Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Subscribe to the RSS Feed
Herein inscribed in this weblog journal are the up-to-this-very-instant comments and reviews, criticisms and commentary, and reflections of Doug Phillips. Whether you are interested in his latest travels, book recommendations, historical commentary, cultural insight, encouragement for the family, or random musings, Doug’s Blog is where you are most likely to hear about it first.
Within twenty-four hours of the announcement that John McCain was inviting Sarah Palin to serve as his vice presidential candidate, three things happened. First, the press was inundated with a seemingly endless barrage of announcements from neo-conservative organizations offering unqualified support for the selection of Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate. Second, we met Sarah Palin and discovered not only that she is the mother of an infant, and that she returned to politics three days after giving birth, but that she is a feminist (1) who identifies with the leaders of the feminist movement and publicly praises them; (2) who uses the language of the feminist cause to rally supporters; (3) who praises some of the most vicious feminists in history as a means of rallying female voters; and (4) who has embraced the type of lifestyle regarding leadership, career, and children which has long been touted as a feminist ideal.
The third thing we saw was confusion in the ranks of both liberal feminists and neo-con Christians. Both proved their loyalties were driven more by political expediency than principle. Not knowing what to do with a feminist, pro-life Republican vice presidential candidate, feminist Democrats raised criticisms of Mrs. Palin which reflected their own hypocrisy. On the other hand, neo-con Christians performed triple back-flips to justify or overlook behavior and qualification deficiencies in their new Republican candidate that they would found have found distasteful had the female candidate been a Democrat.
On the other hand, there has been a response from the pro-family movement which reflects the historical and theologically orthodox position concerning what the Bible says about the mothers of young children ruling over nations. They are willing to ask the very questions that Rudy Giuliani and Republican apologists are now declaring off-limits: “At a time when the family is in such chaos, when fatherhood is in decline and when godly models of motherhood are so disparaged, what in the world are Republicans doing advocating the mother of an infant special needs child, and other young children, to serve as Commander in Chief?”
Their voices reflect the opinion of many around the country who are asking if the emperor is dressed in the beautiful clothing that neo-cons claim are really there, or whether the emperor is as buck naked as he appears to be. Because their loyalties are not with parties, but with the Church first, foremost, and forever, the analysis of these Christians is more focused on “what sayeth the Scriptures,” rather than “what winneth elections.” Here is a selection of their voices from the blogosphere:
Dr. Voddie Baucham: “Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted ‘moral high ground’ in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the ‘change’ argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate! Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, ‘It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.’ How pro-family is that?” See full article. Pastor Bill Einwechter, Th.M: “To assert that God’s Word permits a woman to hold civil office and that Christians have the liberty to support a woman for the position of civil magistrate means that one has to deny the biblical teaching on the headship of man, reject the qualifications for civil rulers set down in the law of God, ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman, and close his or her ears to the biblical lament of women ruling over men. The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate. Therefore, Christians should not support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. It is imperative that Christians labor to restore God’s order for the family, the church, and the state.” See full article. Jennie Chancey: “Have we completely lost our ‘righteous resistance?’ I’ll grant that Sarah Palin is a die-hard pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family conservative, but why aren’t the pundits stopping to ask the obvious question? Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down’s syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office—particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.” See full article. Carmon Friedrich: “First and foremost, the Bible speaks plainly that men are to be chosen for positions of covenant headship in government, just as they are covenant leaders in home and church. Deborah, who sat under her own tree and judged as judgment from God for the apostate Israel (Judges 4:1-3), was hardly in an ideal situation nor was it typical for God’s people to have a woman in that position of leadership as we know from every other example of godly rulers in civil and ecclesiastical spheres being men (Queen Esther did not rule as one of Ahasuerus’s wives).” See full article. Jasmine Baucham: “Is it odd that we Christians, commanded to take every thought captive (2 Corinthians 2:5) feel like our “hands are tied” in this election, that we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, that the vote otherwise would be “wasting” our vote? I think it is. It boggles my mind to think that, if Christians would not, in good conscience, vote for John McCain in any other instance, would rally together and vote for a man who really espoused the values they hold dear... we may not win an election, but the numbers would certainly get people’s attention.” See full article. Caleb Hayden: “God has called women to the distinctive roles of wife and mother, plain and simple. Paul tells women to be ‘keepers at home’ in Titus 2. God has called men to stand in the gates and lead within the civil realm, as we see throughout Scripture with precious few exceptions. Many will mock this position as outdated, chauvinistic, sexist, and worse. At best, the position will strike many as ‘unfair.’ Indeed, it is unfair. God is not an egalitarian. He did not ordain men and women to function with the same roles and responsibilities. For example, in Genesis 3, God cursed the man’s responsibility of subduing the earth and taking dominion over the ground; men would have to wrestle with thorns and thistles and sweat to provide bread for their families. In turn, He cursed the woman’s role of bearing children by ordaining travail in childbirth.” See full article. Elijah Brown: “I am fully convinced that a great deal of Christians will follow the Republican Party into the gates of hell as long as they can continue to convince them that it is better than being a democrat. (It reminds me of the piggish phrase in Animal Farm, ‘Surely you do not want Jones to come back, anything is better than Jones!’)I can say this because I have witnessed the fact that what the Republican Party calls ‘family values’ holds more sway with evangelical voters than the Scripture’s teaching on the family. The majority of Christians today stand in the shoes of the rabid liberal God haters of yesterday, under the all inclusive evangelical banner.” See full article. Nathaniel Darnell: “Mrs. Sarah Palin is disqualified from serving as a civil magistrate, and no Christian desiring to be true to the Word of God should vote for her. This is true not because of her intelligence or abilities, not because she is married, not because she has children, not because her family may or may not be in disarray, and not because her husband has or hasn’t given her permission to serve as a civil magistrate. Mrs. Sarah Palin fails to meet the biblical qualification for a civil magistrate at the outset without need to consider her political platform because she does not meet the requirement given consistently throughout the Scriptures that a civil magistrate must be a man.” See full article.
Dr. Voddie Baucham: “Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted ‘moral high ground’ in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the ‘change’ argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate! Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, ‘It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.’ How pro-family is that?” See full article.
Pastor Bill Einwechter, Th.M: “To assert that God’s Word permits a woman to hold civil office and that Christians have the liberty to support a woman for the position of civil magistrate means that one has to deny the biblical teaching on the headship of man, reject the qualifications for civil rulers set down in the law of God, ignore the biblical picture of the virtuous woman, and close his or her ears to the biblical lament of women ruling over men. The example of Deborah does not give sufficient evidence to prove that she held the office of civil ruler or to overturn the biblical doctrine that men alone are called of God to the office of civil magistrate. Therefore, Christians should not support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. It is imperative that Christians labor to restore God’s order for the family, the church, and the state.” See full article.
Jennie Chancey: “Have we completely lost our ‘righteous resistance?’ I’ll grant that Sarah Palin is a die-hard pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family conservative, but why aren’t the pundits stopping to ask the obvious question? Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down’s syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office—particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.” See full article.
Carmon Friedrich: “First and foremost, the Bible speaks plainly that men are to be chosen for positions of covenant headship in government, just as they are covenant leaders in home and church. Deborah, who sat under her own tree and judged as judgment from God for the apostate Israel (Judges 4:1-3), was hardly in an ideal situation nor was it typical for God’s people to have a woman in that position of leadership as we know from every other example of godly rulers in civil and ecclesiastical spheres being men (Queen Esther did not rule as one of Ahasuerus’s wives).” See full article.
Jasmine Baucham: “Is it odd that we Christians, commanded to take every thought captive (2 Corinthians 2:5) feel like our “hands are tied” in this election, that we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, that the vote otherwise would be “wasting” our vote? I think it is. It boggles my mind to think that, if Christians would not, in good conscience, vote for John McCain in any other instance, would rally together and vote for a man who really espoused the values they hold dear... we may not win an election, but the numbers would certainly get people’s attention.” See full article.
Caleb Hayden: “God has called women to the distinctive roles of wife and mother, plain and simple. Paul tells women to be ‘keepers at home’ in Titus 2. God has called men to stand in the gates and lead within the civil realm, as we see throughout Scripture with precious few exceptions. Many will mock this position as outdated, chauvinistic, sexist, and worse. At best, the position will strike many as ‘unfair.’ Indeed, it is unfair. God is not an egalitarian. He did not ordain men and women to function with the same roles and responsibilities. For example, in Genesis 3, God cursed the man’s responsibility of subduing the earth and taking dominion over the ground; men would have to wrestle with thorns and thistles and sweat to provide bread for their families. In turn, He cursed the woman’s role of bearing children by ordaining travail in childbirth.” See full article.
Elijah Brown: “I am fully convinced that a great deal of Christians will follow the Republican Party into the gates of hell as long as they can continue to convince them that it is better than being a democrat. (It reminds me of the piggish phrase in Animal Farm, ‘Surely you do not want Jones to come back, anything is better than Jones!’)I can say this because I have witnessed the fact that what the Republican Party calls ‘family values’ holds more sway with evangelical voters than the Scripture’s teaching on the family. The majority of Christians today stand in the shoes of the rabid liberal God haters of yesterday, under the all inclusive evangelical banner.” See full article.
Nathaniel Darnell: “Mrs. Sarah Palin is disqualified from serving as a civil magistrate, and no Christian desiring to be true to the Word of God should vote for her. This is true not because of her intelligence or abilities, not because she is married, not because she has children, not because her family may or may not be in disarray, and not because her husband has or hasn’t given her permission to serve as a civil magistrate. Mrs. Sarah Palin fails to meet the biblical qualification for a civil magistrate at the outset without need to consider her political platform because she does not meet the requirement given consistently throughout the Scriptures that a civil magistrate must be a man.” See full article.
Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2008 | Permalink
For centuries great Reformers and theologians like John Knox and John Calvin have explained that the Bible formally opposes women taking positions of political leadership over nations. The question is less clear to modern American Evangelicals, however, especially in an era when Christians have already capitulated to the feminist agenda by sending their daughters to die on the front lines of battle in Iraq, or simply when the historical and biblical doctrine of the family seems to them less relevant in a modern world.
At this year’s Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, Pastor Bill Einwechter presented home educators, lawmakers, and attorneys with a message entitled The Bible and Female Magistrates. It was the best and most thorough discussion of the subject I have ever heard, surpassing in its clarity and detail even John Knox’s persuasive First Blast of the Trumpet. The message was delivered in light of the possibility of Hillary Clinton serving as chief executive officer of our country, but has become of greater interest as Christians must consider whether to encourage a mother of infant children to de-prioritize her duties and obligations as wife and mother in order to possibly become the chief executive of America. Pastor Einwechter brilliantly exegeted the Scriptures and defended the following positions with careful reasoned analysis:
(1). The biblical doctrine of male headship applies to each governing institution. (2). The biblical qualifications for civil rulers forbids female magistrates. (3). The biblical role of the woman is against female magistrates. (4). The biblical lament of women ruling over men is against female magistrates. (5). The biblical example of Deborah is not an endorsement of female magistrates.
(1). The biblical doctrine of male headship applies to each governing institution.
(2). The biblical qualifications for civil rulers forbids female magistrates.
(3). The biblical role of the woman is against female magistrates.
(4). The biblical lament of women ruling over men is against female magistrates.
(5). The biblical example of Deborah is not an endorsement of female magistrates.
If you have ever been tempted to say, “Yeah, but what about Deborah?” or if you simply claim to be a Christian with the Bible as your standard for life, then you owe it to yourself and your family to carefully examine the biblical evidence. The issue is not how do you feel about this election. It is not are you fearful of one candidate or another. The issue for the Christian is this: What does the Bible say about the requirements of civil magistrates, and how may Christians cast their vote? The Bible is sufficient, and it speaks authoritatively to this subject. Send a donation of any amount between now and end of September and we will happily send you two CDs: The Bible and the Female Magistrate, and Biblical Principles of the Ballot Box. Please request the CDs when you contact us.
Click HERE to read Jasmine’s blog post.
Here are excerpts from Lydia Lovric’s controversial but insightful commentary today about the irresponsibility of day care, and the perceived impropriety of financially stable women bragging about going back to work three days after having a baby:
Worldnetdaily.com
A popular children’s author has enraged mothers around the world after equating day care with child abuse. Mem Fox, best-selling writer of the tale “Possum Magic” came down quite hard on moms who return to work soon after giving birth during a recent interview with Australia’s Sunday Mail. “I don’t know why some people have children at all if they know that they can only take a few weeks off work ... it’s actually child abuse....” While her opinion has ignited a storm of controversy, one has to wonder why. Are there people out there who honestly believe that infants and toddlers are better off in the hands of day care workers than a loving mother or father? Perhaps the brouhaha has more to do with guilt than anything else. Ms. Fox recalls a conversation she had with someone who works in child care: “She said that we’re going to look back on this time from the late ’90s onwards, with putting children in child care so early in their first year of life for such long hours, and wonder how we have allowed that child abuse to happen.” The debate coincides with the announcement that Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate in the U.S. presidential race. While Palin certainly seems to possess many admirable qualities, one has to wonder about a woman who would boast about returning to work three days after giving birth. Sorry, lady. That isn’t something you should be bragging about. Research shows that the first three years are critical to a child’s long-term development. A report by the New York-based Families and Work Institute found that the vast majority of the brain’s synapses (the connections among brain cells) are formed during the first few years of life.... “The best interactions between infant and parents for healthy brain development are continuous, consistent and back-and-forth. They help baby and carer to connect and understand each other, and the infant begins to attach meanings and associations to being touched and talked to...But when an infant is rarely noticed, touched or talked to, it lowers their ability to withstand stress, to learn, to control emotions and develop into healthy adults.” Of course, it’s politically incorrect to question working mothers, especially those who can afford to stay at home but choose not to...Life is all about priorities. I couldn’t possibly work eight or more hours per day and pretend that my children came first. Putting our kids first meant walking away from a career that I loved in order to be there for our kids on a full-time basis. Over and over again, I hear working moms say that they are excellent parents, even though their kids spend more than 40 hours per week in day care. It’s laughable. I wonder, if an employee were to spend one or two hours at work each day, would the boss consider that person to be an “excellent” employee? Probably not. I’m so tired of parents who pretend that two incomes is an absolute necessity. Kids don’t need a large home or fancy cars. They will survive without cell phones, iPods or - gasp - HD television. What children need above all is constant love and attention. When I take my children for walks, we sometimes pass by a rather large day care facility. I often wonder about the kids inside. Are they truly happy, or would they rather be home with mom or dad? Do their parents send them to day care even when they’re sick? Are the kids in day care because mom must work - or because she chooses to? In the early evening, the day care’s parking lot is filled with vehicles as parents stop to pick up their kids before supper and bedtime. Many of the cars look new and sleek. Surely these parents do not belong to the working poor. For them, it seems to be a choice. Personally, I would rather fail as a writer than fail as a mother. Ms. Fox is right. One day, we will look back on these day care centers - these warehouses for children - and wonder how we ever could have thought it was a good idea.
A popular children’s author has enraged mothers around the world after equating day care with child abuse. Mem Fox, best-selling writer of the tale “Possum Magic” came down quite hard on moms who return to work soon after giving birth during a recent interview with Australia’s Sunday Mail.
“I don’t know why some people have children at all if they know that they can only take a few weeks off work ... it’s actually child abuse....”
While her opinion has ignited a storm of controversy, one has to wonder why. Are there people out there who honestly believe that infants and toddlers are better off in the hands of day care workers than a loving mother or father?
Perhaps the brouhaha has more to do with guilt than anything else.
Ms. Fox recalls a conversation she had with someone who works in child care:
“She said that we’re going to look back on this time from the late ’90s onwards, with putting children in child care so early in their first year of life for such long hours, and wonder how we have allowed that child abuse to happen.”
The debate coincides with the announcement that Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate in the U.S. presidential race. While Palin certainly seems to possess many admirable qualities, one has to wonder about a woman who would boast about returning to work three days after giving birth.
Sorry, lady. That isn’t something you should be bragging about.
Research shows that the first three years are critical to a child’s long-term development. A report by the New York-based Families and Work Institute found that the vast majority of the brain’s synapses (the connections among brain cells) are formed during the first few years of life....
“The best interactions between infant and parents for healthy brain development are continuous, consistent and back-and-forth. They help baby and carer to connect and understand each other, and the infant begins to attach meanings and associations to being touched and talked to...But when an infant is rarely noticed, touched or talked to, it lowers their ability to withstand stress, to learn, to control emotions and develop into healthy adults.”
Of course, it’s politically incorrect to question working mothers, especially those who can afford to stay at home but choose not to...Life is all about priorities. I couldn’t possibly work eight or more hours per day and pretend that my children came first. Putting our kids first meant walking away from a career that I loved in order to be there for our kids on a full-time basis.
Over and over again, I hear working moms say that they are excellent parents, even though their kids spend more than 40 hours per week in day care. It’s laughable.
I wonder, if an employee were to spend one or two hours at work each day, would the boss consider that person to be an “excellent” employee? Probably not.
I’m so tired of parents who pretend that two incomes is an absolute necessity. Kids don’t need a large home or fancy cars. They will survive without cell phones, iPods or - gasp - HD television. What children need above all is constant love and attention.
When I take my children for walks, we sometimes pass by a rather large day care facility. I often wonder about the kids inside. Are they truly happy, or would they rather be home with mom or dad? Do their parents send them to day care even when they’re sick? Are the kids in day care because mom must work - or because she chooses to?
In the early evening, the day care’s parking lot is filled with vehicles as parents stop to pick up their kids before supper and bedtime. Many of the cars look new and sleek. Surely these parents do not belong to the working poor.
For them, it seems to be a choice.
Personally, I would rather fail as a writer than fail as a mother.
Ms. Fox is right. One day, we will look back on these day care centers - these warehouses for children - and wonder how we ever could have thought it was a good idea.
Click here to read the entire article.
FoxNews—The 34-year-old mother of two grabbed a shotgun that had been pointed at her face early Wednesday, starting a struggle that ended with one intruder killed with his own weapon and another in the hospital. “I wasn’t going to let them get to my babies,” she said, recalling the moment when she pushed up the muzzle of the shotgun, pointing it away from her children’s rooms. With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon’s muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun. “I am not happy that someone is dead,” Kellie Hoehn said. “But I am glad that my family is alive.”
FoxNews—The 34-year-old mother of two grabbed a shotgun that had been pointed at her face early Wednesday, starting a struggle that ended with one intruder killed with his own weapon and another in the hospital.
“I wasn’t going to let them get to my babies,” she said, recalling the moment when she pushed up the muzzle of the shotgun, pointing it away from her children’s rooms.
With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon’s muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun.
“I am not happy that someone is dead,” Kellie Hoehn said. “But I am glad that my family is alive.”
Click HERE to view the full article.
As recently as last week Dr. James Dobson shared with my father, Howard Phillips, the influence Dad had in getting Dr. Dobson into politics. I thank the Lord for my dad’s influence with Dr. Dobson and I thank God for many heroic stands that Dr. Dobson has taken over the years. I do disagree with his decision to go back on his public oath that he would not support John McCain or any candidate that votes for the funding of abortions or supports abortions for any babies. I have great love for Dr. Dobson, but I do believe that this was a significant error. Now the American Right to Life Action is calling him to task for the flip flop.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Sept. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson for violating his pledge in which he invoked the name of God by declaring that he is voting for John McCain.... On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life Dr. Dobson stated, “I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby.” (See video at ARTLaction.com.) James Dobson is violating this pledge by voting for John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion. “Dr. Dobson repeated his broken pledge on his radio program in March of 1995 saying, “I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby,” referring to the rape and incest ‘exceptions,’ “which are a window to the soul of a ‘pro-life’ candidate,” said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis. “John McCain funds the killing of countless children,” said the group’s director of research, Darrell Birkey, “for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby’s father is a criminal, that is, a rapist.” The official Senate.gov website documents McCain’s Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office indicates that McCain’s vote authorized funding for abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal. As the law states, SEC. 507. (a) “funds are appropriated in this Act” that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) “if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” “Dr. Dobson is openly violating the pledge he took before God,” said Birkey, “by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate’s rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by McCain’s long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls.”
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Sept. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson for violating his pledge in which he invoked the name of God by declaring that he is voting for John McCain....
On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life Dr. Dobson stated, “I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby.” (See video at ARTLaction.com.) James Dobson is violating this pledge by voting for John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.
“Dr. Dobson repeated his broken pledge on his radio program in March of 1995 saying, “I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby,” referring to the rape and incest ‘exceptions,’ “which are a window to the soul of a ‘pro-life’ candidate,” said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis.
“John McCain funds the killing of countless children,” said the group’s director of research, Darrell Birkey, “for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby’s father is a criminal, that is, a rapist.” The official Senate.gov website documents McCain’s Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office indicates that McCain’s vote authorized funding for abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal. As the law states, SEC. 507. (a) “funds are appropriated in this Act” that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) “if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”
“Dr. Dobson is openly violating the pledge he took before God,” said Birkey, “by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate’s rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by McCain’s long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls.”
Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2008 | Permalink
Feminism is unbiblical in any century (Isaiah 3:12). It is a destructive philosophy that aims to remake the Christian family, and transform the broader culture after a spirit of rebellion, which the Bible says “is like the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23). The rise of feminism has contributed to the emasculation of men, the death of unborn babies, and the destruction of the family unit.
The Reformers recognized this problem. They opposed male abdication and effeminacy, even as they also stood against women ruling over men in the church, the family, or the gates as civil magistrates. Their position was the historic position of Christian orthodoxy for the vast majority of the history of Christendom.
Today, Americans owe much of their freedoms to the Scotch Reformers like John Knox who defended the foundations of the faith and articulated a theology of the state that was later embraced by Reformers in America. The widespread rejection of the historic Reformation position on these issues by Evangelicals is sometimes a reflection of both their historical ignorance and their assimilation of 20th century feminist assumptions. At a time when America Christians appear to be at the forefront of establishing role models for their daughters who describe themselves as feminists and for all practical purposes appear to be setting aside the priority of being the primary caregivers for their infant children and remaining keepers at home as commanded by the Bible (Titus 2:3-5), in exchange for public office, it is helpful to remember the words of Knox:
“To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . .”
The message of Knox, and its application to feminism and abortionism is highlighted in a film that grows more timely every day, The Monstrous Regiment of Women, which is now available and on sale. This film calls women back to a life filled with joy and beauty that can only be found by following the biblical plan for being a helpmeet, a mother, and a “keeper at home” (Titus 2).
Click here to purchase this important documentary.
September 3, 2008
Dear Sarah,
This letter is not written with the intention to demean or insult you on any level. Rather, I have a deep appreciation for you in many ways. We have many things in common—I am a Christian wife and mother of five children (one in Heaven, lost to miscarriage) and the grandmother of seven. I attended public schools where my mother, aunt and grandfather taught and was encouraged by all of them, as well as all my teachers, to attend college which I did, graduating with a B.A. in English. My family has always taken strong public stands, especially when serious issues are at stake, even as you do. When my husband ran for U.S. Congress during President Reagan’s second bid for office, my children and I threw ourselves into the battle with all our time and energy. We have since supported several political candidates and are ready to do whatever we can to bring our nation back to its constitutional roots. We have taken a strong pro-life stand and given many women with unwanted pregnancies food and shelter in our own home.
But the primary basis for this letter is not simply superficial interests and commitments. I believe that we are sisters in Christ and, therefore, both subjects of His rule of law from Scripture. It would appear that we share the belief that, “...in Christ Himself are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” - Col. 2:2b,3. I assume the following statement of faith, taken from your church website, summarizes your personal faith:
The Centrality of Christ
By God’s grace everything in the life of this church will revolve around the reality of Jesus Christ - who He is, what He has done, what He is doing, and what He will do. In the words of the early Church “He is Lord” and will be recognized as such in this church with an absolute allegiance that lifts Him above all others in our hearts, in our homes, and in our congregation. It is His commands that we will obey, His warnings that we will heed, and His promises that we will hold. In every endeavor we will rely upon His power, cherish His presence, and honor His name. We will, in sum, love Him. (John 14:6)
Apparently, we also share the belief that God’s Word is the only solid base upon which to build our lives.
The Authority of Scripture
In order to experience and enjoy the centrality of Christ in our congregational life, we will submit to the authority of the Scriptures. They will be the foundational source of information and direction guiding our exploration of Christ’s reality. The Bible will be used to determine our doctrine, to shape our practice, and even, when needed to settle our differences with the conviction that it is the very Word of God. In all the confusion of varied opinions and above all the claims of religious authority we will hold to the scriptures as the Truth for both faith and practice. In them God has spoken and to them we will listen. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)
The serious Christian is one who wants to think God’s thoughts after Him, to shape every thought, word and deed according to His Word. Is God’s Word silent about the role of the woman and how we are to shape our relationships with men? No, it’s clear in its mandate:
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. — ...he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. — For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.- I Corinthians 11:3, 7, 8, 9
My friend, Susan Hunt, an Atlanta-based pastor’s wife, has written her commentary on the role of women in the church:
We write out of the realization that our personal pilgrimages for the last fifteen years have solidified our adherence to the position of male headship in the church. We are increasingly convinced of the theological rightness of this position. But the more urgent motivation is to help Christians move beyond confusion and debate over our roles toward active concern about the needs around us. We are convinced that the church provides that most appropriate context for Christian women to serve the Savior. We further contend that rather than being restrained by our exclusion from ordination, women are actually freed from the restraint of positions of authority to be exquisite expressions of the Biblical meaning of a helper-leader. When women insist on role interchangeability within the church, everyone loses. — Susan Hunt and Peggy Hutcheson, Leadership for Women in the Church, pp. 10, 11.
If these principles apply in the realm of the home and church, surely they apply more broadly in the civil realm. Because you are so gifted, Sarah, your talents are in great demand in the world at large right now. What tremendous sacrifices you, your husband and children have made over the past few years as more and bigger opportunities to serve your fellow-man have been set before you, not only in your community and state, but now nationally. I do not hesitate to recognize that you are a remarkably talented woman. But I have some serious questions I hope you will consider.
As a Christian woman, a wife and mother, surely you have wrestled with what has God called you to do. How are you to order your priorities according to Scripture? Are you over-stepping the boundaries His Word has set for you when you hold public office? I believe you are. Will you really be able to devote the time and energy necessary to raise your children as a public officer holder? What sacrifices will your husband be required to make? What message are you sending to the young women of our nation concerning their God-given role? These are difficult questions, especially since it would appear that you have already set a course that can’t be altered. The question in your mind should not be, “What am I capable of doing,” or, “What are the opportunities I have to serve;” rather, I believe only one question is a valid one: “What does God’s Word tell me I should be doing.”
One of my favorite authors was a little-known, brilliant Southern woman of the 19th century named Augusta Jane Evans. In her great novel, St. Elmo, through her main character, Edna Earle, she battles to save a Christian moral and social order, “taking her stand on the principle that woman can be most influential in society as a woman.” (italics mine) - Richard Weaver, Southern Tradition at Bay, p. 275.
Believing that the intelligent, refined, modest Christian women were the real custodians of national purity, and the sole agents who could arrest the tide of demoralization breaking over the land, she [Edna] addressed herself to the wives, mothers, and daughters of America; calling upon them to smite their false gods, and purify their shrines at which they worshipped. Jealously she contended for every woman’s right which God and nature had decreed her sex. The right to be learned, wise, noble, useful, in woman’s divinely limited sphere. The right to influence and exalt the circle in which she moved. The right to mount the sanctified beam of her own quiet hearth-stone; the right to modify and direct her husband’s opinion, if he considered her worthy and competent to guide him; the right to make her children ornaments to their nation, and a crown of glory to their [people]; the right to advise, to plead, to pray; ...the right to be all the phrase ‘noble Christian woman’ means. But not the right ... to trail her heaven-born purity through the dust and mire of political strife; to ascend the rosta [sic] of statesmen, whither she may send a worthy husband, son, or brother, but whither she can never go, without disgracing all womanhood.- p. 395
Sarah Palin, God calls you to a higher position than the vice-presidency of the United States. He calls you to be the most influential woman in the world today, perhaps in history, by taking your stand on the Biblical principle of His divine model of womanhood. I implore you to see yourself, not as a candidate for political office, but as a cherished child of Christ, in subjection to His will. I earnestly pray that you will make every effort to “arrest the tide of demoralization breaking over our land” as you call upon the mothers and daughters of America to “smite their false gods and jealously contend for every woman’s right which God has decreed upon us: the right to be learned, wise, noble, and useful in our divinely limited sphere; the right to mount the sanctified beam of our own quiet hearth-stone; the right to modify and direct our husband’s opinion, if he considers us worthy and competent to guide him; the right to make our children ornaments to the nation and a crown of glory to our people; the right to advise, to plead, to pray;...the right to be all the phrase ‘noble Christian woman’ means.” [paraphrasing Augusta Jane’s quote above]
I pray that you will demonstrate an even greater humility and strength of character than we have seen thus far by admitting you have taken the wrong path by accepting the nomination for vice presidency and ask to be released from this commitment. I will persevere in praying for you and your family. May God richly bless you as you are faithful to Him. I would be happy to talk with you or to correspond in any way that may prove helpful. My contact information is at the bottom of this letter.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Col. 2:8
Yours truly in the bonds of Christ,
Rebecca B. Morecraft
Posted by Doug Phillips on September 3, 2008 | Permalink
His name was Oliver Cromwell, and he died this day in 1658.
Reuters— In America, where teenage pregnancy is a political issue and working moms subject to moral debate, the choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential pick has ignited a Mommy War. News that Palin, a conservative Christian, is running for the country’s No. 2 office while parenting both an infant son with Down Syndrome and a 17-year-old pregnant daughter has sparked both condemnation and commendation. Should a 44-year-old mother of five, including a newborn with special needs and a pregnant teenager, take on a job that will keep her away from her home for much of the next two months to eight years?
Click HERE to read the full article.
On the set of the 2009 Vision Forum Catalog shoot. Fifteen-year-old Joshua Titus helps with the grappling hook.
Posted by Doug Phillips on September 2, 2008 | Permalink
In his blog post, Dr. Voddie Baucham raises the question: Is the nomination of Sarah Palin for a Vice Presidential candidate truly a “Pro-Family” pick?” Here are excerpts from Dr. Baucham’s post:
Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick? Conservatives are all aglow as John McCain pulled off an apparent coup d’état this week by naming Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Bob Unruh, writing for the conservative Christian web magazine, Worldnet Daily may have put it best when he opened his column: Pro-family advocates and Republicans are saying presumptive GOP nominee for president Sen. John McCain may have checkmated Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.... While I agree that from a political standpoint Mr. McCain made a brilliant political move, I am not so sure his pick can be portrayed as “pro-family.” It is true that Mrs. Palin is ardently pro-life -a distinction bolstered by the fact that she has five children, and chose not to abort a Down Syndrome baby—and she is also a fiscal conservative, a Washington outsider, and she hunts wolves from helicopters! What more could the Neocons ask for? Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons.... NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job. FRC’s piece on Mrs. Palin links to a Wallstreet Journal article outlining her political career. While many Christian conservatives are highlighting Palin’s toughness, integrity and obvious conservative credentials (more conservative than McCain, in fact), they also seem to be ignoring several red flags. For example, the Journal article, in an effort to highlight Palin’s ‘eco-friendly’ lifestyle, uncovers a disturbing trend that plagues far too many young women with families. The article refers to Palin’s habit of “driving herself to and from work every day from the Anchorage suburb of Wasilla, about 45 miles away.” Does this bother anyone else? Lets say the Governor averages sixty miles per hour on her daily commute (which I seriously doubt). That adds seven and a half hours per week to what one would assume is already a fifty to sixty-hour workweek (at least that if she is as driven as the article implies). This is supposed to be pro-family? Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. According to the article: “Gov. Palin’s opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. “I was not going to miss that speech,” she says.” She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply “was not going to miss out on that speech.” A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. She may be the best working mother in America, but the evidence is questionable at best. NOT A PRO FAMILY MESSAGE Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean? Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?... My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking. My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back. My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate. My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family. My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it. Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate! Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?
Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick?
Conservatives are all aglow as John McCain pulled off an apparent coup d’état this week by naming Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Bob Unruh, writing for the conservative Christian web magazine, Worldnet Daily may have put it best when he opened his column:
Pro-family advocates and Republicans are saying presumptive GOP nominee for president Sen. John McCain may have checkmated Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate....
While I agree that from a political standpoint Mr. McCain made a brilliant political move, I am not so sure his pick can be portrayed as “pro-family.” It is true that Mrs. Palin is ardently pro-life -a distinction bolstered by the fact that she has five children, and chose not to abort a Down Syndrome baby—and she is also a fiscal conservative, a Washington outsider, and she hunts wolves from helicopters! What more could the Neocons ask for?
Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons....
NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB
First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job.
FRC’s piece on Mrs. Palin links to a Wallstreet Journal article outlining her political career. While many Christian conservatives are highlighting Palin’s toughness, integrity and obvious conservative credentials (more conservative than McCain, in fact), they also seem to be ignoring several red flags.
For example, the Journal article, in an effort to highlight Palin’s ‘eco-friendly’ lifestyle, uncovers a disturbing trend that plagues far too many young women with families. The article refers to Palin’s habit of “driving herself to and from work every day from the Anchorage suburb of Wasilla, about 45 miles away.” Does this bother anyone else? Lets say the Governor averages sixty miles per hour on her daily commute (which I seriously doubt). That adds seven and a half hours per week to what one would assume is already a fifty to sixty-hour workweek (at least that if she is as driven as the article implies). This is supposed to be pro-family?
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. According to the article:
“Gov. Palin’s opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. “I was not going to miss that speech,” she says.”
She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply “was not going to miss out on that speech.” A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. She may be the best working mother in America, but the evidence is questionable at best.
NOT A PRO FAMILY MESSAGE
Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?
Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?...
My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.
My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.
My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.
My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.
My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.
Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!
Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?
With every passing day as we move closer to the presidential election, the collective IQ of the Christian and conservative community appears to be dropping. The more fearful Christians become, the more they are willing to praise the beautiful garments of the naked emperor. Flashback: One year ago conservative and Christian leaders were in agreement about the fact that John McCain was neither pro-life, nor pro-family, nor conservative in general. Dr. James Dobson vowed publicly to never support the man for this very reason. Question: Besides some new polish and rhetoric, has John McCain fundamentally changed over the last twelve months?
It is one thing to support John McCain, but it is another thing for Christians to claim he is something that he is not in order to soothe the collective consciences of the fear-stricken. This is precisely the type of hypocrisy that liberals rightly point out. Why not just ‘fess up and admit the truth—“John McCain has voted for liberal pro-abortion judges to sit on the highest court of the land, has voted for subsidies for abortion, once said he opposed overturning Roe V. Wade, and supports killing babies in certain cases—BUT WE ARE VOTING FOR HIM ANYWAY BECAUSE WE FEAR AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY.”
At least that would be honest.
Chuck Baldwin is being honest. Here is a sample of his commentary:
NewsWithViews.com—Once again, “pro-life” Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain’s commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle... John McCain openly embraces embryonic stem cell research. In 2000, he boldly said he did not favor the overturn of Roe v. Wade. John McCain was a member of the infamous “Gang of 14” senators from both parties whose purpose was to oppose pro-life, strict constructionist judges. Speaking of judges, John McCain voted for the pro-abortion justice, Stephen Breyer, and the radical, pro-abortion, ACLU attorney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So much for the argument that we need John McCain for the sake of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court. For that matter, Republican appointments dominated the Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and the one that later gave us Doe v. Bolton. Proving, once again, that the Republican Party, as a whole, has no real commitment to the life issue. John McCain also gave us McCain-Feingold. This is the law that keeps pro-life or pro-Second Amendment organizations from broadcasting ads that mention a candidate by name 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. This proves that John McCain believes neither in the right to life nor the right to keep and bear arms. (This is one reason why the Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F.) In a debate with George W. Bush in May of 2000, John McCain attacked Bush’s support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party. Still today, John McCain believes that babies who are conceived vi
NewsWithViews.com—Once again, “pro-life” Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain’s commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle...
John McCain openly embraces embryonic stem cell research. In 2000, he boldly said he did not favor the overturn of Roe v. Wade. John McCain was a member of the infamous “Gang of 14” senators from both parties whose purpose was to oppose pro-life, strict constructionist judges.
Speaking of judges, John McCain voted for the pro-abortion justice, Stephen Breyer, and the radical, pro-abortion, ACLU attorney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So much for the argument that we need John McCain for the sake of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court. For that matter, Republican appointments dominated the Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and the one that later gave us Doe v. Bolton. Proving, once again, that the Republican Party, as a whole, has no real commitment to the life issue.
John McCain also gave us McCain-Feingold. This is the law that keeps pro-life or pro-Second Amendment organizations from broadcasting ads that mention a candidate by name 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. This proves that John McCain believes neither in the right to life nor the right to keep and bear arms. (This is one reason why the Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F.)
In a debate with George W. Bush in May of 2000, John McCain attacked Bush’s support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party. Still today, John McCain believes that babies who are conceived vi
Cart
Help