The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again (on American Soil)

Don't be deceived by the irresponsible media coverage of the Fort Hood tragedy. The gunman, Nidal Malik Hasan, was a radical Islamic terrorist. No amount of psycho-analysis will spin away this cold, hard fact . . . and the details of the story grow worse by the minute.

He was screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he shot her dead. She had just finished a tour in Iraq.

Francheska Velez, 21, of Humboldt Park was three months pregnant when she was killed in the Fort Hood shootings, relatives said. (Sun Times)

One of the dead soldiers in Thursday’s slaughter was pregnant soldier Francheska Velez.
The New York Daily News reported:

A fresh tragedy added to the horror of the Fort Hood massacre Friday when it was revealed that one of the victims was a pregnant soldier.

Francheska Velez, who returned to the U.S. just three days earlier from a foreign posting, was filling out paperwork when a gunman hollered “Allahu Akbar!” and embarked on a bloody rampage that left her and a dozen others dead.

A 21-year-old Chicagoan, Velez was six-weeks pregnant when she was cut down on Thursday, FOX Chicago News reported.

Velez was a sitting duck when the accused gunman, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, yelled “God is great” in Arabic and opened fire with the two guns he’d smuggled into an intake center, Col. John Rossi said at a post-massacre briefing.

"Allahu Akbar!" is not Arabic for "God is great!" A comment from Taqivy at Gateway Pundit sets the record straight.

No, he was not yelling “God is Great” in Arabic. He was yelling “Allah is Great” in Arabic.

That is a perfect example of why the west is nearly fully decieved. “Allah” is a proper name, one belonging to the false god of death, deceit, and destruction, and we’ve been told by all the great ordained Tellers-of-things that “Allah” correctly translated into English is “God”, and indeed, is the SAME GOD the Christians and Jews worship.

A hundred years of lies from all directions, combined with the mass-abandonment of God’s Word by America’s citizenry — it’s a sad thing to behold, but it’s NO PUZZLE.

Planned Parenthood Leader Resigns After Viewing Ultrasound of Abortion Procedure

WOW!

Throwing a Salvo at "Homophobia"

Salvo's Signs of the Times blog has reprinted an article from its debut issue which is an excellent synopsis of the history, etymology, and effect of the highly misleading term, "homophobia." It's well worth your time.

Chick or Treat for Halloween?

It is one of my less pleasurable duties as a hospital chaplain to sweep the lobbies and waiting rooms of "unauthorized literature." Copies of such theologically questionable publications as the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) or a Jack van Impe "news update" will appear periodically. I have yet to have the distinct honor, however, of removing a Jack Chick tract or comic book. Like Joe Carter, I remember the comics from childhood, although my acquaintance with them, ironically enough, was not through my church (hardly a bastion of fundamentalism), but through the waiting room at a doctor's office. I suspect such literature was "unauthorized" there, as well. But I've learned from experience that well-meaning but somewhat misguided and over-zealous believers can be relentless in their attempts to get their rather twisted message out.

In the end, I have to agree with Carter's conclusion:

I think it’s safe to say that if the Lord hates Halloween then he must despise Chick tracts. When a well-intentioned but overzealous Christian gives these “comics” to a child it must be, as Chick would say, a slap in the face. If you are the type of person who does this on Halloween I only have one word to say to you: repent.

Irrational fear is an overrated motivational tool, especially when you’re trying to win the hearts and minds of children. Just look at my example. Thirty years later I’m still creeped out by the thought of the Chick comics. While they might have had the intended impact—to scare the living hell out of me—they did so by appealing to an unncessary fear of Satan. If a Christian really wants to show a child the light of God’s grace then they should do so by showing them God’s love rather than by giving them the hateful, disgusting, and demonically-inspired work of Jack Chick.

Jeremy Pierce: Politics as Usual vs. Outright Lies

Jeremy Pierce of the new Evangel blog tries to distinguish between the misleading deception which has become a part of "politics as usual" and the outright lies and fabrications used to advance the "abortion rights" movement.

It’s one thing to offer an argument that should only convince those who are already on your side but is a little deceptive because it makes an emotional appeal that isn’t really all that rational on pro-life premises. It’s quite another to use deliberate deception just the get the political result you want. A lot of misrepresentation happens in politics, and that includes misrepresentations of those who hold contrary views, abortion included. That’s politics as usual. I try to resist it, and I hope I’m better than most at stopping it, but it’s not the worst kind of dishonesty, since most of the people who do it simply assume the worst of their political opposition or of those who take contrary moral stands, and they at least think what they’re saying is true, even if their standard of proof is pretty low in many cases. But simply making up numbers to argue for a policy change is much worse than politics as usual, and that’s what these two leaders of the pro-choice movement admitted that the movement had done to get abortion legalized.

Like politics as usual, this happens on both sides of the aisle. But I think we have a much more significant duty to point it out and criticize it when it’s this sort of deception, because this is a knowing twisting of the truth merely to get a certain result rather than simply assuming the worst of your opponent. We should avoid both, but it’s worth distinguishing between the two and placing an even stronger emphasis on the avoiding the second. I will sometimes point out when I think one side misstates the other’s position or ignores how an argument will fail given the assumptions of the other side. It’s a lot less common when we can be sure that they’re outright lying, though, and it’s even more rare to find someone admitting it after the fact. It’s kind of sad that this outright lie has become the basis of a fairly common pro-choice argument for retaining the status quo in abortion laws.

In addition to the tired old pre-Roe "back alley" argument and the deliberately inflated number of pre-Roe abortion deaths, it is worth pointing out that the polling data often cited by "pro-choice" advocates, indicating a majority of the public supporting legal abortion, is now nearly two decades old. More recent data indicates a decided shift in the pro-life direction. But, as we have come to expect, abortion advocates never allow the truth to distract them from their clever and nefariously devised lie.

Saturday Morning Cartoons: Post Rapture Pet Care

Gary DeMar is always keeping a close eye out for dispensationalist-inspired silliness. Here's what he found at Post Rapture Pet Care.

Do you wonder what is going to happen to your pets when Jesus descends from Heaven to re-unite the Church with the Father taking all Christians - dead and alive - up to Heaven? Will your pets be left behind with no-one to care for them?

Have no fear! We at Post Rapture Pet Care are confirmed atheists and as such will be part of the left behind when the time comes. Just because we are atheists doesn't mean we are not animal lovers. We adore all kind of pets and would love to look after your pets after you are gone.

For a small donation of £69.99 pounds, we will make sure your pets are well fed and taken care of long after you and your family have been taken up.

We have representatives in the South East of England and also in the North East of Scotland so can accommodate for most areas of the country giving you peace of mind whereever you are.

This is not a joke. We feel very strongly about pet care and want to offer the best possible services to British pet owners. Feel free to get in touch at pets@postrapturepetcare.com for more info.

ACNA Response to Vatican Announcement

We rejoice that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the growing cooperation and relationship between our Churches. This significant decision represents a recognition of the integrity of the Anglican tradition within the broader Christian church.

While we believe that this provision will not be utilized by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America’s bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations, we will surely bless those who are drawn to participate in this momentous offer.

We concurrently thank God for the partnership that orthodox Anglicans have long enjoyed with the Roman Catholic Church, and are profoundly grateful for the many acts of kindness shown on local, diocesan and national levels, as they have stood with us in our time of trial.

While our historic differences over church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders continue to be points of prayerful dialogue, we look forward to an ever deepening partnership with the Catholic Church throughout the world. We pledge our earnest prayers for all those touched by this initiative, as we look forward to the publication of the Apostolic Constitution detailing today’s announcement.

The Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan
Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America

CANA Bishop Responds to Vatican Statement on Anglicans Coming to Rome

Bishop Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), issued the following response to the newly approved church provision, announced today by the Vatican, that allows Anglicans to join the Catholic Church.

“The Vatican is opening a door for Anglicans who sense a call to be part of the Church of Rome to join that body and still maintain Anglican traditions. This move by the Catholic Church recognizes the reality of the divide within the Anglican Communion and affirms the decision to create a new North American province that embraces biblical truth. While we welcome the positive response from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the Vatican’s provision, we urge Lambeth Palace to move swiftly to fully endorse the efforts of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America to keep the Anglican family together,” said Bishop Minns.

“Rome is reminding Anglicans that our historic, orthodox faith is more important than culture and more important than geography. CANA itself bears witness to the fact that God’s church is made up of believers across the globe. The centrality of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture are the unwavering bonds that have drawn CANA churches and others within the Anglican Church in North America together. Our continued prayer is for Anglicans across the world to be able to stay faithful to orthodox beliefs,” Minns concluded.

The church provision, known as an Apostolic Constitution, allowing Anglicans to join the Catholic Church was announced by Cardinal William Levada. An Apostolic Constitution is the highest level of decree that the Pope can issue and underscores the historic nature of this action.

Truth and Love Cannot Abide Apart from One Another

There is a world that is passing away and, along with it, all the temporal pleasures and desires which make it something less than the world God intended. But the love of the Father for the world he created endures forever, and that love will abide throughout the world to come. It is the love that already abides in “whoever does the will of God” (1 John 2:17), thus making real in this world that is passing away that world which will never pass away. John writes to those in whom the Father’s love abides in varying degrees (“little children,” “young men,” “fathers”) to encourage them to continue in that love, that they might indeed “abide forever.”

This is what Jesus was praying for when he prayed not only for John and the other apostles, “but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21).

The prayer of Jesus, still fresh in John’s mind when he wrote his epistle, surpasses any mere desire on our part, noble as it may seem, for some kind of organizational unity among believers across denominational or sectarian lines. The unity for which Jesus prays, the unity which manifests God’s glory to the world, is nothing less than incorporation into the divine community itself. “The glory that you have given me I have given to them,” Jesus prays to the Father, “that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:22-23).

This is a unity that goes beyond any human-concocted scheme. It is the union established by the Father before the world began; a bond of eternal love between the Father and the Son, into which are incorporated all to whom the Son has made the Father’s name known, that is, all to whom the Son has imparted the divine nature through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those to whom such a gift is given are the true chosen people of God in whom abides the same Spirit which revealed to Daniel the mystery of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2:1-30).

Read it all at Columbia Faith and Culture Examiner.

FT Launches Evangel Blog

First Things has launched Evangel, a new blog featuring some leading evangelical thinkers. Here's a snippet of some of the first posts.

What is an Evangelical by Joe Carter

What does it mean to be evangelical?

A term that applies to between fifteen and forty million Americans should be rather obvious. Yet few words are so commonly used while being so poorly defined. To many people the word evangelical evokes images of the “Religious Right”, of people who read the Left Behind novels, go to megachurches, and vote for Republicans. While to other people—mainly Christians who ultra-conservative theologically— the label is used as a derogatory term for believers who take an insufficiently stringent view of scripture and accept other forms of “liberal” belief.

Evangelicals and the Primacy of the Local by Jared Bridges

Ideally, evangelical is more an adjective than it is a name. It’s not so much the evangelical church as it is evangelical churches. In this respect, the content of this week’s sermon by my pastor is of greater concern than what national leaders are saying — a concept the national media often has difficulty grasping. As pervasive as national evangelical voices can be, the local ministry of the gospel (and the personal authority of the Scriptures is about as local as one can get…) has primacy over the universal.

This is not to say that evangelicals are or should be separatists, let alone wagon-circling fundamentalists (now there’s a tricky word!). Evangelicals indeed listen to and learn from each other from afar — this very blog is but one example of many. However, the gospel that evangelicals preach happens not in a vacuum, but is lived in the daily lives of believers young and old. Paul reminds us: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” Feet serve us best when on the ground, and that’s where evangelicalism is found most pure.

Recapturing Evangelical by Roger Overton

Though still relatively young, I would like to think that I’ve grown and matured in my understanding and perspective on faith, theology and culture. I went through a phase in my life a few years ago when I was extremely particular about the views with which I associated myself. I wanted to make sure I was abundantly clear in not just affirming what I believed to be true (e.g. amillennialism), but also emphatically condemning what I opposed (premillennialism, dispensationalism, postmillennialism, pan-millennialism, etc.). As is typically the case with those whose primary epistemic purpose is the condemnation of opposing views, I at times condemned and excluded the people who held those views.

One of the casualties of this attitude was “evangelical.” Certainly there were good things meant by the term that I could affirm (such as Joe listed below), and there were many great men and women who could be described by it. But in my theological high tower I could only see the bad examples- instances of shallow or questionable teaching, Jesus merchandising, and uncreative cheesy music. So I found myself looking down on the entire term, movement and group.

The Proclaimers by Frank Turk

Because First Things is well-known for the highest level of discourse on the subjects it considers, I’m a little surprised to find myself here. For the last 5 or 6 years I’ve mostly been known for causing mayhem in the evangelical blogosphere, so when I received an invitation to spread some of that content here as a representative of the “evangelical” viewpoint, I was sort of stunned.

And part of the reason I was stunned was that I had to ask myself, “am I an ‘evangelical’”?

Is It Wrong That I Don't Care If I'm an Evangelical? by Russell D. Moore

Several years ago I was explaining to a friend why I’d never been invited to preach in an acquaintance’s church, and never would be. “It’s because I’m not a fundamentalist,” I said. And it was true.

In that church a “fundamentalist” was one who believed not just in the “fundamentals” of the faith, but also in a cultural context that meant flat-top haircuts for men, koolots for women (if you don’t know what those are, just rest in the ignorance), exclusive southern gospel quartet psalmnody, and a dispensationalist, separatist, KJV-only identity. I am, for sure, not that.

The next week, though, I was registering as an observer for a liberal Baptist gathering, where I’d planned to write about the goings-on. Inclusive as they were, they tried to sign me up as a delegate. I tried to explain to the nice person at the registration table that I actually didn’t want to be a delegate because I wasn’t protesting the hegemonic patriarchal whatevers they were there to stand against. “You don’t want me signed up,” I said. “I’m a fundamentalist.” And it was true.

The "Religion of Peace (and Love)" Strikes Again! Part MCMXXLVXVII

You really have to respect the charity and humility of these peace-loving Muslims. We intolerant and bigoted Westerners could certainly learn from their example.

Washington -- International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on October 6, members of the Taliban sent threatening letters in Sargodha, Pakistan warning Christian leaders to convert to Islam or face dire consequences.
A copy of the letter obtained by ICC warns Christians to convert to Islam, pay Jizya tax (an Islamic tax imposed on religious minorities) or leave the country. If Christians refuse to accept the choices given to them, the letter explains that they "would be killed, their property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for this."

Rev. Zaheer Khan, pastor of Maghoo Memorial Church, Rev. Aamir Azeem, pastor of United Christians Church and Rev. Zafar Akhter, pastor of United Presbyterian Church each received a copy of threatening letter.

The Islamists sent the letters to the following Christian institutions: St Peter's Middle School, Sargodha Institute of Technology, Sargodha Catholic High School, St John's Primary School and Fatima Hospital.

Burleson: The Impending 2012 Hysteria

Some wise spiritual counsel from Baptist pastor Wade Burleson.

AN ODE TO 2012

2012 is coming toward us really fast;

And it prompts me to give you this forecast.

When you look with dread toward events on that date;

You tend to ignore the truth of your personal fate.

It is the individual soul who gives an account to God;

So one ought be very careful how this life is daily trod.

There is no guarantee that you'll be given another breath,

For this reason it's wise you prepare this day for death.

Certain it is that without faith in Christ you will never please

The Righteous Judge whom your sinful self could never appease.

So before you get worked up over events in a forthcoming year;

It should be remembered that it's the Creator whom you should fear.

But once a sinner finds rest through trusting God's gracious cross,

There'll be no more fretting over this world's speculative dross.

Hypocrites Barbecue Heretics for Halloween

This one almost qualified for the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" category, but I decided it needed a more catchy headline.

Halloween Book Burning
Burning Perversions of God’s Word
October 31, 2009

7:00 PM – Till

Great Preaching and Singing

Come to our Halloween book burning. We are burning Satan’s bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, ect. These are perversions of God’s Word the King James Bible.

We will also be burning Satan’s music such as country , rap , rock , pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel , contempory Christian , jazz, soul, oldies but goldies, etc.

We will also be burning Satan’s popular books written by heretics like Westcott & Hort , Bruce Metzger, Billy Graham , Rick Warren , Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll , John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn , Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa , The Pope , Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, etc.

We are not burning Bibles written in other languages that are based on the TR. We are not burning the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva or other translations that are based on the TR.

We will be serving Bar-b-Que Chicken, fried chicken, and all the sides.

If you have any books or music to donate, please call us for pick-up. If you like you can drop them off at our church door anytime. Thanks.

Evangelical-turned-Catholic Francis Beckwith is disappointed that he didn't make Amazing Grace Church's burn roster. He also points out the rather amusing hypocrisy of its exclusive Bible translation policy.

It turns out that Amazing Grace Baptist Church is one of those King James Only congregations. I’ve never quite understood how anti-hierarchical, priesthood-of-the-believer, non-liturgical, church-state separationist, believers-baptism types can be so fond of a translation produced by a monarch who stood for virtually everything they reject, including a state-established church, apostolic succession, an ordained priesthood, infant baptism, and a moderate sacramentalism. It’s like finding out that Hugh Hefner’s favorite book is Dawn Eden’s Thrill of the Chaste. If anyone can explain this to me, I will be grateful.

Thirty Years Ago: A Nobel Winner Who Deserved the Honor

In 1979, Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Here is an excerpt from her acceptance speech. Yes, there was a time when the award was given to someone who truly deserved it.

I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given into drugs, and I tried to find out why - why is it like that, and the answer was: Because there is no one in the family to receive them. Father and mother are so busy they have no time. Young parents are in some institution and the child takes back to the street and gets involved in something. We are talking of peace. These are things that break peace, but I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child - I will not forget you - I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible - but even if she could forget - I will not forget you. And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. And we who are standing here - our parents wanted us. We would not be here if our parents would do that to us. Our children, we want them, we love them, but what of the millions. Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between. And this I appeal in India, I appeal everywhere: Let us bring the child back, and this year being the child's year: What have we done for the child? At the beginning of the year I told, I spoke everywhere and I said: Let us make this year that we make every single child born, and unborn, wanted. And today is the end of the year, have we really made the children wanted? I will give you something terrifying. We are fighting abortion by adoption, we have saved thousands of lives, we have sent words to all the clinics, to the hospitals, police stations - please don't destroy the child, we will take the child. So every hour of the day and night it is always somebody, we have quite a number of unwedded mothers - tell them come, we will take care of you, we will take the child from you, and we will get a home for the child. And we have a tremendous demand from families who have no children, that is the blessing of God for us. And also, we are doing another thing which is very beautiful - we are teaching our beggars, our leprosy patients, our slum dwellers, our people of the street, natural family planning.

And in Calcutta alone in six years - it is all in Calcutta - we have had 61,273 babies less from the families who would have had, but because they practise this natural way of abstaining, of self-control, out of love for each other. We teach them the temperature meter which is very beautiful, very simple, and our poor people understand. And you know what they have told me? Our family is healthy, our family is united, and we can have a baby whenever we want. So clear - those people in the street, those beggars - and I think that if our people can do like that how much more you and all the others who can know the ways and means without destroying the life that God has created in us.

The poor people are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. The other day one of them came to thank and said: You people who have vowed chastity you are the best people to teach us family planning. Because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other. And I think they said a beautiful sentence. And these are people who maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home where to live, but they are great people. The poor are very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition - and I told the Sisters: You take care of the other three, I take of this one that looked worse. So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, as she said one word only: Thank you - and she died.

I could not help but examine my conscience before her, and I asked what would I say if I was in her place. And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself, I would have said I am hungry, that I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain, or something, but she gave me much more - she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face. As that man whom we picked up from the drain, half eaten with worms, and we brought him to the home. I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die like an angel, loved and cared for. And it was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that, who could die like that without blaming anybody, without cursing anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel - this is the greatness of our people. And that is why we believe what Jesus had said: I was hungry - I was naked - I was homeless - I was unwanted, unloved, uncared for - and you did it to me.

The Dark Origins of "Abortion Rights" and Other Liberal Causes

Albert Mohler tweaks the American conscience with a few reminders of the dark historical roots of the "abortion rights" movement.

Tapes recently released by the Nixon Presidential Library reveal that President Richard M. Nixon, who had been considered generally opposed to abortion, told aides on January 23, 1973 (the day after the decision was handed down) that abortion was justified in certain cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

"There are times when abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," said Nixon. President Nixon's words, chilling as they are, are also a general reflection of the moral logic shared by millions of Americans in that day.

As a matter of fact, one of the dirty secrets of the abortion rights movement is that its earliest momentum was driven by a concern that was deeply racial. Leaders such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, argued quite openly that abortion and other means of birth control were necessary in order to limit the number of undesirable children. As she made clear, the least desirable children were those born to certain ethnically and racially defined families. Sanger, along with so many other "progressive" figures of the day, promoted the agenda of the eugenics movement --- more children from the "fit" and less from the "unfit."

President Nixon, speaking off-the-cuff about the Roe v. Wade decision handed down just the day before, did register his concern that the open availability of abortion would lead to sexual permissiveness and a further breakdown of the family. Nevertheless, he carefully carved out an exception for interracial pregnancies.

Nixon's comment, made almost 40 years ago, was strangely and creepily echoed in comments recently made by Supreme Court associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In an interview published in The New York Times Magazine, Justice Ginsburg made her absolute support of abortion on demand unconditionally clear. She tied her support for abortion to the larger feminist agenda and lamented the passage of the Hyde Amendment which excludes the use of Medicaid for abortions. The Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment in 1980, surprising Ginsburg, who commented:

"Frankly I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."

Justice Ginsburg's comments were made in the context of comments about her hopes for feminism and her anticipation of being joined at the court by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then about to begin confirmation hearings. The larger context of Justice Ginsburg's comments do not provide much assistance in understanding whether she was speaking of her own personal convictions or describing what was being thought by others at the time.

Of greatest importance is the fact that Justice Ginsburg's comments reveal the racial, economic, and ethnic discrimination that was at the very heart of the push for abortion on demand throughout much of the 20th century. Also revealed is Justice Ginsburg's virtually unrestricted support for a woman's right to an abortion. In the interview, she goes so far as to lament the fact that the language of Roe v. Wade mentioned abortion is a decision made by the woman and her physician. As Justice Ginsburg told The New York Times, "So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him."

The American conscience remains deeply divided over the question of abortion. Tragically, we have never experienced a sustained, reasonable, and honest discussion about abortion in the society at large. One step toward the recovery of an ethic of life would be an honest discussion about the actual agenda behind the push for abortion on demand. Proponents of abortion rights do everything they can to hide the ugliness of the agenda behind the comments made by President Nixon and Justice Ginsburg. Nevertheless, the truth has a way of working itself into view.

It may come as a surprise to learn that many of secular liberalism's most celebrated causes have their origins in a not so subtle form of bigotry which was commonplace among the "elites" of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. "Abortion rights" stands out as the most nefarious of these causes because it is the catalyst for so many other socially destructive movements which have sprung up under the deceptive banner of "civil liberties."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization devoted to eradicating all forms of religious expression from the public square, was originally known as "Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State." I have previously written about the historical skeletons in this organization's closet. Its first general counsel, Paul Blanshard, was a virulent anti-Catholic and author of a vile tract entitled, American Freedom and Catholic Power. But his name has been largely eradicated from the organization's official history. Like the "abortion rights" movement, Americans United presents itself as a defender of individual rights and liberties. But its origins, similarly, are rooted in a dark period of American history when intolerance was far more commonplace, and socially acceptable, than they would have us believe it is today.