As valedictorian of his class at Bell County High School, Ben Bowling was invited to speak at the graduation ceremony. He looked for some inspirational quotes to share with his classmates and included this one, “Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.’ – Donald J. Trump.” The audience applauded. Then Bowling added, “Just kidding, that was Barack Obama.” The crowd went silent except for a few adult boos. Bowling explained it this way, “I just thought it was a really good quote. Most people wouldn’t like it if I used it, so I thought I’d use Donald Trump’s name. It is Southeastern Kentucky after all.” Bowling was unsurprised by the crowd’s reaction. He will soon be moving to the University of Kentucky for pre-med and medical school. Continue reading WHO CENSORS OR BOOS VALEDICTORIANS?
Category Archives: religion
THE ECONOMY MUST SERVE PEOPLE
“The economy must serve people, not the other way around.” That is the opening sentence of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement “The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers“. Regardless of your religious beliefs, I encourage readers to look it up on the internet. It’s easy to understand the values being taught but challenging to apply them in our lives, businesses and government. Continue reading THE ECONOMY MUST SERVE PEOPLE
Real Christmas Light
In a conversation about the state of our world, a friend asked what my subject would be for a “Christmas column”. My immediate reaction was cynicism. It seemed unfitting to celebrate Christmas in a world where borders matter more than starving refugees, where the wealthy get a tax cut paid for with borrowed money, and where self-professed Christians in movements like Aryan Nation Church of Jesus Christ and Westboro Baptist Church preach racism and intolerance in Jesus’ name.
A day passed by before it occurred to me that Jesus was born, lived and was crucified in a world not so different from our own. His teaching, preaching and example were about living in a flawed, unfair and sometimes hostile world. What better time and place to celebrate his birth, life and sacrifice than here and now, in our own darkness? The light that he brought to his world can brighten our own.
The land where Jesus lived was ruled by the most powerful military force of its time, the Roman Empire. They allowed significant local autonomy as long people paid taxes to the empire and didn’t attempt insurrection. Regional government was based on Jewish religious laws under Roman supervision. Political and financial power were often abused. The temple tax, owed by everyone, enriched the high priests. It also paid temple employees including musicians, janitors, decorators, guards and those who sold animals for sacrifice. They sustained the mystique of the temple and the belief that High Priests could influence God through rituals. Little tax money trickled down to the poor.
There were a lot of itinerant preacher/teacher/rabbis in Jesus’ time. People were angry, especially in rural areas where taxes were collected to support Rome and Jerusalem while poverty reigned locally. Jesus directed his ministry to the poor, the working class, the disenfranchised, and much of the time he simply ignored Rome and Jerusalem. He recruited fishermen, laborers, and other common people as followers.
Stories of his work include miracles to benefit the sick and poor. The lepers who were healed were outcasts under Jewish law. The prostitutes (identified as “sinners”) with whom he reportedly dined at a tax collector’s invitation are thought to have been hired as after-dinner entertainment – women who had only their bodies to sell.
Jesus did far more than heal and feed people. He taught a better way of living that became a movement. It was based on two principles – love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Today people sometimes debate what “God” and “neighbor” mean. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching is so clear that we can apply it to our 21st century lives.
It’s almost as important to recognize what Jesus didn’t do as what he did. Did Jesus ever pray for rain in the desert, military defeat of the Roman invaders or other intervention in daily life? He taught others to pray for enough food to get through the day, forgiveness of sins and recognition of temptation – nothing more. He never tried to enforce his values through civil laws. People were free to follow or not. He never asked for contributions to build a cathedral, a megachurch or even a small one. Nor did he urge placing a monument to the Ten Commandments at every courthouse.
Jesus cared about individuals but he also spoke to and about government when he overturned the money changers’ tables where the poor were legally cheated by a government sanctioned religion. He engaged in civil disobedience to save the life of a woman caught in the act of adultery. The prescribed penalty was for her to be stoned to death. Jesus halted the stoning with this challenge, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Who was this man who changed our world so much? Once, when he was asked, he replied with a question of his own, “Who do you say that I am?” Do you say he is Son of God, Messiah and Savior? Or is he a teacher whose powerful ideas will, if we follow them, allow us to live peaceably together?
Regardless of our 21st century answer to his question, his birth, his life and his sacrifice are worthy of celebration. By applying his teaching today we can bring light to a dark world.
Are we willing?
Permission for use of this Hugh Haynie cartoon was granted by the Special Collections Research Center, Swem Library, College of William and Mary
WHO MAKES YOUR DECISIONS?
There is a rising chorus of threats against the rights of Americans to make decisions about their own bodies. Yes, I’m writing about abortion, not because I want to but because we now have a President and a Republican congressional majority who intend to impose their version of morality on every individual. It’s un-American. It’s dictatorial. It’s patriarchal. And they will absolutely do it unless freedom loving people stand up to them.
As preface, let’s acknowledge that consideration of abortion arises at a very difficult time in a woman’s life. Our question is, “Who will make the decision, the woman or the government?” Our judgments about her choice or her conscience are merely opinions. Who decides?
For historical perspective, abortion is recorded in the earliest human histories. Plato, for example, noted the ability of midwives to “…cause miscarriages if they think them desirable…” Herbs, drugs and physical procedures for abortion have been generally known and widely used in every culture. There is occasional documentation of moral or religious objections but historically, abortion was widely accepted without legal regulation or intervention. The greatest concern was the risk posed by procedures and toxic herbs used to induce abortions.
In colonial and early America, abortion was common practice. In the 19th century it was openly advertised and it was estimated that 20-25 percent of pregnancies were terminated by abortion. Birth control options were limited; and at least half of abortions were among married women who had children and didn’t want or couldn’t afford more.
American religious objections evolved into attempts to ban abortion in the late 19th century, spurred by opposition to the emerging women’s rights and suffrage movements. One notorious example of that radical religious movement is the Comstock Law of 1873. It banned publication and teaching (even in medical schools) of any information regarding birth control, abortion or prevention of venereal disease. Religious extremists had taken charge of the congress but clinics offering abortions continued to operate in many American cities. Abortion continued to be available (often illegally and often dangerously) across the nation until the 1973 Supreme Court decision that overturned anti-abortion laws.
Since that time, misogynists and religious zealots have been fighting to re-impose their will on pregnant women. Our Republican President and Congress are among them. They certainly have the right to believe and teach whatever they choose; but they have no right to limit a woman’s full control of her own body. That is where the battle line is drawn.
It is the nature of freedom that a person may do things – even make mistakes – which the majority of society disapproves. For example, we allow parents to feed their children so much junk food that they are grossly obese, diabetic and destined for a life of disability before they start school. We don’t put the parents in jail for it. Meanwhile religious zealots, obsessed with other people’s pelvic morality, insist on controlling one singular and personal aspect of a woman’s life – her pregnancy.
Among the zealots are those who put a velvet glove on the iron hand of tyranny by saying that they would allow abortion in cases of rape, or when the woman’s life would be endangered by the pregnancy. Their self-righteousness leaves them with no doubt that they know better what is right for her and her body than she does. They reserve to themselves the right to judge her motives and to require that if her sexual encounter was consensual then she will be denied an abortion. Can you think of any other issue where laws might delve so intensely into personal matters?
Invariably we wish that whatever problem caused a woman to decide for abortion had not occurred. With that in mind, we should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that the abortion rate in America is now at or near the lowest level in our history. That success is due in large part to good information about birth control and inexpensive access to it. But our nation is divided, even on that.
Abortions will continue because the reasons why some women choose them have not changed since Plato’s time. But if Republicans have their way, abortions won’t be legal and safe. If religious zealots are allowed to impose their will through force of law, they won’t stop with abortion, and you need not bother ask for whom the bell will toll. It will toll for freedom.
A CHRISTMAS NEWSLETTER
Instead of a Christmas column from me, I tried to imagine a message from someone far wiser.
Dear American Friends:
I’ve noticed that many of you send newsy letters about your families as part of your celebration of my birthday. This year I decided to try it myself by writing to all of you. Christians often call me Father, Son, or Holy Ghost – three different ways to see me. Today I’m writing as Son.
It’s been a disappointing year for Dad and me. H.G., my spirit partner, is sad because so few of you welcome her into your thinking and conversations. Many of you don’t seem to hear her.
Your wars in the Middle East have killed about four million people in the last 25 years. Most of them are Dad’s Muslim children. He loves them as much as he loves you and he wants you to quit killing each other.
You’ve been writing “In God we trust” on your buildings. Dad’s not impressed. If you trusted him, you’d be taking his advice about which things are most important. I explained that to you once when I said that all of Dad’s laws are based on just two things. Love him; and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything that his prophets said, the laws they gave, and all that I taught comes from those two instructions. Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. I know that’s sometimes difficult for you to do but it isn’t complicated.
Did you notice that when I lived on your planet, I tried to be a respectful friend of people regardless of their station in life or whether they agreed with me? I enjoyed time with Roman soldiers that invaded my country, tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers. I ignored nationality and welcomed whoever came to me. When I saw injustice, I spoke up about it. Think about that when you’re deciding whether to deport people who came into your nation hungry, needy, and looking for work. You must love and respect people of all races and cultures, whether straight or LGBTQ. There are no exceptions to “love your neighbor”.
Back at the beginning of time, Dad put you in charge. In one of the books that your ancestors wrote about him, they called it “having dominion” over the whole earth. You sometimes call it “free will”. Dad lets you make your own decisions and then he lets you live with the consequences – good ones and bad ones.
You’ve learned a lot from your science. You can produce food, shelter, clothing and other things that you need. You know how to cure some of the illnesses that killed your ancestors. Those are great things and you should be proud of what you’ve achieved. You should apply my “love your neighbor” teaching to those things too. You have brothers and sisters who are starving. Here in your wealthy nation you often reserve your nearly miraculous health care for those who have money or insurance.
You’ve written your laws so that individuals and businesses get to own knowledge. Anyone who wants to use the knowledge to save a life has to pay whoever owns the knowledge. Such greed makes some of you angry at others. You need to do something about that.
You’re making a mess of the planet that Dad gave you. It’s getting warmer and you’re about to flood a lot of it. You already know that from your science but you’re not doing much about it. Is that because it would cost money? But won’t it cost more when the floods come? And wouldn’t the work to clean up the planet create jobs for people who don’t have a way to support themselves today?
Even though Dad and I are sad and disappointed we still want to help. When I tried really hard about 2000 years ago, people like you crucified me for my trouble. We’re not going to do that again, but Dad did send H.G. to help you find your way. Listen to her. Look inside yourself. She’s there and if you pay close attention to her you’ll discover how to love your neighbor; and then you will know what to do.
Thanks for reading this. Dad, H.G. and I will be thinking of you and wishing you a Happy 2017.
Your friend,
Jesus
In which God do we trust?
Before 1954, our pledge of allegiance described America as, “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…” Then Congress added “…under God…” Two years later, they adopted “In God we trust” as our national motto. Now a movement is under way to place that motto on public buildings and patrol cars. Why? And why now?
Congress was clearly motivated by a desire to distinguish us from the officially atheist and communist USSR. Their trust didn’t extend to national defense. They were simultaneously building an arsenal of nuclear weapons to assure that we could destroy the Soviet Union if they attacked us. Although congress didn’t specify which god they trusted, it was a conservative Christian initiative. The reason seemed to be that many Americans took comfort in the idea that God would protect a Christian nation.
Previously, the unofficial motto of the United States was “E pluribus unum” which translates as “One from many”. It referred to one nation emerging from thirteen colonies which had diverse values, religious traditions and laws. It has also been used to describe American national unity among people of various races, cultures, beliefs and religions.
Today’s environment seems similar to that of the 1950s. Fear that Muslim and Latino immigrants will bring terrorism and crime is front and center in our political discussions. A second, and perhaps more powerful concern is that many Americans see the US as a “Christian nation” and they fear that we are becoming something else. The Christian Action League which lobbies to have the motto placed on patrol cars and public buildings obviously thinks the motto refers to the god of evangelical Christians. So do many of the local groups who get financial support from the In God We Trust Action Committee. It has national and state organizations that encourage and pay for the signs and decals.
It seems appropriate to ask, “How is trust in god visible? What does it mean on a public building?” If the nation trusts a god, what is it that we are trusting that deity to do? Regardless of belief (or non-belief) I’d bet that most of us will call for help from a skilled law enforcement officer in a crisis rather than waiting for one deity or another to fix the problem.
I went looking for answers in holy books of the world’s two largest religions. The Christian Bible has a great many admonitions to trust God and live by his rules. Beyond that it is unclear what trust means. The texts that I found are about living life with trust in God – fearlessly. None suggested advertising trust on money, buildings or law enforcement chariots.
In the Quran I found similar messages. Since few Americans are familiar with that book, here are a couple of examples, [3:159-160] “… GOD loves those who trust in Him. If GOD supports you, none can defeat you. And if He abandons you, who else can support you?” “[11:123] To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and all matters are controlled by Him. You shall worship Him and trust in Him.” As with the Christian Bible, trust seemed to be about living life with trust in God – fearlessly, not about public displays.
What then, is the motivation for public displays?
Until I hear a more convincing rationale for the signs and decals there are three possibilities that come to mind.
- Perhaps proponents hope that signs or decals will convince their God to intervene in the world to protect them.
- Perhaps they want to offend non-believers and those who worship a different version of God. Maybe they think they can discourage other beliefs by posting their own on law enforcement vehicles and public buildings. (That kind of thinking is exactly why we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting government preference for any religion.)
- Another possibility is that the proponents lack sufficient trust in their own God so they seek validation and support in the form of government-approved signs.
Maybe there are other reasons that are best stated by those who have made decisions to put the motto on display. I prefer “E pluribus unum”. It describes the confidence of a nation that will be great in the future as it has been in the past rather than the fears of a nation whose faith is weak.
WILL PEOPLE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?
Some Americans have begun to speak of the USA as a failing nation. I don’t agree. Our internal divisions are nothing new; they have persisted throughout our history. We succeed because most of us remain committed to working out our differences for the common good. We are justifiably worried about anarchy and terrorism, but they too have always been present. From the British point of view, our Revolutionary War heroes were domestic terrorists. From the point of view of many colonists, the war was a justified and necessary step toward freedom. The principal difference between terrorism and a “just war” is which side you are on.
Anarchy and terrorism lost when colonists created a new government based on “the consent of the governed”. Within it they argued, debated and compromised to create something that the great majority of them would support. That kind of political struggle is at the core of “consent of the governed”. Our constitution protects the rights of individuals over the wishes and whims of majorities but our government is strong enough to make laws for the public good. That balance makes consent of the governed possible.
Terrorism emerges when extremely angry people who don’t get what they want through politics decide to use violence instead. An early example was the whiskey rebellion of 1791. Congress levied a tax on distilled spirits to pay off war debts. Farmers who made whiskey from their surplus corn were so opposed to the tax that they banded together and killed tax collectors. President George Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to put down the rebellion and enforce the law. Our civil war, the biggest threat the nation has faced, was organized by slaveholders because they knew they were losing their political struggle to preserve slavery.
Americans’ ever-changing attitudes bring debate, conflict and changed laws. There was violence (terrorism) in opposition to the constitutional amendment that allowed women to vote. Our electorate was once dominated by religious extremists who passed laws to ban birth control and racially segregate society. As attitudes and beliefs changed, those laws have been repealed or found unconstitutional. The same can be said of the Prohibition Amendment that banned alcoholic beverages. Examples of terrorists in those causes include organized criminal gangs (alcohol) and KKK (segregation). 20th century arguments over civil rights, union rights, abortion rights, and the Viet Nam War brought violence and uncountable deaths. As the issues were addressed some very angry people resorted to violence.
We shouldn’t expect today’s challenges to be easier than those faced by prior generations. Terrorists continue to attack both freedom and the government that protects it. A majority of us now see marriage equality as a right, and our Supreme Court has determined that it is protected by our Constitution. That change was preceded by decades of homophobic violence. In 1973, women gained the legal right to control their own bodies, including the right to make their own decisions about ending a pregnancy. “Lone wolf” terrorist Eric Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics to protest abortion rights and government protection of homosexuals. Timothy McVeigh, a “Christian” white supremacist, bombed the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as revenge for government support of civil rights.
Today we still have angry people who think their needs are not being addressed. That includes Americans who lack adequate education and skills. They face a bleak economic outlook; suffer from depression and die younger than previous generations. Many African-Americans think that new voting laws are designed to reduce their influence. Some religious conservatives say their nation has been stolen by a majority that won’t accept literal interpretation of scripture as a basis for laws. Readers can probably add to the list of reasons why people are angry. In Biloxi, Mississippi a restaurant customer was enraged when a waitress told him that smoking was not allowed. He shot her dead on the spot. She might be angry too if she could talk to us.
So much anger makes it difficult to listen, to understand, and to accept our differences. It also feeds the desire to control others through laws or violence rather than nurturing the individual freedoms that we cherish. Our “culture war” will continue in legislatures, courtrooms, and in our streets. Yes, there is terrorism, but there is also hope. I remain optimistic that we will listen, learn, acknowledge our differences; and then find sufficient agreement for future “consent of the governed”. Then we can move on to argue about another set of issues. It’s what Americans do.
IS THIS A TIME FOR WAR?
What should we Americans do about ISIS and other radical Islamists – the ones who want a Caliphate; attack non-believers and violently enforce their religious beliefs on others? They are as much a problem for most Muslims as they are for the rest of us. In this dangerous time we should not see all Muslims as radical Islamists and we must avoid poorly considered, emotional decisions that could make matters worse.
Our world’s mood is changing quickly since the brutal attack on civilians in Paris and the bombing of a Russian airliner. Western nations are questioning whether to accept Middle Eastern refugees. Many citizens of nations that have been attacked want revenge and want to feel safe from future attacks. But are revenge and safety are compatible?
Most Americans are in agreement on two goals. First, protect our citizens and our nation from attack. Second, encourage people of other countries to develop free and peaceful societies. Our disagreements are about how to achieve those goals.
Every strategy has risks. No one can know the best plan with certainty but we do have history as a guide. It demonstrates that military action alone will not defeat radical Islamists. War against them has produced anarchy (civil disorder and the collapse of government). Anarchy is fertile ground where they can spread their beliefs. One important example is Afghanistan where a Soviet invasion in 1978 brought on total collapse of the Afghani government. Over 100,000 Soviet troops, fully equipped with modern weapons, tried to impose a pro-USSR government. After ten years they withdrew, having been defeated by the Mujahedeen and Taliban. The anarchy they left behind allowed the radical Islamist Taliban to take charge. Americans have been fighting the Taliban since 2003 and still have not defeated the ideology or created a stable government.
In Iraq, the American invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship has produced a similar result. The near collapse of Assad’s Syrian dictatorship created an opening for ISIS there. Radical Sunni Islamism has morphed from Al-Qaida and Taliban to ISIS and it has spread among Muslims beyond the Middle East into Northern Africa, North America, and Europe. There is no example where invasion and military occupation have produced good outcomes. Why would we expect a different result if we invade again?
Critics of President Obama have persuaded many Americans that we have no strategy but he has clearly articulated one. It is a long term plan focused on two goals: (1) American safety and (2) development of free, peaceful societies. Click here to hear the strategy. It recognizes that ISIS brutalizes non-compliant Muslims even more than it does westerners. It coordinates our military actions and our foreign policy to encourage Muslims to fight ISIS and replace anarchy with the rule of democratic civil law. The strategy has had both successes and failures; and it is too early to know whether it can succeed.
Hatred of western civilization fuels ISIS and other radical Islamists. Without it, they can’t recruit and they can’t convince other Muslims that the West is their enemy. Today’s battle is against an ideology not a nation. When we destroy a Muslim nation, even one as bad as Saddam’s Iraq or Assad’s Syria with a massive invasion, we feed radical ideology. The critical question is whether the President’s strategy can effectively fight ISIS and encourage non-Islamist Muslims to do the same without creating more hatred of the west.
The financial cost of war in Afghanistan was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Americans are already saddled with a dangerously large national debt. Since we have no will to raise taxes, it is all but certain that future warfare will be paid for with borrowed money – probably measured in trillions of dollars – as was the failed war in Iraq. When we calculate costs, we must also remember that any “boots on the ground” will belong to loyal Americans risking their lives to protect ours.
My conclusion is that encouraging moderate Muslims and their governments to defend themselves from radical Islamism; providing them with military support and intelligence and maintaining our internal security at a high level is our best course of action. That, in general is the President’s strategy. I would stick to it until it succeeds or until someone comes up with a demonstrably better idea. Another war is likely to be a disaster in both human and financial terms.
Who is the stranger at my door?
There are times when it can be unpopular, expensive and even dangerous to practice ideals that we cherish and preach. Those, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine, are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls. Responding to millions of refugees from war, repression and poverty who seek survival and opportunity in western democracies will try the souls of Americans.
Before the 20th century, most national borders had little security and they were not major barriers to migration. Sometimes borders themselves moved. Californians and Texans lived in Mexico until wars and treaties moved the borders, instantly making them Americans. Other than Native Americans and involuntary-immigrant slaves, we are a nation descended from immigrants looking for freedom and opportunity
How will western nations respond to 21st century refugees fleeing from conditions arguably worse than those faced by the Europeans who settled colonial America? Germany has committed to receive 800,000 mostly Syrian immigrants very quickly. The great majority of them will be Muslims. In a recent conversation, I asked a German acquaintance who lives in the US her thoughts about how Germans will respond. I’ve paraphrased her answer as follows. I’m proud of my country and optimistic that most Germans will welcome refugees and help them assimilate. But Germany has a significant right-wing population that Americans refer to as neo-Nazis and skinheads who don’t want non-whites or Muslims in Germany. They will try to intimidate immigrants and some of their tactics may be violent. Among 800,000 immigrants, there are sure to be a few bad actors, so some conflict is likely. If even a few Muslim immigrants commit violence that looks like terrorism, it will frighten many Germans. Public support won’t last long if that happens. It seemed that she could have been describing America. Her words and the refugee crisis raise a lot of questions.
- Are borders that keep out refugees morally defensible? The EU is confronted by hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees cutting fences and crawling under barbed wire with their children. Should the EU admit refugees? Watch them starve at the “wall”? Shoot them? The soul of the EU is on trial with such questions today.
- President Obama has proposed a small increase in the number of refugees to be accepted and wants money budgeted for screening candidates. Should Congress support that? Should we do more? Less?
- By removing Saddam Hussein as dictator, we spawned civil war in Iraq and removed Iran’s regional competition. We undermined Assad as dictator in Syria. ISIS evolved and thrived in the power vacuum that we created in Iraq and Syria. In this anarchy, there is no western-style democratic movement for us to support. Do our past actions impose a moral obligation for America to assist the EU by accepting large numbers of refugees?
- What would refugees from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim nations be like as Americans? Would they accept our freedoms of speech and belief or want to limit them? Would most accept our limitations on the practice of religious traditions like forced marriage and polygamy? Would some isolate themselves; as a few extreme Christian and Mormon sects have done?
- Will the 83% of Americans who profess to be Christians “love others” by welcoming Muslims or will they be divided? What about the other 17%?
- Should the US just get out of Muslim nations or is there something we can do or undo to turn around the anarchy and brutality that make ordinary families into refugees?
If we accept thousands of refugees, regardless of their race, religion, or national origin, we can expect that most of them will become law-abiding and constructive citizens. Regardless of screening or religion, we can also expect that there will be a few criminals and radicals in the mix. (Irish immigrants who self-identified as Christians became our terrorist “Irish Mafia”. It can happen in any religion.) Are we willing to accept a few who would behave badly in order to help thousands who have no home, no way to support themselves and no possessions beyond what they can carry? Do their religion and national origin rule them out as immigrants, or are the refugees the ones Jesus described as “… the least of these my brethren…” to be loved and accepted just because they are human?
Answering such questions may indeed try the souls and consciences of Americans. The time for decisions is upon us.
THOUGHTS ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Is it OK to use unethical methods to accomplish goals that you think are good? Does the end justify the means? Anti-abortion forces are using dishonest propaganda and character assassination in their assault on Planned Parenthood. They have adopted devilish methods in pursuit of goals that they consider godly. They posed as representatives of companies seeking to acquire fetal tissue for medical research and secretly recorded conversations with Planned Parenthood executives. Then they extensively edited the recordings to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue for a profit. The accusation is unproven, but their propaganda has convinced a lot of people. Continue reading THOUGHTS ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD