Lies and Deception
Katie McDonough writes on Salon.com, a liberal website, that Texas is
home to over one hundred state-funded crisis pregnancy centers.
If a pregnant teen goes into a crisis pregnancy center, the Christians will not judge her for the sin of fornication (e.g., call her a "dog," tell her "right now," etc.), nor equate the victimless crime of fornication with the sin of killing an unborn child.
Even Bible-believing Christians distinguish between victimless crimes and crimes with victims!
But unless these state-funded crisis pregnancy centers are completely secular, this violates church-state separation!
Crisis pregnancy centers shouldn't resort to lies and medical minsinformation to protect the unborn (e.g., misrepresenting themselves as abortion clinics to lure pregnant girls and women in, and then trying to convince them not to kill their babies).
In the '80s, Randall Terry is reported to have said, "We (pro-lifers) never claimed to be abortionists.
At a pro-life demonstration years ago, when Father Frank Pavone of Priests For Life asked Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King if the pro-life demonstrations were comparable to the civil rights movement, she replied, "Father, this IS the civil rights movement!"
If protecting unborn children is a noble cause and calling, a just and religious cause, like the civil rights movement, why should pro-lifers have to resort to lies and deception?
The Ten Commandments warn against bearing false witness.
Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said: "Let your word 'yes' be yes and your 'no,' no. Anything beyond this is from the evil one."
(Isn't Satan known as a deceiver?)
Even the apostle Paul, who taught a completely different theology than that of Jesus, condemned dishonesty (Colossians 3:13).
The apostle Paul said, "If anyone has confidence in the Law, I am ahead of him."
Does that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who repeatedly upheld the Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), as did his apostles (see chapters 10, 15 and 21 of Acts)?
If Christians aren't even following the moral instructions Paul gives throughout his epistles, if they aren't even following Paul, then no one's going to take them seriously, what to speak of putting them ahead of Jesus!
Boy, they "believe"!
Paul quotes the risen Jesus as having said to him three times, "My grace is sufficient for thee." (II Corinthians 12:8-9) Christians sometimes misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please—ignoring the rest of the New Testament, and (especially) Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.
The apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)
Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e. , it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce, however, is not permissible, except in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7)
Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality."This is God's will—your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)
Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1).
"Make no mistake," warned Paul, "no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 [NEB])
Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)
Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)
Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)
Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshiping, and
that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14)
According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)
Christians often ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus only on one
of Paul's statements to justify their hedonism. The late Reverend Janet
Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007), an evangelical minister, a vegan, and author
of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA), said they're quoting Paul out of
context. Paul, she observed, was very strict with himself:
"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)
Regina Hyland said further that this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).
Christians who focus only on II Corinthians 12:8-9 MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense: on the one hand, Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, homosexuals, etc. will not inherit the kingdom of God, and on the other hand he's saying if you call on Jesus three times... you can do whatever you want?!
And couldn't pro-choice Christians cite "three times..." to justify their
right to abortion?!
The traditional interpretation of II Corinthians 12:8-9 is that Paul had a "thorn" in his side, and asked the risen Jesus what to do about it. The response was simple: "My grace is sufficient for thee." This was a response to a specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul himself have given so many other moral instructions throughout his epistles?
Reverend Frank Hoffman, a retired pro-life vegan Methodist minister, and owner of the www.all-creatures.org Christian vegan website says he agrees with the traditional interpretation.
To be fair, it must be pointed out that on the Democrats For Life email list
over decade ago, Louis Shapiro ("Shapiro" is a Jewish name, but he's
Catholic) asked: why do abortion-rights advocates, who prefer to call
themselves "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion," object to "Choose Life"
license plate frames, when the slogan capitulates to the other side by
inferring "Choice" ?!
I've pointed out before that religious pro-lifers dictate to those outside of their faith... but react with disbelief ("God!") when told it's wrong to kill animals.
Abortion issues: personhood, privacy, and rights are treated as secular politics, applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics.
Animal issues aren't even relegated to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), but treated as someone else's "religious beliefs."
One's religious identity isn't relevant when the issue is abortion, but one's religious identity is relevant when animal issues are brought up for discussion.
(And pro-lifers have the gall to claim they "do unto others..."!)
If their interpretation of Christianity "exempts" these Christians from protecting animals, are pro-choice Christians similarly exempt from protecting the unborn?
If you carry pro-life Christian sectarianism to its logical conclusion, religious pro-lifers can't oppose abortion, either, if someone else's religion permits it!
Similarly: if you carry the abortion-rights philosophy of "Choice" to its logical conclusion, then pro-choicers, claiming to believe in "Choice," are hardly in a position to object to crisis pregnancy centers offering girls and women facing an unplanned pregnancy an alternative (a choice!) other than abortion!
If Planned Parenthood believes in "Choice," they must similarly allow their contributors a choice as to whether or not they want their donations to fund abortions, or merely health related services, contraception, sex education, etc.
(Perhaps if Planned Parenthood allowed donors a choice on abortion, their funding for abortion would quickly dry up!)
And if the Democratic Party believes in "Choice," they must offer their constituents a choice of whether to become pro-life Democrats or pro-choice Democrats.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 220-3066