesday's pep rally was accompanied by the usual promises that the military wouldn't lower physical standards or push for gender quotas. Of course, Congress was assured that opening the military to people who identify as homosexuals wouldn't trample religious liberty or pave the way to transgender service in 2010 too. We all see how that turned out.

General Neller has been blunt about the obstacles of introducing women to things like hand-to-hand combat, after political appointees ignored his advice about the negative consequences. "I have concerns about retention. I have concerns about injury rates. I have concerns about propensity to re-enlist, career progression. I have concerns about what's gonna happen if the numbers are low," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee soberly. But, he recognized, "We have a decision and we're in the process of moving out. We will see where the chips fall. And, again, our hope is that everyone will be successful. But hope is not a course of action on the battlefield."

Marines at Camp Pendleton gave Mabus's speech mixed reviews. The ones who agreed to be interviewed admitted that it's been difficult to adjust to so many changes. But it's the Pentagon's inflexibility that has some concerned. Mabus insists the decision is "irreversible." Says who? When did the military stop reversing decisions that undermine their mission? The day this president was elected? Fortunately for America and anyone interested in ending the real war on women, Obama's days of social engineering are numbered. "We have had enough with political correctness -- especially in the military," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has said. "Political correctness is dangerous, and the idea that we would draft our daughters, to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close contact -- I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain't doing it." [DISCLAIMER: Tony Perkins has made an endorsement in his individual and personal capacity only, and it should not be construed or interpreted in any way as the endorsement of FRC, FRC Action, or any affiliated entity.]

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

# 1558 (4/13) "Calls for American Unity Are Either Dishonest or Naive"

"CALLS FOR AMERICAN UNITY ARE EITHER DISHONEST OR NAIVE"- Dennis Prager | Apr 12, 2016;
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2016/04/12/dennis-prager-n2147082/page/full [AS I SEE IT: The time has passed when ALL Americans, despite their differences, can truly unite in pursuing policies that benefited all. Tragically, since we increasingly don't share a common belief in transcendent values, it is either dishonest or naive to claim it could be otherwise. The worldviews that clash are simply too divergent. - Stan]

Just about all candidates for president regularly announce their intent to unite Americans, to "bring us together." It's a gimmick. If they are sincere, they are profoundly naive; if they are just muttering sweet nothings in order to seduce Americans to vote for them, they are manipulative.

In his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, John Kerry, one of the most polarizing figures in modern American political history, said, "Maybe some just see us divided into those red states and blue states, but I see us as one America: red, white and blue." And President Barack Obama, who has disunited Americans by race, class and gender perhaps more than any president since the beginning of the 20th century, regularly campaigned on the theme of uniting Americans. In his 2008 victory speech, President-elect Barack Obama said: "We have never been just a collection of ... red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America."

In their current campaigns for president, Republican Gov. John Kasich and Democrat Hillary Clinton regularly proclaim their intention to bring Americans together. He, one suspects, because he is naive, and she, because she will say pretzels come from Neptune if it will garner votes. Bringing people together is actually the theme of John Kasich's entire campaign. One headline on the "Meet John" page of his website says, "BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER, LIFTING PEOPLE UP."
Senator Rob Portman said of Kasich on Feb. 1, 2016, "I am endorsing John Kasich because I believe he is the person our country needs to bring Americans together."

And Clinton, who, according to CNN, is tied with Trump for the most negatives in presidential polling for either Republicans or Democrats since 1984, also speaks repeatedly about her ability and desire to bring Americans together. The "Hillary Clinton for President Supporters" Facebook page has even said, "We're in the business of bringing people together." What's more, on April 6, 2016, CNN posted a YouTube video titled: "Hillary Clinton -- We need a president who can bring people together."..

Beyond Kasich and Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders made this a major theme in one of his ads called "Together," which begins with Sanders saying, "Our job is to bring people together." Even Trump, who divides Republicans -- not to mention other Americans -- like no Republican ever has, uses this mantra.A January article on The Hill site quoted Trump saying, "I can really bring people together."
For the record, Sen. Ted Cruz speaks about uniting Republicans, but not often about uniting all Americans.

All calls for unity by Democrats are particularly fraudulent. Dividing Americans by race, gender and class is how the left views America and how Democratic candidates seek to win elections.

But calls for unity are meaningless no matter who makes them, because no one who calls for unity tells you what they really mean. What they really mean is that they want to unite Americans around their values -- and around their values only.

Would Clinton be willing to unite all Americans around recognizing the human rights of the unborn? Would she be willing to unite all Americans around support for widespread gun ownership? Of course not. She is willing to unite Americans provided they adopt her views. Would Sanders like to "bring people together" in support of reducing corporate and individual income taxes in order to spur the economy? Would Kasich be in favor of "bringing Americans together" by having them all support increasing the size of government and the national debt? One hopes not.

I first realized the dishonesty of just about all calls for unity during a 10-year period in which I engaged in weekly dialogues with clergy of all faiths. Protestant and Catholic clergymen and women would routinely call for Christian unity. When I asked Protestants if they would support such unity if it entailed them adopting the sacraments of the Catholic Church and recognizing the pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the discussion ended. Similarly, when I asked Catholic priests if they would give up the sacraments and the papacy in order to achieve unity with Protestant Christians, all talk of unity stopped. And, of course, the same would hold true for both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews who routinely call for Jewish unity. Even more absurd are the calls of naive Christians and Jews to have all the "children of Abraham" -- Jewish, Christian and Muslim -- unite.

The calls themselves can even be dangerous. One would be hard-pressed to name a single free society that was ever united outside of wartime. The only truly united countries are totalitarian states.

So, why do presidential candidates repeat this nonsense every four years? Because Americans fall for it every four years. But it's time to grow up. The gap between the left and right is unbridgeable. Their worldviews are mutually exclusive.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Dennis Prager is a SRN radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of his newest book, “The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code.”

#1557 (4/12) "The Left’s Embrace of Authoritarian Policies to Achieve ‘Equality’"

"THE LEFT'S EMBRACE OF AUTHORITARIAN POLICIES TO ACHIEVE 'EQUALITY'" - Kim Holmes / February 29, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/29/the-lefts-embrace-of-authoritarian-policies-to-achieve-equality/

An advocate for same sex marriage in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the court heard oral arguments in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. (Photo: Pete Marovich/UPI/Newscom)

There are few ideas today that seize the minds of liberals more than equality. It is the central tenet of progressive liberalism. It drives practically everything liberals do and believe in, from income equality to marriage equality. We usually think about the problem as an economist or sociologist would—as in whether everyone has the same income or enjoys the same social status.

I’d like to ask a different question. What is it about how liberals think of equality that makes them so prone to recommend authoritarian policies to achieve it—confiscatory tax policies, campus speech codes, fining pastors, and the like?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind,” it has a lot to do with how they frame the issue. In short, they assume (at least theoretically) that any variation in how human beings fare in society, no matter how small, is more often than not an injustice. People who make less money than others are victims of economic oppression, not just people who may be willing to work less.

If a young boy suffers from gender dysphoria and wants to be treated as a girl, he is supposedly being treated unequally if a school system won’t let him enter a girl’s bathroom. Same-sex couples who don’t get legal recognition of their unions as marriages are said to be treated unequally, even though the real issue isn’t equality, but rather, as the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges made clear, a gay couple’s self-perception of dignity.

An Aggressive Approach
     The first things you notice about this approach to equality are the aggressive means to achieve it. Money must be taken from some people and given to others. You can’t force a boy into a girl’s bathroom with nice words. You need a court order. And you can’t overturn a millennia-old definition of marriage without making a fundamental change, by the majority stroke of a single Supreme Court Justice’s pen, to the Constitution.

The coercion is built into the absolute nature of the demands. We are talking about making a cultural revolution here, and nothing short of breaking lots of eggs to make the new progressive omelet is required.I don’t use the word “authoritarian” lightly, because it has the connotation of using force. But that is the mindset of these people. Try refusing to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony, and watch the fines and court orders mount.

Try, as Ben Shapiro did, to deliver a talk at Cal State Los Angeles about how multiculturalism threatens free speech, and watch as activists block the event and the university’s president tries to cancel it. Both instances involve official coercion, and they arise from an authoritarian mindset—one in which legal force and public shaming rituals are used to suppress dissent.

A Disappearing Act
     The second thing you notice is that the individual human being completely disappears. No single person is responsible for anything (unless, of course, you are a banker or conservative free speech advocate). He or she is just an object of society, a victim, or at best a rarefied “construct” of some class, gender, or sexual preference. Morality is defined not by what we do as individual human beings, but by our political attitudes and ideology. Do we advocate same-sex marriage and an expanded welfare state? Check, we are “good” people. Do we question these things? Check, we are bad and must be not merely opposed, but shut out of the debate.There’s no room for dissenters, because the new morality dictates that being a good person depends on politics, not personal behavior.

Different Is Treated as the Same
     Third, the progressive concept of equality depends on a total pretense. We must pretend that things that are inherently different must be treated as exactly the same.

For example, marriage has been understood for millennia as a union between and a man and a woman. To treat a same-sex couple as the equal of the traditional couple, we not only have to redefine the nature of marriage. We also have to pretend as if two very different things were the same. The relationships between a man and a woman on the one hand, and between two people of the same gender on the other, are obviously two very different kinds of relationships, biologically and even socially. They are factually not the same things, but we must pretend as if they were. By shifting the criterion for “marriage” equality from having children to being “in love,” we have not only blurred these differences. We are now saying that the law must treat two different kinds of relationships as identical.

A similar trick of illogic happens in racial identity politics. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that black Americans should be treated equally because they are first and foremost human beings—a trait they share with all people, including whites. He didn’t claim they deserve their equal rights because they are black, which is the tendency of racial identity politics.

King hated stereotyping of any kind, and when he said he had a dream “where [black people] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” he was making a universal claim that blacks are as individuals not at all different from white people. Their right to equality is based on their rights as individuals. He was not making any claims about black people’s group identity or demanding that blacks be treated differently; rather, he was demanding that they should be given the same exact political (read: civil) rights as whites.

King’s original vision of equality was perfectly in sync with how the Founding Fathers viewed equality. It was, as a matter of fact, taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, wanted a constitutional government that treats everyone equally before the law and protects the individual’s rights of everyone equally. That is what they meant by equality. Jefferson and other Founders understood instinctively that any form of government that promises to level all the social and economic conditions of society will result in authoritarian government. It’s inescapable.

Radical Egalitarianism
    The progressive approach to equality has a name. It’s called radical egalitarianism—the belief that all social and economic differences between people must be erased. As an idea, it has inspired leftist politics for centuries, from socialism to communism. But it is not an idea with which most Americans have historically been comfortable. Until recently, that is. There it is now, front and center, in the contemporary politics of progressive liberalism. In fact, it is safe to say that it is now the dominant ideology of American liberalism.

I don’t mean to suggest that we should not be concerned at all about economic inequality in America. America does face growing economic inequality, but it is caused at least partly by the very government policies intended to fight it—namely, welfare and government regulatory policies.
Economic inequality today is less about poor people losing out than about the middle class getting squeezed between an expanding welfare state that demands more taxes from them and a rising elite of very wealthy people who can afford the higher taxes.

One thing is for sure: As the government and the courts try to force people to accept the new values of radical multicultural state, ever more authoritarian methods will be have to be used.
We can step back from the new authoritarianism, but only if we understand the flawed nature of how its advocates view the politics of human relations.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Kim R. Holmes, a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, oversaw the think tank’s defense and foreign policy team for more than two decades. He's the author of the upcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind." Read his research.

"The Rise of Intolerant Liberals" - Kim Holmes / February 18, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/18/the-rise-of-intolerant-liberals/ 
"Liberals’ Double Standard on Bathrooms, Boycotts, and Religious Freedom" - 

Ryan T. Anderson / April 11, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/11/liberals-double-standard-on-bathrooms-boycotts-and-religious-freedom/

# 1556 (4/11) "An Open Letter To Bruce Springsteen And His Band"

"AN OPEN LETTER TO BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND HIS BAND" - Michael Brown | Apr 11, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/04/11/an-open-letter-to-bruce-springsteen-and-his-band-n2146123/page/full [AS I SEE IT: I'm now in the process of reading the author of this article's book, "Outlasting the Gay Revolution," and he is as gracious in it as he has been over his lifetime engaging others in conversation. I have yet to see one mainstream media report on "The Boss" that asks the kind of reasonable questions the author asks. It's so obvious that the media is so anxious to trumpet the viewpoint he represents that they can't bother to ask any reasonable questions. Whatever happened to "objective journalism?" - Stan]

Dear Bruce,
    As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.” You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”
I also read that your guitarist Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.” Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money.

My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. [If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then see the articles noted below.]

So, please allow me to ask you some questions.
     First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder? If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical.
     Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman. Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Let’s take this one step further.
     If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzwMJAFWLtQ&feature=youtu.be] 

Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms. Since you don’t like HB2 – indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” – what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

And one final question.
     When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?

Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter at drmichaellbrown

"Six Reasons North Carolina Got It Right" - Frank Turek | Mar 30, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2016/03/30/six-reasons-north-carolina-got-it-right-n2141010/page/full
"The True ‘Trauma Trigger’ That the North Carolina Bathroom Bill Is Designed to Prevent " - by Jane Clark Scharl, March 30, 2016; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433423/north-carolina-house-bill-2-bathroom-bill-common-sense

# 1555 (4/10) SUNDAY SPECIAL: ".... Participating in God's Plan Without Overstepping Our Bounds"

"Who's Restoring What? - PARTICIPATING IN GOD’S PLAN WITHOUT OVERSTEPPING OUR BOUNDS" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: April 6, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29116

Christians can and must make a difference in the culture. But we never impose, we only propose. Here's a point or two of clarification.

“When you talk about Christians restoring the culture,” I’m sometimes asked, “do you mean that we should take over the laws and run society? Because, you know, that’s been tried before, and it didn’t go so well.”

I can understand the confusion. One source of the confusion is that there are some Christians who do propose something like this. Some of them are following the theological ideas of R. J. Rushdoony, who is considered to be a founder of what is known as Christian reconstructionism. Others just use language like “taking back America” or “conquering the seven mountains of culture.” They seem to imply a sort of Christian takeover of the key segments of culture. Another source for the confusion is eschatology, or competing visions about the end times. And yet another source would be mainstream media outlets, particularly those on the far left, who are constantly worrying about Christians conspiring to impose a theocracy—typically through a candidate they do not like. (I only wish they had more trouble finding sound bites to support their conspiracy theories).

Like I said, I understand where this confusion comes from. But I’d like to offer what I think Chuck Colson meant when he called for Christians to make a difference in the culture.The Gospel, as described in the Holy Scriptures, can be said to have four chapters: creation, fall, redemption and restoration. It’s easy to get the impression from how Christians talk about the Gospel that it only has two chapters: fall and redemption, or sinner and salvation.

But it’s important to include the first and fourth chapters for a number of reasons. Most important because they’re there in the Scripture. The Bible begins by describing in great detail what God intended for His creation—for the world. He created and for the image bearers He created to take care of it. In fact, it’s the brilliance (or to use biblical language, “the very goodness”) of God’s creation that makes the fall such a tragedy.

God loved His world, and especially His image bearers, so much that He set in place His plan to redeem through His Son what was fallen. That redemption was accomplished when He defeated sin and death and rose from the grave.

But even that isn’t the end of the story. In fact, in his sermon in Jerusalem after receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter preaches not only that Christ had risen from the dead but that He had ascended to take His seat at God’s right hand, who had put everything under His feet. In other words, Christ’s resurrection led to Christ’s enthronement.

“Ha!” you say. “See—that sounds like you think Christ is King of everything and that we ought to force everyone to think like you do.” Well, yes, Christ is King of everything. But no, Christ’s Kingdom advances now not by force, but by love. Christ’s rule will fully be recognized when He, as the apostle John quoted Jesus as saying, “makes all things new.” Jesus will make a new creation, culminating in a new heaven and new earth. That’s how the story ends—and it’s brilliant. In fact, don’t take my word for it, do a study comparing Genesis 1-11 with Revelation 7-21 and read for yourself how the Kingdom is ultimately the restoration of God’s creation. It’s incredible!

Now what’s this have to do with us? Well, we live in this story, and our moment is between redemption and restoration. And Paul describes that in 2 Corinthians 5, that those of us who have been reconciled ought to become those who reconcile. We participate in God’s plan. And we do it like our Savior did, through love, through sacrifice, through making wrongs right, through pointing people to the One who makes them right with their Creator, who is their Creator.

My colleague Warren Cole Smith and I fully lay out this vision, and what it calls us to, in the first part of our book Restoring All Things. And thanks to our publisher, Baker Books, you can get a free downloadable pdf of the introduction and first chapter. Just go to BreakPoint.org/free to request a download.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
Restoring All Things: God's Audacious Plan to Change the World Through Everyday People
- John Stonestreet, Warren Smith | Baker Books | May 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"4 Responses to Cultural Change"- Ed Stetzer, Apr. 1, 2016;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/march/4-responses-to-cultural-change.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=18503153&utm_content=428676976&utm_campaign=email
"...Countering culture means engaging culture with conviction and compassion. We stand firmly on the truth of God, empowered by the Spirit, to extend the love of Christ to the world. Our desire isn’t to conquer but to redeem. It matters what we do, how we do it, and why we do it. The heart of every Christian should burn with desire for God’s glory. We can’t sit back and remain silent while God isn’t glorified and people are on a path that ultimately leads to self-destruction. We must ask God to cause His name to be known and loved in our culture. That desire should drive not only our personal prayers but also our public lives on a daily basis. A wrong response to culture is more than unhealthy or unhelpful. Engaging our culture is literally a matter of life or death."

#1554 (4/9) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Women Sitting in Abortion Clinic Waiting Rooms are Lobbied to Sell Their Aborted Babies"

"WOMEN SITTING IN ABORTION CLLINIC WAITING ROOMS ARE LOBBIED TO SELL THEIR ABORTED BABIES" - Rep. Marsha Balckburn, Apr. 7, 2016  | http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/07/women-sitting-in-abortion-clinic-waiting-rooms-are-lobbied-to-donate-their-aborted-babies/
 
When was the last time you talked to a woman who had suffered, with regret, through the abortion process? As you listened to her tell her story, what did you learn? Did you hear her regret, frustration, embarrassment, and confusion?

Any time abortion becomes part of the public debate, many people run to their corner with their predetermined position. Their mind is made up, and they have their position on the issue. I, like many women, return to one simple question that has served as a trustworthy guide over the years: “Who is being harmed?” Learning about harm comes from listening to women, learning their stories. This is not merely intellectual content; it is discernment about what is in the heart of each of us.

The modern abortion culture that once said it was all about “safe, legal, and rare” has today set mothers against their own children as though they are enemies. Instead of providing genuine counseling and support for women during a difficult time and a hard decision, staff members add up tallies on white boards listing the clinic’s abortion quotas for the month, according to what we have heard from former managers of abortion clinics. Managers of those clinics recount being told that “everyone who is pregnant who comes through the door gets an abortion.” Clinic workers are told to “up-sell” everyone with additional testing, products, and services — all to improve the bottom line. Basically, the clinics are looking for profit.

Abortion clinics that 15 years ago would’ve spent an hour with young pregnant women now brag that they see five women in an hour. Many of today’s clinics perform webcam abortions, except in states where these have been banned because of numerous life-threatening injuries and deaths resulting from the practice. The abortion culture has become hardened and coarsened. Is this really a good environment for women?

At a recent congressional hearing on bioethics and fetal tissue by the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, we learned that while sitting in abortion-clinic waiting rooms, women — some who are young, impressionable minors — are lobbied by tissue-procurement techs to donate their babies’ body parts for research. The consent form displayed in our hearing was called “deceptive” by a Democratic witness because it promised treatment and cures for dreaded diseases.

Equally troubling, the same tissue tech aide who is seeking consent is paid a bonus for every part or organ donated. The tech sees the private HIPAA-protected file of the young patient to get her name and her baby’s gestation so that the tech can make more money that day. As one witness said, “contemplating an abortion is among life’s most stressful events,” and now the woman who is doing so has a salesperson, working on commission, trying to get consent for tissue donation. Have abortion clinics become all about the bottom line?

Recent hearings before Congress have presented the case to ban late-term abortions of babies who are viable, to recognize fetal pain and the harms to women caused by abortion, and to acknowledge that hundreds of people are survivors of abortion — though other babies born alive are allowed to die in the clinic.

So hardened is the abortion culture that on Sunday, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton asserted: “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” Set aside that this view disregards the many rights given to persons by the Constitution. Consider the appalling fact that abortion advocates now insist that the decision to let a baby die who was born alive during an abortion is strictly between the mother and her doctor. When the idea that a newborn child does not have any rights or personal dignity becomes common, harm — serious harm — is not far behind. The harm comes broadly to children. The harm comes to the very idea of children. And the harm comes to the well-being and long-term health of the mother.

Our communities, families, churches, and government should walk alongside a pregnant woman who faces challenges; we should help her welcome her child into the world. The abortion culture says that pro-life advocates don’t care about the mother or her child after the child is born. That is a lie. We [pro-life advocates] believe that a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy deserves unexpected joy — a life filled with promise that includes her child. In stark contrast, today’s abortion industry cares only about helping itself.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews Note: Rep. Marsha Blackburn serves as chairwoman of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives and is vice chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She represents the seventh congressional district of Tennessee.

# 1553 (4/8) "Gov. Bryant Stands Up to Liberal Bullying, Signs Mississippi Religious Freedom Bill"

"GOV. BRYANT STANDS UP TO LIBERAL BULLYING, Signs Mississippi Religious Freedom Bill" - Roger Severino / Apr. 05, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/05/gov-bryant-stands-up-to-liberal-bullying-and-enacts-mississippi-religious-freedom-bill/

The law prevents discrimination in a manner that is balanced and clear, which left little room for ideological opponents to make wild hypothetical accusations against the bill. (Photo: Flickr/ USDA/CC BY 2.0)

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, has signed the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, a law that guarantees religious freedom in the wake of last year’s activist Supreme Court decision redefining marriage for the country.

The left, big business, and even Planned Parenthood weighed in against the legislation. Mississippi policymakers, reflecting the overwhelming support of the state’s citizens, stood up to the bullying and enacted commonsense religious liberty protection.

The law protects religious beliefs in a precise and balanced way:
* Religious organizations, like churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnize weddings that violate their beliefs.
* Religious convents, universities, and social service organizations can continue to maintain personnel and housing policies that reflect their beliefs.
* Religious adoption agencies can continue to operate by their conviction that every child they serve deserves to be placed with a married mom and dad.
* Bakers, photographers, florists and similar wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience.
* State employees cannot be fired for expressing their beliefs about marriage outside the office, and individual state clerks can opt out of issuing marriage licenses so long as no valid marriage license is delayed or impeded.
* Counselors and surgeons cannot be required to participate in gender identity transitioning or sex-reassignment surgeries against their faith and convictions while guaranteeing that no one is denied emergency care or visitation rights.
* Private businesses and schools, not bureaucrats, get to set their own bathroom, shower, and locker room policies.

Only these specific persons or organizations, and only in these specific contexts, will be protected from government punishment and coercion—whether that coercion might come in the form of penalties and fines, license-stripping, or loss of access to government programs or tax exemptions.

In his signing statement, Bryant noted that the law simply protects individuals against government coercing them against their beliefs and that it does so “in the most targeted manner to prevent government interference in the lives of the people.” As he emphasized—contrary to wild accusations by the bill’s opponents—the law does not take away anybody’s rights and does not challenge the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision.

That’s exactly right. The law prevents discrimination in a manner that is balanced and clear, which left little room for ideological opponents to make wild hypothetical accusations against the bill, as they had done with Indiana’s religious freedom proposal last year.

This victory should also give a boost to religious liberty provisions under consideration in other states and the First Amendment Defense Act introduced in Congress, which mirrors many of Mississippi’s protections. [For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.”] 

Sports bodies, big business, and other state governments have threatened every state considering similar religious freedom legislation with boycotts and relocation.While Georgia and West Virginia folded under the pressure, the people of Mississippi have proven they can stand up to bullies by standing for religious freedom. Bryant, the legislature, and the people have made a wise choice by enacting commonsense policy.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Roger Severino is the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

"Mississippi Is on the Right Side of History" - Genevieve Wood / April 07, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/07/mississippi-is-on-the-right-side-of-history/