The Big 10:Things I’d Say to the Anti-Choice Fanatics Trying to End Access to Abortion

Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, quoting the words of Margaret Sanger: “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose whether she will or will not be a mother.

From Alternet, by Amanda Marcotte

“The anti-choice movement would be nowhere without a heavy denial of reality based on the promotion of myths about sex, about birth control, about women’s bodies, but especially about abortion. While the majority of Americans are pro-choice, the constant drumbeat of stories makes the public wonder if there isn’t some truth to the stereotypes, causing even pro-choice people to support regulations such as waiting periods, parental notification laws, and ultrasound laws that only serve to make it harder for women in need to get abortions.

With that in mind, here’s ten realities pro-choicers should throw in the face of anti-abortion fanatics they have the misfortune to get into arguments with:”

1) Most abortions take place early in pregnancy

2) If not for anti-choicers, even more women would get abortions much earlier in their pregnancies.

3) Doctors perform late term abortions because of medical indications, often on women who desperately wanted the baby.

4) Women who get abortions aren’t afraid of being mothers.

5) Abortion is physically safe.

6) Abortion is mentally safe.

7) Women who get abortions take responsibility for their decision.

8) Abortion providers are responsible medical professionals who work to make sure their patients are healthy and avoid future unintended pregnancies.

9) Women get abortions because they’re being responsible.

10) Conservative policies cause the abortion rate to be higher than it needs to be.

No one wants an abortion. Women aren’t getting pregnant on purpose so they can enjoy an expensive suctioning of their uterine lining. So why are there 1.2 million abortions a year in America? Part of it is just bad luck; sometimes contraception fails and unwanted pregnancies happen. That will always be with us.

However, 46% of women who get abortions weren’t using a contraceptive method the month they got pregnant, indicating that conservative policies that discourage regular contraception use—everything from abstinence-only education to objecting to any measures that make contraception cheaper and easier to obtain–-have been effective in keeping women from using contraception as regularly as they should. In addition, abortion rates are much higher for women living in poverty, and three quarters of women getting abortions say they can’t afford a child. If anti-choicers start moaning about the high rate of abortions, ask them what they intend to do about it. Do they want to make birth control free for all women? What about expansive social welfare that makes it easier for pregnant women living in poverty to say yes to having this baby? Most anti-choicers are generally conservative, and most will get really angry really quick if you start to mention concrete solutions to lower the abortion rate. ”

(N.B.: we can also  add that because the anti-abortion dialog is driven by religious arguments, it is yet one more reason why we must support Separation of Church and State: no Christian Nation (or any other Theocracy) here!)

Emphasis Mine

see:http://www.alternet.org/story/151800/10_things_i%27d_say_to_the_anti-choice_fanatics_trying_to_end_access_to_abortion?page=entire

Why Rupert Murdoch Love$ God: World’s Biggest Sleaze Mogul Also Getting Rich from Christian Moralizers

From Alternet By Frank Schaeffer

Here’s what you might not know about Rupert Murdoch: he’s one of the leading religion publishers in the world.

Maybe one day soon Murdoch will go to jail as might his son, as will several of their UK editors if many alleged and disgusting and illegal acts of pirate “journalism” are proved true, ranging from bribing the police to hacking the phones of bereaved family members of killed service men and women and child murder victims. Make no mistake: when it comes to the Murdoch media “empire” we’re talking about the lowest form of “journalism” as detailed by the Guardian newspaper.

So are religious moralizers and others writing about religious and/or “moral” themes prepared to enrich the Murdoch “ media juggernaut” forever while Rupert Murdoch further corrupts UK, American and Australian politics while his companies trade in human misery for profit by hacking murder victim’s phones, paying off the police, elevating smut to a national sport and even hacking the phones of killed soldiers’ families?

You bet!

Rupert Murdoch is one of America’s number one publishers of evangelical and other religious books, including the 33-million sellerPurpose Driven Life by mega pastor and anti-gay activist Rick Warren. Murdoch is also publisher of “progressive” Rob Bell’s Love Wins.

Rick Warren, Rob Bell and company helped Murdoch fund his tabloid-topless-women-on-page-3 empire, phone hacking of murdered teens and Fox News’ spreading “birther” and “death panel” lies about the president. They helped Murdoch by enriching him.  And these weren’t unknown authors just lucky to get published anywhere, they could have picked anybody to sell their books.

Do the religious authors making their fortunes off Murdoch wear gloves when they cash their royalty checks? Do they ever dare look in the mirror?

The authors publishing with Murdoch serve a religious market so fine-tuned to grandstanding hypocrisy and moralizing, that, for instance, my novels about growing up religious (Portofino, Zermatt and Saving Grandma) will never be sold in the thousands of CBA member (Christian Bookseller’s Association) bookstores because – horrors! – my books have profanity and sex in them!

But those same CBA stores gladly sell tens of millions of books — annually — published by Murdoch, a man with the moral rectitude of the herpes virus, a man who runs the companies that gave Glenn Beck a megaphone, that hacked a dead girl’s phone, that lied about Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, and thus contributed to the war-of-choice needless killing of almost 5000 American soldiers by George W Bush.

You see, Murdoch has bought into and now owns a huge chunk of American religion and is suckling from the profitable God-teat along with the likes of Rick Warren and Rob Bell et al.

Murdoch bought the venerable evangelical Zondervan publishing house. I knew the founding Zondervan family, a clan of strict Bible-believing Calvinists who’d have bathed for a week in the Jordan River to purify themselves if they’d ever even brushed up against Murdoch and his minions! Later generations sold out.

Murdoch also bought the all purpose all-religion-is-great-if-it-sells-something “religion” site “Beliefnet” and “Inspirio” – religious “gift production,” specialists making tawdry religion-junk of the one-more-pair-of-praying-hands made of pressed muck kind.

And Murdoch publishes Rob Bell and other so-called progressives evangelical “stars” as well as run of the mill evangelical right winger’s books though Harper One, the “religious” division of Harper Collins, another Murdoch company.

Murdoch knows something I found out way back in the 1970s and 80s, when I was still my founder-of-the-religious-right Dad’s sidekick and a right wing evangelical leader/shill myself: There’s gold in them-thar God hills! James Dobson alone once gave away 150,000 copies of one of my evangelical screeds that sold more than a million copies. (I describe why I got out of the evangelical netherworld – fled — in my book Sex, mom and God.)

So here’s my question to Rob Bell of the God-loves-everybody school of touchy-feely theology and/or to the right wing “family values” crowd who worry about gay marriage between responsible loving adults  while they perform financial fellatio on the mightiest and most depraved/pagan media baron to ever walk the earth:

What serious, let alone decent religiously conscious person – left or right, conservative or liberal — would knowingly work to enrich this dreadful man who will go down in history as the epitome of everything that all religion says its against: lies, greed, criminality, and sheer disgusting exploitation of the defenseless that would shame a sewer rat?

Secular “un-saved” and “godless” and “liberal” authors like Jeff Jarvis have pulled books from Harper Collins because it’s owned by Murdoch as he writes: “[my]  next book, Public Parts, was to be published, like my last one, by News Corp.’s HarperCollins. But I pulled the book because in it, I am very critical of the parent company for being so closed. It’s now being published by Simon and Schuster.”

Where are the big time religion writers like the “I-give-all-my-royalties-to-the-poor” Rick Warren to be found refusing to publish with Zondervan, Harper One or write another word for Beliefnet? What’s mildly lefty Rob Bell’s defense for enriching Murdoch and helping to finance Fox “News” via publishing with Harper One when he could publish with anyone?

For that matter where are the evangelical/Roman Catholic/Muslim—or just minimally decent — people, religious or irreligious guests and commentators now refusing to be interviewed by Fox News even if it will help sell their books?

Knowing what we know about the union-busting, slime-spreading Murdoch empire and it’s disgusting and criminal actions can a moral person work for or use the products of this all-encompassing web of profit, far right politics and corruption?

I don’t think so.

But of course the religion writers have plenty of company.

What about journalists working for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal?

What about Deepak Chopra?

He publishes with Harper One. Thus Chopra is helping finance Fox News. And so is Desmond Tutu. He’s also a Harper One author.

And what about all the “progressive” stars, producers and writers doing deals with the Fox movie empire? Such Hollywood moralists used to boycott working in the old apartheid South Africa, but will work for/with Murdoch today as he empowers the far religious racist right through Fox News! Desmond Tutu used to call for boycotts of far right religious nuts in South Africa oppressing blacks in the name of God, and now he’s a Murdoch contributor!

Go figure!

Why should the people – religious leaders, writers, actors, agents, producers et al — who help Murdoch wreck America and the UK — remain respectable in our countries?

Okay, they deserve a second chance.

Mea Culpa!

I published two books with Harper Collins some years ago after Murdoch had taken over. I had a deal with the Smithsonian that was tied into Harper Collins for distribution, then the Smithsonian backed out but my books stayed at Harpers. After they were published I thought about – and regretted — helping Murdoch. I’ve never published with them again.

I only have one excuse, I didn’t know much about Murdoch then. But who would willingly publish anything with any Murdoch paper, magazine or book publisher now, knowing what we all know?

Post UK meltdown, will Tutu, Bell, Chopra et al – big time authors with a choice of publishers — still publish yet more books with Harper One, and/or with Zondervan?

Will liberals in Hollywood still underwrite Murdoch with their lives and continue to work for Fox TV and Fox Films?

It’s time to hold all Murdoch’s collaborator’s feet to the fire, especially the big and famous sell outs who can go anywhere with their books or scripts. And why would any decent paper or blog review any book, film or TV show that enriches Murdoch? He should be blacked out before he takes us all down with him.

No more excuses. We all know about Murdoch now.

From here on out it’s time to out those who choose to stay in bed with the sleazy man from down under who elbowed his way into America and the UK, damaged our political systems, perhaps fatally, all the while insulting our intelligence and aiding and abetting our war machine.

We can’t boycott every dubious corporation on earth. But with Murdoch’s sleaze-infested ambition to control the politics of so much of the world a reality a line’s been crossed. It is time to pull an “Arab Spring” on the whole Murdoch empire and overthrow it. And we of the outraged “street” can do it at last because so many political and media leaders, who have sucked up to Murdoch for decades, are running for cover.

I know it’s not considered polite to be judgmental but I’ll say it: to work for any part of News Corp, Murdoch, Fox and/or any or all of his companies, let alone to publish books with him makes you an accomplice to a very bad person.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer his new book is Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible’s Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics–and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway

Emphasis Mine

see:http://www.alternet.org/story/151585/why_rupert_murdoch_love%24_god%3A_world%27s_biggest_sleaze_mogul_also_getting_rich_from_christian_moralizers?page=entire

Is the historic foundation of America’s religious culture cracking?

What this does NOT mean: we need not worry about radical religious elements in America.

What this DOES mean: we need not pander to radical religious elements in our messages.

From John Meacham, Newsweek: “It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a BELIEVER  like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was TROUBLING enough: the number of Americans who CLAIM no religious affiliation has nearly DOUBLED since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, “this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.  …”A remarkable CULTURE-SHIFT has taken place around us,” Mohler wrote. “The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, POST-CHRISTIAN, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture.” When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. “Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society,” he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky…This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is LESS of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a DECLINING percentage of the American population…According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler’s attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has FALLEN 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are UNAFFILIATED with any particular faith has DOUBLED in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to DESCRIBE themselves as ATHEIST or agnostic has INCREASED ABOUT FOURFOLD from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about DOUBLE the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)  …our politics and our culture are, in the main, less INFLUENCED by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were EVEN FIVE years ago. I think this is a GOOD thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the VIRTUES of a SEPARATION of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called “the garden of the church” from “the wilderness of the world.” As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America’s UNIFYING force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to FREEDOM—not least freedom of conscience… The DECLINE AND FALL of the modern religious right’s notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life. Let’s be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly EXAGGERATED. Being less Christian does not necessarily mean that America is post-Christian. A third of Americans say they are born again…

Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, FEWER people now think of the United States as a “Christian nation” than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is “LOSING INFLUENCE’ in American society, while just 19 percent say religion’s influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion “can answer all or most of today’s problems” is NOW AT A HISTORIC LOW of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.

Many conservative Christians believe they have LOST the battles over issues such as abortion, school prayer and even same-sex marriage, and that the country has now entered a post-Christian phase…

What, then, does it MEAN to talk of “Christian America”? Evangelical Christians have long believed that the United States should be a nation whose political life is based upon and governed by THEIR INTERPRETATION  of biblical and theological principles. If the church BELIEVES drinking to be a sin, for instance, then the laws of the state should BAN the consumption of alcohol. If the church believes the theory of EVOLUTION conflicts with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, then the public schools should tailor their lessons accordingly. If the church believes ABORTION should be outlawed, then the legislatures and courts of the land should follow suit. The intensity of feeling about how Christian the nation should be has ebbed and flowed since Jamestown; there is, as the Bible says, no thing new under the sun. For more than 40 years, the debate that BEGANwith the Supreme Court’s decision to end MANDATORY school prayer in 1962 (and ACCELERATED with the Roe v. Wade ruling 11 years later) may not have been novel, but it has been ferocious. FEARING the coming of a Europe-like secular state, the right longed to engineer a RETURN to what it believed was a Christian America of yore.

But that project has FAILED, at least for now. In Texas, authorities have decided to side with science, not theology, in a dispute over the teaching of evolution. The terrible economic times have NOT led to an increase in church attendance. In Iowa last Friday, the state Supreme Court ruled AGAINST a ban on same-sex marriage, a DEFEAT for religious conservatives. Such evidence is what has believers fretting about the possibility of an age dominated by a newly muscular secularism. “The moral teachings of Christianity have exerted an incalculable influence on Western civilization,” Mohler says. “As those moral teachings fade into cultural memory, a SECULARIZED morality takes their place. Once Christianity is abandoned by a significant portion of the population, the moral landscape necessarily changes. For the better part of the 20th century, the nations of Western Europe led the way in the ABANDOMENT of Christian commitments. Christian moral reflexes and moral principles gave way to the loosening grip of a Christian memory. Now even that Christian memory is absent from the lives of millions…

Religion has been a factor in American life and politics from the beginning. Anglican observance was compulsory at Jamestown, and the Puritans of New England were explicitly hoping to found a New Jerusalem. But COERCEDbelief is NO belief at all; it is tyranny. “I commend that man, whether Jew, or Turk, or Papist, or whoever, that steers no otherwise than his conscience dares,” said Roger Williams.

By the time of the American founding, men like Jefferson and Madison saw the virtue in guaranteeing liberty of conscience, and one of the young republic’s signal achievements was to create a context in which religion and politics mixed but church and state did NOT…they have learned that POLITICS DOES NOT HOLD ALL the answers—a lesson that, along with a certain relief from the anxieties of the cultural upheavals of the ’60s and ’70s, has tended to curb religiously inspired political zeal. “The worst fault of evangelicals in terms of politics over the last 30 years has been an incredible naiveté about politics and politicians and parties,” says Mohler…But when abortion and a moral understanding of the human good became associated with ONEparty, Christians had few options politically.”

When that party FAILEDto deliver—and it did fail—some in the movement responded by retreating into radicalism, convinced of the wickedness and venality of the political universe that dealt them defeat after defeat. (The same thing happened to many liberals after 1968: infuriated by the conservative mood of the country, the left reacted angrily and moved ever leftward.)…Cal Thomas was an early figure in the Moral Majority who came to see the Christian American movement as fatally flawed in theological terms. “No country can be TRULY ‘Christian’,” Thomas says. “Only people can…”

(EMPHASIS MINE).

This article is very comprehensive,see: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

Quaking over Free speech in the Quaker state…

Does the First Amendment protect against against ‘blasphemy’, which is clearly a term only of sectarian religion?  

“… in a nation without a state religion and with a formal separation of church and state, a nation with a panoply of faiths and a growing proportion of nonbelievers, blasphemy is defined by religious, often overtly Christian, terms.”

“When you read the First Amendment, this is something you can be proud of,” he said. “If you care about the human condition, then you care about the First Amendment.”

Samuel G. Freedman writes in today’s (NY) Times:”Back in the fall of 2007, with only the most practical motives in mind, George Kalman took his pen to the standard form for creating a limited liability company in Pennsylvania…The first line on the document asked Mr. Kalman to supply his chosen corporate name, and he printed it in: I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. In a personal bit of existentialism, Mr. Kalman believed that, even if life was often hellish, it was better than suicide.

A week later, the daily mail to Mr. Kalman’s home in the Philadelphia suburb of Downingtown brought a form letter from the Pennsylvania Department of State. His corporate filing had been rejected, the letter explained, because a business name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.”

Mr. Kalman felt quite certain, he recalled here the other day, that the letter was some kind of prank….After a couple more readings, though, Mr. Kalman realized that the rejection was genuine. Pennsylvania, it turned out, indeed had a law against blasphemy. In the short term, Mr. Kalman successfully filed for incorporation as ICH Productions, LLC. In the longer run, he put in a call to the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and set in motion a challenge to the state law.

“They’re actually imposing their religious beliefs on me,” said Mr. Kalman, 49. “They’re saying that you either believe what we believe or we won’t let you live your life.”  

“Narrowly speaking, the suit filed last month in Federal District Court in Philadelphia — George Kalman v. Pedro A. Cortés, Pennsylvania’s secretary of state — seeks to have the state law struck down as unconstitutional. More broadly and more interestingly, the litigation has lifted the rock off an obscure remnant of American jurisprudence: the continuing existence of blasphemy laws…The problem, at least for opponents of these laws, is that in a nation without a state religion and with a formal separation of church and state, a nation with a panoply of faiths and a growing proportion of nonbelievers, blasphemy is defined by religious, often overtly Christian, terms. Several of the state statutes explicitly outlaw verbal attacks on God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and “Scripture.”

What mystifies Mr. Kalman … is that he had not even intended such an attack. He said he counted both atheists and born-again Christians among his friends and described his own attitude about God as “don’t know.”

His views on the Constitution, however, are plenty clear.

“When you read the First Amendment, this is something you can be proud of,” he said. “If you care about the human condition, then you care about the First Amendment.”

Would anti-islamic cartoons have violated the state’s laws?

see:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/us/21religion.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=blasphemy%20issue%20in%20pennsylvania&st=cse

How much religion is too much in the white house?

That is subjective.  I, for one, don’t care how religious any politician is, as long as that religion does not effect public policy.

There are concerns about the current administration.  In a post in Alternet today, Liliana Segur writes:

“Since taking office, President Barack Obama has raised eyebrows by mixing faith and politics in a way that has dismayed some of his secular supporters.

 First there was that Jesus-laden invocation by conservative Pastor Rick Warren at the inauguration. Then, an executive order that, rather than doing anything to dismantle Bush’s faith-based initiatives, bolstered them with a new “advisory council on faith.” And then, last month, U.S. News and World Report published an article with the following announcement as its title: “A New Tradition for Obama’s Presidential Events: Opening With a Prayer.”

 “In a departure from previous presidents,” reported Dan Gilgoff, writing on the U.S. News blog God and Country, “(Obama’s) public rallies are opening with invocations that have been commissioned and vetted by the White House.”

Of this I am certain, we must address this issue soon; of this I am not certain: how to address this.

see: http://www.alternet.org/rights/129920/is_obama_bringing_too_much_religion_into_the_white_house/



Why does the US government support religion?

Author Susan Jacoby reports in the NY Times: “NEARLY everyone now takes for granted the wisdom, constitutionality and inevitability of some form of federal financing for community social services run by religious groups. Who anymore can imagine that the United States managed to exist for over 200 years without the government providing any direct aid to faith and its works?  It is truly dismaying that amid all the discussion about President Obama’s version of faith-based community initiatives, there has been such a widespread reluctance to question the basic assumption that government can spend money on religiously based enterprises without violating the First Amendment. The debate has instead focused on whether proselytizing or religious hiring discrimination should be permitted when church groups take public money. This shows how easy it is to institutionalize a bad idea based on unexamined assumptions about service to a greater good.”

And on it goes.  A must read…

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01jacoby.html?ref=opinion

Faith Based Funding NOT in Jobs/Stimulus Bill

From the Secular Coalition for America:

“Yesterday, President Obama signed into law an economic stimulus package that DID NOT include funding for the Compassion Capital Fund.  $100 million was not funneled to religious organizations that otherwise would have been permitted to engage in discriminatory hiring practices.”

To Improve relations with Islamic Peoples and Nations, let’s go back to 1797

Our new Secretary of State, Ms. Hillary Clinton, has announced that a goal of the United States is to improve our image with countries which champion Islam.  One way to achieve this noble ambition would be to brush off the Treaty of Tripoli, created during the Washington administration and signed by President John Adams in 1797.  It involved a form of terrorism – piracy on the high seas – and contained an idea very familiar to the founders of our then young nation:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

LSU: Separation of church and state benefits churches

“The mission of conversion should be kept separate from the mission of compassion.”

This is an excellent testimony to the efficacy if church state separation -From the LSU student newspaper – Drew Walker – comes this clear message:

“Conversion cannot be forced.  That is what conservative Christians seem to want to accomplish through political activism. They are motivated, not by compassion for those in need, but by a call to convert every unsaved sinner.
Instead of trying to reduce the number of situations where abortion is considered as an option, they spend millions of dollars to overturn Roe v. Wade.   Instead of offering condemnation-free marriage counseling to reduce the number of divorces, they fight against gay marriage. Political activism is commendable, but when coupled with a repressive, unalterable sense of moral superiority, it becomes dangerous.

Pastors are not politicians, nor should they be. Politics are a dirty business, and churches will only sully themselves by getting involved.

Preachers who advocate a political agenda that conforms to their peculiar religious beliefs don’t get anything done — except painting themselves and their congregations as uncompassionate.

Instead of ridiculing secular organizations whose focus overlaps with those of Christian charities, churches should band together with them and utilize the increased resources available to fight poverty, disease and injustice.

No amount of preaching or prayer will put bread in front of a starving child or keep teens from making poor decisions regarding their bodies. It takes people who offer love, not dogma.

The mission of conversion should be kept separate from the mission of compassion.”

see:http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/walk_hard_separation_of_church_and_state_benefits_churches-1.1436719