Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

10/30/2009 (10:20 pm)

Is Abortion Genocide?

Research published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) a few weeks ago notes that abortions killed more African-Americans than the 7 next highest causes of death combined. (You can read the actual report here; the link points directly to Table 9, which shows the relevant statistics.)

Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.

Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.

States are not required to report abortion statistics by race (not required to report them at all, in fact.) Abortion statistics by race were only available for 36 states; among those missing were California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and New York outside of New York City. Also, abortions performed by private physicians were not reported to the CDC. Consequently, the 203,991 abortions reported among blacks by the CDC was far lower than the actual number. And still, it was enough to swamp all other causes of death among African-Americans.

Abortion is arguably the most favored “right” among social liberals in America, for reasons about which one can only guess because they’re never candid about it. When Al Gore attempted a rousing speech at the 2000 Democratic convention, the only sound bite that earned him more than meager applause was his full-throated defense of legal abortions. And President Obama, whose measures to nationalize and over-regulate American industry have come at a breath-taking pace, and who has several times directed federal favors in the direction of his union buddies and contributors, took some of his earliest Presidential steps to expand the number of legal abortions — a direction that those of us who actually did our homework about Obama fully expected. Democrats claim that they really don’t like abortions, that nobody really wants them, that steps should be taken to keep abortions rare, but that they must be kept legal to protect women. None of these statements are believable, particularly the last, since recent surveys reveal that women feel pressured to have an abortion in almost 2/3 of actual abortions, and that violence by spouses, boyfriends, and significant others against women rises dramatically when the women are pregnant. But most Democrats scrabble frantically for reasons to reject facts that make abortion seem like a bad bet for women; they’ve been unwilling even to consider the now-voluminous evidence demonstrating serious health effects from abortions. Something other than the safety of women motivates them. They won’t say what it is.

Whatever the motivation, abortion in America seems fiendishly targeted at blacks. Black women have abortions between 3 and 5 times more frequently than white women, depending on which study you’re reading, and nearly half of all black pregnancies end in abortion. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King, reports that fully 1/4 of the blacks in America have been eliminated by way of abortion. Speaking at the unveiling of a monument to her uncle, King noted:

…that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionists, “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.

“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Planned Parenthood, furthermore, apparently targets black neighborhoods and schools as locations for its offices. The black-created anti-abortion group LEARN, the Life Education and Resource Network, reports that nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are located in or near minority neighborhoods. Author George Grant, quoted in LEARN’s article about Margaret Sanger’s Negro project, observes that PP’s school-based clinics show an even stronger emphasis on the lower classes:

Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes. “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”

One might take this to be a macabre manifestation of profit motive — they’ll make more money by placing clinics where the people seek abortions the most — if it were not the case that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, voiced her intent to introduce legal abortion specifically to reduce the black population. Sanger, an early 20th century adherent of Malthusian eugenics, felt that the solution to the poverty and suppression of Negroes was to reduce their numbers by means of birth control. While the quotations from her works suggesting a racist motive could be interpreted other ways, it is simply a fact that Sanger favored the reduction of the Negro population, and initiated in 1939 what she called The Negro Project, aimed at reducing the birth rate among poorer, less educated blacks as a means of reducing poverty and “improving human stock.” In the best tradition of American liberalism, there is ample evidence that Sanger felt the reduction of the black population was necessary for their own good, as well as for the good of the nation. So blacks should thank her, you see. [/sarc]

It is hard to imagine that modern staff at Planned Parenthood still share the opinions of its founder. However, it is equally hard to imagine that an organization specifically founded 80 years ago to reduce the black population, is doing exactly that today entirely by accident. There’s something in the abortion agenda that seems distinctly targeted toward blacks. American liberals claim to be eager to extract every hint of institutional racism from American culture; for them to ignore the racism embedded in legalized abortion proves that they’ve got some bigger agenda that supersedes their concern about racism.

We see the same inverted priorities in the arena of education. Vouchered education programs consistently help inner-city parents find decent education for their children. Democrats routinely defeat vouchered education programs, though; it was even reported earlier this year that President Obama’s Education Dept. deliberately obscured the results of research proving the value of a DC voucher program until after Congress had voted not to continue the program. Political common sense attributes this to the Democrats’ reliance on teacher’s unions to win elections.

It’s not that Democrats hate blacks; it’s simply that they don’t care nearly as much about them as they do about some other things. Whenever they have bigger fish to fry, they’ll fry them first. In the case of abortion, it appears to be something as banal and infantile as the desire to have unrestrained sex: none of the reasons they actually offer hold water, and the real reason has to be something a) very personal that b) they would prefer not to admit. Sex fits the bill. In the case of education, it’s simply a matter of political reality; Democrats need political power to do all the wonderful things they plan to do, so they have to cozy up to the groups that will produce votes. If that means millions of black kids have to attend horrible schools where they’ll be bullied, shot at, and kept ignorant and poor… oh, well, it’s nothing personal, folks, it’s just politics. Blacks have shown that they will vote for Democrats regardless of what the Democrats do, so Democrats never feel the need to serve their interests.

This would explain, also, why Democrats have been so utterly vicious towards black conservatives. There are truly only two places in modern America where one can still hear hard-core racist talk. One is in the black community, where some blacks routinely hurl racist epithets at white folks. The other is among liberal writers writing about black conservatives. They do it, apparently, because if blacks ever figure out how damaging Democratic policies are for the black community, the Democrats will never be able to win another election… ever. So, they have to bully them to stay in line. Not because they hate blacks, you see, but because they can’t afford to have them leave the planta… uh, the reservation.

Did I say that? Oops.

The Democratic party’s disdain for the black community is one of the most disturbing elements of the modern political scene, and also one of the most frequently ignored. I do not know how they get away with it. If the Republican party had a clue, they’d be sending organizers into every black district in America reciting the facts I’ve included in this article. And those facts would tell a frightening tale: that whether deliberately or accidentally, liberal abortion policies are producing a holocaust among black Americans. It may not be specifically racist, but it certainly appears to be effective genocide.

« « Oh, Boy, Here It Comes | Main | "Truth Will Out" in the New York 23rd » »

35 Comments »

October 30, 2009 @ 11:31 pm #

Excellent piece, Phil.

October 31, 2009 @ 11:06 am #

You have to have legalized abortion in order to support the destruction of the family.

Just look at what it’s done to black families in the last 50 years…

October 31, 2009 @ 1:11 pm #

Suek:

“Just look at what it’s done to black families in the last 50 years…”

Question: Do you think it’s the MAIN cause of the destruction to lower-class black families, a contributing cause, or…?

October 31, 2009 @ 3:41 pm #

By “it”….you mean abortion?

No, probably the main cause is the program that pays welfare to a single women with babies, but not if there’s a husband in the household. Once there was money for unmarried women, they just co-habitated without the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Then men started moving around, leaving the women with the sole responsibility of maintaining the family, which led to more babies in single parent households. Black men today have more pressure to make babies and not marry than vice-versa. Women trying to keep their heads above water are having abortions. The entire society has become so focused on sex as a necessity of life that to refrain from it on the basis of not getting pregnant seems like a foreign idea. So, today, I think it’s a real factor in the state of the number of co-habiting unmarried young people, but I don’t think it was originally.

November 1, 2009 @ 8:31 am #

Question: Do you think it’s the MAIN cause of the destruction to lower-class black families, a contributing cause, or…?

This is like asking a man who has a) had his house burned down and his reputation demolished by the Mob, and b) lost his wife and children to a plague, whether the Mob is the MAIN cause of his misery.

What, precisely, are you after here, Jim? Do you want somehow to take the sting out of a procedure that was supposedly for the good of the poor but is in fact depopulating the black race, because it is not the MAIN cause of their misery? What the hell kind of thinking is that? And if that’s not your intent — as I am absolutely sure that you will deny having any such thought in your head and call me names for suggesting it — if that’s not your intent, what other possible purpose would be served by establishing whether the genocidal impact of abortion is the MAIN cause of misery in the black community or not? I really do want you to consider that question and give me an answer.

November 1, 2009 @ 9:01 am #

Phil,

I saw Suek’s analysis: “Just look what it’s done to black families in the last 50 years.”

I don’t think even conservative sociologists would agree that abortion has been a major factor in the state of the inner-city black family. I was asking Suek why she DID think so. She cleared it up for me, though…I think her response to me was a lot closer to the truth.

That’s what the Hell I was after : ) No constable needed.

November 1, 2009 @ 9:10 am #

BTW Phil:

“Democrats need political power to do all the wonderful things they plan to do, so they have to cozy up to the groups that will produce votes.”

What a wonderfully apt description of political parties in general – kind of like how the GOP acts with Evangelicals.

As you know, I am NOT flippant about this comment.

November 1, 2009 @ 9:23 am #

Interesting comment, darkhorse.

Let’s consider political parties.

I would start with the basic assumption that they are formed by like minded individuals who think that things should be done in such and such a way, and they intend to support the election of a person they’d like to put into a position of responsibility, who they think will do things in the way they think they should be done.

Would you agree to that? would you add or subtract from it?

November 1, 2009 @ 9:42 am #

Hard to disagree with that as a start, Phil! My only subtraction would be with the addition of time and the growth of power.

We can carry on from there, if that is your aim.

November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 pm #

Ok…so going on from there (though I’m not certain how the addition of time and the growth of power is a subtraction – or is even relevant), can we make the assumption that evangelicals find the GOP to be more consistent with their beliefs than are Democrats? Or would you say that the GOP misleads evangelicals into _thinking_ that they are more similar in their beliefs?

November 1, 2009 @ 3:15 pm #

The beginning point was supplied by SueK, not by me. Just sayin’.

I don’t think even conservative sociologists would agree that abortion has been a major factor in the state of the inner-city black family.

Three out of five black women will have had an abortion by the time they end their childbearing years, at current abortion rates. One out of two black children get aborted. And while I don’t have the statistics at hand to prove it, I’m fairly sure that these facts affect poor, inner city blacks disproportionately. If there are conservative sociologists who don’t think this has dramatically affected black families, it must be sociologists who are unaware of the psychological and physiological impact of abortions on the people who have them.

You may be correct about not many sociologists claiming to be aware of the impact of abortion on blacks, but if it’s so, they’re missing a major, major issue.

November 1, 2009 @ 3:36 pm #

“Democrats need political power to do all the wonderful things they plan to do, so they have to cozy up to the groups that will produce votes.”

What a wonderfully apt description of political parties in general – kind of like how the GOP acts with Evangelicals.

I think what you’re getting at here is that the GOP does not really believe what Evangelicals believe.

To a certain extent, this is true but irrelevant. Political parties, by necessity, encompass co-belligerents — people who don’t agree on a number of things, but who have some central goal in common, and who for that reason agree to fight together on the same side. On the left, environmentalists may not agree with progressives, who may not agree with homosexuals, who may not agree with unions, and so forth. On the right, libertarians may not agree with Evangelicals, who may not agree with gun rights activists, who may not agree with paleo-conservatives, and so forth.

Where I think you’re going is that you believe that Evangelicals are foolish to ally themselves with the GOP, since the goals of the GOP are not essentially Christian goals. This is where we disagree. The central themes on which the co-belligerents in the GOP generally agree are actually themes that are consistent with Christian virtue, having been formed by Christian thinkers. I’m speaking specifically of individual liberty, universal suffrage, universal literacy, adherence to the rule of law, honoring the sanctity of the family and of historically consistent human virtues, and the protection of private property. I can see no reason for any Christian to suspect that achieving any of these goals would necessarily produce anything about which Christians should object.

The same is not true of the central themes on which the co-belligerents of the Democratic party agree. Those seem to include social pluralism, sexual libertinism, internationalism, extreme egalitarianism producing equality of outcomes. They also include — and here I think you’ll object — emphatic but unacknowledged anti-Christianity; it seems as though the actual goal is the complete eradication of any vestige of moral influence from the Christian West, and the explicit denial of any positive impact from Christianity to produce the wealth, knowledge, and stability of the West.

In these things, the Democratic and Republican parties are very, very different. Republicans are not dissembling when they acknowledge common goals with Evangelicals — they both truly do believe in individual liberty, private property, etc., and they know perfectly well that they might disagree about which social issues are more important than others. Leaders in the Democratic party, however, are absolutely lying through their teeth when they claim co-belligerence with Christians; they simply read the results of polling data in 2004 and changed their nomenclature to avoid the things that tell Evangelicals that their goals are specifically anti-Christian. The results of the Democratic party pursuing its central goals will be a society that is completely antithetical to Christian dogma in several vital ways.

More to the point of this article, though, is the fact that pursuing the central goals of the Democratic party will produce results that will be very specifically detrimental to the black community. The Democrats are not really the black community’s friends. They’re being used. That’s my point.

November 2, 2009 @ 6:30 am #

I don’t think even conservative sociologists would agree that abortion has been a major factor in the state of the inner-city black family.

I just reread this comment, and I’m aghast. You seem to be saying that so long as sociologists are not focused on the fact that a racial group is being deliberately depopulated, then genocide is not a serious social problem.

Is that really what you think? You’re such a complete sycophant that I can’t bring genocide to your attention as a problem if professional sociologists have not done so first? You’re so dependent on “experts” that you can’t see genocide as a major problem if the “experts” don’t also see it that way?

Please tell me you didn’t mean that.

November 2, 2009 @ 9:02 am #

No, I don’t mean that. My statement on sociology was overstatement, and probably too much so. However, where Suek had focused on the current state of the inner city black family, she had oversimplified to make it sound like the problems were BECAUSE of abortion. I disagreed. Overstated, yes, but disagreed. She snapped out of it.

I notice your subtle shift here, too. You move from leaving the possibility open that it is a “purposeful” holocaust in your original post:

“It is hard to imagine that modern staff at Planned Parenthood still share the opinions of its founder. ”

to an absolute certainty in your response to me:

“You seem to be saying that so long as sociologists are not focused on the fact that a racial group is being deliberately depopulated, then genocide is not a serious social problem.”

I understand your strong desire for this to be true, but come right out from the beginning and just accuse Planned Parenthood, top to bottom, of systematic genocide then. Don’t dance around the issue.

November 2, 2009 @ 9:44 am #

I understand your strong desire for this to be true, but come right out from the beginning and just accuse Planned Parenthood, top to bottom, of systematic genocide then. Don’t dance around the issue.

No dance intended, Jim, just a little overstatement in the heat of my reaction to your apparent “What’s a little genocide among friends?” meme.

I really do think this is deeply affecting the black community, and yes, professional sociologists are completely missing the impact of abortion on society. It’s a pretty stark indictment of sociology as a profession, by my thinking.

While I began my research on this article thinking that Margaret Sanger really did intend the eradication of the black race, I now think that she probably just intended the eradication of the genetically inferior sub-portions of the black race. I’ll let you decide for yourself whether that’s a meaningful difference or not. To me, it looks like the difference between “I want to eliminate you if you’re black” and “I want to eliminate you if you’re not socially and culturally just like me.” That may not be specifically racist, but it’s just as frightening and just as deeply immoral.

And while I won’t say PP is actively and consciously attempting to fulfill her goals (which was my original title for this article), I will say that the similarity between her original goals and the actual achievements of the organization are too similar for mere coincidence. Planned Parenthood seems to be achieving exactly what its founder intended for it to achieve. That can’t be accidental.

November 2, 2009 @ 11:12 am #

>>where Suek had focused on the current state of the inner city black family, she had oversimplified to make it sound like the problems were BECAUSE of abortion. I disagreed. Overstated, yes, but disagreed. She snapped out of it.>>

You seem to have a real need to elevate yourself to status of the great enlightener. I can think of other terms, but won’t test the Phil’s tolerance level.

_YOU_ interpreted what I said to mean that I thought abortion had destroyed the black family. You asked if that was what I meant. I replied that I did not think abortion was the prime element, but a factor in the destruction of the black family. I did _NOT_ “snap out of it” – I clarified my statement.

November 2, 2009 @ 1:27 pm #

But far more importantly, Phil, is the other thread here, about forming alliances with a political party.

Suek posted the ideal situation, where a political party starts:

“I would start with the basic assumption that they are formed by like minded individuals who think that things should be done in such and such a way, and they intend to support the election of a person they’d like to put into a position of responsibility, who they think will do things in the way they think they should be done.”

We haven’t been around for the forming of any parties lately, so we can’t really do this.

The situation we find ourselves in is much more complex than this. The GOP is a political party, with a vested interest in power (yes, like the Democrats). I hardly need to remind anyone here that power corrupts.

The complexity comes in where the not-necessarily-Christian segments of the GOP understand the need for the strength in numbers, and a subtle process commences in which several things happen, often unconsciously and over a lot of time:
______
1. The party as a whole finds a vested interest in convincing the Christian base that more of its platform is actually patently Christian than really is, in order to try and make Christians feel more at home than they should wedding themselves to a human organization.

This has been going on for decades with the GOP. Several items on your list represent things that the New Testament simply does not touch on explicitly:

“individual liberty, universal suffrage, universal literacy, adherence to the rule of law, honoring the sanctity of the family and of historically consistent human virtues, and the protection of private property.”

Now, when Christianity is melded together with certain political philosophies (some of which portray themselves, with varying accuracy, as extensions of Christianity), it’s a lot easier to get to the rest of these things, but they are not all explicitly part of the Christian message.

There are currently many spokesman (including ones that are Christian and apparently unwitting) that can be pointed to as carriers of the “Christianity plus X” message; Dr. Dobson, the Family Research Council, etc.

To lose sight of the fact that the desire for power gives some a vested interest in selling Christians a bill of goods is to make a very serious error.
________
2. Christians are subject to the temptation that there is power in numbers, and in the desire for that power, become more willing to swallow more of the party’s platform than they normally would, in order to gain that power.

Phil, I know you are a student of the Bible, and are well aware that, time and again, God stated categorically and by demonstration that He has no interest in the power of numbers (of people); in fact, I think it’s a fair conclusion to state that He ABHORS when people trust in numbers to get His work done for Him.

So trading in some of our soul as Christians to gain the clout of any political party runs counter to anything we’ve already been told about the nature of our Mission as Christians.

But it certainly doesn’t run counter to the temptations of the Flesh.
________

Both of those being said, I have never said here, nor will I ever say, that it is against God to be active in any political party (that would be a bit hypocritical for a card-carrying member, no? In fact, I just was chosen as a representative for thousands of Republicans in the Spokane area for the Republican census, which I filled out and returned. Some here may find that horrifying). I will always encourage anyone to listen to God and conscience and move forward accordingly.

However, not to warn of pitfalls of trusting in human organizations would be irresponsible.
______
But the simple fact that some Christians here and all around the GOP have given into the traps I listed above shows in another pitfall of marrying ones’ self to a political party:
_____
3. Choosing a party and/or a political philosophy has the inherent danger of that position becoming the only “right” one in our eyes, because we begin to believe it’s the only “right” one in God’s eyes.

The effects of this are horrifying, and show themselves here and other political circles quite often:

People develop the tendency to assume that those who have either refused to sell out completely to the Party, or who, with careful consideration and in good conscience, choose certain positions the other Party favors, that those people must have bad ulterior motives, or at best, are severely deluded.

Because any reasonable Christian SHOULD be a Republican, right? : )

This crosses directly over one of the Ten Commandments – taking the Lord’s name in vain – i.e. attaching God’s “certificate of approval” to some human endeavor. It was the human impulse that did the human side of the work in crucifying Jesus.

Because the victory of the human organization always ends up becoming more important than the victory of the central message of Christianity (due to the desire for power, etc.), people then become negligible.

I freely admit, I give in to this impulse here in my frustrations with the process I’ve outlined above…and treat people with less respect than they deserve.
______

There is much more to say here, but I had been waiting quite a long time for another chance to post a “guest post” on the PBB. It should suffice to say that I believe this is the most important thing I will ever post here. Of course, I could be very, very wrong, and God could have chosen to use some insult I tossed out there to His purposes…He’s that way, you know.

November 2, 2009 @ 1:30 pm #

Suek:

“I did _NOT_ “snap out of it” – I clarified my statement.”

My apologies – I used bad terminology that made it seem like I had wizened you up. What I meant was, you had backed away from how strong the original statement sounded.

And I don’t disagree for a second that I overestimate my role here, all the time.

Can you forgive me on that one?

November 2, 2009 @ 2:11 pm #

darkhorse,

I really hate to disappoint you, but I honestly do not have the time to dissect and respond to that analysis. I think you’re pretty badly confused about a number of things, and I completely disagree with some, but we’ll have to make do with the few scraps that follow.

Most emphatically and personally, I deny that my heartfelt conviction that individual liberty and private property were God’s ideas, constitutes being “married” to the Republican party. I’m not married to anybody except Shelly, and Christ. But I wholeheartedly endorse whichever party best protects the rights of the individual to do as his conscience requires before God. I also wholeheartedly detest whichever party more completely represents the impulse of Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, to displace God with human strength and ingenuity.

Where we disagree most, I think, is in your assumption that it is simply not possible for one party to lean so heavily in one direction, and another party to lean so heavily in the other, that it requires those who love Christ sincerely to choose one party over another. Just on the face of things, it’s obvious that there’s no particular reason why that might not happen. Consequently, one cannot say categorically that any statement like “X party better represents the Christian point of view” is necessarily wrong, simply because it makes the statement. You have to understand the times in which you live, and the true nature of the individual parties.

Being a Christian in a liberal republic is tricky, because governments and nations are human institutions, and the Church ideally is not. It’s the mission of the Church to make as much of earth as possible into the Kingdom of God; that needs to be done practically as well as spiritually. However, God remains the king of His kingdom, and cedes power to nobody, most particularly not to governments. This is why, where Christianity rules the hearts of men, governments must remain relatively small and weak. And whereas you may have a notion regarding how the Kingdom of God is supposed to look where you are, I may have a different notion, and we may conscientiously disagree. I think you know as well as I that God’s purpose cannot be served if you have power to force me to act against my conscience, or if I have power to force you to act against yours; this is the church system you and I both resist, right? We both need to remain free to respond to God’s initiative individually.

For this reason, the system best suited to accomplishing God’s purposes is the one that leaves each individual free to pursue what God demands of him individually, but leaves the least amount of coercive power in the hands of any one person. The tricky part is maintaining the awareness that the system itself is not consciously designed to accomplish God’s purposes, but to accomplish human purposes; but that does not change the fact that the least coercive system accomplishes God’s purposes best.

In America’s current two-party scheme, one party claims to represent that vision, but has demonstrated in practice that its commitment wavers when offered the accouterments of power. The other party also claims to represent that vision, but has demonstrated in practice that it means to achieve it by controlling virtually every aspect of an individual’s life, which is actually the antithesis of that vision (“we’ll make you free by making you our slave”) — while enjoying the accouterments of power at least as badly as the other party, and probably worse. The first is arguably corrupt, but the second, in addition to being corrupt, is the very embodiment of the antithesis of God’s kingdom. I choose to attempt to clean up the first and defeat the second. This does not make me “married to the Republican party” in any meaningful sense, though it does make me register Republican at this stage of my life. I fully recognize that a few decades from now, I might need to change my registration because the nature of both parties may have changed. My commitment is to Christ. But that does not change my assessment today.

And contrary to your confused view of things, this no more makes me “Christianity plus X” than your moderate-left position make you that, or Joe H’s hard-progressive position makes him that. We’re all citizens in what is supposed to be a citizen-governed nation, so we all have equal responsibility to engage in the selection of government.

November 2, 2009 @ 2:44 pm #

You are correct, you did not take the time to try and understand what I was saying. It is a direct threat to the purpose of your blog, and you have a vested interest in ignoring it.

Thanks for the loving step of lofting the “confused” label on me. It does such a good job of absolving you of actually dealing with the issue.

November 2, 2009 @ 3:51 pm #

Come down off your high horse, darkhorse. It’s no threat to me that you don’t know how to think or write clearly.

November 2, 2009 @ 4:12 pm #

I don’t write clearly???? Well done again!

You: “I honestly do not have the time to dissect and respond to that analysis. ”

Better, then, pretend that you did, so you can say 1. I’m confused, 2. I don’t write clearly. Your longer response above was apparently in answer to something somebody else, somewhere else wrote.

I don’t mean that what I said is a direct threat to the existence of your blog (now THAT would be hubris), but it is counter to how you often run the blog and present yourself.

Tell me, which of these statements from my original post (which you admittedly didn’t try and understand) do you disagree with?:

- “power corrupts”

- “To lose sight of the fact that the desire for power gives some a vested interest in selling Christians a bill of goods is to make a very serious error.”

-”trading in some of our soul as Christians to gain the clout of any political party runs counter to anything we’ve already been told about the nature of our Mission as Christians…But it certainly doesn’t run counter to the temptations of the Flesh.”

-”Choosing a party and/or a political philosophy has the inherent danger of that position becoming the only “right” one in our eyes, because we begin to believe it’s the only “right” one in God’s eyes…the effects of this are horrifying, and show themselves here and other political circles quite often.”

“I have never said here, nor will I ever say, that it is against God to be active in any political party.”

AND TAKE YOUR TIME, MAN. Go, tend to other things if you have to. You are at your very worst (as am I) when you give an unthinking, flippant answer.

November 2, 2009 @ 4:14 pm #

If you would like to see proof that Black Genocide is the continuing agenda of founder Margaret Sanger- Get a new film called: Maafa21. This 2 hour documentary is jam packed with original documents , audio, and video that will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. IT WILL STUN YOU! See a preview here: http://www.maafa21.com

November 2, 2009 @ 6:59 pm #

>>The party as a whole finds a vested interest in convincing the Christian base that more of its platform is actually patently Christian than really is>>

Proof? Talk is cheap. Proof please. And not by calling out individuals who are less than perfect – we know that there are plenty of those.

November 2, 2009 @ 7:02 pm #

>>He has no interest in the power of numbers (of people); in fact, I think it’s a fair conclusion to state that He ABHORS when people trust in numbers to get His work done for Him.>>

God helps those who help themselves. In order to win elections, you need numbers. Unless you’re suggesting that God will somehow convert the majority or stuff the ballot box. That seems _terribly_ presumptuous.

November 2, 2009 @ 7:07 pm #

>>those who have either refused to sell out completely to the Party>>

_Sell out_? What do you mean sell out? I would assume that a person who represents a party that does _not_ represent their own personal views does in fact sell out – but not to the party – to their own ambition. In fact, they’re _using_ the party – which ever one.

If they represent the party that agrees most closely with their own views, how is it “selling out”? Or is it your position that they have to agree 100% or they’re selling out?

November 2, 2009 @ 7:13 pm #

>>-”Choosing a party and/or a political philosophy has the inherent danger of that position becoming the only “right” one in our eyes, because we begin to believe it’s the only “right” one in God’s eyes…the effects of this are horrifying, and show themselves here and other political circles quite often.”

“I have never said here, nor will I ever say, that it is against God to be active in any political party.”>>

But it’s totally immoral if to choose one party and really work hard to make it successful????

November 2, 2009 @ 7:14 pm #

How about if I choose a party to belong to but _don’t_ work very hard?

November 2, 2009 @ 7:21 pm #

Suek,

I assume we’re on okay ground on the “snap out of it” comment.

Me, then you:

“>>The party as a whole finds a vested interest in convincing the Christian base that more of its platform is actually patently Christian than really is>>

Proof? Talk is cheap. Proof please. And not by calling out individuals who are less than perfect – we know that there are plenty of those.”
___

Phil admitted openly that the GOP is really a coalition of a bunch of different interests. I was asserting, based on the fact that power corrupts, that it would be in the interest of the other members of the coalition to sell Christians on the GOP being more Christian than it is, especially in light of the historical distaste Evangelicals (especially) have with alliances with non-Christians (being “yoked together”).

I can run through and give examples of planks in the GOP platform that have been sold as more “Christian” than they really are, and who has done so, but Phil is at a point where he isn’t willing to discuss whether any of those planks really are there.

I suggest that is because Phil has bought in, and sells very well also, using very Christian language to do so.

That is not just a pithy insult. It is an observation based on the best of my ability.

I am very confused, though, and I certainly don’t know how to write. Can I get a smile, Phil?

November 2, 2009 @ 7:25 pm #

Suek:

“But it’s totally immoral if to choose one party and really work hard to make it successful????”

No. My caution is this: enter into a commitment with any political organization with fear and trepidation, knowing that all of them (right now) are based on power, and motivated by money, even if you believe you will get something just done by working with them.

And never…and I mean NEVER…assume that anyone else has entered into their commitments with any less fear and trepidation — EVEN IF THEY BELONG TO THE PARTY YOU DISAGREE WITH. You may have some other proof that they have ulterior motives…but on the whole, most people are doing the best with what they have to work with.

This is the historical meaning of charity…the King James translation of Love.

November 3, 2009 @ 11:16 am #

>>knowing that all of them (right now) are based on power, and motivated by money, even if you believe you will get something just done by working with them.>>

>>You may have some other proof that they have ulterior motives…but on the whole, most people are doing the best with what they have to work with.>>

These two statements are in direct contradiction. They basically say that all men have evil intentions, but I must approach them assuming that they are doing their best to be good Christians.

How do you _act_ if you are required to consider both statements true?

November 4, 2009 @ 1:41 am #

Suek,

I’ve agreed to stop posting on the PBB, but I’m begging Phil’s patience since you posed a tough question right to something I said.

These two statements (from the last comment) are not in contradiction, because the first describes a quality of human political organizations, and the second describes most individuals.

As to your question elsewhere, about what planks in the entire Republican platform are objectionable to Christianity:

That’s mistaking the point a bit. I am putting forward that, if the New Testament statement of Christianity is taken at face reading, there really isn’t any concern at all for many of the things that the GOP has in its platform.

Now, past libertarians and conservatives have done a lot of gyrating philosophy to build the bridgework between their belief systems and those of Christianity; something about how long ago they did that, or the fact that conservatives have been taught for so long that the political philosophy and the faith are the same, makes people like our friend Phil just take the whole thing Carte Blanche, shifting the burden of proof away from the Political party and onto the prophetic people who wonder what kind of strange hybrid has been made out of their faith.

I would love the chance to email with you privately, or on another venue about this, Suek, even in the form of private comments about Phil’s posts. If you have any interest at all, jvw@q.com is my email address.

Thanks all.

November 4, 2009 @ 11:20 am #

Thank you for the offer – I believe it is well intended. However it is apparent to me that our thought processes are so unlike – for whatever reason – that further discussion would be pointless.

For example:
>>if the New Testament statement of Christianity is taken at face reading, there really isn’t any concern at all for many of the things that the GOP has in its platform.>>

This statement says to me that the GOP party platform has little to cause concern in Christians (though you _still_ didn’t specify what _would_ cause a Christian concern, and that is exactly the point I asked about).

Then you follow that with:

>>past libertarians and conservatives have done a lot of gyrating philosophy to build the bridgework between their belief systems and those of Christianity>>

Gyrating philosophy? to build the bridgework? In other words, they have attempted to deceive people?

>>conservatives have been taught for so long that the political philosophy and the faith are the same>>

Says who? Unlike the Democrats who hold political rousing sessions in churches? Black churches in particular? What about _their_ faith?

>>shifting the burden of proof away from the Political party and onto the prophetic people >>

This statement is simply gibberish to me.

>>prophetic people who wonder what kind of strange hybrid has been made out of their faith.>>

Ditto.

I have no idea where discussion would start – there seems to be no common starting point.

Besides – I get the distinct feeling that you and Joe have little use for females – and consider females to be lesser beings. I’m not particularly interested in being patronized.

So…Thanks, but no thanks.

November 4, 2009 @ 12:25 pm #

So…based on a patently false “feeling”, you have concluded falsely. Until just now, I don’t think I was even sure you WERE a female…if I knew before, it hadn’t entered my mind lately. Joe and my impatience usually centers on lack of willingness or ability to stay on track in an argument.

Our wives would both laugh out loud at the idea that we don’t respect females. In fact, I am laughing now at the idea!

I understand how you can not be thinking on the same plane as me for Christianity; my experience of the living God is apparently different from yours. I can assure you, the things I said are not gibberish; a different perspective, drawn from Jesus’ ideas (of course, in my mind) rather than politics or tradition, but not gibberish.

Have a blessed life, Sue. I mean that.

November 4, 2009 @ 1:07 pm #

I may have concluded falsely. That’s always possible. However, my feelings did not determine my conclusion – that further discussion would be fruitless due to our dissimilarity of thought process. That was based on the experience so far on this blog.

I do appreciate your good will, though, and wish you – and your wife – a life filled with the blessings you seek.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>