Category Archives: Politics
by Dr. Tommy Davis email@example.com
There is an unavoidable dilemma that the world has had to contend with since the beginning of humanity. It is clearly defined and noticeable, but there is little consensus as to its purposeful origin. No suitable explanation of the origin of evil has ever been formulated. The problem of evil is a reality that affects every segment of our society. Natural evil concerns the devastation, suffering and loss caused by tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, fire, disease, famine, to name some; moral evils that reflects the underlying philosophy of the culture; and social evils, which deals with ethical relationships between humans. As a metaphysical entity, evil is entirely opposed to good in nature and function. Perhaps it is necessary to point out the person behind all the forces of evil.
One of the most misunderstood characters in the history of the world is Satan himself. There are many assumptions concerning him. Some people believe that he does not exist, and some believe him to be a powerless personality; and some people go to the far extremes and place the devil everywhere which gives him the status of omnipresence. We will examine the Scriptures to see how the Bible describes the devil. It is crucial that this subject matter be analyzed from a biblical perspective to dismiss the false assumptions and portray the reality of this spiritual being.
One need only to look around at the calamitous events that takes place daily in the world to notice that some form of adversary exists. Hopefully we can conclude that all contributions of evil are a result of Satan’s fall from heaven. It should also be noted that Satan does not desire to be identified as the culprit. While he seeks to hide his identity, God rather exposes him! Satan exists because God created him and later determined (as opposed to being good) that Satan was evil.
In the book of Ezekiel, Satan is described as being the most beautiful of angels. The prophet wrote: “ You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire, thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee” (Ezekiel 28:14-15 KJV). Again, it is important to establish that only God can determine the nature of a thing. During the week of creation, it was God who said that it “was good” (Genesis 1). God alone reserves the right to determine all things (see Isaiah 45:7).
Satan, which means adversary, is mentioned quite often in the Bible. He is referred to by every New Testament writer and cited at least 13 times by Christ Himself in the New Testament. Satan has many names in Scripture. He is called Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24), the deceiver (Rev. 20:10), the dragon (Rev. 12:7), a liar (Jn. 8:44), the accuser (Rev. 12:10), the tempter (1 Thess. 3:5), the ruler of darkness (Eph. 6:12), the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), and Belial (2 Cor. 6:15). What did Satan do that God would find iniquity in him? Most scholars agree that the prophet Isaiah records the fall of Lucifer. He writes,
“How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut to the ground, You who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:12-14 NKJV).
Lucifer was so beautiful and powerful that he wanted to usurp God’s authority. Therefore, his chief sin was pride. It is evil because God said it was. The prophet Jeremiah said, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). Thus, as we see, Satan has characteristics that identifies with rationality and deceit. Such actions are emulated by humans. Our ignorance and rejection of the truth is contradictory to God’s standard.
Various perspectives have been formulated in an attempt to identify the origin of evil. Dr. Norman Geisler wrote:
“Although every worldview has had to deal with the problem of evil, it is an especially acute problem for theism. Of the three major worldviews, Atheism affirms the reality of evil and denies the reality of God. Pantheism affirms the reality of God but denies the reality of evil. Theism affirms the reality of both God and evil. Herein is the problem; how can an absolutely good Being (God) be compatible with evil, the opposite of good?”
In respect to Dr. Geisler’s quote, the major worldviews at least allows for the word “evil” to exist in their vocabulary. Thus, those who would actually deny that evil exists still incorporate the term as a concept. To be more clear, if the skeptics, who deny evil, really believe it does not exist, then they would not even indicate the term! The moral wickedness that humanity experiences involve sickness, misery, self-centeredness, folly, and crime in revolt against God. People who deny that evil exist often have complaints when they are offended! Take for example, social evils, which can be identified as corrupt politics, drunkenness, cheating, and racial discrimination. Do we redefine these problems, or call it what is— vice?
God is omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient (all knowing); and omnipresent (everywhere). Since God is all powerful, evil can only exist at His pronouncement. At some point in time when evil was brought forth, it had already taken its toll before mankind was created. In Genesis 1:4-31, God had proclaimed at least seven times that what He created was “good.” Why do the Scriptures record this? There had to be an opposing idea—-something contrasting with good. Since God is all knowing, He was aware of evil or there would have been little reason (logic) to make pronouncements by calling His creation good. God is not subject to rules and regulations because he is God. Therefore, even if God created evil, He would still be a just God. This is a prerogative that we fail to attribute to an all-powerful God. He writes ALL the rules! He is NOT subject to them!
When God created man, He gave him direct instructions and said to him: “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil….” (Genesis 2:16-17a). In his sinless position before God, Adam obeyed naturally. Perhaps he asked himself what good and evil was. One cannot be recognized apart from the other. At this point, evil was a nonrepresentational perception. Adam would only know “good” after the Fall. Only God was aware of the distinction. After the Fall, evil became a problem for mankind because the consequences was now physical (see Genesis 2:17b). The aftermaths of sin now saturated the thoughts of humanity which influenced our desires. The only antidote to such evil is the cleansing work of Christ.
In Ephesians chapter six, the Apostle Paul gives vivid illustration how we can guard against and overcome satanic influences. In his letter to the church at Ephesus, he encouraged them to put on the whole armor of God; not some of it, but all of the armor of God. Paul wrote, “Finally my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:10).
It is significant to note how we go about doing this. First we have to recognize that we are fighting a spiritual enemy. After taking up the whole armor of God we have to resist Satan by taking a stand against him and receive the truth of God’s Word (v. 14). Then, believers are instructed to “put on the breastplate of righteousness” (v. 14). This tells us that we have to be sure we believe in the righteousness that only comes through Christ alone. We are justified and made righteous by grace through faith. It is God’s Word that matters—not our presuppositions.
Believers are also instructed to have our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace (v. 15). Thus, we have to be ready at all times to present the Gospel. We have to make sure that we are feasting on the Word of God and be quipped to preach the Gospel. Also, the shield of faith (v. 16) protects us from the satanic influences like doubt, discouragement, and the zodiac (false prophecies). These are things that CANNOT penetrate our armor, but we will not lift our armor if we don’t recognize this as an attack (opposing ideas). Wayne Grudem wrote, “In thinking about God using evil to fulfill His purposes, we should remember that there are things that are right for God to do but wrong for us to do: He requires others to worship Him, and He accepts worship from them. He seeks glory for Himself.”
Evil is real; and the effects of it will surround us whether we acknowledge it or deny it. Since God is ALL powerful (omnipotent), ALL knowing (omniscient), and present everywhere (omnipresent), it is impossible for Him to be unrighteous because He is the One who wrote ALL the rules! Whatever God says—GOES! Good and evil exists because God defined the terms.
 Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), 219
 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 329
Donald W. Dayton produced a remarkable historical summary of America’s evangelical legacy in his work entitled, “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage.” This book provides compelling evidence that confirms “the Christian witness” has a powerful impact upon society when the gospel is put into action. Unlike contemporary evangelicalism, which by and large evades questions of social responsibility, Dayton sets out to prove that the evangelical heritage left by nineteenth century evangelicals such as Catherine Booth and Charles G. Finney demonstrated that the gospel and social responsibility were once intimately integrated. He provides thrilling accounts of how the nineteenth century evangelical “abolitionists” understood that to right societal wrongs, social injustice demanded a radical and Christian response. The abolitionist movement was chiefly political and religious; abolitionists believed that slavery was a sin. Through moral suasion, they set out to change laws in an effort to permanently abolish it.
Dayton revealed how many of the nineteenth century evangelicals joined in on the abolitionist movement and subsequently set the stage for the feminist movement; these activists rejected the governmental laws that legitimized slavery and oppressed women; they instead chose to submit a higher moral authority—God as opposed to government. Evangelicals were among the first to reject segregation in worship and ordain women in the ministry; their revivals bore a significant influence on social reform in America.
Political Activism and Abolitionism in the American Evangelical Movement
Donald Dayton was successful in establishing that the marriage of politics to social responsibility was lived out in the lives of many evangelicals in the past and is a huge part of the American evangelical heritage. Although the new trend in American evangelicalism, the “religious right,” or the Christian conservative movement, shares much of the same vision for morality in government and society as did the nineteenth century evangelical abolitionists, I have observed that the religious right seems predominantly idealist and less reformist; some have taken to political activism. Modern social concerns of the Christian conservatives include abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, and socialism, but most evangelicals by and large avoid direct confrontation of the issues choosing rather to emphasize piety and personal conversion. Modern evangelicals by and large place an emphasis on the authority of Scripture and ascertain that preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ supersedes the calls for social reform; their convictions are not determined by their social milieu but in the expression of faith that is uniquely connected to the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Nineteenth century evangelicals’ “liberal”  theology, according to its critics, tended to ground its theology in human experience;’ they held a unique concern for social justice and civil rights in their plight against racism and slavery in America. On the contrary, the nineteenth century Christian social reformists would say that to not stand against the sin of slavery was unquestionably un-Christian. These Christians submerged themselves into politics, joining themselves to the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party, to bring about morality in government, to change unjust civil laws, and ultimately abolish slavery.
Evangelicals were labeled radicals because the opposed the establishment, the Democrat Party, and liberals because they sought to change laws that denied freedom and equality for blacks and women; they demanded justice for all Americans. However, after the civil-rights era, the evangelical descendants of the nineteenth century failed to show the same concern for social reform as their ancestors, believing as Evangelist Billy Graham, “While some may interpret an evangelist to be primarily a social reformer or political activist, I do not! . . . My primary goal is to proclaim the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” During the post-civil rights era, liberalism in America took on various new meanings, more secular in nature.
Social Responsibility and Revivalism in the Evangelical Movement
Early on in the nineteenth century, Oberlin College, “a hotbed of radicalism,” was a major contributor and advocate in the fight against slavery. The school was founded on the principles of evangelist and revivalist Charles Grandison Finney, the “father of modern revivalism.” He suggested that the gospel had given men and women a social responsibility to shape society. Finney believed that resistance to reform hindered revival and that he proclaimed:
Revivals are hindered when ministers and churches take wrong ground in regard to any question involving human rights . . . the church cannot turn away from (the slavery) question . . . Silence of Christians upon the subject is virtually saying that they do not consider slavery a sin.
Finney further believed that the Church is perjured and the Spirit of God departs from her if she refuses to speak out on the slavery issue.
Oberlin College, its students, and professors, became politically and socially committed to the cause of abolitionism. Members of the Oberlin Colony left the conservative Whig party and joined in the Republican ideology to help push the antislavery agenda forward. In most elections, “the Oberlin College voted solidly Republican.” Although these abolitionists used politics as a tool, the Oberlin members did not see abolitionism as a political plight but a moral obligation. Rich businessmen Arthur and Lewis Tappan, as a moral obligation and “evidences of piety,” spent their lives and fortunes to support initiatives such the “Underground Railroad,” free churches, and anti-slavery societies. The Oberlin colony rejected fugitive slave laws and saw civil disobedience as a necessary Christian response to laws that upheld slavery. Many were persecuted and imprisoned for their beliefs. One Oberlin prisoner was quoted as saying, “We belong to no modern school of politics or theology . . . but we belong to the school of the Fathers, who having been driven from their native land by the persecution of their government, taught their children that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
Preaching the Gospel to the Poor in American Evangelicalism
Many conservatives during the nineteenth century believed that the Church should be less concerned with social issues and should “preach the Bible not politics.” Nonetheless, the evidence presented by Dayton suggested that social injustices such as slavery proved to be the most divisive issues in the nineteenth century Church. The Methodist branch of Protestantism, for example, experienced a split; those with antislavery sentiments formed new branches. Under the leadership of bishop Orange Scott, the Wesleyan Methodist Connection was born. Combining “piety and radicalism” these Methodists attacked the sins of the Church, insisted that Christians side with God and stop neglecting the poor, and called Christians to discontinue the corporate guilt of being silent on the issue of slavery—they set out on a mission to spread the gospel of abolitionism.
Dayton has noted that during the period after the Civil War, evangelicalism experienced a drastic decline in social reform—the sin of slavery had been abolished. Since then, time has not faired favorably for evangelicalism. Urbanization and industrialization complicated the revivalist reform vision and the emergence of biblical criticism, Darwinism, and new geological discoveries caused the troubled movement to lose its great vision for America that once led its fervor for social reform. Furthermore, the rise a premillennialist eschatology has “undercut the social reform of earlier years.” The reversal in social reform is demonstrated in prominent and influential seminary schools who insist that Christianity was never designed to dismantle social institutions—their focus has shifted from reform and ethics to doctrine. 
The poor response and sometimes outright opposition of the twentieth century evangelicals to the civil rights struggles of the 1950’s and 60’s are a clear indication of the detachment to the spiritual heritage once held of the evangelical to transform the world through reform. Many evangelicals have seemingly forgotten its legacy and lost its appetite for social justice as they had when they stood firmly against slavery.
One issue, even one as large as slavery, does not and should not define a Christian’s theology. Jesus is the focus of the gospel message, not any one social evil or concern. Nonetheless, the nineteenth century evangelical’s immense opposition to the cruel and inhumane treatment of enslaved blacks was certainly biblical. They believed that all men were created in the image of God; no man should be permanently subjugated to another. They agreed with the founders of this great nation in their declared independence from England that “all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights by their Creator.” Their care and concern for the poor and oppressed was consistent with the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, social activism in America is now largely a secular sport and the American government, not the Church, by and large provides free food, shelter, and clothing to the indigent; free legal counsel and work among prisoners; public schools and hospitals (none of which are really free); these were all ministries developed and voluntarily performed primarily by the Church. In modern times, the government has taken to the business of providing a “gospel to the poor” and has perverted God’s message of justice. Under the pretense of “equality” and “fairness,” the government has extorted its citizens through heavy taxation and burdensome legislation to fund “charitable” programs for the poor. They have usurped the blessings associated with freewill giving and charity.
In reality, both the Church and the American government have done a great disservice to the poor. Concerning the government, the political powers that be have convinced the poor that they don’t need God and they don’t need the Church, but they need the government to survive and to meet their needs. The American government has failed the poor because they have done nothing in advising them towards godly and purposeful living, and many of their policies have done permanent damage by enabling the indolent poor to become dependent, lazy, and forego personal responsibility. The government has also failed the people because they have ignored the power of community and voluntary giving. The result has been increased class-warfare, strife, and covetousness among the people, and dependency of the perpetually poor upon the government. Concerning the Church, she has failed the poor because she has not defended them against ungodly and oppressive governments; and she has willingly surrendered her ministry of helps for the sick, the elderly, the orphan, and the widow to a secular state who is more concerned with maintaining their dependency and allegiance through political manipulation than seeing their souls saved.
My Review: Moving Forward in the Twenty-First Century
Although the notion of social reform in and of itself is a good thing, the gospel of Jesus Christ should not be replaced by the social gospel. There have been causes and movements throughout all times, there are many sins to confront (namely all of them), and there are many souls to be converted. Christians should not dwell so much on social issues that they, as Justo Gonzalez has asserted, “become preoccupied with the existing social conditions” and forsake Christian evangelism and discipleship. The Church’s mandate is to both preach the gospel AND stand against sin in the world. Christians are both proclaimers of the good news to the lost and defenders of the poor and oppressed.
Evangelicals have a responsibility to stand against sin and stand on the authority of Scripture as a framework in which to critique modern concerns. When the Church fails to do both, Satan, the god of this world, will step in with his own gospel and distort God’s truth. For example, when the Church fails to speak out against the sin of abortion, it ceases to be a moral authority on the subject. By their inaction and silence; by not proclaiming God’s truth and standing against it, the Church becomes irrelevant. Satan is then given ample opportunity to persuade many souls to his cause.
Trusting in God’s moral framework, or standard, in which to “judge” good from evil will prove to help Christians avoid the pitfalls of conforming to cultural norms that are counterintuitive to the gospel; this the abolitionists did when they opposed slavery although it was “legal” and acceptable to most of society at the time. The twenty-first century looks bright for Christianity. Today’s Christians should examine modern issues through the lens of Scripture and avoid worshipping the ideological gods of our modern day; Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Marxism, etc. We are the voice of truth and we are called to action, radical action; proclaiming the good news and standing against sin in the world.
 The term “Evangelical” has been applied since the Reformation to the Protestant Churches by reason of their claim to base their teaching pre-eminently on the Gospel. Revivals were a key element of their religious worship and practice. In some Protestant branches, they lay special stress on conversion and salvation by faith in the atoning death of Christ. In other branches in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, evangelicals campaigned vigorously for the abolition of the slave trade. Social and political reform disappeared from the evangelical program when personal consecration and world evangelism became its focus. Evangelicals in the twentieth century have experienced a revival and a new concern for politics and social justice. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. “Evangelicalism.”
 Donald Dalton, “Discovering an Evangelical Heritage,” (USA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2007), 36.
 “An abolitionist is a person who advocated or supported the abolishing of slavery in the U.S., especially before the Civil War.” Definition retrieved from Dictionary.com on October 11, 2011 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abolitionist
 “Christian right” is a term used predominantly in the United States to describe “right-wing”Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.
In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition of numerous groups, chiefly evangelicals and Catholics. It is strongest in the South, where it comprises the core of the Republican Party. Besides conservative positions on domestic issues such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, the Christian right is a strong supporter of Israel in foreign affairs. “Christian Right,” Retrieved from wikipedia.org on October 10, 2011 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right.
 Alister McGrath, A Passion for Truth, 126.
 Liberalism came into use early in the 19th century. It has been defined as ‘the holding of liberal opinions in politics or theology. If taken to mean freedom from bigotry and readiness to welcome new ideas or proposals for reform, freedom, and progress. It is a characteristic which many people will readily profess. In more recent times, the word has held a more secular or anthropocentric humanism meaning which has origins in the Renaissance and is inconsistent with biblical and dogmatic orthodoxy. ODCC, s.v. “liberalism.”
 Ibid., 125.
 Dayton, 8
 Ibid., 35.
 Revivalism is a type of religious worship and practice centering in evangelical revivals, or outbursts of mass religious fervor, and stimulated by intensive preaching and prayer meetings. In the USA, revivalism has been credited with a considerable influence on social reform. ODDC, s.v.“revivalism,” and Dayton, 15.
 Dayton, 18.
 Dayton, 18.
 Ibid., 43.
 Free Churches were a form of protest by the reformers and abolitionists to the practice of selling and renting pews for the construction and maintenance of church buildings. Renting pews was a practice that alienated and humiliated the poor and often times prevented them from attending church. In free churches, pews were open to all regardless to class or wealth. Dayton, 66.
 Dayton, 67.
 Ibid., 49.
 Ibid., 48.
 Dayton, 61.
 Ibid., 49
 Ibid., 76.
 Ibid., 77.
 Ibid., 122.
 Ibid., 125.
 Millennium is the belief in a future thousand-year period of blessedness. The premillennialist group maintains that the millennium will follow the Second Coming of Christ and postmillennialists believe that it precedes the Advent, and prepares the way for it by the spread of righteousness over the earth. The abolitionists and nineteenth century evangelicals were postmillennialists, hence their focus on social change. Post-Civil War, eschatological views shifted to premillennialism, hence their focus on preaching the gospel, personal salvation, and repentance. ODCC, “Millenarianism.”
 Eschatology is the doctrine of the last things; that is the ultimate destiny both of the individual soul and the whole created order. ODDC, “Eschatology.”
 Dayton, 128-129.
 Dayton, 129.
 “The Social Gospel movement is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement that was most prominent in the early 20th century. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially social justice, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Theologically, the Social Gospel leaders wanted to operationalize the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “thy will be done on earth.” They typically were post-millennialist; that is, they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the Progressive Movement and most were theologically liberal, although they were typically conservative when it came to their views on social issues.”Definition retrieved fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gospel on October 16, 2011.
 McGrath, 62.
by Gary DeMar
A number of black “leaders” (e.g., Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) have made their living by promoting black victimhood and white guilt. Jesse Jackson has been shaking down corporations with the scam for decades. Booker T. Washington (1865–1915) warned of such people within the black community in his 1911 book My Larger Education. He described them as “problem profiteers”:
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” (p. 118)
Washington could have had in view, although writing nearly a hundred years ago, black people who are railing against Herman Cain and other blacks who have not succumbed to plantation living. Cain doesn’t present himself as a victim, and this disturbs people like Al Sharpton. Cain lived at a time when there were “colored” water fountains, segregated schools and neighborhoods, and racial discrimination that few people today can imagine. If anyone has a right to play the victim card, it’s Cain. He didn’t feel sorry for himself. He stayed out of trouble, worked hard, and made something of himself without the help of a cadre of “poverty pimps.” Cain is the antithesis of the Democrat Party and 90 percent of blacks who support it.
Washington continues with a story that encapsulates what is wrong with so many black “leaders” and their guilt-ridden white supporters. Those victimizing blacks are other blacks:
A story told me by a coloured man in South Carolina will illustrate how people sometimes get into situations where they do not like to part with their grievances. In a certain community there was a coloured doctor of the old school, who knew little about modern ideas of medicine, but who in some way had gained the confidence of the people and had made considerable money by his own peculiar methods of treatment. In this community there was an old lady who happened to be pretty well provided with this world’s goods and who thought that she had a cancer. For twenty years she had enjoyed the luxury of having this old doctor treat her for that cancer. As the old doctor became — thanks to the cancer and to other practice — pretty well-to-do, he decided to send one of his boys to a medical college. After graduating from the medical school, the young man returned home, and his father took a vacation. During this time the old lady who was afflicted with the “cancer” called in the young man, who treated her; within a few weeks the cancer (or what was supposed to be the cancer) disappeared, and the old lady declared herself well.
When the father of the boy returned and found the patient on her feet and perfectly well, he was outraged. He called the young man before him and said: “My son, I find that you have cured that cancer case of mine. Now, son, let me tell you something. I educated you on that cancer. I put you through high school, through college, and finally through the medical school on that cancer. And now you, with your new ideas of practicing medicine, have come here and cured that cancer. Let me tell you, son, you have started all wrong. How do you expect to make a living practicing medicine in that way?”
I am afraid that there is a certain class of race problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.
If the patient gets well, an entire industry of victimhood will get cancer and die. This would be the best thing for the black community. Until blacks throw off the shroud of victimhood, they will be at the mercy of “doctors” who treat a cancer that does not exist but that they are paying for.
Last week the House passed with bipartisan support the Protect Life Act, which amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to assure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortion. It also assures that health-care providers that do not wish to provide abortions are not forced to by government.
The bill’s Republican sponsor, Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., had co-sponsored essentially the same amendment along with then-Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., when Obamacare was in the making in 2009.
Because a similar provision was not in the Senate version of the bill, and had no prospect of making it through the Senate, Stupak stood as a major obstacle to the passage of Obamacare.
In the end, the ways of Washington prevailed, and Stupak caved to pressure from the White House. He agreed to support the health-care bill without his anti-abortion provision, in exchange for President Obama issuing an executive order prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions in health care provided in the framework of Obamacare.
An executive order is a flimsy substitute for law; thus Rep. Pitt found another pro-life Democrat, Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., to co-sponsor his amendment, which has now passed the House 251-172.
However, Pitt’s new bill faces the same prospects as the amendment that he cosponsored with Stupak in 2009. Its chances of passage in the Senate are remote.
So why bother?
After the bill passed, I was asked on a PBS talk show, “To the Contrary,” if Republicans were being frivolous in taking up congressional floor time to deal with abortion when what Americans want today is congressional action on the economy.
My response was “no, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and actually in light of Obamacare, it is critical for lawmakers to protect health-care workers and hospitals with a conscience clause.”
In fact, the attention the bill has gotten in the short time since it passed the House indicates that the level of interest in abortion, and the potential use of taxpayer funds for it, remains high.
Two high-post Democrats – former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., Democratic National Committee chairwoman – issued statements criticizing the bill shortly after it passed.
According to Pelosi, the provision assuring that health-care providers, including hospitals, are not forced to provide abortions, even though they receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, means “that women can die on the floor and health-care providers do not have to intervene.”
Wasserman Schultz said, “This extreme legislation is dangerous for women’s health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families.”
Liberals love to frame the killing of developing humans as being about women’s lives, health and rights.
But, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 3 percent of abortions are performed for reasons of a woman’s health. Abortions that are performed because a woman’s life is in danger amount to a fraction of 1 percent. That leaves more that 96 percent for convenience with some 50 percent repeat customers.
Regarding abortion, the liberal agenda is really about two things – 1) an alleged right to sexual promiscuity and, 2) an alleged right to have others bear social and financial responsibility for that promiscuity.
Fortunately, a sizable part of the American population doesn’t see things this way. And, fortunately, a sizable part of our population remains in awe of the miracle of life and our responsibilities toward all aspects of life, both in and outside of the womb.
It doesn’t take that much thought to realize the fallacious thinking that suggests that matters of economy and matters of morality have nothing to do with each other.
The “right to abortion” culture is simply a subset of the entitlement culture, the culture that says your life is about making claims on others rather than personal responsibility.
Disrespect for life and disrespect for property go hand in hand. We can’t divorce our sexual promiscuity from our fiscal promiscuity. Restoring personal responsibility in both areas is what we need today to get our nation back on track.
Star Parker is president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, and author of the recently re-released “Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It.”