It seems like this is the choice that churches have - they either:
(a) "interfere with politics" (as the left sees it) by taking a stand on abortion - or -
(b) condone their congregation's support of abortion by doing nothing and not taking a stand on abortion - which is basically calling evil good.
Mike Gallagher brings up a very good point, that has always been on my mind: When did taking an unborn baby's life - a life and death issue- become politics and "something as mundane and ordinary as taxes or fixing potholes?" Why shouldn't churches be involved in this moral issue in our society?
My question: If abortion is a sin, then why is voting for leaders who support abortion not a sin?
Should churches be afraid to take a stance and teach their congregation -
- that killing an unborn baby is evil -AND-
- voting for an candidate who supports abortion (i.e. who would reject the sanctity of life and who voted against protecting babies who accidentally survive an abortion) is also evil?
- abortion is evil -AND-
- supporting (voting for) a leader who believes it is acceptable is also evil.
Let's call evil what it is. Churches need to get out of the "gray" area. I'm sorry if this interferes with people's "politics" - but this is a moral issue, and churches have every right to speak on this and I fully respect and admire Rev. Jay Scott Newman for standing up for what is right and speaking the truth.
"I want you to meet a priest from Greenville, South Carolina named Rev. Jay Scott Newman. He is the pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church in downtown Greenville. And he has become my personal hero. In a nutshell, Fr. Newman told his parishioners that if they voted for Barack Obama, they embraced 'intrinsic evil' since Obama's opponent was a 'plausible pro-life alternative.' And as a result, those Obama voters need to seek forgiveness from God before they receive Holy Communion again. Does this guy have guts, or what? Finally, a religious leader comes along and deals with the 800-pound elephant in the room: how do supposedly religious people reject the sanctity of life and support someone who voted against a 'Born Alive Infant Protection' law which would protect babies accidentally born alive after a botched abortion? Frankly, if that's not evil, I'm not sure what is. And it takes a priest in Greenville, South Carolina to rise up against all the moral relativism we face in the world and speak the truth. ... When discussing this gutsy priest on my radio show this week, a few liberals called in and complained about him 'mixing politics with religion.' It seems to me that life and death issues aren't very political in nature. At least they shouldn't be. And the fact that the left has managed to turn the issue of abortion into 'politics' is simply a deceitful way to try and make the taking of an unborn baby's life something as mundane and ordinary as taxes or fixing potholes." --columnist and radio talk show host Mike Gallagher
David Limbaugh also brings up a good point. Obama knows that most people have some moral decencies so he tries to distort his record on abortion and infanticide and hide in the "gray." He doesn't brag about the liberal judges he wants to appoint or the Freedom of Choice Act he seeks to put in which will overturn abortion laws and make it legal to kill an unborn baby at any stage of the pregnancy. He knows if people could see inside of abortion clinics, see the photos of victims killed in this holocaust, and the ghastly evils of partial birth abortion or any abortion for that matter - that it would not be good for him.
There are 1.3 million babies killed a year in America, alone! Think about it. It's much worse than the Jewish holocaust because it continues year after year, and it is so well hidden in clinics and disguised and accepted as a "choice." Because the children killed can't communicate with us before they're killed or during the death procedures, liberals figure that being tortured and killed during medical experiments in Nazi camps must have been far worse. Actually, I think liberals or those that are complacent don't even want to think about the process of it all or think about what is actually happening. Seems like they want to pretend this evil is not even happening.
"But if social issues were so advantageous for Obama, why did he hide and distort his record on abortion? Why did he not brag about the liberal activist judges he is sure to appoint? Why did he attempt -- other than when he thought his microphone was off in San Francisco -- to paint himself as a mainstream Christian who wants to reduce abortions? Why did mainstream media debate moderators deliberately avoid these issues? ... But ... far more important ... is that the Republican Party can no more do without pro-lifers than human beings can survive without hearts. It's who they are. There's already a party stressing economic conservatism nearly to the exclusion of social issues, and the last time I checked, our beloved Libertarians weren't garnering a great percentage of the vote." --David Limbaugh
Why does an "inconvenience" justify murder? Why is is justifiable to kill someone because they might be "burden" on you? There is a solution to these problems, it's called adoption. Satan must laugh as he watches Americans obsess on self-love and justify murder because it's a "burden or inconvenience." The liberal left's influence on American society as well as those who are complacent and ambivalent have allowed abortion to be legal and have placed their rights of 'convenience and what is good for me' above another person's life.
Even scholars have been concerned about the modern western emphasis on self. Baumeister has observed a revolution in the way people find meaning in life:
"Love and work are regarded by modern Americans as means of cultivating, exploring, and glorifying the self, and if they fail in this they lose their legitimacy. A relationship that stifles the self ought to be broken off; a job that fails to foster self-expression or growth should be changed." (pp. 104-5, emphasis in original).
He also states that the new emphasis on self has caused a redefinition of morality.
"For centuries . . . each individual made his or her major life choices between the conflicting demands of self-interest and morality. . . . Virtue meant conquering the various forms of self-interest, including greed, lust, laziness, and cowardice. . . . Vice, in contrast meant putting the impulses and desires of the self first and acting on them even when such actions ran counter to the community’s needs, wants, and values. The hero exerted and suffered for others, and in the process the hero helped the community. The villain indulged his or her own selfish appetites at the expense of others. . . .
[But] in the 20th century . . . morality has become allied with self-interest. It is not simply that people have the right to do what is best for themselves; rather, it has become an almost sacred obligation to do so. The modern message is that what is right and good and valuable to do in life is to focus on yourself, . . . Once it was a virtue to place the best interests of others ahead of your own. Now, instead, there is an increasingly moral imperative to do the opposite." (p. 113). -Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.
Satan would insists quite reasonably that "you cannot love anyone until you love yourself." But the Lord has recommended the opposite: "And whosoever will lose his life in this world, for my sake, shall find it in the world to come" (Matthew 16:28). Self discovery comes through forgetting self.
But yet, if churches teach against abortion and against ALL those who promote/support this evil practice and teach us to value the unborn baby's right to life vs. another's person's self interest - somehow this is "interfering in politics"??