Hat tip to Brotherhank at Lawn Gospel.

Get the story from KBTX.com.

Many pro-life groups have, over the years, called for laws in various states that would require that women considering abortions be shown certain information, told certain things, presented with ultrasounds, accurate scientific information about fetal development, etc..

Whenever this comes up, we’re accused of calling women stupid, of saying that they’re not intelligent enough to inform themselves, and whatever else. It’s patently untrue, of course.

Here’s one of those stories that puts the lie to that counter-argument:

Planned Parenthood Director Leaves, Has Change of Heart

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

After she … what?

After she actually watched what she was supporting? After she learned the truth, by being exposed to accurate scientific information?

Abby Johnson is now with the Coalition For Life, which is quite a reversal. This, after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. After being shown actual, accurate, and honest information, she decided to leave her job, repent of her involvement in the abortion industry, and switch sides so completely that she’s now working with the Coalition For Life. If there’s an opposite of Planned Parenthood, it would be the Coalition For Life.

There’s also a bit of honesty here that Ms. Johnson is exposing. The dirty little secret behind “safe, legal, and rare” and any other malarkey that PP and other pro-choice organizations likes to toss around:

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

There’s more money in abortion than in pregnancy prevention. This makes sense, if you consider the fee-for-service model. That doesn’t make it right.

Norma McCorvey, the pro-life activist once known as Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade), has a similar story in her life: once she was made aware of what abortion really did, past the euphemisms and slogans, she couldn’t back it any longer.

Let’s be honest about it: the abortion industry wants to prevent ultrasound and informed consent, certainly parental consent, laws for the same reason that tobacco companies wanted to prevent warning labels, oil companies don’t want to discuss pollution, and clothing retailers don’t want to discuss China’s human rights situations. They’re making money by the lies.

Hat tip to PJMiller at Sola Dei Gloria.

Looks like the Interfaith Alliance has jumped into the war on incivility.For Immediate Release
October 21, 2009

Clergy and Faith Leaders Call for Civility

Washington, DC – A group of prominent faith leaders brought together by Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of Interfaith Alliance has released an open letter to other religious leaders, politicians, and pundits calling for civility in public debate and to specifically refrain from using inappropriate references to the holocaust and Nazis. A copy of the letter along with its signers follows.

An open letter to religious leaders, politicians, pundits and the public:

In the last month, we have seen an alarming number of public figures use the Nazis and the Holocaust as metaphors in public debate on issues critical to this country. This development is but the most vile example of the disturbing language that has insinuated itself into our national dialogue. Examples of this divisive and ill-spirited rhetoric include:

-Richard Land, a leader and spokesperson in the Southern Baptist Convention
compared some of the proposed health care reforms to ”what the Nazis did.”
Actually, Land bestowed a “Joseph Mengele Award” on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the president’s chief health-care adviser. After strong criticism, Dr. Land apologized for his comments, though he offered no apology to Dr. Emanuel.

-The Republican National Committee was asked to take down a link to a YouTube video parody where subtitles in a movie portraying Hitler were doctored to convey the impression that Hitler was criticizing the Democrats’ health care proposals.

-Fox News Host Glenn Beck compared the treatment of Fox News by the Obama Administration to the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust

-Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) referred to the failure to reform the U.S. health care system as a “holocaust.” Grayson later apologized stating that he in no way meant to minimize the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was a tragic event in which the Nazis systematically murdered six million Jews. The Nazi regime that perpetrated this mass genocide was one of the most horrific in world history. There is no place in civil debate for the use of these types of metaphors. Perpetrators of such language harm rather than help both the integrity of the democratic process and the credibility of religious commentary.

We the undersigned faith leaders call on our colleagues in all religious communities as well as elected leaders, commentators, pundits and others engaged in public debate to refrain specifically from using inappropriate Nazi and Holocaust references and, generally, to help restore civility to our national dialogue.

Sincerely,
The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
President, Interfaith Alliance

I’ve talked about this before, especially the cheapening of Nazi imagery. Seriously, people, is this what you want to do?

I have been an admirer of Dr. Land, and I’m repulsed by his “Mengele” comment. Dr. Mengele was a monster who performed vile experiments on human beings. Dr. Emanuel is a part of an effort to make health care available universally. One is free to disagree with Dr. Emanuel, but it hardly makes him worthy of comparison to Dr. Mengele.

Glenn Beck’s reference is patently absurd, and I don’t think any honest reader can defend it. Until and unless Pres. Obama orders killings of Fox News officials, staff, and collaborators, to make this comparison is so stupid as barely to need comment.

Rep. Grayson has apologized for his remark, but only for trivializing the Holocaust. Dr. Land, by the way, apologized to the Anti-Defamation League for the same thing. Neither has, to my knowledge, apologized to the people whom they compared to Nazis.

Seriously. It’s time for this to stop.

Listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins by the Catholic Church, and listed many times as a sin throughout the Bible, I wonder whether we still consider greed to be a sin.

After all, I’m told, capitalism relies on the greed of business leaders.

First of all, this is a flawed understanding of capitalism.

Second of all, if that was true, then no Christians should support capitalism, right?

So I ask, putting the question simply and plainly: Do we still consider greed to be a sin, or have we made an excuse for it as a culture?

Several other bloggers have written great posts about this, and I haven’t until now. I’ve been trying not to do so. I read too much about it today, though, and as my blood boils I have to vent. Andrew Schlafly, the son of Phyllis Schlafly, is the brains behind what might be the most loathsome thing I’ve ever seen: the Corrupt … err, … “Conservative Bible Project.”

Yes, that’s right. Mr. Schlafly is tired of all of those liberal-sounding things in the Bible, and so he’s going to fix it once and for all. Whereas most Christians view the Bible (including legitimate translations) as the Word of God, Mr. Schlafly views it as a rough draft. Some of us wrestle with the Word, pray about its meaning, and try to work out what it means and how we relate parts that seem to conflict. Mr. Schlafly simply wants to remove or reword that which he finds challenging.

The Conservative Blasphemy … ummm, … I mean, Bible Project takes the King James Version and changes the language, edits out the undesirable parts, and proceeds with what they call a translation. Taken from the explanation on Conservapedia (the site Mr. Schlafly constructed because Wikipedia is too biased):

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:^[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level^[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;^[4] Defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;^[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”

Most people who read this think that it’s a joke at first. I’m sad to report, it’s not. Andrew Schlafly has actually taken it upon himself not just to mis-interpret Scripture, which would at least leave room for discussion, but to change the actual wording of Scripture for his purposes. Note that his purposes are political in nature. He states very clearly that language problems are the minor source of difficulty. His use of the word “bias” seems to mean anything that seems to indicate a liberal-like message.

Clearly,  Mr. Schlafly believes that Jesus would be a Republican. Worse than that, he wants to strike out any evidence to the contrary.

As noted in the passage cited above, and on PJMiller’s blog, Mr. Schlafly has decided not to include at all the story about Jesus interrupting a stoning and saving the life of a woman being condemned for adultery. This removes from the Gospels the saying, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and therefore we don’t need to spend any time worrying about whether we’re being overly-judgmental. Simply dismiss the passage as a fake! Doesn’t that make life easier?

At one point, the Conservative Bible Politicization … ummm … Project even committed the utter absurdity of calling the Pharisees “Liberals.” I do have to note that this has been fixed, but the idea that they would even consider this kind of nonsense is beyond infuriating. Caiaphus himself looks respectful of Scripture compared to these people.

Look also at what they want to remove and why. Listed as the first example of a falsehood, they go after one of the famed sayings from Jesus while He hung on the Cross:

First Example – Liberal-Promoted Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke lack this verse fragment set forth at the start of Luke 23:34:^[7]

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by liberals without regard to its authenticity? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals, although it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke. It should not appear in a conservative Bible, because in point of fact Jesus might never had said it at all.

The fact that the statement does not appear in any other Gospel is irrelevant. Many things appear in only one Gospel. If we are to ignore that which was reported by only one Gospel, then we’ll be missing quite a lot. Frankly, as this explanation goes on, we see the shallow thinking of the arrogant apostates “translators.” None of the persecutors knew what they were doing. Whether they should have is another question, but no one knew what was happening. Not one of them knew that they were killing the Son of God. The Romans, of course, would have virtually no access to the teachings of Judaism. As for the Jews, most of them didn’t get what was happening. They had thought that the Messiah was going to be a forceful leader to expel Rome the way Moses had led them out of Egypt. Even most of the disciples didn’t get what was happening … certainly the rest of the crowd had no idea.

Worst, though, they are simply removing a passage from the Bible because they don’t think it makes sense, and so they attribute it to bias. There is no need to reconsider one’s prejudices if this is how we look at the Bible. The Bible will simply be rewritten to say what one wants it to say.

Make no mistake … I’ve heard liberal theologians exercise some rather-stunning convolutions to try to explain how a teaching can possibly fit with the Bible. At least, though, they engage in that exercise. This leaves open the possibility of realizing a conflict and having to respond to it. Mr. Schlafly has declared powerfully that he simply doesn’t care. That which conflicts with his ideology will be removed.

If Mr. Schlafly chooses to print his final work, perhaps the cover should be emblazoned with a golden calf. It would seem an appropriate way to celebrate this piece of idolatry. Ironically, this means that Mr. Schlafly is engaging in the most liberalized Bible interpretation I’ve ever seen.

Alright, so I’ll comment on a current event. Fine.

On NPR this afternoon, I was listening to a discussion about the confrontations between President Obama and the Fox News Channel and various charges going back and forth, not the least of which being that Pres. Obama apparently said that Fox is not a real news network.

President Obama seems to have a problem keeping focused on items deserving of Presidential attention. He should not have allowed himself to get into the Harvard professor/Cambridge police situation, and he should not be stooping to get into this muck.

That’s why he has subordinates. If someone on his staff made such a comment as his/her own remark, it would be one thing. For it to come from the President is, well, un-Presidential.

The truth is, Fox isn’t a real news network. Of course it isn’t. It’s a mouthpiece for the Right. If not before, it completely sold out when it decided to put on a right-oriented comedy show a couple years ago. You’ll note that other news networks don’t have comedy shows. That Fox is known for its commentators, and not its reporters, is another telling fact.

The difference between me saying this and the President? I’m a stay-at-home dad with a blog. I’m not under any obligation to act Presidential.

By stepping into this nonsense, Pres. Obama allows himself to get into a tete-a-tete that cannot ever be productive. This kind of argument will, inevitably, degenerate into Fox supporters and Obama supporters yelling “Is not!” and “Is too!” at each other.

Won’t that be fun?

It creates a distraction from anything productive. While some might think that this is exactly what Pres. Obama has in mind, I think it’s a bit simpler — this is a miscalculation. The truth is, Pres. Obama doesn’t have a lot of time in a national spotlight, and isn’t handling it particularly well. If he wasn’t the President, it could be amusing to watch him have fits over the criticism — whether just or not. There are many other examples … people who aren’t President, don’t handle criticism well, and are amusing to watch. You know which ones I mean, I think.

(Updated)

Sigh …

Right after I wrote my piece, I found this one from John Shore. It’s better. Read it.

Since you might well not know the song, here it is:

I’ll admit, it’s an acquired taste. It did little for me at first … but once it clicked, I fell in love with this song!

Jim came walkin’ down the road

Singin’ songs and hummin’ on hymn tunes

Though he’d never set foot in a church on Sunday morning

The smile on his face looked kinda outta place

Considerin’ the looks of his shirt and shoes

Made me wonder what kept him going

Spent most of his lonely young days

Working downtown in the sawmill

And a childhood is somethin’ he’s never known

All the extra time he had on his mind

Every now and then his heart would spill

And he’d start singin’ all the way home

Chorus

And he’d sing I, I don’t know much

But I know a Love

And one day I’ll be sittin’ up in heaven on an easy chair

Sippin’ lemonade, love lives there

Round ’bout that time the bells chimed

And the church doors flew open

And a whole herd of saints came runnin’ along Jim’s way

Talkin’ ’bout salvation, hope and love

And everything else they didn’t know about

And when they saw Jim all of that changed

Now it takes a special kind of man

To avoid a confrontation

And everywhere Jimmy looked he had nowhere to go

They started throwin’ out names,

Throwin’ punches, and throwin’ laughter

And when they were through, blood was drippin’ from his nose

Chorus

And he sang I, I’ve heard about blood

I think it stands for Love

And one day I’ll be sittin’ up in heaven on an easy chair

Sippin’ lemonade, loves lives there

Now Jim knew what he had inside of him

And wouldn’t hear nothin’ different

The moral to the story is he just keeps on keepin’ on

Now he ain’t whitewashed,

You won’t find him on the corner prayin’

He just knows his Love and knows his song

Chorus

And he sings I, I got all I want

‘Cause I’ve got my love

And one day I’ll be sittin’ up in heaven on an easy chair

Sippin’ lemonade, love lives there

Yeah, one day I’ll be sittin’ up in heaven on an easy chair

Sippin’ lemonade, love lives there

Yeah, one day I’ll be sittin’ up in heaven on an easy chair

Sippin’ lemonade, love lives there

Yes, I’d like to see Jim in a church. I see profound merit and Biblical obedience in being part of a church community. But look at what the song’s saying. Right here –

And a whole herd of saints came runnin’ along Jim’s way

Talkin’ ’bout salvation, hope and love

And everything else they didn’t know about

Wow. A “herd of saints” talking about the very thing that makes faith mean anything … described as “everything else they didn’t know about.” You see, Jim doesn’t know much, but he knows Love. The herd of saints? They’ve just got religion.

How often does religion get in the way of love? It shouldn’t, but let’s be honest … it does.

Jim loves God and knows that God loves him. He shows that love to others. The herd of saints? There they were, deriding Jim for not being one of them …

Something worth considering.

I promise, this story is only about Rush Limbaugh as an illustration …

On NPR this morning, I heard a story that Rush Limbaugh is part of a bid to buy a football team, the Rams. This, not surprisingly, has resulted in much controversy. At least one owner has come out and said he’ll vote against Limbaugh (apparently, 24 of the 32 owners have to vote to let him in).  Players were quoted, including — not surprisingly — Donovan McNab.

Frankly, I almost feel sorry for Mr. Limbaugh. Although he’s chosen this life, I’m not sure he realized it. The key word, though, is “almost.” (At this point, some people who know me in real life should realize about whom I’m actually speaking.)

Rush Limbaugh has carved himself a niche in American culture, and he’s king of his own little hill. He collects homage from other radio hosts and Republican officials seek his favor. Unfortunately, he sometimes tries to use his title as king to win favor elsewhere … and he finds that the dung heap which is his hill has a lingering effect.

The story I heard this morning, which appears not to be available online yet, quotes Limbaugh as saying that he loves the NFL and is sorry that his bid to own a small part of a team has become so divisive. Here’s a similar story, though.

Therein lies the first lesson. Limbaugh has a history, and that comes with him. Limbaugh lasted one broadcast on ESPN, because he decided to make a racial comment. A “highly-trained broadcast specialist” should have known better. I would think that “Know your audience” is an important rule in broadcasting. As a businessman, he needs to know that by not knowing his audience then, he has made enemies among those he needs to back him now.

Limbaugh has become the radio personality that he is by attacking people, sometimes viciously, often unfairly, always with complete disregard for the other person. His sole objective is to tear the other person down, and he does it well. If that is how you want to live your life, then keep in mind that, like the 5th grade bully who dominates the playground but has no friends, you’ve chosen a path and that path has a destination.

Limbaugh often defends his show by proclaiming that some of his most offensive lines are really just funny, or that he’s “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” or that no one can really understand his show until they’ve listened for six weeks. The thing about that is that a lot of people aren’t willing to invest that kind of time into what they find offensive. If you choose to be the sort of person who lives by that sort of humor, then that’s your choice … but be aware of where that will get you. Do you want to be the guy who makes a joke and has a small group laughing and a larger group just fuming?

If so, then bear in mind that the larger group is not going to back you when you want their help.

Lastly, Limbaugh’s repeated assertion that he loves the NFL does, actually, make me shake my head in sympathy. He doesn’t, really. The bigger problem is that he doesn’t even know why he doesn’t love the NFL.

He doesn’t understand what love is.

I, for example, love my church’s worship team. I serve on the team as a projection tech (the term I like is “graphician”). I enjoy singing, but I am not a singer for two main reasons — (1) we never have enough graphicians and I can do that well, and (2) I couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket with both hands. I might really like to be up front, singing and leading the congregation in worship. However, it’s the wrong place for me.

At other times, we have had people on the team who had ideas for what the team should do … and weren’t willing to let them go. A lot of those people have wound up leaving the team with bad feelings, sometimes saying that they loved the team but couldn’t stay on it because their ideas weren’t being honored.

That’s not love.

That’s desire for control.

Limbaugh doesn’t love the NFL, he might enjoy being entertained by it and he might desire to own and/or control a piece of it, but he doesn’t love it. Otherwise, he would want to be a part of what it is … not mold it into his image.

It’s one thing to want to improve the Rams, which the NPR reporter called the worst team in the league. A prospective owner should be bringing something to the table along those lines.

It’s quite another to want to change the culture entirely around one’s own whim.

How often in life do we make the same mistakes? As Christians, is it more important to us to oppose things that bother us than to reach out to others? Do we disregard the pain that we can spread in order to make a point? (EX: I recently had an exchange on another blog with a person who insisted on referring to a gay man putting the masculine pronouns in quotes as if sarcastic.) Do we cut off our own evangelistic efforts just to make ourselves feel like king of the hill?

Would we rather rule a dung heap and demand diplomatic status as kings, or be diplomatic and be welcomed by others because we’re actually wanted?

Limbaugh may or may not fulfill his dream of becoming a team co-owner. When it’s all said and done, his money folds like anyone else’s, and so maybe that will be enough.

However, there is no way to deny the feelings of those with whom he would be working. He is certainly not being welcomed as another person might … because he has made his path one of constant negativity.

I take it back … I think I do feel sorry for him. If only a little.

John Shore has a running post on the Roman Polanski case, and he has asked his readers to help promote it, since the discussion is going and keeps on being interesting.

Really, you ought to read John’s blog all the time if you don’t already, but certainly this post.

To whet your appetite, among the comments, someone asked John what he would say to John if he could say one thing to him. John’s answer?

… I might ask him [...] how far he thinks he could run if I gave him a thirty-second head start.

Really, read Hollywood: Go Polanski Yourself.

And I think that he might have just coined a perfect-good profanity substitute.

(Disclosure: this was a free book sent to me by way of the Bethany House book review bloggers program.)

David Timms takes on an interesting subject in his book, Sacred Waiting: Waiting on God in a World that Waits for Nothing. He approaches the need for Christians, sometimes, to wait.

Not to sit around doing nothing, but to be ready to do what God wants us to do without rushing anything. More precisely, to wait until it’s God’s time for us to act.

In general, this concept is one that is very challenging. Most of us want to get things done, and get them done now. We’re not really into waiting. After all, if it’s a good thing that x project is done, then we should do it, right? Only, of course, if this is when God wants it done.

Timms divides the book into two parts. The first looks at the role of waiting in the lives of various Biblical figures. Through the lives of Noah, Abraham, David, Moses, and Jesus he points to the fact that just because God wants a thing done doesn’t mean He wants it rushed. He wants it done on His timing, and when it best serves His purposes. There might be a clear reason for it — such as waiting for Moses to be less impulsive (and prone to killing people in anger) — or there might not — such as Abraham and Sarah waiting for their promised son. In any case, the timing serves God’s glory and His people need to learn to be content with His plan.

The second part of the book addresses the liturgical calendar and its celebration of waiting, through Lent, Pentecost, Advent, Easter, and what Timms calls “the Kingdom Wait.” His point through these is that the Church knows of the need to celebrate and remember the times when we’ve been called simply to wait for what the Lord is doing, rather than running out on our own to do things.

This is not a very large book, with only about 180 pages. However, it’s well worth the read. Rather than telling us how to improve ourselves, what to do, and why we should be taking charge of something now, it tells us to sit back, listen to God, and do what we’re told when we’re told … and not before.

For a world that, as Timms notes, waits for nothing it’s a message that we really need to hear.

My pastor’s most recent blog post is well worth checking out …

Untouchables! asks who it is that Christians treat as untouchable, and how that relates to our call to reflect the love of Christ.