"Social justice" movement dangerous to Pro-life movement

Just read this disturbing commentary in Human Events, published January 8. Its thesis is this:

A significant factor in this election will be the left's effort to finally achieve a goal it has pursued for decades: convincing a majority of Americans that liberal "social justice" and traditional Christianity are one and the same.

Liberals have garnered success with some Christians by diverting their eyes from abortion/homosexuality to "social justice." This is a relief to Christians who don't like feeling conflicted about abortion. They can appease their consciences and put abortion on the back burner by becoming righteously indignant about other causes in Jesus' name. Some of these causes are even valid. Satan is expert at blending truth with lies.


Comments:

I think the abortion issue is debatable, but full rights for homosexuals is "social justice" without a doubt. There is no contrary argument that holds water. I say this as a married man with two straight daughters and one straight son.

What did your Jesus ever say about gay people? or gay marriage?

Posted by: Hal at January 16, 2007 5:09 PM


You know, the "Jesus-didn't-mention-it" argument is getting pretty tiresome. Since we, as Christians, believe that Christ is God, incarnate, we don't isolate the moral teachings of the New Testament from the moral teachings of the Old Testament.

By your rationale, Hal, there is nothing wrong with rape, incest, or robbing liquor stores either.

After all, Jesus said nothing specific about any of those things, did He?

Posted by: Jeremy Choate at January 17, 2007 9:19 AM


You know, I don't like the "jesus-didn't mention-it" argument much either, I'm sorry I said it. I was not in a good place and posted too quickly. I just get so tired of Jesus/god/whatever being brought into what should be rational discussions. I come to this site to try to understand a way of thinking so alien to me that I can't get my head around it. I try to come with an open mind and a tolerant heart. I usually fail, probably on both counts.

It's strange, I don't know anyone like the people here. I don't know anyone who is pro-life. I only know one person who goes to church (and I don't know her well at all). My children have never been to church, their friends (nice,succesful kids) don't go to church.

We are living in different worlds.

Posted by: Hal at January 17, 2007 11:02 AM


OK Hal,

(unknown to you, you have really made me think! I hope that this little post will provoke some reflection in you.)

Question: Who are your heroes/heroins? Why?

Posted by: John McDonell at January 17, 2007 4:22 PM


There are numerous secular (i.e. non-religious) arguments against the promotion of homosexuality via same-sex marriage. And many of them "hold water." One simple one is: Equality? We ALL have it. Every American citizen, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation has the right to marry (i.e. enter into a legal contract) someone of the OPPOSITE gender, as long as both are of legal age. Consequently, they also then gain the right to have that legal relationship recognized by the State. The State (i.e. Federal Government) bestows benefits to that particular relationship. Why? Because marriage between a man and woman benefits the formation and growth of the state in population and economic means. Every American citizen has this right. NO ONE is denied this right. Should we all be given the right to marry someone of the SAME SEX and have that recognized through benefits from the State? Why? What are the benefits to the State?

I could go on and on. There is a great number of non-religious based position papers and data arguing against the promotion of homosexuality and its legal recognition via marriage. One only has to look.

Posted by: Jeffrey Neal at January 17, 2007 11:22 PM


Correct Jeffery, but I doubt very strongly that Hal wished for an informative intellectual debate (even though such was claimed). There are extremely good arguments against both active homosexual activity and the consequences on adopted children.

I believe what Hal says though - in the brief assessment he had of young adults. There are few pro-life or pro-religious people because we tend to find that life has a value, a significance, even though such is often found on life's 'edges' ... like death or chronic pain. We all learn from the example of others ... so who any person wishes to emulate reveals much about that person's perspective.

If one chooses to not-emulate: this too teaches much about their 'argumentation'. I have always found it fascinating how people can easily profess to be anti-Jesus, and have very little to absolutely no knowledge of Jesus ... like zip.

We are people who have pro-lifer's views. We are regular folks ... many are religious but some are not; some successful, some not; some rich, most not; some old, some young ... but we all share a view that life is precious and must be safeguarded ... so precious that we ... ??? stand stupidly on street-corners with signs that say: 'ABORTION IS MURDER'.

A person's list of personal heroes/heroines speaks volumes about what motivates that person.

Posted by: John McDonell at January 18, 2007 7:32 AM


John, you have made me think also. I haven't thought much about "heros," although there are certainly a lot of people I admire. Ghandi and MLK come to mind, of course. Maybe Bobby Kennedy. So many of us are a mixture of positive, (sometimes even greatness) and negative, it's hard for me to give someone the title of Hero. I admire those who seek justice for its own sake and not for the fun of the ride. My father (although certainly not without flaws) taught me much about integrity public service. I admire the intellect and honest of people like George Will and Andrew Sullivan, but I wouldn't call them heros. Hero-ness would involve some courage I would say.

I don't think I consciously emulate anyone in particular, I tend to ask myself what kind of role model I am being for my children.

Anyway, Ihope I am not one of those who profess to be "anti-Jesus" although my tone might suggest that at times. I simply don't believe Jesus was devine in any way, but certainly accept that other people do believe that.


Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2007 1:47 PM


Thanks for getting back to me, Hal.

Very often people are heroes because they live (and die) on life's edge. Far too many folks assume that a life of faith is a cake-walk, it's boring to the nth degree!

God tends to hide His precious parts right-out-front and very rarely in some hideaway. Here a recent reflection that most Christians do not understand/practice.

Jesus begins a prayer on the sermon on the mount with 'Our Father .....' The use of these two words is unusual and at the same time brilliant ... even today! The 'our' is not to be understood as mainly a parochial word. The early Christians understood themselves to live at the very core of what it means to be human. They start with the word 'our', which can be understood as opposing independence because we live an 'our'-existence. It is not 'my Father'.
It also is a universal-'our'. God is the God of all-Creation ... He forces us out of cocoon that we carry ... His Way is not easy at all!

Then there is the word "Abba" which is usually translated into English as "Father". However, the closer translation is "Dad or Daddy". We loose so much in the formality of "Father". It is much easier (and truer) to fall in love with someone named "Dad", ain't it?

Live in peace .... the sign of a hero.

Posted by: John McDonell at January 18, 2007 4:47 PM


As the Bible tells me it is okay to Abort babies regarless of this: I don't see how you could have a problem with any church supporting a well accomplished leader like President Barack Obama. The man has done so much in his many years in Washington.

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage
than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscuity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5


"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19

For indeed, there is one passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. And the penalty for causing the abortion is not what many would lead us to believe:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may
demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

This is a very illuminating passage. In it we find a woman losing her child by being stuck by men who are fighting. Rather than it being a capital offense, however, it is relegated to a civil matter, with the
father-to-be taking the participants to court for a settlement. But, as we read on, if the woman is killed, a "life for a life," then the men who killed her shall be killed. Some have claimed that the life for a life part is talking about the baby.


Shalom,

--- Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D.

Posted by: Leland Milton Goldblatt at January 24, 2007 9:33 AM


Hi Leland,

we used to say:
1st ... it was BS (bull ....)
2nd ... it was MS (more of the same)
and lastly ... PhD(piled higher and deeper)

This might be apropos for you!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: John McDonell at January 24, 2007 12:27 PM


I can't help but point out that in the passage from Ecclesiastes it is assumed that "it" has a name, thought it be "covered in obscuity." Thought it "never sees the sun" it is known to God and passes into eternity.

And yes, some temporally sucessful lives might be ultimately fruitless, how does that justify pre-emptive denial of right to life?

How does the fact that a man tormented might articulate his despair justify pre-emptive denial of right to life?

How do we know which unborn will fit these passages? can you let us in on the secret?

As for Exodus 21: Where is the intent?

Posted by: Phil at January 24, 2007 9:55 PM