From AlbertMohler.com

Click Here to see the original article:

 

“The Year of Our Lord” — Diploma Trouble in Texas

The controversy at Trinity University tells us so much about the loss of Christian conviction in colleges and universities, the insanity of secular revisionism, and the contradictions of Muslim students who are offended by the words “the year of our Lord,” but seem perfectly happy to have the name “Trinity University” printed in bold on their diplomas.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

A group of students at Trinity University in San Antonio is petitioning the administration to remove the words “in the year of our Lord” from the school’s diplomas. Senior Sidra Qureshi said she started the petition in order to assure the school’s commitment to diversity. A Muslim student who presides over the “Trinity Diversity Connection,” Miss Qureshi told the media: “A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes. . . . By having the phrase ‘in the year of our Lord,’ it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.”

According to some accounts, the issue was first raised by Issac Medina, a convert to Islam who graduated in December of 2009. He told the San Antonio Express-News that he was offended by the language he found on his diploma, calling himself “a victim of a bait and switch” because he had been assured that the school no longer held to a Christian identity.

The school’s administration has sent mixed signals of its intention, but a decision by the university’s president and Board of Trustees is expected soon. Sharon Jones Schweitzer, assistant vice president for university communications told The Washington Times that the school will probably remove the phrase from all diplomas. The university’s president, Dennis Ahlburg, defended the wording as “unobtrusive.”

RELATED POSTS

• Jesus Christ is “Our Vehicle to the Divine?” The Episcopal Church is in Big Trouble
• “There’s Not Much Lord in this Church Service”
• Texas Pastor Electrocuted During Baptism
• Mandatory Sex Education for Ten-Year-Olds? Yours? (Audio)
• Calvin’s 500 Year Legacy (Audio)

Many of the school’s alumni have protested the proposal, but momentum toward the change appears to be growing on the campus.

There are at least two significant dimensions of this controversy. The first has to do with what this reveals about the loss of Christian conviction and identity among so many church related schools. Trinity University was established in 1869 by Cumberland Presbyterians. The original faculty of five professors taught an inaugural class of seven students. Trustees first located the school in rural Tehuacana, Texas, hoping to put the students far away from the vices and temptations of larger cities.

The university’s published historical narrative explains: “Although religion played a prominent role in a Trinity education, the ethos was broadly Christian and no students were excluded because of religious affiliation.” In 1906 the school affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

The decision to move the school to San Antonio came in 1941. In 1969, the school “modified” its relationship to the church by eliminating legal ties to the Presbyterian denomination. The new agreement between the school and the denomination “affirmed historical connections and pledged mutual support.”

This is the language of disengagement and secularization. Gary Luhr, executive director of the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities, told The Washington Times that Trinity University is moving towards a relationship that is little more than a reference to the fact that the origins of the school “involved religion.”

As James Tunstead Burtchaell has documented and explained, “Countless colleges and universities in the history of the United States were founded under some sort of Christian patronage, but many which still survive do not claim any relationship with a church or denomination. Even on most of the campuses which are still listed by churches as their affiliates, there is usually some concern expressed today about how authentic or how enduring that tie really is; and often wistful thinking is all that remains.”

These schools have been effectively secularized, moving from identity as Christian colleges with clear Christian convictions, to church-related schools with ambiguous convictions, to schools with some historic tie to Christianity, but no Christian convictions at all. At this last stage, Christianity is more of an embarrassment than anything else. It seems that all parties related to the controversy at Trinity University are agreed that Christianity plays no official role in the life and work of the school in the present.

No one is claiming that the words “in the year of our Lord” mean anything theological in this context. The school holds to an essentially secular worldview — despite the language of the diploma, the Christian name of the school, and the image of the Bible on the school’s seal.

The second important dimension of the controversy is the insanity of thinking that the removal of the words “in the year of our Lord” will accomplish anything. Sidra Qureshi complains that the words are “directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.” Well, if those words offend anyone, how can they not be offended by the name of the university itself? Some have tried to explain the name in terms of the fact that the school had three predecessor institutions and was located in three Texas locations, but no one is denying the central fact that the word “Trinity” is a direct reference to the central Christian belief about God — and about Jesus Christ.

And what would the removal of the words “the year of our Lord” accomplish? That system of calendar dating can be traced back to Dionysius Exiguus, an abbot who in the year 525 constructed a new chart of Easter tables, changing the numbering of the years from the year one starting in 284, the year that Emperor Diocletian ascended to the throne, to what Dionysius calculated to be the year of Christ’s birth. Dionysius referred to the years after the birth of Christ as anni Domini nostri Jesu Christi (the years of our Lord Jesus Christ).

Thus, even when modern secularists try to change the language and dating customs from “A.D.” to “C.E.,” for “common era,” the date itself remains fixed with reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. Instead of “B.C.” for “before Christ,” these new agents of “tolerance” prefer “B.C.E.,” for “before common era.” But, once again, this does nothing to remove the fact that the number of the year points directly to the assumed date of the birth of Christ.

In other words, the only way to fully secularize the dating system is to renumber all the years with some other point of historical reference. Perhaps they would prefer we start with the year of Charles Darwin’s birth, then renumber the years as “B.C,” for “before Charles,” and “A.D.,” for “after Darwin.”

The controversy at Trinity University tells us so much about the loss of Christian conviction in colleges and universities, the insanity of secular revisionism, and the contradictions of Muslim students who are offended by the words “the year of our Lord,” but seem perfectly happy to have the name “Trinity University” printed in bold on their diplomas.

One thing is clear — the university will have to decide quickly what to do in this situation, and they will make their decision in — you guessed it — the year of our Lord, the two thousand and tenth.

Joe Morecraft's Tea Party Speech 1/15/2010

Here's a great message by Joe Morecraft, click here to hear the speech he delivered yesterday.


Joe Morecraft speaking at Carroll County TEA Party from Aubrey Boles on Vimeo.


Blessings,
Actual Link:  http://vimeo.com/10970036

Remember to Keep Praying for Bowe Bergdahl

Taliban release video of captured US soldier

Original Article can be found here

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Taliban released a video Wednesday of a man identified as an American soldier captured in Afghanistan last June, showing him pleading for his freedom and to be returned home.

In the video, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl says he wants to return to his family in Idaho and that the war in Afghanistan is not worth the number of lives that have been lost or wasted in prison. It is the first he has been seen since the Taliban released a video of him on Christmas.

The seven-minute video of Bergdahl shows him sporting a beard and doing a few push-ups to demonstrate he's in good physical condition. There was no way to verify when the footage was taken or if he is still alive.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an Army spokesman, said he could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the video.

"Our thoughts, prayers, and support remain with the Bergdahl family during this difficult time," Garver said.

Bergdahl disappeared June 30 while based in eastern Afghanistan and is the only known American serviceman in captivity. The Taliban claimed his capture in a video released in mid-July that showed the young soldier appearing downcast and frightened.

In the sometimes choppy video issued Wednesday, Bergdahl talks about his love for his family, his friends, motorcycles and sailing.

"I'm a prisoner. I want to go home," he says in the video, which was made available by Washington-based Site Intelligence Group, which monitors militant Web sites. "This war isn't worth the waste of human life that has cost both Afghanistan and the U.S. It's not worth the amount of lives that have been wasted in prisons, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, all those places where we are keeping prisoners."

At times speaking haltingly, as if holding back emotions, Bergdahl - clad in what appeared to be an Army shirt and fatigues - clasped his hands together and pleaded: "The pain in my heart to see my family again doesn't get any smaller. Release me. Please, I'm begging you, bring me home."

He added that he is strong and is "given the freedom to exercise" and to be a human being, even though he is a prisoner.

Lt. Col. Tim Marsano of the Idaho National Guard said Wednesday that Bergdahl's family was not aware of the new video. But he said the community of Hailey has reminders all over town of Bergdahl's capture, including signs wishing for his safe return and yellow ribbons.

"The community has definitely not forgotten Bowe Bergdahl, and the family continues to appreciate the support," said Marsano. "It's been a difficult nine months. With the support of family, friends and community members, they are doing as well as anyone could expect in this kind of situation."

U.S. officials have said that there were indications as recently as late January that Bergdahl was still alive.

At the end of the video, a speaker, reportedly Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, demands the release of a limited number of prisoners in exchange for the American.

Military officials had notice prior to the first video of Bergdahl released by the Taliban last summer, giving them time to alert his family before its public release. It was unclear Wednesday whether military officials knew this new video was coming.

Bergdahl, who was serving with a unit based in Fort Richardson, Alaska, was 23 when he vanished just five months after arriving in Afghanistan. He was serving at a base in Paktika province near the border with Pakistan in an area known to be a Taliban stronghold.

Remember to Pray Against the Health Care Bill...Being voted on today!

This video is so sad...as professed Pro-lifers compromise...

Article by Albert Mohler: This is LIFE We're Talking About~Abortion and the Health Care Bill

Ground Zero for the sanctity of human life is now the U.S. House of Representatives, where the Democratic leadership is pulling all the levers to come up with the 216 votes necessary to pass the Obama health care bill. While most of the nation seems preoccupied with the politics of the issue and the political machinations of the frenzied legislative process, the preeminent issue is abortion and the sanctity of human life.
While President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have insisted that the current bill is "abortion neutral," it is not. As Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for LIfe argues, the bill represents "the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973Roe v. Wade decision."
Some background information is in order. Federal funding for abortion is prevented by the Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1976 in order to prevent taxpayer funds from paying for abortions. The concept behind the Hyde Amendment is simple and important. Abortion is a highly divisive issue, and the federal government should not require American citizens to violate their consciences by subsidizing abortions. Just a few months ago, the House of Representatives adopted language similar to the Hyde Amendment in the form of what became known as the Stupak Amendment, named for Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who introduced the legislation.
The bill currently before Congress does not include the Stupak Amendment, not anything like the Hyde Amendment. When the President and congressional leaders insist that the current bill does not subsidize abortions, they mislead the American public.
The bill requires all Americans to purchase health insurance through qualified government-approved policies. The current version, based on the bill passed by the Senate, would require qualified plans to cover abortion only through a separate policy, paid for with a separate check or payroll deduction. Yet, as Dr. Yoest argues, this leaves plenty of room for American citizens to be coerced into financial involvement with abortion.
At the first level, this is true because the entire health care insurance system, complete with mandates to individual American citizens, would effectively reset the economy of scale, meaning that we will all, in effect, be subsidizing abortion services in an indirect subsidy. More directly, employees of companies that choose a policy with abortion coverage will be coerced into a direct subsidy -- required to pay what would amount to a abortion tax.
There is also the issue of mandated coverage through action of the federal courts. The Hyde Amendment became necessary because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in 1996 that abortion must be covered by Medicaid as a "mandatory" category of medical care. The Hyde Amendment is all that stands between that ruling and taxpayer funding of abortion.
The creeping coverage of abortions is what Dr. Yoest has in mind when she writes: "Without specific language prohibiting the practice, history has shown that the courts or administrative agencies end up directing government dollars to pay for abortions."
Beyond all this, the current bill lacks the conscience protections necessary to prevent medical personnel from being required to participate in abortions.
Why are the Democratic leaders so determined to exclude the Stupak Amendment from the bill? The most stunning and revealing explanation comes from Rep. Stupak himself. Consider this:
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue.
This language is nothing less than horrifying. "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."
As James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal insists, this is nothing less than a call for eugenics. Where does this logic lead?
He writes: "In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born."
Americans may disagree on virtually every dimension of this health care bill, but there is now about far more than health care. As Rep. Stupak asserts, "This is life we're talking about." Unless adequate protections for the unborn are added to this bill, we are indeed witnessing a radical turn in this nation's moral character. Time is running out. The adoption of adequate protections for the unborn should be beyond debate.
Rep. Stupak's words bear repeating, over and over again. "This is life we're talking about."
_____________________________________
I have refrained from extended comment on the health care reform bills -- not because I do not have multiple concerns about the bills, but because I recognize that committed Christians can and will disagree over the political and policy issues involved. The trip-wire for me is the issue of human life. The current bill spells disaster when it comes to abortion. I cannot remain silent in this crucial moment where the sanctity of human life is at stake.
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
Charmaine Yoest, "Abortion and the Health Bill," The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, March 4, 2010.
James Taranto, "ObamaCare and Eugenics," The Wall Street Journal, Monday, March 15, 2010.
Robert Costa, "They Just Want This Over," National Review, "The Corner," Friday, March 12, 2010.

Click Here for the original article

The Scandal of Gendercide — War on Baby Girls By Albert Mohler

The reality has been known for years now, though the Western media have generally resisted any direct coverage of the horror. That changed this week when The Economistpublished its stunning cover story -- "Gendercide -- What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?"
In many nations of the world, there is an all-out war on baby girls. In 1990, economist Amartya Sen estimated that 100 million baby girls were missing -- sacrificed by parents who desired a son.  Two decades later, multiple millions of missing baby girls must be added to that total, victims of abortion, infanticide, or fatal neglect.
The murder of girls is especially common in China and northern India, where a preference for sons produces a situation that is nothing less than critical for baby girls. In these regions, there are 120 baby boys born for every 100 baby girls. As The Economist explains, "Nature dictates that  slightly more males are born than females to offset boys' greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale."
In its lead editorial, the magazine gets right to the essential point: "It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions--aborted, killed, neglected to death."
In its detailed and extensive investigative report, the magazine opens its article with chilling force. A baby girl is born in China's Shandong province. Chinese writer Xinran Xue, present for the birth, then hears a man's voice respond to the sight of the newborn baby girl. "Useless thing," he cried in disappointment. The witness then heard a plop in the slops pail. "To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail!"  When she tried to intervene she was restrained by police. An older woman simply explained to her, "Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here."
The numbers of dead and missing baby girls is astounding. In some Chinese provinces, there are more than 130 baby boys for every 100 baby girls. The culture places a premium value on sons, and girls are considerd an economic drain. A Hindu saying conveys this prejudice: "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbors garden."
Midwives even charge more for the birth of a baby boy. But the preference for a boy rises with both economic power and the number of children born to a couple. The imbalance of boys to girls is no accident -- it reflects a prejudice that runs throughout the societies where the abortion and killing of baby girls is considered both understandable and routine.
Add to this the widespread availability of ultrasound imaging services. Even though the governments of China and India have officially declared sex-selection abortions to be illegal, they persist by the millions. (And, interestingly, the magazine notes that Sweden actually legalized sex-selection abortions in 2009.)
This sentence from the investigative report is particularly horrifying: "In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin."
In other words, even as the spread of ultrasound technology has greatly aided the pro-life movement by making the humanity of the unborn baby visible and undeniable, among those determined to give birth only to baby boys, in millions of cases the same technology has meant a death warrant for a baby girl in the womb.
There are multiple factors that lead to the preference for boys over girls. In China, the government's draconian "one child only" policy has led to both forced abortions and an effective death sentence for baby girls when a couple is determined that, if their children are to be so drastically limited, they will insist on having a son. As the magazine explains, "For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son."
Consider this:
In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.
The social consequences of this imbalance are vast and uncorrectable. China and India now face the reality of millions of young men and boys who have absolutely no hope of a wife and family. In China, these young men are called guanggun or "broken branches." Just consider this -- the 30 to 40 million "broken branches" in China are about equal in number to the total number of all boys and young men in the United States.
These young men represent a a looming disaster on the societal level. Young males commit the greatest number of criminal acts and acts of violence. Marriage has been the great taming institution for the social development of young males. Without prospect for marriage and a normal sex and family life, these multiple millions of unmarried young men are becoming a significant social challenge in China and India. Some observers even argue that this may lead to an increased militarism in the region.
Of course, the greatest disaster is personal for the young men and boys who face the future as "broken branches." The parents who insist on having boys are dooming their own sons to lives of brokenness, frustration, and grief.
And the future looks even more ominous for baby girls. Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute points to "the fatal collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility." As the magazine adds, "Over the next generation, many of the problems associated with sex selection will get worse. The social consequences will become more evident because the boys born in large numbers over the past decade will reach maturity then. Meanwhile, the practice of sex selection itself may spread because fertility rates are continuing to fall and ultrasound scanners reach throughout the developing world."
While imbalances such as now found in China and India are unknown in the West, the practice of sex-selection abortion is found here as well. Indeed, there is no current law against the practice in the United States, where abortion is legal for any reason, at least in earlier stages of pregnancy. In reality, sex selection abortions happen here, too. After all, proponents of abortion in the United States infamously insist on a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion "for any reason, or for no reason."
The Economist is right to call this tragedy gendercide -- the targeting of baby girls for death and destruction simply because of their gender. The magazine deserves appreciation for its no-holds-barred report on this tragedy, and for forcing the issue to be faced. Furthermore, The Economistends its editorial with the right message, "The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down."
Will reports like this awaken the conscience of the world to the unspeakable crime and global tragedy of gendercide? If not, what will it take? The blood of millions of murdered and missing baby girls cries out to the world's conscience. Will we hear?
________________________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
"Gendercide," The Economist, March 6, 2010.
"Gendercide -- The Worldwide War on Baby Girls," The Economist, March 6, 2010. The extensive investigative report is available in the magazine's print editions but is available online only to subscribers.

To see the original article click here

Pray for the Christians in Nigeria

Over 500 Christians were murdered in Muslim machete attacks on Sunday in Nigeria.  Click Here to view to full article from Yahoo.

JOS, Nigeria (AFP) – UN chief Ban Ki-moon and Washington led calls for restraint on Monday after the slaughter of more than 500 Christians in Nigeria, as survivors told how the killers chopped down their victims.

Funerals took place for victims of the three-hour orgy of violence on Sunday in three Christian villages close to the northern city of Jos, blamed on members of the mainly Muslim Fulani ethnic group.

While troops were deployed to the villages to prevent new attacks, security forces detained 95 suspects but faced bitter criticism over how the killers were able to go on the rampage at a time when a curfew was meant to be in force.

Media reported that Muslim residents of the villages in Plateau statehad been warned by phone text message, two days prior to the attack, so they could make good their escape before the exit points were sealed off.

Survivors said the attackers were able to separate the Fulanis from members of the rival Berom group by chanting 'nagge', the Fulani word for cattle. Those who failed to respond in the same language were hacked to death.

One local paper said the gangs shouted Allah Akhbar (God is Great) before breaking into homes and setting them alight in the early hours of Sunday. Churches were among the buildings that were burned down.

The Vatican led a wave of outrage with spokesman Federico Lombardiexpressing the Roman Catholic Church's "sadness" at the "horrible acts of violence".

The UN chief told reporters he was "deeply concerned".

"I appeal to all concerned to exercise maximum restraint," he said.

"Nigeria's political and religious leaders should work together to address the underlying causes and to achieve a permanent solution to the crisis in Jos."

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged "all parties to exercise restraint", but also called on the Nigerian government to "make sure the perpetrators are brought to justice."

"The Nigerian government should ensure that the perpetrators of acts of violence are brought to justice under the rule of law and that human rights are respected as order is restored," the chief US diplomat said.

The death toll was initially put at a little over 100 but then shot up. The information ministry said pregnant women were among those killed and around 200 people were being treated in hospital.

"We have over 500 killed in three villages and the survivors are busy burying their dead," said state information commissioner Gregory Yenlong.

"People were attacked with axes, daggers and cutlasses -- many of them children, the aged and pregnant women."

Survivors wail as children, women buried in Nigeria

Much of the violence was centred around the village of Dogo Nahawa, where gangs set fire to straw-thatched mud huts as they went on their rampage.

The explosion of violence is the latest between rival ethnic and religious groups. In January 326 people died in clashes in and around Jos, according to police although rights activists put the overall toll at more than 550.

"The attack is yet another jihad and provocation," the Plateau State Christian Elders Consulatative Forum (PSCEF) said.

However the archbishop of the capital Abuja, John Onaiyekan, told Vatican Radio that the violence was rooted not in religion but in social, economic and tribal differences.

"It is a classic conflict between pastoralists and farmers, except that all the Fulani are Muslims and all the Berom are Christians," he said.

Fulani are mainly nomadic cattle rearers while Beroms are traditionally farmers.

A curfew imposed after January's unrest is supposed to be still in place but Christian leaders said the authorities did nothing to prevent the bloodshed.

The PSCEF said it took the army two hours to react from the time a distress call was put through and "the attackers had finished their job and left".

Witnesses said armed gangs had scared people out of their homes by firing into the air but most of the killings were the result of machete attacks.

"We were caught unawares ... and as we tried to escape, the Fulani who were already waiting, slaughtered many of us," said Dayop Gyang, of Dogo Nahawa. 

Gbong Gwon Jos, a Muslim resident of Dogo Nahawa, told The Nation daily he received advanced warnings of the attacks.

"I got a text message about movement of the people."

Rights activists said the slaughter appeared to be revenge for the January attacks in which mainly Muslims were killed.

Locals said that the attacks on Sunday were the result of a feud which had been first ignited by a theft of cattle and then fuelled by deadly reprisals.

Acting President Goodluck Jonathan placed security services in Plateau and nearby states on red alert to contain the violence before he sacked his chief security advisor.

In the Interest of Justice Meeting

In The Interest of Justice

Heads up Corpus Christi and those living in the Coastal Bend area!  In the Interest of Justice will be meeting on Tuesday February 23rd at Annapolis Christian Academy.  So mark your calendars and make plans to attend.


Date: February 23rd


Time: 7:00pm


This month the topics are on:  Texas' State Judiciary and Legislature and their interaction.  


Guest Speakers:  Judge Tom Greenwell of the 319th District Court and Texas House of Representative District 32 Todd Hunter.


Judge Tom Greenwell is one of our Honored judges and State Rep. Todd Hunter is on the Judiciary Committee in our State legislature.  This will prove interesting and informative, don't miss it!


For more information contact: 888-455-4845 or www.itij.org


You can also pick up fliers from the Church to distribute to friends, family, Co-workers, etc.

Facebook

Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church of the RPCUS is now on Facebook!  You can follow us on Facebook by Clicking Here or searching for us on Facebook.

Praise God for Those Who Take a Stand

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/

Tim Tebow

NewsNote: Mugged by Ultrasound by Albert Mohler

One of the most important books of the twentieth century was a memoir about an intellectual and moral conversion. The book was Witness by Whittaker Chambers, and in it he chronicled his abandonment of faith in communism. But Whittaker Chambers had not only believed in Communism -- he had been a Soviet spy. The brutal realities of the Soviet regime became too much for Chambers to ignore or deny, and thus he abandoned Communism and wroteWitness as his testimony. Even now, more than a half-century after its publication, the book makes for compelling reading.

The same is true for an article that just recently appeared in The Weekly Standard. In "Mugged by Ultrasound," David Daleiden and Jon A. Shields reveal a reality becoming more and more common -- abortion workers turning pro-life.

Abortion activists, they note, are usually detached from the actual process of abortion. Thus, they can hide behind arguments about a woman's "right to choose" or "reproductive freedom." But, as Daleiden and Shields explain, those who are actually performing the abortions cannot hide from the horrible reality, and some of them cannot handle the horror. Eventually, "a noteworthy number have found the conflict unbearable and have defected to the pro-life cause."

Daleiden and Shields trace some of these defections to two developments that changed the experience of providing abortions. First, the usual means of aborting second-trimester fetuses around the time of Roe v. Wade (1973) was saline injection. But, that is no longer the case. Those abortions are now done by "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), which involves the dismemberment of the fetus within the womb. For doctors and others involved in a D&E abortion, there is no way to escape the horrifying reality of that procedure.

They write:

Such studies are few. In general, abortion providers have censored their own emotional trauma out of concern to protect abortion rights. In 2008, however, abortionist Lisa Harris endeavored to begin “breaking the silence” in the pages of the journal Reproductive Health Matters. When she herself was 18 weeks pregnant, Dr. Harris performed a D&E abortion on an 18-week-old fetus. Harris felt her own child kick precisely at the moment that she ripped a fetal leg off with her forceps:

Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes—without me—meaning my conscious brain—even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling—a brutally visceral response—heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life.

Lisa Harris charged that the abortion industry had “not owned up to the reality of the fetus, or the reality of fetal parts." Amazingly, Harris remained in the abortion business, but she could not deny what she knew about the killing of the unborn

Daleiden and Shields tell of Paul Jarrett, a doctor who did leave the business after performing 23 abortions. Jarrett explained why: “As I brought out the rib cage, I looked and saw a tiny, beating heart . . . and when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being—a human being that I just killed.”

The second development that has changed the moral landscape of abortion is the ultrasound image. Bernard Nathanson, who at one time was performing more abortions than anyone else in the Western world, famously converted to the pro-life cause, largely prompted by seeing ultrasound images of unborn babies. Nathanson, who once aborted one of his own children, could no longer deny the reality. Daleiden and Shields make clear that Nathanson has been followed in this defection by others:

The most recent example is Abby Johnson, the former director of Dallas-area Planned Parenthood. After watching, via ultrasound, an embryo “crumple” as it was suctioned out of its mother’s womb, Johnson reported a “conversion in my heart.” Likewise, Joan Appleton was the head nurse at a large abortion facility in Falls Church, Virginia, and a NOW activist. Appleton performed thousands of abortions with aplomb until a single ultrasound-assisted abortion rattled her. As Appleton remembers, “I was watching the screen. I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. .  .  . After the procedure I was shaking, literally.”

David Daleiden and Jon Shields have done a masterful job of explaining why these two developments have altered the landscape of abortion in America. The defection of so many abortion providers and of those involved in that industry is a story that must be told. At a very important level, this is truly heartening news in the midst of tragedy.

We must also see clearly that the revulsion toward abortion that marks these defections is based in truth -- the truth that the inhabitant of the womb is not a mere "fetus," but a baby. Paul Jarrett looked into the face of "another human being—a human being that I just killed." Joan Appleton "saw the baby open its mouth."

Similarly, the ultrasound image reveals the undeniable humanity of the baby within the womb. This remarkable technology saves lives -- just by revealing the baby in all of its humanity.

From a Christian perspective, the recognition of the baby's humanity must be traced to common grace and general revelation. The womb is revealed to be inhabited by a human being who deserves nothing less than our full protection and respect. The heart and mind cannot deny what the eyes have seen.

The late Irving Kristol once explained his own intellectual conversion as having been "mugged by reality." Daleiden and Shields get it just right when they describe these former abortion providers and workers as having been "mugged by ultrasound." May those muggings be multiplied -- and may they spread to the American public as well.

________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

David Daleiden and Jon A. Shields, "Mugged by Ultrasound: Why So Many Abortion Workers Have Turned Pro-life," The Weekly Standard, January 25, 2010.

The original article can be found here

How the States Define Life...

Accusing and Excusing for 37 Years

Alabama defines person to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

Alaska provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years.

Arizona define negligent homicide, manslaughter, first and second degree murder, and specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development. The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.

Arkansas defines “person” to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development. “Unborn child” means a living fetus of 12 weeks or greater gestation.

California defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

Florida defines murder as the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother.

Georgia stipulates that a person commits the offense of feticide if he willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called “quick” by causing any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life.

Idaho declares that murder includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice.

Illinois includes the following as criminal offenses: intentional homicide of an unborn child; voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child; involuntary manslaughter of an unborn child; reckless homicide of an unborn child.

Indiana defines feticide as the intentional termination of a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.

Iowa provides penalties for the nonconsensual termination or serious injury to a human pregnancy.

Kansas makes it possible to charge someone with murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide or battery for killing or harming a fetus. It provides the definition of “person” for those specific crimes, including the definition of an unborn child that includes any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.

Kentucky allows the state to charge an individual with a separate crime for terminating a fetus during the commission of an act that injures or kills a pregnant woman.

Louisiana defines feticide as the killing of an unborn child by the act, procurement, or culpable omission of a person other than the mother of the unborn child. State law defines “person” as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not. “Unborn child” means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth.

Maine defines the crimes of murder, felony murder, assault, aggravated assault and elevated aggravated assault against an unborn child.

Maryland establishes that a prosecution may be instituted for murder, manslaughter, or unlawful homicide under certain conditions for an act or failure to act that causes the death of a viable fetus.

Massachusetts rules that a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term “person” in the vehicular homicide statute.

Michigan defines manslaughter as the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of such child.

Minnesota provides penalties for an assault to a pregnant woman and subsequent harm to an unborn child.

Mississippi includes the death of a fetus in wrongful death statute as murder or manslaughter.

Nebraska defines murder of an unborn child in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter.

Nevada defines manslaughter as a person who willfully kills an unborn quick child by any injury committed upon the mother of the child.

North Carolina states that any person, who in the commission of a felony, causes injury to a woman, knowing the woman to be pregnant, in which injury results in the miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman is guilty of a felony that is one class higher than the felony committed.

North Dakota defines the murder and manslaughter of an unborn child and provides penalties.

Ohio law applies to a person which includes an “unborn member of the species Homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another.”

Oklahoma defines unborn child as a human being.

Pennsylvania defines homicide of an unborn child. An individual commits criminal homicide of an unborn child if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child.

Rhode Island stipulates that the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of that child is deemed manslaughter.

South Carolina provides that a person who commits a violent crime that causes the death of, or injury to, a child in utero is guilty of a separate offense and that the person must be punished as if the death or injury occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

South Dakota defines homicide as murder in the first degree to include the death of a person or any other human being, including an unborn child.

Tennessee defines “another” and “another person” as a viable fetus of a human being when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by the provisions of the law.

Texas defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

Utah declares that a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child.

Virginia declares that any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills a fetus is guilty of a Class 2 felony.

Washington declares that a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when he intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.

West Virginia recognizes an embryo or fetus as a distinct unborn victim of certain crimes of violence against a person, including homicide and manslaughter.

Wisconsin declares that any person who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child is guilty of homicide.

*****

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, determined that abortion is a “right in the concept of personal ‘liberty’ embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras.” In the 37 years since Roe, 50 million unborn children have been killed in their mother’s womb–more than a 9/11 massacre for 13,514 straight days.

*****

“They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Romans 2:15-16).

Note: The state laws are taken from the website of The National Conference of State Legislatures, Fetal Homicide Laws.

Original Post by Kevin DeYoung