The Annotated Skeptic Bible=Hilarious

The Skeptic Bible online has a wealth of issues it claims to know what the Bible has a say over, cherry picking various verses throughout the Bible to somehow show the Bible, and God to be some horrific instruction manual for morality. Abortion is a hot button with me so I’ll focus on that. Here is what the Annotated Skeptic Bible claims about God’s word as it pertains to abortion:

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life. “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.” — Exodus 21:22-23

False of course, as the Bible actually says “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the women’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, they he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (Exodus 21:22-23) So we actually see here that the claim that a fetus is not considered a human life is just a flat out lie, and a rather pathetic tactic for a skeptic who supposedly covets objective knowledge to take.

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old. “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.” — Leviticus 27:6

False again, as when on reads the entirety of the passage, we see God is talking about the consecration of persons. Simply because He didn’t state what the payment would be for a less than one month old infant, does not mean they have no value. It means they weren’t consecrated. Not to mention as we’ve shown above, if these lives had no value men wouldn’ t be punished for ending them.

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons. “Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD.” — Numbers 3:15-16

So because they weren’t numbered, they weren’t persons? Interesting assumption. I didn’t realize “prove it” skeptics did such a thing.

If you read the rest of their “examples”, if of course lists the various passages where God caused or ordered the deaths of babies or pregnant women. But at the end of the day, as always, these humanist types who look at God’s actions as immoral have yet to explain one fact: God is not a humanist, and a world created by God does not use humanity as the measuring stick of all things moral. A world with God is not obligated to follow a moral code that solely centers itself around the human race, and the implication that God the Creator is somehow obligated to follow moral codes that humanity sets for Him that humans see best for humans is just absurd. If God is the author of life, the onus is on the skeptic to show how God does not have the right to take away as much as He gives, or how humanity can somehow deem itself more qualified to come up with an objective moral code for humans than the being that created them. They can’t of course, which is why skeptics should really stick to just being skeptical. Skeptics by definition demand proof yet in arguments such as this they offer absolutely none.

Evil In The Name of Religion

John Lennox, a Professor of Mathmatics, gives a nice 4 and a half minute discussion of his take on the atheists view of evil in the name of religion. I bring this up because it has become very fashionable with modern day atheists to blame religion for a disproportionate amount of violence done in the world since the beginning of history. The common implication is that without religion, less violence would have occured within the human race, thus making religion divisive at best and at worst responsible for thousands of years worth of murder in the name of religion.

The first point Mr. Lennox made that jumped out at me was the double standard often used when atheists are indignant about being lumped together. I’ve often pointed out in many discussions regarding evil in the name of religion the historical figure of Stalin, who left a body count that is still being calculated even today. As of 2004, the count was up to 18,000,000 deaths. Stalin was an atheist who killed people who didn’t share his non-faith, as was Pol Pot. As Lennox points out, atheists would not all want lumped in with figures such as Stalin or Pol Pot, so not all theists should be lumped in with murderers, bigots, racists, etc. Lennox also points out how ashamed he is over the Crusades, and suggests that it was disobedience to Christ that lead to such crimes. Before I go on: most atheists at this point call this the “no true scotsman” fallacy, in that most other religious groups claim the same thing. Islam for example has its millions of radicals who kill whole sale in the name of Allah, while peaceful Muslims accuse them of disobedience to Allah. But the fact is, that as amusing as this similarity may be to atheists, when one examines the teachings of both Christ and Muhammad, the key figures in both religions who are to be followed, the differences are so vast its insane. The historical figure of Christ has not one record of ever harming anyone or preaching harm to anyone, while Muhammad is personally responsible for loads of murder, theft, and even rape in the name of Allah.

Lennox then accuses new atheists of pretending that atheism had nothing to do with violence done to humanity, particularly in the 20th century. Its smoke-screened by a philosophical game of word salad: “nothing can be done in the name of non-belief”. Well, history proves them wrong, and no amount of mental gymnastics can avert the fact that people have been killed based on non-belief and belief in God. More to the point, there are so many definitions now of atheism that atheists can’t possibly make the above claim. It is not simply an absence of belief, but a positive belief that there is no God. So to suggest non-belief had nothing to do with 18,000,000 people being killed may be correct, but they were killed based on the belief that there is no God.

The fact of the matter is, people will always find an excuse to kill and oppress each other, and assuming that without religion we wouldn’t be as divided is just absurd. We are all individuals and will always have differences, and there will always be those that will let those differences drive them to kill. So as much as atheists who pretend to be critical thinkers want to blame religion for all or even most of the violence in this world, its simply not even reasonable. You may as well blame individuality for all the atrocities in this world, and that leaves humanity in quite a pickle.

A Discussion Of Sin

In earlier posts I’ve often picked apart various arguments given by humanist/naturalis/atheists accusing the Christian God of immorality. To many, God’s punishments throughout the Bible don’t seem warranted or fair, particularly the destruction of entire cities, and most of all, the concept of Hell. Many theologians debate as to what Hell actually is or will be, but the one clear idea in the Bible is that there is nothing worse. Many atheists feel no crime could be worth the maximum punishment, and certainly not a simple disbelief in Jesus Christ.

The problem here is that many don’t understand what sin is in theological terms. Humanists compare everything God does with the will of humanity, and so therefore they deem Him immoral. Why? Because to humanists, God’s punishments/actions do not benefit humanity. In humanism, humanity is the measuring stick of all things. In God’s worldview, He is the measuring stick of all things. But in this case, if God exists, it is He who has the greater leg to stand on, because its absolutely absurd to think that humans, after being created by God, could authoritatively demand that God follow their set of moral codes rather than the other way around. God would have to be obligated, and that moral obligation has to have a moral authority behind it. Simply because humans want the world to revolve around their species doesn’t give them any more of a right than God to determine what is moral or immoral. So what about sin?

Humanists tend to look at sin as just another out-dated pre-scientific belief. They are able to recognize sin as something immoral in regards to social injustices and things of that nature, but never inward, which is why God seems so harsh to them. Death for what humanists call “victimless crimes”, such as picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or even homosexual coupling. But are they really victimless? If God exists and we are spiritual beings, than how can we stand before the purity of God and declare that our private actions with ourselves do not victimize or reshape us? If God doesn’t exist, morality would certainly be nothing more than social ethics but if He does exist, and created us spiritually, morality has a whole new meaning, and a whole new purpose. Ravi Zacharias said it best:

“Those who recognize the nature of sin understand that what renders someone a sinner is not the scale of human wickedness but the very nature and character of God. It is God’s purity that we stand before, not a fluctuating moral code that varies from one society to another.”

In the Christian worldview one follows a code of morality as an outward expression of love for Jesus and what He’s done for us within us, rather than following a laundry list of dos and don’ts to preserve the human species. This is why humanists will never be able to logically judge or analyze God, because they are incapable of determining why or how the spiritual aspect of our lives works in the universe He created. To them, it simply doesn’t exist, yet they belittle the ideas as “irrational” because they don’t fit into their finite human brains.

More “God Is Immoral” Crap

Just found this crazy essay about the “immorality” of God. Lets enjoy.

First, the essay starts off by stating that if God is omnipotent, than Heaven and Hell are unnecessary. Of course the writer himself would have to have infinite knowledge of all eternity to make such a claim, but doesn’t seem to want to explain that at all, or even to explain why Heaven or Hell have to necessary for God to be moral/immoral. but the other point made:

If it is necessary for the universe, heaven, and hell to exist, than there are principles greater than god is. God could not be omnipotent, because there is something greater.

Um, okay. It gets better.

If the universe, heaven, and hell are unnecessary, than the suffering from natural events or illness is unnecessary. The evil caused by others is unnecessary. The billions of people who are in hell (if it exists) are unnecessary. Going to heaven (if it exists) is unnecessary. It is immoral to allow or create suffering that is unnecessary. Thus god is immoral.

So to address these points that the writer obviously thought was very mind-blowing and creative:

1. Creating the universe wasn’t necessary at all. God created the universe and the earth for humans to share with Him in His glory. Things God does do not have to be necessities in order to be moral/immoral.

2. The suffering of humans in hell and on earth are indeed unnecessary, as is spending eternity in Heaven. Giving humans a choice and allowing/creating consequences for that choice are not immoral.

3. The author is judging God’s supposed immorality based on humanistic principles, yet doesn’t explain why God is obligated under humanistic principles. To put it another way: why is God obligated to follow the moral code of His creation and not His own?

4. Speaking to the necessity or lack thereof in regards to Heaven and Hell doesn’t alleviate any personal responsibility of the human choosing one or the other.

Humans try to alleviate suffering, Thus, humans are more moral than god is.

Based on what moral code? Humanism? And I guess the zillions that created suffering than are less moral than God, so I fail to see the writer’s point.

Unnecessary billions in heaven do not morally justify one person in hell. Belief in the punishing Christian god is immoral.

What is so rich about this is that humanists and naturalists like this often judge the morality of God based on humanistic moral thinking and have no qualms at all about doding the issue of moral obligation. So newsflash: God is not bound by humanistic morals, nor should He be. He created humans, not the other way around. So to judge God based on a worldview that has humanity as the measuring stick of all things is so fallacious I have a hard time grasping how intelligent thinking people can honestly put their names on it. Not to mention the absolute terms in which they judge God’s actions time and again as if any human with their finite brains can fit an eternal being’s thought process into their little heads. So here is another newsflash: if God exists, the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God, than He is far enough above our pea brains that there is going to be things that we don’t understand about Him. But because such concepts may be hard to comprehend, does not mean they are right/wrong one way or the other. But to claim one can judge God’s morality based on the moral code of the race He created is just ludicrous. The fact is, God created us to live forever with Him, and gave us a choice one way or the other, an and consequences attached to those choices. Nothing in this essay validates the belief that creating such consequences are moral or immoral. Once again, atheists need to stick to their non-beliefs instead of trying to analyze a being they don’t believe in and can’t comprehend if they did.

Nobel For Crazy Nutbags

Not about Obama, though its interesting the company he keeps. Digitial Journal:

Jose Saramago, Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998, was launching his new book in Lisbon on Monday called “Cain”, which is story about Cain, the son to Adam and Eve, who killed his younger brother Abel. During the discussion about his new book he went on state, according to the Associated Press, “The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible, we would be different and probably better people.”

The old “without religion we’re better off” theory totally unsupported by evidence, but worth stating if you don’t like organized institutions that take a moral stance. Of course nutbags like Jose who feel without religion we’d be better off haven’t stated yet how human reason would be any more reasonable without religion. See, human reason by and large, despite advances in science, medicine, and even philosophy, still has reasoned that there is a supernatural force connecting all the dots.

Saramago further said during the launch event that he didn’t think it would offend Catholics “because they do not read the bible,” and went on to say that God is “a cruel, jealous and unbearable God (who) exists only in our heads.”

Well the first problem with this guy’s remark is that he just made a positive assertion that God only exists in our brain, which would require some proof. This is most curious since science can’t prove a negative and doesn’t claim to. The second problem is that he’s judging God as cruel based on a moral code that uses nothing but humanity as a measuring stick. I always fails to get a rational explanation as to why God would be bound by the moral code of the humans He created while the same humanists declare they are not bound by the moral code of the Creator even if He does exist. Yes, that’s more brilliant humanist rationale from a guy who butchered the true Gospel to get publicity and make a few dollars. They give Nobel Peace Prizes for turning the middle east into a terror state (Carter) and for keeping it that way. (Obama) But we can’t forget the great “peace maker” in Jose who fights the good fight against things like “thou shalt not kill”.

Another Liberal Who Can’t Leave Jesus Alone

I really wish political hacks would stick to being liberals and leave Jesus out of their mess. A column by Tony Norman I read today is a brilliant example of the impotent frustration many modern day liberals are suffering in this political climate.

Jesus wasn’t a liberal. He wasn’t into redistributing wealth, either, regardless of what you’ve heard. Jesus was a monarchist who, most likely, favored the gold standard for every nation. Anything that smacked of socialism would have offended His free-market sensibilities — according to the folks at the right-wing Web site Conservapedia.

Jesus most certainly is not a liberal, nor is He a conservative. He is Jesus, the Lord and Messiah. But He most certainly is not some freedom fighter for the liberal/socialist cause, like many liberals today attempt to claim, and the entire Bible is replete with God’s obvious will that work=gain, and charitable giving. The Bible is not replete with any implications that Jesus or His Father have any desire whatsoever for the government to jack people for their money to redistribute to those who didn’t work for it. But I have to agree with the columnist that its absolutely ridiculous for a right wing site to take it upon itself to chuck thousands of years worth of research in the translation of ancient Scripture to make it fit with right wing ideals. What makes it more absurd is that one doesn’t need to re-translate the Bible in order to illustrate most of what right wingers hold true. The Bible does a good job as is.

To give you some idea of how serious they take their mission, the Conservative Bible Project identifies Luke 23:34, Christ’s prayer of forgiveness on his tormentors at Golgotha, as too liberal for their taste: Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

There are many links to be found about this if you google it, and the columnist is not lying. The Conservapedia site so far as I can tell does seem to want to re-translate or rid the Bible of the above verse altogether, and at risk of pissing off fellow conservatives, I must say, how dare they attempt to alter or discard such a precious doctrine? How dare any group remove or altar such an important statement, our Lord forgiving those who crucify Him? And all to score political points? We may as well discard any verse or doctrine of forgiveness in that case. Perish the thought. Of course Mr. Norman then takes a bizarre turn by comparing these talking points with a Monty Python movie, followed by comparing Anton Levy’s satanic commandments with those of conservative ideals, which is so absurd its hard to take seriously.

1) Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence. 2) Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams. 4) Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates. 5) Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek. 6) Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.

1.) Conservatives generally represent abstinence, so I fail to see these have in common. 2.) conservatism doesn’t represent either, as conservatism isn’t religous or spiritual, but social and political. Another failed comparison for Tony. 3.) Conservatives represent kindness to any we choose to be kind too, as opposed to government enforced co-dependence. Another reach. 4) Conservatism represents protecting its society of human beings which is both anti-satanic and totally Biblical. 5.) That last one doesn’t even make sense.

So final thoughts: Tony Norman brought up a legitimate concern, that Conservapedia is being ridiculous in trying to re-translate the Bible and Christ’s teachings in the Bible to fit a political viewpoint. Its absurd, heretical, and amusingly unnecessary, as the Bible does a pretty good job of backing up conservative principles on its own. But Tony lost me when he used the issue to simply take shots at Christianity, which had nothing to do with the subject of the column. He just couldn’t resist comparing conservative values to satanism, implying that true Christianity is liberalism. Just couldn’t resist. So final thoughts, first to my fellow conservatives, Christian or no: altaring Christ’s image and His word is not only unnecessary, but heretical and a total lie. If these are the lengths we must go to than we suck at making our point. To the liberals: if you truly don’t think we live in a Christian nation, nor do you like theocracy, than stop invoking Christ’s name, and stop trying to altar the reality of Christ’s character to fit your political view point while ripping conservatives for doing the same.

Jesus Would Support A Public Option

At least that is what left wing party hacks who are desperate for support would have you believe. From The Hill’s Pundits Blog:

Jesus spoke about the need to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, heal the ill, cure the sick and put the needs of the poor ahead of the hunger for money and wealth. Sure sounds more like the public option than premium-gouging and $10 million salaries for insurance-company CEOs. Right?

No, it really doesn’t. What Jesus spoke of was for you, dear sir, to meet those needs. Not push those obligations for looking after your fellow man on to everyone else. See, Jesus never once spoke in His teachings about the responsibilities of government. What He did describe, was love through personal relationships.

I think Jesus would want the poor and middle class taken care of, and not punished by the greed or indifference that plagues the current system.

Jesus would want Americans to take care of each other without a government mandate that would put healthcare in the hands of an incompetent government that would turn the entire machine into a slow, inefficient, and astronomically expensive waste that hasn’t worked anywhere its been tried. I think Jesus would want men to take care of their families through hard work and sacrifice, rather than wait for a government handout. But since we’re on the subject, what else does Jesus want?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, ^(T)a slave is not greater than his master, nor is ^(U)one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.” (John 13:16)

Funny I don’t see that going over very well with the liberal pundits.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the ^(V)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17)

I guess same sex marriage and fornication just went up in smoke. Do these same liberals support that now too? Not to mention that whole “thou shalt not kill” commandment, so abortion should be out the window as well right?

Why this is so amusing is that modern day liberalism generally has mocked Christian right wingers like myself for supposedly twisting Jesus’ character and teachings to fit our ideals. (not to mention mocking us for being Christians in the first place) But when it comes to arguing for a case of socialism and in many cases, communism, out comes the Jesus references. Its a mark of just how desperate the supporters of the new administration really are to sell this public option to the American people. But see, I can go all day showing how replete the Bible is with teachings of personal responsibility, and basically the ideal that if you want something, you work for it. No one in this country is truly needy, so to reference Jesus in this case is just laughable. Every state in the union has a program to give insurance for those who can’t afford it, and not one child in this country is denied any medical care at all. None whatsoever. So I don’t need to break out my Bible to argue against the morality or the inefficiency of a public option, though I could certainly do so. The bottom line is that the federal government has no place involving itself in my healthcare or my families, and as such no American should be forced to pay for healthcare twice, especially at those levels. Each state has taxes levied to go to those who can’t afford health insurance and that is the way it should be, because then only those who can’t afford it receive it, as opposed to a government option where anyone who doesn’t want to pay for insurance doesn’t have too, ultimately crippling our economy. Let’s face it, how long will guys like myself who like their insurance be able to keep paying the higher taxes on top of their regular insurance payments? Impoverishing the entire nation for the sake of saying “we’re insured” is not something Jesus would support.

Jesus supported you and me being generous with our own money, not us being generous with someone else’s money, and there is no Biblical support otherwise. Liberals should stick to fudging the facts and their Michael Moore documentaries on capitalism and leave Jesus out of their mess.

Dumb Atheism

Not all atheists are stupid, but this is a good example of stupid atheism. The author here is trying to explain why God, if He exists, is immoral, needy, and irrational.

a.) God is omnipotent and omnipresent b.) God created man with the capacity for free will c.) Free will allows man to commit sin d.) Sin is the cause of evil. Conclusion: God can prevent sin and chooses not to.

Um, okay? So how does that make God immoral, irrational, or needy? If God creates man, gives Him a choice, and God doesn’t stop him, that makes him immoral? This is rather inconsistent with humanistic moral reasoning, what with the fact that usurpring the free will of another human would conflict with their worldview of freethought. Not to mention why the author, judging God’s actions based on humanistic morals, isn’t able or willing to demonstrate why God (not human) is obligated under humanistic morals. Next:

a.) God wishes us to love Him freely. b.) God will reward those who love Him freely. Conclusion: God requires love from man.

No explanation again is given as to how this is immoral. You might be able to label it needy, but you would have to operate under the assumption that God requires love because He needs it.

a.) Not loving God is a sin, and therefore evil. b.) God cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Conclusion: God punishes man for evil that God chose not to prevent.

The author here keeps harping on the “God won’t prevent evil but can” argument and it really makes no sense. To prevent the evil, God would have to trounce all over the basic human rights of free thought that humanists hold so dear, which the humanist would also see is immoral. Of course the author later explains that God is hypocritical for not stopping evil from occurring while damning man for not preventing evil from occurring. In regards to choice, the author concludes by breaking down the “consequences” of this choice like this:

God is immoral, because he allows us to commit evil solely so that some us may freely choose to love him.

God is needy, because he created us solely so that some of us would choose to love him.

God is irrational, because he damns us for using reason instead of faith.

God is duplicitous, because the choices he gives us are not truly free.

God is jealous, because he punishes us for not loving Him.

God is hypocritical, because he would punish man for giving the same choice to others.

Well first of all, if God exists, He is in no way obligated to the human race at all. For Him to be immoral, there would have to be an obligation first. Its illogical for humanists to declare God immoral if He exists based on a moral code centered entirely around the human race. The humanist first has to show why God is obligated to them at all. God’s morality is centered around God. Humanistic morality is centered around humans. Humanism as shown here is condemning God essentially for the same reasons God condemns man. Second, God does not condemn anyone for using reason, as reason has led many Christians, including this one, to Christ. Its an assumption that reason had nothing to do with it and an arrogant one, since the vast majority of the human race has “reasoned” its way to one supernatural being or the other. Third, if God’s choices aren’t “free”, because there are consequences, than there is no such thing as free will with or without God. Fourth, God is jealous, but God declares that Himself. Humanism doesn’t even declare that to be immoral in general and God only gave that command to humans. Fifth, God can’t be a hypocrite because He gave a set of rules to the finite creatures He created that don’t apply to Him. They only apply to Him in regards to this argument because humanists want it that way.

In conclusion, the humanist is unqualified and ill-equipped to declare God immoral in any sense, as the humanist hasn’t given an explanation as to the obligation of God do humans. If God exists and created humans, what reason does the humanist have to expect any treatment from God whatsoever? Why is He obligated? The humanist can argue how humans are obligated to one another all day but how is God bound by humanist rule? There has to be an obligation, and once an obligation is established, a moral law behind it. And for a moral law, a moral law giver. Christianity has filled in the blanks of that formula, and humanism has done the same. But humanistic/atheism in this case is trying to still hold a humanistic worldview even in the event that God, the creator of humans, indeed exists, which if philosophically impossible.

Rev. John Dear: “Violence Is Anti-Christ”

Rev. John Dear is a popular Jesuit priest who is currently on a crusade to end all violence everywhere. I good goal to be sure, except he pretty much calls into question the true Christianity of anyone even remotely involved in any kind of violence, including simple national defense.

Speaking animatedly to the audience that filled nearly half the chapel, the 50-year-old Dear discussed the problem of supporting war and violence, which he described as “anti-human, anti-creation, anti-democracy and anti-Christ.”

Problem being that every formed democracy has attained and kept such a feat usually through some act of violence. If violence is anti-democratic than we have a problem. But Dear has even called for every military base to be closed, and instead to look for peaceful solutions. Again, lofty and laudable goals, but he suggests no real plan in looking for peaceful solutions. In any event, it is a grotesque misuse of Christ’s personal teachings to His followers to suggest that defending a nation or a people is anti-Christian. If it is, God Himself, who not only orchestrated wars but even ordained them, is anti-Christ, which pretty much makes Christianity fall flat on its face. But the ultimate misuse of Scripture is Dear’s reference to Peter:

Referring to the Biblical time of Jesus Christ’s arrest, Dear recounted when Peter was willing to bring up his sword to defend Jesus, but instead was told not to fight or harm the soldiers. “He’s not even going to defend himself violently, so we don’t get to,” Dear said, referring to Jesus Christ. “God never said to Peter, avenge my death, and Peter didn’t go out and form groups to kill soldiers. That’s what he would do if he was a good American.”

A nice shot at the American (and even more so, Israeli) idea of defending one’s nation and its people against other acts of violence. The first flaw here though is using the Christ’s verbal restraint on Peter to somehow justify his views on war. The whole plan of salvation hinged on Jesus’ execution so yes, Peter defending Christ’s life with a sword would put quite a monkey wrench in the gears of grace and mercy. Its just simple common sense. As for Christ’s own words, He spoke to individuals and taught against revenge. To suggest His teachings were to be taken to the governmental level in that no king or president should have a military defense is just absurd. Christ never mentioned these things at all. Its a simple matter of Biblical fact that God the Father has used war and still uses war to bring about a resolution. Its how He freed the Jewish slaves in Egypt, its even how the country of Israel where Jesuits like Dear reside was formed. Of course while Dear has a point that while the death of Michael Jackson made every news network for months, millions of children were starving unreported, it has little to do with his crusade against war. Point of fact, there are children who were starving who now are not thanks to military intervention. In light of all these things, its a shame to conclude as one must, that Rev. Dear is more interested in getting publicity than actually illustrating through his life and ministry Christ’s love for all.

Women’s Right To “Choose”

Planned Parenthood is filing another lawsuit, once again displaying their lack of care actual women’s health. Arizona:

The laws being challenged require:

That only physicians can perform surgical abortions. The law prohibits nurses from performing the procedure.

That women receive certain information, including information on fetal pain, from a doctor in person 24 hours before her abortion.

That parental consent forms be notarized.

Pretty much common sense requirements to anyone not looking to lose money if women would decide against the procedure right?

“Planned Parenthood Arizona is committed to ensuring women and families in this state have access to the comprehensive reproductive care they need,” said Bryan Howard, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Arizona in a statement. “This law puts the health and well being of more than half of our state’s residents at risk by restricting women’s access to comprehensive care. We believe the regulations should not be put into place until the court rules on the legality of this onerous law.”

Now we’re calling abortion “reproductive care”? Hilarious. Yeah buddy, making sure licensed doctors perform a surgery instead of a nurse is putting a woman’s health at risk. Not to mention giving them all the facts. So are Planned Parenthood and groups like them really looking out for women or are they worried about their multi-million dollar industry? Lets review:

1. They are against requiring licensed doctors to perform surgical abortions, even though they are required in any other surgery besides abortion. They would rather allow if “needed” an unqualified nurse to perform the surgery.

2. They are against a requirement that a woman be given all the facts prior to the surgery, even though in any other surgery a doctor is required to inform the patient of any/all risks/side effects that may incur from a surgery.

But let’s face it: these death camps want the money from their multi-million dollar industry, and giving a woman all the facts might help her change her mind God forbid. Women’s right to choose be damned, make sure they have the abortion.