In the effort to paint Jackson as the most extreme candidate in history, the Democrats and their media allies have latched onto the following statement:
“The Democrat Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions. Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.”
Senator Steve Martin took to facebook to defend the Lieutenant Governor Nominee’s statement.
A critical analysis on the truth of EW’s condemned statement, would have to conclude its accuracy… There is in fact an alliance that the democrat party oversees and assures, between people who refer to themselves as civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was in fact established by Margaret Sanger for the primary purpose of killing black babies (she said so herself in recorded statements). And, it has been successful in carrying out its original mission, killing tens of millions of black babies. And as such, it has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK (another original creation of the democrat party in the south) ever was. click here for full statement
This brought him under fire from the media for daring to compare the liberals most sacred organization to one of the most racist organizations in U.S. history.
Since some are rather intent on vilifying the messenger, let’s take a look at the truth of the statements made.
The Klu Klux Klan is a racist organization that lynched many people for being black or sympathizing with blacks. That is detestable.
That said, let’s look at the numbers…
Walter Hoye, founder and president of the Issues4Life Foundation, shared those statistics at a press conference on Tuesday where Black clergy and other leaders gathered in response to the guilty verdict in the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murdering three newborn babies.
“Right now to give some of us just a perspective of the impact of abortion on demand in the Black community, according to the archives of the Tuskegee Institute, from 1882 to 1968 — 86 years — the Ku Klux Klan lynched 3,446 Negroes,” Hoye said. “While it took the Klan 86 years to accomplish this, abortion on demand in America accomplishes that in less than four days.” full analysis of the numbers can be found at this site.
Another report looked at the annual number of African-Americans aborted and found the following comparable statistics based off of CDC numbers and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
Abortion is the number one killer of black lives in the United States. More than HIV. More than diabetes. More than heart disease. More than cancer. Abortion snuffs out more black lives than all other causes of death, combined (according to the CDC). Using statistics from 2008 (because that is the most recent year available which provides nationwide abortion stats), there were 363,705 abortions in the black community. According to pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, this number represents 30% (the percentage of black abortions) of the nation’s 1,212,350 abortions in 2008. All other causes of death amounted to 285,522. full details can be found here.
Watch the following video, and tell me based on numbers that Jackson and Martin are wrong. If they aren’t, you should be just as outraged as they are.
In 2008 when Ron Paul ran for president, many conservatives had to examine libertarianism and what it meant. One thing that became very clear is that libertarianism is built on a very different philosophical foundation.
One of the greatest advances in political theory of the era of America’s founding was the idea that our rights come from God. In essence laws and rights are moral, and find their basis in a transcendent moral order. Thomas Jefferson made this abundantly clear in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Why are government’s instituted? To secure the rights that God has bestowed on us. No more. No less.
This concept is at the heart of conservatism. Conservatives throughout history have believed in the importance of a transcendent moral order. Recently that has been articulated by thinkers like Edmund Burke, T.S. Eliot, Richard Weaver, and Russell Kirk.
Traditionally libertarianism has rejected this idea. Libertarianism is built on the premise that you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t harm someone else. Nowhere was this more clearly seen than in the Supreme Court’s 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas which dealt with homosexuality. Here the libertarian think tank Cato teamed up with other organizations to get the Supreme Court to throw out state laws regarding homosexuality, and overturn the recent Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick.
While criminalizing homosexuality is probably a bit outdated, the reasoning Cato encouraged the Supreme Court to use to reverse itself was horrendous. “Morality is not a basis for law.”
As Scalia pointed out in his dissent, this reasoning throws the door open to legalizing a number of other sexual practices that are currently banned.
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
I would also add that the reasoning in Texas v. Lawrence also established the basis for the effort to legalize pedophilia, or as some would say, “destigmatize adult-child love.”
While I hope libertarian thought can develop to somehow include a strong defense for traditional values, it is this history that makes conservatives very suspicious of libertarians on social issues.
“Willie, why bring up political theory and court cases in an article about Rand Paul’s stance on the life issue?” Because it is important to understand the foundations of the two philosophies, particularly when discussing an area of politics where they can lead to very different conclusions.
For Ron Paul, his belief in the importance of a limited government and state’s rights were trumped when it came to the issue of life. He claimed he was pro-life, but believed it was an issue that should be left to the states. This is despite the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The amendment ends by giving congress power to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation. One would think this would give a constitutional pro-lifer the clear ability to push the federal government to protect the unborn. For many pro-lifers, this is the constitutional basis, however, it is one Ron Paul rejects.
It was when introducing this act, that he gave some very confusing statements about abortion. The interview is below, and the full article is entitled “Rand Paul Isn’t 100% Pro-Life Anymore,” which traces Rand Paul’s pro-life record.
Yes this was my FB profile picture for over two weeks.
While I applaud Rand Paul’s efforts to protect life, this interview is confusing at best. Statements about the existence of thousands of exceptions, the place of a family making a private decision, and even the possibility of early term abortions are alarming to conservatives who have been fighting for the right to life for years. Maybe Rand Paul was just referring to thousands of situations where a woman’s health was in danger. Maybe… It is a possibility, but one that makes little sense. There have traditionally been three exceptions talked about for abortion: rape, incest, and life of the mother. The idea of thousands of “exceptions” is ridiculous because few people could name one hundred possible exceptions. The idea of thousands of “situations” only makes sense if Rand Paul believes in a “health of the mother” exception that is so big you could drive a train through. If he believes in a “life of the mother” exception, there are really only a few “situations” where a mother’s life is at risk which may result in a few thousand cases a year.
I have a lot of appreciation for Rand Paul. I think he has pushed the party in a much more liberty minded direction. He is also clearly willing to fight aggressively for what he believes in. Unlike his father, he is much saner, and is a bridge builder. In a lot of respects, we need someone like that in the White House.
However, Rand Paul has a lot of work to do to woo cynical pro-lifers, and this hurt him. In 2008 in Virginia, pro-lifers lead the way in almost defeating Jim Gilmore in the U.S. Senate nomination contest because he wasn’t ideologically pure on the life issue. We will not embrace someone we aren’t sure about. Pro-lifers have been burned by politicians time and again, and need a politician to prove himself before they will embrace him.
In light of these comments, I would like to see Rand Paul be very explicit about where he stands on the life question. As someone new to the pro-life movement he needs to prove himself. Does he believe in a “health of the mother” exception, “life of the mother” exception, or any other exception? What about early abortions should be private between a patient and doctor? Rand Paul also has a clear grasp for constitutional law as he demonstrated during his filibuster. Another important question is does he agree with Justice Stevens dissent in Bowers v Hardwick which was cited by the majority in Lawrence v. Texas to rule out morality as a basis for laws?
One way Rand Paul could establish his pro-life views is by having an in-person in-depth interview with prolife stalwarts like the leaders of Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony’s List, Tony Perkins, Penny Nance, Wendy Wright, and Mike Farris, and let them ask him hard questions. If he wants to be a pro-life leader he needs to learn to think and talk like a pro-life leader. Sitting down with people who have been in the fight for decades would help him understand the issue, learn to communicate about it better, and enable them to see where he really stands on the issue.
It will be interesting to see what Rand Paul continues to say and do about the pro-life issue in the coming years. Like I said, I have a lot of respect for him. I’ve been impressed, and in some respects he may be the type of bold fighter we need. However, his recent comments are definitely concerning, and I need to see him do more than just explain them away.
My initial thought is that this is an ironic response from a school which prides itself in teaching a Classical Liberal Arts education, one where students read books by people with whom they disagree in order to better understand and engage them. Responding to criticisms of being narrow-minded by censoring a website seems to contradict PHC’s typical approach to teaching students to think for themselves.
The administration’s response also raises an issue that my generation is going to have to figure out as a result of the increasing size of the homosexual community. How do we as the church interact with the homosexual community?
One camp says homosexuality is a sin and must be condemned. This approach can quickly condemn the sinner for their sin. Supporters of this view point to verses like I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 for support pointing out the seriousness with which God takes this sin.
We should not condone or excuse homosexuality. However, as Christians we should show God’s love and grace to everyone, including homosexuals. The idea of loving the sinner but not the sin should apply to everyone. While Paul does say that homosexuals (along with people who commit a number of other sins) won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, two verses later he goes on to show the beauty of the gospel.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This is the beauty of the gospel. The gospel saves those of whom it could once be said “they will not inherit the kingdom.” The cross is the great leveler, and all who have faith in Christ can come to faith.
Following the I Timothy 1 passage where Paul condemns homosexuality, comes one of the most beautiful descriptions of the power of the gospel to redeem the chief of sinners.
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful,appointing me to his service,though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 1:12-14)
If the gospel is powerful enough to save anyone, do our interactions with the homosexual community reflect that? Wouldn’t that require us to show God’s love and grace to them as we interact with them?
Would a homosexual feel welcome in one of our churches? Probably not. Can we blame them? Tragically not. But how can we reach those who, as a result of our actions, expected to be condemned instead of loved when they came to our church? I am not suggesting we should accept sin, but we should be willing to show God’s love to sinners.
Ironically, we understand the necessity of this much more readily when it comes to the other important social issue for evangelicals: abortion. Murder is regularly condemned in the same breath as homosexuality, and sacrificing infants is vehemently condemned in the Bible. Yet the pro-life movement has learned the importance of showing love to those who have abortions, and even those who perform abortions. We understand that we must love those who have abortions, and seek to show them that God’s love can forgive them even for aborting their child. We understand that we must love those who perform abortions, so they too will understand the love of God and be open to listening to us. We understand this…in the abortion context. For some reason we don’t understand the importance of doing the same thing to those struggling with homosexuality.
Imagine if we believed in loving homosexuals like we do the mothers who have abortions.
In closing I would encourage you to read the stories of two prominent Christians who chose to love homosexuals without condoning their lifestyle. The first tells how the head of the SBC in Oklahoma overwhelmed Soulforce with love when they decided to picket his church. The second tells the story of a gay person giving Rich Mullins a lift. I would encourage you to read these articles and ask yourself what would a gay person think if they interact with you? Would they see God’s love through you, or would the be condemned by you?
This article is not written as a condemnation of my Alma Mater, or those involved in the situation there. I learned a lot through my time at Patrick Henry College, and I deeply appreciate Dr. Farris and the school leadership for the investment they continue to pour into students at the school, as well as their activism on many important issues. The recent situation simply presented an opportunity to address an issue that Christian conservatives should continue thinking about.
A recent discussion online about evangelicalism made me think yet again on the question of whether there should be something more important for Christians than believing and doing the right things. Ben Tribbett, one of the leading Democrat bloggers in the state, shared an interesting story.
Willie Deutsch, I’ll share with you a story that is non-political on why evangelicals have trouble reaching people. My mom is Jewish- my dad is southern baptist, and whenever I went to Roanoke as a kid I attended a southern baptist church with my grandmother. One summer when I was about 5 and visiting for a month and my parents were gone the youth minister came over to the farm. I went outside with him and he proceeded to tell me that my mother was going to hell, and he wanted to save me from doing so. He demonstrated this by setting up some sticks on the ground to represent heaven and hell and stomped on the “jewish” sticks. My grandmother was PISSED when she heard what happened- because even though she was a devout baptist, she didn’t like people speaking “ugly” about other religions or people. I was perfectly happy attending church with her until that happened and never liked it afterwords.
This story brought to mind I Corinthians 13:1-3 and the need for Christians to show love. Here Paul rattles off a number of valuable actions. Things like speaking in tongues, prophesying, having great wisdom, great faith, charity, even martyrdom. All these are good. But Paul declares that possessing them without love is worthless.
One of the qualities Paul mentions is understanding “all mysteries and all knowledge.” Understanding right doctrine and right practice certainly fits within the description of “understanding all knowledge.” Imagine someone who perfectly understands all theology, and how people should live. Wouldn’t that be pretty impressive? Paul says if the person doesn’t have love, he is nothing. Paul believes that all of that knowledge doesn’t matter if the person does not possess love.
Think back to the story of the pastor I shared earlier. One can argue with whether the pastor was “right” in what he said, but what is undeniable is that he was unloving. This also answers the question of why love is most important. What the pastor did turned Ben away from Christianity, and who can blame him for having that reaction? If your presentation or discussion of truth is not couched in love, how can you expect the listener to be willing to listen? (As an aside, humility when talking about truth is also a good thing.) An unloving discussion of truth will burn the relational bridges necessary to be able to influence a person. How can you expect someone to seriously consider an idea presented in an unloving way?Even worse, what will they think of Christ, whom you claim to represent?
Before writing off what I am talking about, consider this: when you know someone thinks differently than you do, are you quicker to judge or to try to love and understand? What about homosexuals? Do we as Christians love them or judge them? Abortion doctors? Those who have had an affair? Those who have committed other grievous sin?
Thinking closer to home… What about the Christians who don’t act exactly as we do? The church with a different style of worship? Those who don’t have the same standards of modesty? Someone who is an Arminian or a Calvinist or Premill or Postmill, or you name it? Are you quick to judge and distance yourself, or do you love them as your brother or sister in Christ?
“But Willie,” you may say, “These things are important.” I know they are, but to Paul believing the right thing is worthless if you have not love.
You may also say, “Willie, I’m just showing ‘tough love.'” Really? Does the way you are showing love line up with the way Paul describes love in the rest of I Corinthians 13?
Another issue is that of intentions. You may feel love towards someone, and believe that your actions are motivated by love. But are the actions themselves loving? The description of love, describes actions. It is great to have the best of intentions, but are the actions themselves loving? Think back to the pastor. He was probably very well intentioned in wanting Ben to come to salvation, avoid hell, etc… The unloving way in which he displayed his presumably good intentions had the opposite affect.
Think about the “being right” v. “showing love” dichotomy another way. It is the difference between being more concerned with what someone does than in developing a relationship or understanding why they do certain actions when responding to them. When you are more concerned about outcomes than building a relationship, you lose the ability to influence. When someone thinks you are more concerned with making sure you act or think the way you do, then you have lost the ability to reach them at all. This is the dangers that Christians face when they value being right over showing love.