has been reenacted is only partially true.
Check it out for yourself at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/transition/01012202.htm
(now inactive link 3/18/03, try: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/stories/01020505.htm)
Here, at the State Department's site, the department in charge of
enacting this policy, they quote Ari Fleischer - "...explaining that the president supports continued U.S.
funding of voluntary family planning services abroad."
"The President's clear intention is that any restrictions do not limit
organizations from treating injuries or illnesses caused by legal or
illegal abortions, for example, post abortion care. This position is
allowed under previous policies that have had wide congressional
support.
This policy recognizes our country's long history of providing
international health care services, including voluntary family
planning to couples around the world who want to make free and
responsible decisions about the number and spacing of their children".
Although the following comments seemed reasonable when viewed in the unequivocal
language of the policy itself, those in charge (with the president's subtle blessing) have
essentially gutted the whole effort. Of course, the Secretary of State who
is to enforce this policy, by Bush's choice, is pro-abortion. Where is the outrage
by the pro-life community? No babies saved. We allow Bush to claim
"pro-life" but we find the substance is lacking. Shouldn't substance and
true actions take precedence over political overtures to a group of constituents,
especially if it is to those of us supposedly speaking for Almighty God?
________________________________________________________
What should Christians think?
First, our new president Bush started out with a bang. He reversed Clinton’s
funding of organizations supporting abortions overseas, taking us back to the policy of
Reagan. This is a breath of fresh air. (should have been)
This is not really a divisive, partisan decision as many Democrats also have a problem
with taxpayer money being used for abortions overseas, despite the concerns raised. Still,
it brings us up closer to Reagan’s level of governmental subsidy of abortions before
Clinton took office. Despite this improvement, we still should remember that Reagan failed
to end abortion and appointed the swing vote (Justice O’Connor) on the Supreme Court
recently defeating the Nebraska law against Partial birth abortion.
We have heard some interesting news. Pro-abortion, but likable, Sec. Colin Powell has
rightfully irritated the Chinese government about their horrible human rights against
religious and political groups. Will we see similar complaints against their one-child
policy and forced abortion? Let’s hope so, but don’t count on it.
It seems that despite Bush’s strong implication during the election that he would
do nothing to stop RU-486, this seems to not be the case now, with Secretary Tommy
Thompson. In addition, he may stop funding of stem-cell research on aborted babies.
Stem-cells can be obtained from placental tissue (and cultured with good results) such
that this should replace any perceived need of stem cells from abortions. These acts and
policies are to be commended.
For one who campaigned pro-life, this should be expected, or should it? We are
certainly seeing a stronger pro-life stance than Bush implied to the voters, although
behind the scenes many Christian ‘leaders’ were easily falling in line for Bush
despite his overt lackluster pro-life stand.
Of paramount importance, will he appoint justices with a litmus test? Before his
election, he clearly said "no" but also said "strict constructionists"
would be the choices. Shall we assume he will line the court with Scalias and Thomases?
Before the election the answer was easy-"no". Now it is not so easy (but
probably will be "no"). The Ashcroft confirmation hearings are to instill some
degree of fear in GW Bush not to appoint pro-life judges, or else bear similar
consequences. Bush can hold firm and this may thankfully be his approach, especially if he
continues to read the scriptures.
As a Christian, winning to save babies lives is important. At what cost?
This is a less egregious example than the blatant ones seen of the Democrats who follow
the rule- ‘the ends justify the means’. Senator Schumer in the Ashcroft hearings
theatrically expressed confusion about just who the real John Ashcroft is- the one on
record or the one answering questions in the hearings.
| SEN. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you Senator Ashcroft. You know, Senator, I sit here and
listen to the hearing, and my jaw almost drops. Senator Ashcroft believes Roe v. Wade is
the settled law of the land. Senator Ashcroft believes that the assault weapons ban should
be continued.
You know, Senator, we fought a lot of these battles in the Senate over the last two
years. Where were you when we needed you? …
So I guess the first question that gnaws at me some is: In your testimony you said
it was settled law, and yet fairly recently you were fighting hard to change it, to
overturn it — a position I disagree strongly but respect your view on it.
SCHUMER: Can you explain the evolution in the belief?
ASHCROFT: Thank you for the question. We do disagree on this and, obviously,
this is one of those questions upon which I believe reasonable people can disagree.
Frankly, if the law weren't settled, one wouldn't need a constitutional amendment
to change it, if one were wanting to change it. And so the fact that I've proposed a
constitutional amendment indicated to me that it's not something that's going to be
adjusted in another way. And in so doing, that was part of a role that I had as a member
of the Senate as an enactor of the law, rather than an enforcer of the law. There are lots
of settled laws and there are constitutional amendments designed for the specific purpose
of overturning settled laws.
I think the court has been signaling an increasing — and this makes reference to
— I'm forgetting which of the members of the panel asked me earlier. But in its most
recent case the court signaled it denied certiorari for reconsideration. And I think the
Supreme has said — that's the Stenberg case, I believe.
SCHUMER: That's what I think, too.
ASHCROFT: It said, we don't want to be bothered with this. Frankly, I think it
is not wise to devalue the credibility of the solicitor general in taking things to the
court, which the court considers settled. And that's why I explained my other answers the
way I did.
SCHUMER: I appreciate the answer.
ASHCROFT: I just want to indicate that if you think I have changed to believe
that aborting unborn children is a good thing, I don't. But I know what it means to
enforce the law, and I know what I believe the law is here, and I believe it is settled.
SCHUMER: So let me ask you this just to follow up. So if the solicitor general
came to you and you were attorney general and said I'd like to argue a case to overturn
Roe — for instance, in the Nebraska case, in the Stenberg case I think it was
Justices Thomas and Scalia who, in dissent, it was just a 5-4 case, encouraged more cases
to overturn the law. Would you urge the solicitor general or would you not allow the
solicitor general, who would be under your jurisdiction, to bring such a case?
ASHCROFT: I don't think it is the agenda of the president-elect of the United
States to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe. And as his attorney general, I don't think
it could be my agenda to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe.
SCHUMER: And would that apply if, let us say — because that was a 5-4
decision, the Nebraska case, the Stenberg case. But let us say one of our Supreme Court
justices stepped down and a new appointment was made and it was at least speculated or
viewed that that new justice and a different — and one of the justices who stepped
down would be one of those in the five majority — that this new justice would have a
different view, would have sided with the dissent. Would you still urge the solicitor
general to not bring the case?
ASHCROFT: Well, as I said before, I don't think it's the agenda of this
administration to do that. And as attorney general, it wouldn't be my job to try and alter
the position of this administration. …
SCHUMER: Right, but the reason — and I understand that and appreciate
your desire to do that. Of course, though, when you say Roe is the settled law of the
land, that has lots of different implications that would be quite contrary to the advocacy
views that you had while you were United States senator. We would agree to that, right?
ASHCROFT: Well, it's very clear to me that the settled law of the land protects
rape victims. I mean, it's clear that the settled law of the land gives virtually anyone
any opportunity they want to to have an abortion. I mean, it's an unrestricted right. And
I would advise him in that respect as to what the law is. |
Both Bush and Ashcroft have succeeded in politics by such careful,
cautious playing to the audience at the moment. This approach that is admired and
politicians aspire to being great at this skill.
Should the Christian? Indeed, there is a good example of God accepting deception with
Jacob and Esau as Jacob tricked his father into Esau’s blessing. Does this apply to
now? No, there is a difference. The deception followed Esau ‘despising’ his
birthright in exchange for a bowl of stew, an act that displeased God. Here our goal
should be to reach those who currently disagree as compared to inviting strife with those
who are lost.
Is there a higher goal which we should consider? Yes. More than the results of a single
election and the justices to be appointed, our witness to the lost and to weaker
Christians is much more important. We mustn’t have 1) a weak stand on God’s
values or 2) a deceptive stand that leaves the spectator either confused or with a
distrust of the words from Christian’s mouths, therefore weakening the truth of the
gospel.
This is not to say the Bush administration should pass on these divisive, critical
issues. By all means, we need to take every advantage available to do good. This is to
say, though, because the battle was won under other pretenses, our impact on others is
truncated.
What impact do we make on the hearts of the confused, unrepentant Senator Schumer? He
believes that Christians are just another interest group who think differently, not
correctly. Our values (such as truth) may be sacrificed if this will further our cause. We
don’t really believe what we say, therefore in conclusion the Bible’s teachings
must be compromised, since it must not really be God’s word.
In addition, we have solidified the opposition to something that seems merely an
opinion-based belief and therefore they will fight with their might. If, however, we
accept that our honesty and sold-out commitment to this cause may cost us political power,
they may consider the important cause for this difficult decision and then realize some
things transcend partisanship. At such a time, hearts will be changed and this horrible
indictment on our society will end, peacefully.
If we really care for our neighbors, if we really care for souls to be saved, if we
really care for saving as many babies as possible, our approach was/is wrong. We must show
that holding firm for God transcends political savvy – after all, that is exactly the
approach God shows us to be the direction He expects us to travel according to the
scriptures. Simply, don’t compromise God’s values.
1-20-01
President G.W. Bush inagurated today. Excellent inaugural address. It fell
slightly short of requiring our repentance. He has declared Sunday, 1-21-01,
as a national day of prayer . LET'S DO IT! Amen.
12/16/00 (posted 12/25/00)
An update is long overdue. Due to the uncertainty with the election results, until now
it would have been speculative to comment on the future. Now, things are becoming more
clear.
President-elect Bush has survived. Interestingly, he handily won the majority of the
counties in the U.S. (2,436 verses Gore winning 676 counties. He won 30 states to
Gore’s 20. Gore won the popular vote, despite the votes lost to Ralph Nader. Al Gore,
despite his failure to concede on a more timely manner, needs our prayers. Pray for his
current deception and that his failure to win will allow him to spend time searching
God’s way. Gore’s concession speech was excellent. May this be echoed in his
behavior.
The founding fathers were wise, they feared God. They realized that men without moral
restraint would vote not for the one who may be more appropriate for our moral national
status but would instead vote for one who would give them the most governmental programs.
Is it right that high population centers such as New York would tell a farmer in Wyoming
what he must do with his land at the same time he is being taxed for owning the land?
Christian’s behavior during this trying period have been disappointing. Despite
Gore’s deplorable stance, we have demonized him and treated him like an enemy instead
of another man, like us, deceived by Satan,. needing guidance.
Bush did correctly manage to take a conciliatory posture to Gore and actively avoided
gloating. His victory speech was decent. It was refreshing to see him start out the next
day in prayer. Nothing could have been better.
Now what?
Evangelical Christians received what they wanted! Their ‘man’
G.W. was elected. We continue to bring judgment on ourselves. He willingly
compromises, reflecting our own willingness to compromise those things we are told we are
not to waver. Bush is a likable fellow but...will he put God ahead of man?
Unfortunately, not by history.
Cabinet appointments begin with a popular General Colin Powell as Sec. of State. He
will be traveling and interacting with governments across this globe. One, in particular,
that comes into mind is that of China. As Powell is pro-choice, we cannot expect him to
make any headway against the ‘one child policy’ in that nation. Forced abortions
will continue, as we should have expected anyway. Our voice against such atrocities is
compromised. Powell might have been a great pick for Sec. of Defense, but maybe not. He
certainly, although talented, has been chosen to be in the wrong position. Those Christian
‘leaders’ who wanted a ‘seat at the table’ are publicly silent.
Congratulations.
Others being considered for cabinet positions also carry this trait. As Bush strives
for a consensus, centrist government, failed appointments are in the making. What does
this mean to the Evangelical Christian ‘leaders’? First, they avoid criticism of
Colin Powell, once again choosing expediency over principle. Even more- there are great
cries out to all of the Christians who helped get Bush elected to not go to sleep but to
pressure him into choosing cabinet members who best fit ‘our’ values. There are
currently great outcries to push him to avoid people like Gov. Tom Ridge and Gov. Christy
Todd Whitman.
These Christian ‘leaders’ who helped get him elected, saying great things
about the man, spinning the truth, to mobilize the skeptical conservative base, realize
Bush’s principles are not strong enough to direct his path without our pressure.
Granted, Bush is under great pressure from the other side, but if he was worthy of our
vote and efforts, shouldn’t he be able to make good decisions on our behalf?
Let there be no mistake about it. Bush has a great opportunity to make great strides to
protect our nation from God’s wrath, our greatest danger, as we see how God
destroyed His people when they strayed and basically acted like us. With slight majorities
in both houses and a Republican president, there is no excuse. They have a mandate, even
if the Daschle’s or Gephardt’s don’t want to accept it. Again, they are
deceived as well. They need our prayers too.
Here it is a couple of weeks after the election. We still do not know who will be
the next president. Legal battles continue and new, generally unexpected twists
occur quickly- at about 10 minute intervals!!
What is absolutely obvious is that the Gore team will stop at nothing to win. It
is perfectly clear. They are completely wrong. They have taken what is sacred
(sacred from the citizen standpoint, our vote) and have looked for loopholes in the law
and added power to the judicial branch by getting the courts involved in the process with
resultant implications to votes in the future.
The Executive branch is becoming dependent on the Judicial branch for their election.
Separation of powers and the people are the victim in the overall scheme of things.
Unfortunately, although the most egregious violations are perpetrated by the
Democrats, the Republicans are enmeshed in the same failure.
The above is one of many examples of the erroneous principle best found in the
Democrats- "the ends justify the means"
This note will be extremely short and simply serves the purpose to indicate that this
site will be updated. As may be obvious, exactly how to best update the site is not
clear since we are undergoing an unprecedented response to interesting results,
particularly in Florida. What is clear is that the Christian impact would be much
stronger if more had voted for Phillips. How many of the roughly 50% of eligible
voters who chose not to vote were Christians fed up with the perceived choices and then
decided they would be wasting their time? More later. This thing is still
alive. Pray for our nation. Pray for the church.
Copyright © 2001, Dio, Inc.
