Texas Abortion Providers Will Be Required to Bury or Cremate Aborted Babies, Abortionists React

/0 Comments/in , /by

The bodies of aborted children in Texas must be buried or cremated, according to a new rule adopted by the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. The rule, proposed by Gov. Greg Abbot in July, goes into effect on December 19th.

The rule essentially requires that the remains be treated like any other person’s remains, and prohibits their being disposed of in a landfill or by grinding up the bodies and discharging them into the sewer system. “I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbot said in an email.

Their bodies can no longer disposed of in the same way as what the New York Times called “other forms of biological medical waste.” The rules added provisions to the existing code, “that afford protection and dignity to the unborn consistent with the Legislature’s expression of its intent,” according to the preamble to the rules.

The new rules covers the bodies of children who miscarry in a hospital. It exempts parents who miscarry or abort children at home.

Abbot has also called for other changes in the law to protect the bodies of aborted children. In his 2016 Report to the People of Texas, Abbot had called for making “partial-birth abortion a felony in Texas” and also making it “illegal for doctors to risk a woman’s health by altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal body parts.” He added “we must criminalize any sale or transaction of fetal body parts or tissue in Texas by an abortion clinic for any purpose.”

The Abortion Reaction

The abortion industry reacted immediately. They are threatening to sue the state, claiming that the regulations restrict women’s right to abortion and that abortion providers will face extra costs.

“Texas politicians are at it again, inserting their personal beliefs into the health care decisions of Texas women,” Stephanie Toti, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement reported by Texas Tribune after the measures were proposed this past summer. “The Center for Reproductive Rights is prepared to take further legal action to ensure that Texas women can continue to access abortion and other reproductive health care without interference by politicians.”

The state’s health department says the opposite is true — that the costs associated with funerals will be offset by costs currently incurred by hospitals and clinics to transport, incinerate or otherwise dispose of an unborn baby’s body. Its spokeswoman said that the department’s research showed the cost will be “offset by costs currently being spent by facilities on disposition for transportation, storage, incineration, steam disinfection and/or landfill disposal.”

The pro-abortion Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and the Healthcare Waste Institute of the National Waste and Recycling Association opposed the new rule. It has also been opposed by the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas.

According to the New York Times, the head of the Texas branch of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas attacked what she called “the addition of non-medical ritual.” The new rules are “a thinly veiled attempt to shame Texans who have abortions and make it harder for the doctors who provide them,” she said.

The Pro-Life Response

Texas Right to Life Legislative Associate Emily Horne told The Stream that “we are appreciative of the new policy that provides dignity to pre-born children who have died. These laws give unborn children the same dignity that is already required of pre-born babies that die after 20 weeks. And, more is required because a death certificate is required after 20 weeks.”

Horne told The Stream that her organization will aim to “pass laws that will save some of these deaths from occurring in the first place” when the Texas legislature returns to session in January.

The new rule is “nothing revolutionary,” Horne said. “But you’re not hearing that. This law treats unborn babies with the dignity they deserve.” (For more from the author of “Texas Abortion Providers Will Be Required to Bury or Cremate Aborted Babies, Abortionists React” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Media Shocked That Chip, Joanna Gaines Attend Church Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

/0 Comments/in , /by

Never fear, America — Buzzfeed and Cosmopolitan are working hard to make sure millions of innocent viewers don’t accidentally enjoy watching TV shows where the stars are Christians with traditional Christian beliefs.

After embarking on what Cosmopolitan described as a “deep-dive” (that involved watching easily-accessible internet videos and reading a church’s online statement of faith), one Buzzfeed reporter Kate Aurthur “uncovered” the fact that HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines’s pastor, Jimmy Seibert of the mega Antioch Community Church, “takes a hard line against same-sex marriage.”

Aurthur’s Buzzfeed article details what Seibert preached the Sunday after the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in 2015. (What she doesn’t mention or perhaps doesn’t realize is that thousands of churches across the nation likely preached a similar message.)

After talking about Genesis, and saying that marriage is between “one man and one wife,” Seibert emphasizes the fixedness of this idea. “This is a clear biblical admonition. So if someone were to say, ‘Marriage is defined in a different way,’ let me just say: They are wrong,” he says from the pulpit to applause from the congregation. “God defined marriage, not you and I. God defined masculine and feminine, male and female, not you and I.”

Aurthur also takes issue with Pastor Seibert’s opinion that many people who identify as homosexual were abused as children and his statement that God can change their lives:

We can change, contrary to what you hear. I’ve worked with people for over 30 years — I have seen hundreds of people personally change their direction of same-sex attraction from a homosexual lifestyle to a heterosexual lifestyle. It doesn’t mean they don’t struggle with feelings, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t hurting, it doesn’t mean it’s not challenging. But they have chosen to change. And there has always been grace there for those who choose that.

According to Aurthur, it is still “unclear” whether the HGTV Fixer Upper stars Chip and Joanna actually agree with their pastor’s “severe” views — a point Cosmopolitan writer Gina Mei desperately hopes they clarify soon.

Twitchy compiled a long list of people who found Aurthur’s “deep-dive” ludicrous, with tweets like:

The ‘Deep-Dive’ That Reveals Nothing New

Aurthur may think she has uncovered something new and shocking by pointing out an evangelical pastor’s commitment to biblical teaching, but she hasn’t. Curbed, an outlet of Vox Media, casually referenced Antioch Community Church’s beliefs regarding homosexuality in an October article entitled “Is Fixer Upper a stealth feminist fantasy?” (Aurthur actually links to this article in her own — perhaps she didn’t realize that the Curbed reporter also had the ability to Google search Antioch’s statement of faith and did so first.)

Chip and Joanna have been discussing their Christianity for a long time. They write about their “devout” faith in their newly-released book, The Magnolia Story. They have been interviewed about their faith numerous times (just Google “Chip and Joanna Gaines Christians”) and have shared their religious testimony in videos for Baylor University — the Baptist college they both attended — the Christian ministry I Am Second, and others.

So why the sudden uproar? Because certain people on the political Left are attempting to ab-normalize basic Christian beliefs, coloring them as extreme, oppressive, and hateful. The hype surrounding Buzzfeed’s groundbreaking exposé is simply the latest example in this growing trend.

What the Left Fails to Understand

Apparently a common tenet of leftist ideology is that to disagree is to hate, particularly when it comes to Christians who value a biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage. But this tenet is wrong.

One great example of congeniality and respect shared between two very different people is Dr. Michael Brown’s recent column, “The Gay Rabbi and My Mother’s Funeral.” As Dr. Brown, a Messianic Jew and outspoken critic of the LGBT movement writes,

It really is possible to love your gay neighbor as yourself while at the same time opposing the goals of gay activism, and it really is possible to recognize that every human being is created in the image of God (yet fallen) while at the same time having massive differences on religious, cultural and moral issues.

Many seem to forget that even as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy decided in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015, he reaffirmed the very beliefs currently causing the reporters at Buzzfeed and Cosmopolitan to freak out. In Obergefell v. Hodges, Kennedy writes:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

Could this mean that while same-sex couples can now legally decide to get married, people of certain religious faith may legally disagree with the morality of that decision (and perhaps even live their lives accordingly)? Shut the front door!

PSA: It’s Okay to Like Celebrities You Disagree With

As Dr. Brown writes in his piece, it’s perfectly possible to develop relationships with those you disagree with.

So if you are a liberal Fixer Upper addict who could care less where Chip and Joanna attend church but are being made to feel guilty for your lack of care by Buzzfeed or Cosmopolitan, breathe easy. It’s just a TV show, and watching it doesn’t mean you condone the views of its stars.

Christians routinely find ourselves in such situations. I’ll wager that there are plenty of Christians who, like me, love Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings despite the fact that he is outspokenly gay, repeatedly watch Saving Private Ryan despite the fact that Tom Hanks is a recipient of the LGBT Outfest’s Trailblazer Award, and loved Downtown Abbey even though it follows the complex and sometimes heart-wrenching story of a gay supporting character.

But what if you are actually surprised and upset to discover that the Gaineses probably support their pastor’s “unmoving position … on same-sex marriage?” Jumping on the bandwagon, Us Weekly also reported Buzzfeed’s apparent discovery and included tweets from concerned fans.

If this is you, then by all means, ignore the show. Cancel your subscription. Send your money to the Human Rights Campaign and not Antioch Community Church. It’s a free country.

But the millions of Americans who identify with the Texas couple’s faith and agree with Antioch’s pastor shouldn’t be made to feel “hateful” simply because they hold a belief that has been around for millennia. (For more from the author of “Media Shocked That Chip, Joanna Gaines Attend Church Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dollywood Employee Finds Burned Bible Page After Wildfires

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The day after wildfires tore through Gatlinburg, destroying more than 150 structures, killing at least three people and displacing thousands, Isaac McCord was doing his part to help out, picking up debris from the Dollywood park grounds.

Gripping his rake, he revisited a spot in Craftsman Valley he had skimmed over after his co-worker, Misty Carver, quipped, “Is that how you clean your room?” Provoked, he said he had started “really getting in the nooks and crannies” under a park bench when he caught a glimpse of a piece of paper lying in a puddle of water — soggy, seared and torn in two . . .

“As soon as I got down on the ground, I noticed it was a Bible verse, and I was like holy crap,” McCord said in a phone interview on Tuesday night. “It was in a puddle of water. I said, ‘I want to take care of this the best way I can,’ so I gently scooped it up and carried it out the best I could” . . .

In silence, the pair pored over the page, the edges of which were burned black, rendering many words illegible. But parts of the right side of the page were preserved enough to get the message across: it perfectly reflected, McCord said, the tragic natural disaster that had thrust Gatlinburg and Sevier County into the national spotlight the night before.

“O Lord, to thee will I cry: For the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field,” the page reads, according to a picture of the page posted on McCord’s Facebook. (Read more from “Dollywood Employee Finds Burned Bible Page After Wildfires” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Artists’ Free Speech Rights at Stake in Washington Florist Case

/1 Comment/in , /by

An African-American marketer should not be forced to create an advertising campaign for a white supremacist group. Nor should a Muslim graphic designer be required to develop a webpage promoting Jewish teachings, or a Democrat freelance writer be ordered to draft political speeches for Republicans.

Most agree with this, but Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson apparently does not.

Through his advocacy, he is trying to construct a real-life dystopia in which these and similar professionals will be forced to create expressive materials—like advertising campaigns and webpages—to promote, and even celebrate, ideas that violate their convictions.

The most recent evidence of this came when the Washington Supreme Court heard arguments in Ferguson’s case against Barronelle Stutzman.

Stutzman is a 72-year-old floral artist who serves everyone in her community, regardless of their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But because of her deeply held religious beliefs about marriage, she cannot custom design floral arrangements to celebrate a same-sex wedding.

So while she has been glad to serve Rob Ingersoll—a gay man—for nearly a decade, she could not use her artistic expression to celebrate his nuptials.

To Ferguson, this sort of conscientious objection is, well, legally objectionable.

Some who oppose Stutzman’s desire to peacefully live out her convictions argue that designing floral arrangements is not art or constitutionally protected expression.

That argument—which ignores the many U.S. Supreme Court cases that so broadly define expression that even nude dancing is considered constitutionally protected—is not Ferguson’s. He admitted that Stutzman’s floral design work is “a form of expression,” and that “arranging these flowers is no less speech than writing a poem celebrating a particular message.”

So Ferguson’s position is that if an artist makes a living through her expression, she must accept all requests to create expression, regardless of whether she considers some messages deeply offensive. Or she must be punished.

We know this because one of the justices asked Ferguson whether constitutional principles of free expression ever protect a business owner who is accused of violating a so-called nondiscrimination law. And he said that they would not.

Further highlighting his extreme views, Ferguson went so far as to say that Stutzman could not “do the wedding flowers for heterosexual couples and have another employee handle it for same-sex folks.”

So it’s not enough for, say, an LGBT business owner who designs shirts for a gay pride festival to have her employee design shirts for the group protesting the festival. She must actually do it herself. Are we really to believe that American law, rightly understood, is such a conscience-crushing steamroller?

We’re not talking about business owners refusing to provide someone a mundane, unexpressive product—like a meal or a box of laundry detergent—because they dislike that person’s race, religious, or sexual orientation. We’re talking about compelling people to use their artistic talents to create messages or actively participate in expressive events that they cannot in good conscience support.

Imagine that you’re a black citizen living in America, that you worked hard to build a profitable marketing company, and that you’ve developed successful advertising campaigns for various black community groups. Now suppose that a white supremacist organization asks you to develop a similar campaign for their local chapter.

You, of course, are happy to do work for white customers, but understandably will not create advertisements that promote a group whose goals conflict with your identity as a black man or woman. You are obviously not rejecting a customer based on race. You are opting not to promote an idea you reject.

Yet Ferguson, it seems, would have you create that speech, your conscience be damned. You “voluntarily” entered into business, he would say; now you must accept the “consequences” of the law as he sees it.

Capitulate or close your business. Never mind that your family would lose its only means of financial support. You should’ve thought of that, so his argument goes, before pursuing your career aspirations.

Or put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim who immigrated to the United States to avoid religious persecution and who later earned a degree in graphic design and started a small business.

After seeing your best work online, a Jewish group asks you to create its website, which will include a page explaining why Jewish Old Testament teachings are correct and Islamic teachings are wrong. Unable to broadcast messages that conflict with the heart of what you believe, you refer the organization to another company.

If you do business in Washington, you better keep an eye on your mailbox because, assuming that we can take Ferguson at his word, you’ll be hearing from him soon.

It doesn’t matter how much you’ve overcome to get to where you are or how much this lawsuit will devastate your new business. Accommodation for your conscience has no place in Ferguson’s world.

But Ferguson is simply mistaken about the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens to express (or help communicate) messages that they find objectionable.

The government cannot force an individual to be an “instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.”

Our nation’s highest court clearly affirmed that principle when it unanimously found that the state of Massachusetts could not force an organization to include the message of an advocacy group in its parade. Neither, then, can the state of Washington compel expressive professionals to create speeches that they don’t want to support.

But unless the Washington Supreme Court sets Ferguson straight, all who create expression in the marketplace have ample cause for concern, whether you’re a floral artist with conservative Christian views about marriage or an LGBT promotional printer who doesn’t want to create materials that criticize same-sex marriage.

That’s why this issue—freedom for expressive professionals—should cross partisan and ideological lines. No one—Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal—should want to live in the world that Ferguson is trying to create. (For more from the author of “Artists’ Free Speech Rights at Stake in Washington Florist Case” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jihad on the Quad? Ohio State Attacker Reported to Be Somali Refugee

/0 Comments/in , /by

Multiple reports are now indicating that the Ohio State University attack could have a possible Islamic terror connection, as the suspect has been identified as a Somali refugee.

According to NBC, “The suspect’s name was not released, but law enforcement officials told NBC News he was an 18-year-old Ohio State student, a Somali refugee who was a legal permanent resident of the United States.”

CBS News corroborated that report.

Officials have identified the suspect as Abdul Razaq Ali Artan.

As Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz has previously noted, “Since 1993, we’ve admitted roughly 115,000 Somali immigrants nationwide — mostly through the refugee program — at an average clip of 10,000 a year. Almost 100 percent of them are Muslim. Minnesota is home to at least 30,000 Somalis.”

There are at least 38,000 Somali residents in Columbus, Ohio, alone. That number is second only to Minneapolis, which was the nearby scene of another stabbing rampage earlier this year, in which 10 people were wounded.

The story here is not, as some would make it, about guns and an “active shooter.” Rather, it is yet another example of an Islamic terrorist admitted to the United States without proper vetting. (For more from the author of “Jihad on the Quad? Ohio State Attacker Reported to Be Somali Refugee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Surprise! Conservative Theology Keeps People in Church

/0 Comments/in , /by

A recent study found that conservative theology (meaning a more literal interpretation of scripture) is a much better driver of church attendance than liberal theology, according to a five-year academic study of Canadian churchgoers.

This isn’t surprising whatsoever and should be a big fat “duh” moment for everyone remotely familiar with Christianity and/or the Holy Bible in the first place.

According to a story at the Guardian:

“If we are talking solely about what belief system is more likely to lead to numerical growth among Protestant churches, the evidence suggests conservative Protestant theology is the clear winner,” said David Haskell, the Canadian study’s lead researcher.

The findings contradict earlier studies undertaken in the US and the UK, which attempted to discover the underlying causes of a steep decline in church attendance in recent decades but concluded that theology was not a significant factor.

The findings corroborate research published in Baylor sociologist Dr. Rodney Stark’s The Triumph of Faith last year, which also found that while liberal Protestant denominations have been hemorrhaging membership for years now, conservative Catholic and evangelical congregations are actually growing, while actually levels of irreligion are holding steady.

“I don’t know what study ever found that doctrine didn’t matter in church growth,” Stark told Conservative Review in an email. “It always matters a lot. Note which churches are shrinking rapidly – all liberal – and which are growing rapidly, all traditional/conservative.”

A 2011 Study by the National Council of Churches also found similar trends among conservative evangelical and Pentecostal denominations.

But why is this? Why are those archaic strains of thought, the ones that Hillary Clinton advisers Jon Podesta, and Jennifer Palmieri mocked as “backwards” in the now-infamous “Catholic Spring” emails? After all, conventional wisdom would dictate that more progressive, comfortable, and permissive brands of Christianity ought to sell better than those whose prescriptions seem out of step with a post-Sexual Revolution society. Wouldn’t it?

Perhaps conservative theology is the key to attendance simply because it is much closer to the truth than all the various strains of modern liberal theology that tells the church to get with the times. After all, if you subscribe to the bible as written, you’d have to believe in all sorts of taboo things like natural marriage and the unborn child’s fundamental right to life. It would make far more sense for someone to avoid all the negative things that come with those beliefs — unless, of course, those beliefs are true.

Perhaps G.K. Chesterton put it best when he said, “We do not want, as the newspapers say, a Church that will move with the world. We want a Church that will move the world.” In order for that to happen, the church, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, has to stick to the script, rather than make it accommodate the very world from which it seeks to save souls.

After all, we’re talking about the greatest story ever told in the greatest book ever written. Some watered-down, platitude-laden, post-modernist-friendly, safe space-approved substitute just won’t do.

If what you’re hearing from the pulpit makes little to no claim to absolute truth, why listen? If worship — what we render to God, and how we render it — is not of dire importance, why get up out of bed to a church on your day off? If you’re looking for a social club with a message that makes you fit in with your friends at cocktail parties, why not sleep in an hour and just meet them for brunch? It has to be far more appealing than the coffee and donuts they give you after service anyway.

But that’s the wonderful, transformative thing about Christianity: It doesn’t matter whether or not a belief is socially palatable, contemporary, or popular. It never has. The only thing that matters is whether or not that belief is true. And there is no substitute for the truth, once it is revealed.

Once people find the truth, they’ll suffer all sorts of calumnies and abuses for it. They’ll even die for it, as we’ve been tragically and heroically reminded of by the martyrs of the Islamic State over the past two years. And, yes, you can be for absolutely certain they’ll actually get out of bed and get to church for it. (For more from the author of “Surprise! Conservative Theology Keeps People in Church” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Must End the Obamacare Sex Change Mandate on Day 1. Oh, You Didn’t Know About That?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Over the summer, without much notice at all from the national media, President Obama’s transgender agenda quietly crept out of the locker room and into your doctor’s office, thanks to a largely underreported Obamacare rule.

The Health and Human Services transgender mandate, which went into effect in July, forces doctors to participate in sex changes if they conduct procedures that can also be a part of a sex transition. It does this by following the example of other agencies by expanding the traditional definition of sex discrimination to include people suffering from gender dysphoria.

“We believe that it is important to ensure that civil rights protections are extended to transgender individuals to afford them equal access to health coverage, including for health services related to gender transition,” reads a section of the federal registry.

So what does this “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities” mandate mean in practice? It means that a great deal of doctors are going to be subject to much coercion, courtesy of Obama’s administrative state.

Have you ever performed a mastectomy for breast cancer? Congratulations: You now have to perform sex-change surgeries for women who want to look like men, according to executive fiat. Ever performed an orchiectomy because a patient had testicular cancer? Ditto.

And this applies to child patients, too. Indeed, under the new regulatory regime, any doctor who has ever prescribed hormone therapy but doesn’t want to help a teenage boy look like a girl now stands accused of sexual discrimination.

And the regulators in charge don’t want to allow any room for dissent, either.

“[W]e decline to adopt a blanket religious exemption in the final rule as any religious concerns are appropriately addressed pursuant to pre-existing laws such as RFRA and provider conscience laws,” the registry reads.

Wait, you mean the same laws that were invoked to protect Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor? Sometimes you have to wonder if there’s somebody in Obama’s HHS who just enjoys suing people with traditional beliefs.

Now the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is helping represent multiple clients in lawsuits in Texas and North Dakota stemming from the mandate, which they say (in similar fashion to the abortion and contraception mandates) violates the conscience rights of religious health care providers.

“No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure that he or she believes will harm a child,” reads a statement from Becket senior counsel Lori Windham. “Decisions on a child’s medical treatment should be between families and their doctors, not dictated by politicians and government bureaucrats.”

The distinction is worth noting because the HHS created the rule despite the American College of Pediatrics calling transgender conditioning child abuse in a paper earlier this year. Other research also suggests that a vast majority of cases of gender dysphoria in children will naturally resolve by adolescence’s end — without permanently altering the child’s life and body. But hey, they say that is what “progress” looks like, folks.

But the good news for religious people is that this can all be reversed by close of business on Jan. 20, 2017. As Congress prepares for the upcoming legislative session, there’s already discussion among Republicans on whether Obamacare should be fully or partially repealed, and how that should be accomplished.

This could get ugly, but fixing this egregious problem — just like removing the abortion and contraception mandates that have proven to be equally as damaging to conscience rights — is that it can be undone with a single use of the “pen and phone” that created it in the first place.

In addition to the skyrocketing premiums, collapsing exchanges, and host of other problems associated with the law, Congress now just has one more reason to completely scrap the system before spring. But, even if some less-than-conservative Republicans manage to misread the struggles of the American people and stymie a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, at least President Trump could (and should) quickly eliminate the madness that is the transgender mandate.

Do it for the kids … and the consciences. (For more from the author of “Trump Must End the Obamacare Sex Change Mandate on Day 1. Oh, You Didn’t Know About That?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Evangelicals Who Voted for Trump, and the Value of Listening

/0 Comments/in , /by

Like many Christians who opposed Donald Trump’s election for president, I was disturbed at exit surveys showing that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for him. Some Christians have already begun criticizing those evangelicals and distancing themselves from them. In time I may join those critics. What has intrigued me recently, though, is why only 16 percent of white evangelicals voted for Hillary Clinton, so I set out to explore that question in an informal way. What I learned was something of a completely different nature, and possibly more important for all of us in the long run.

Not Welcome Here?

The first thing I noted about Clinton’s 16 percent support from Christians was how small that number was. When such a small proportion of a group gives its votes to a candidate, it’s fair to conclude that members of that group do not feel welcomed into that candidate’s party. It’s fair to say that blacks do not feel welcomed in the Republican party, given that only 8 percent voted for Trump. Likewise white evangelicals must not feel welcomed in the Democrat party. Why?

Reluctant Trump Supporters

This is the question I set out to explore. I reached out through Facebook to find Christian “Reluctant Trump” supporters, specifically those who did not support him in the primary but voted for him in the general election. (I have no intention of this being a representative, publishable survey, but simply a way to satisfy some of my curiosity.) I asked their reasons for deciding to support him in the end, and I promised not to argue with them.

Patterns of Responses

Dozens of people answered. Some of my Facebook friends said they supported Trump simply because he was the Republican candidate, and they were either political conservatives or Republicans. Several mentioned supporting the platform rather than the person. Others told me they considered the controversies surrounding Trump to be no worse than those surrounding Clinton, so that, for example, Trump’s sexism was no worse than Clinton’s. Finally, some attributed Trump’s bad image to an unfair media: no matter what charge was leveled at Trump, they would not believe it, coming as it did from what they saw as a corrupt media machine.

Other patterns emerged from the responses. The top issue my Facebook friends expressed concerning Clinton was abortion, followed by concerns about religious freedom. Among those who admitted the controversies surrounding Trump made them hesitant to vote for him, the chief stated concerns had to do with his comments about sexual assault on the Access Hollywood tape. I seldom heard race relations being mentioned, leading me to wonder whether that issue might be the main thing distinguishing NeverTrump Christians from Reluctant Trump Christians.

Someday in the future I might explore this question more rigorously using a proper scientific research design. At this stage all I wanted to do was to actively listen to individuals I disagreed with concerning Trump; to learn their perspectives, so that I could understand better how to relate to them. For now this project was sufficient for me and my curiosity at this time.

The Importance of Listening

I fear that too often we as Christians are too eager to engage in the fight, and are not ready to reach out and hear where others are coming from.

But there is another lesson to be learned here, one that had nothing to do with my survey or everything to do with it, depending on how you view it. It’s about listening.

Listening to others you disagree with can be hard work. I put considerable time and energy into my little project. It was worth it. Gaining understanding of others, particularly of other Christians, is important in a post-Christian society. This is especially true considering all the denominational and racial factions separating Christians today. There is a time for arguing your points and making your objections known. For me that time was leading up to the election. (I am not ashamed in the least for my opposition to Trump.) But there is also a time when the wiser course is simply to take stock of a situation and listen to others.

I fear that too often we as Christians are too eager to engage in the fight, and are not ready to reach out and hear where others are coming from. Listing to one another — genuinely interested, active listening — can help build bridges over the barriers that trouble the Church.

So I wonder how many white Christians are willing to listen to the perspectives of Christians of color? How many Christians of color will listen to whites? How many Christians are open to hearing from others who disagree with them on the role of women in the church? Can we listen to Christians across the political aisle?

The day may come when I will feel obligated to renew my opposition to Trump. I hope if that day comes I will be in a better position to communicate with others who support him, to explain why I feel the way I do, and learn how to work with them in areas both where we disagree and where we agree. (For more from the author of “Evangelicals Who Voted for Trump, and the Value of Listening” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOOD THING DEMS RENAMED FOOD STAMPS TO SNAP: Otherwise We’d Have Confused It for a Massive Giveaway of Soda and Energy Drinks

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A new study just released by the USDA, offers a very detailed look at exactly how participants in the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” (SNAP, aka Food Stamps) spend their taxpayer-funded subsidies. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the amount of money spent on soft drinks and other unnecessary junk foods/drinks is fairly staggering. But, we suppose it’s a nice taxpayer funded subsidy for the soda industry…so score one for Warren Buffett and the Coca Cola lobbyists.

Per the study, nearly $360mm, or 5.4% of the $6.6BN of food expenditures made by SNAP recipients, is spent on soft drinks alone. In fact, soft drinks represent the single largest “commodity” purchased by SNAP participants with $100mm more spent on sodas than milk and $150mm more than beef.

Soft drinks were the top commodity bought by food stamp recipients shopping at outlets run by a single U.S. grocery retailer.

…That is according to a new study released by the Food and Nutrition Service, the federal agency responsible for running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as the food stamp program.

…By contrast, milk was the top commodity bought from the same retailer by customers not on food stamps.

(Read more from “GOOD THING DEMS RENAMED FOOD STAMPS TO SNAP: Otherwise We’d Have Confused It for a Massive Giveaway of Soda and Energy Drinks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Abortion Rates Down — Don’t Celebrate Just Yet

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Associated Press Wednesday reported that the number and rate of abortions have declined to their lowest levels in decades. The latest information from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) comes from 2013 data from 47 states. California, Maryland and New Hampshire do not report abortion numbers or rates.

The CDC reports that from 2012, 2013’s rates of abortion decreased by 5 percent. But before we do a victory dance, we should take a closer look at what this actually means. The CDC reports that 664,435 legal abortions were performed in 2013. The rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44, and a ratio of 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. So realistically, the 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women means absolutely nothing, since we have no idea of those women how many were pregnant. The number that actually matters is how many abortions per live births. That’s still 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. That’s a whopping 20 percent. Should we celebrate the fact that 20 percent of all babies conceived are murdered? Oh, and keep in mind that this does not account for the liberal states of California, Maryland and New Hampshire, which would certainly make this number higher.

Of course, we should be thankful that the overall numbers are down. But well over half a million legal abortions per year is not a cause to stand up and celebrate.

According to the CDC:

The majority of abortions in 2013 took place early in gestation: 91.6% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.1%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2013, 22.2% of all abortions were early medical abortions. The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 5% from 2012 to 2013.

While all abortions are performed after the heart has started to beat, 7.1 percent of abortions take place after the child was developed and growing and 1.3 percent when the child was viable. Almost a quarter of early medical abortions were performed using abortifacient drugs (two-step drug process the mother takes at home) and those increased by 5 percent over the year period studied.

AP reported that several factors comprised the abortion decline, including a drop in adolescent pregnancies, healthcare expanding coverage of birth control costs and increased use of long-term birth control methods, such as intrauterine devices and implants (some of which do not prohibit conception but do not allow the baby to implant into the uterus, thereby causing an “abortion”).

And what of the women who’ve suffered abortions and now live with the lifelong regret? AP will never report on those statistics. Many brave women have shared their stories of abortion on the “Silent No More Campaign” website, and have agreed to allow others to pass them along. Here are just a few of their stories:

Lisa

It’s an understatement to say that I regret my decision. Not only did I take an innocent unborn life, but part of my life was robbed as well. My child will never get to call me mom or blow out his/her birthday candles. He/she never had the chance to live because someone else chose for that baby. My child would have been 17 years old last August and I’m 38 now with no children. … Please hear me, please trust me, abortion is not the easy way out! The reality of the decision will come back to haunt you later in life, (if not right away), emotionally and/or health wise!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jennifer

It was a very traumatic experience. When I got home I felt extreme sadness. Within days that turned to regret, shame, depression, and post abortion stress syndrome. I was hurting and lost. I would give anything to have my baby back.

Ever since my abortion I have cut off anyone who advised me to have it. … I cannot forgive myself. I can’t stand seeing pregnant women or babies due to guilt. I have nightmares. I have flashes of what my babies would have been like. I am in extreme agony. I am trying to heal in post abortion individual counseling, and I’m also seeking help from an abortion group. I have turned to God for forgiveness. I have learned I cannot judge others if I don’t want to be judged. I have been in deep pain and am working on peace and forgiveness and slowly getting there and that’s why I am silent no more.

Anita

During the abortion experience I felt an overwhelming sense of fear mixed with despair and loneliness. I especially remember the gruff and rude doctor who performed the abortion. I recall feeling the suction pulling at my walls which caused a sharp pain. As I began to cry during the procedure, the doctor said, “Be still or you can do this yourself!” There was no sense of compassion in his voice, only coldness. When the abortion was over, I was rushed out of the facility with pain pills and antibiotics. The healthcare provider gave a cursory overview of the side effects and sent me on my way. I remember feeling empty, ashamed, and alone as I caught the bus to school.

As time went on the long term emotional consequences became evident. For example, I was very distant in my relationships with men. I lack trust in my personal relationships because the father of the child left me to make the difficult decision of aborting the baby. I am also very suspicious of healthcare providers because I believed the lie about the child being “just a bunch of cells.”

Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and devastates the mother who lives with the consequences for the rest of her life. A slight decrease in the abortion rate is better than an increase, but it’s nothing to celebrate. When we see a zero-rate of abortion, we’ll have a party. Until then, there’s still a lot of work to do. (For more from the author of “Abortion Rates Down — Don’t Celebrate Just Yet” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.