New book explores God and Hillary Clinton

UPDATE: 9/26/07Paul Kengor goes deeper into Mrs. Clinton’s relationship with one-time spiritual adviser Jean Houston, as well as her views on abortion and homosexuality in an interview today on the blog.

Hillary Clinton

My friend and colleague at Grove City College, Paul Kengor, has released another book about the religious views of a public figure - this time Hillary Clinton. When asked why Hillary, he replied: “Because I’m interested in the faith of public figures—in their religious upbringing, their spiritual journey, and how their faith affects their public life and the policies they advocate, for better or worse, and whether I agree or disagree with their politics.” Just reading through the press information on the book, I anticipate an interesting read. Here are some things one will explore in the new book:

- How Hillary acquired her racial sensitivities and concern for civil rights at the conservative church of her youth and how that church served (in her words) as her “second home.”

- How Mrs. Clinton’s faith ebbed during her college years and during her involvement in radical politics in the 1960s and 1970s, before she and Bill decided to “get back to church” in the early 1980s, and how their choice of churches raised suspicions in Arkansas over political motivations. God and Hillary Rodham Clinton includes new information on Bill’s choice of the one of 60 Baptist churches in Little Rock that televised Sunday services. Bill found a seat in the choir, directly behind the minister and in full camera range for the voters of Arkansas.

- How Bill Clinton’s pro-life pastor in Arkansas helped him come to a pro-choice position on abortion, and how the abortion issue has haunted both of Clintons as pro-choice Christians, and caused a permanent separation between them and pro-life Christians. There is no issue closer to Mrs. Clinton’s heart than abortion rights—to which she holds a nearly religious devotion—so much so that it has become a kind of political theology to the senator, equipped with its own set of apologetics.

- On the abortion issue, Kengor has provided unprecedented information on Mrs. Clinton and the root causes of her position. Interviewed several times for this book is Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and one-time OB-GYN, William F. Harrison, the nationally known Fayetteville, Arkansas abortion doctor. Harrison was very candid, and provided telling insights into Hillary’s sudden deep devotion to the cause of abortion rights by the time of Roe v. Wade, a marked moment on her political-religious path from Park Ridge Methodist to the White House.

- How the First Lady did indeed participate in strange moments of imaginary conversation with a deceased Eleanor Roosevelt from the solarium atop the White House. The woman who arranged these sessions and became very close to Hillary—Jean Houston—compared Hillary to Joan of Arc. Houston was widely known for her work delving into altered consciousness, the spirit world, and psychic experiences, and who in the 1960s had reportedly conducted experiments with LSD. According to one source, Houston seemed to believe that the embattled First Lady was going through a kind of female crucifixion, and that she was arguably the most pivotal woman in all of human history.

- How Mrs. Clinton is a strong advocate of prayer in public schools. Quoting her husband, she notes that “nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door…. [R]eligion is too important in our history and our heritage for us to keep it out of our schools.”

- How Hillary, a self-described “old-fashioned Methodist,” endorses John Wesley’s credo that “the world is my parish.” Hillary cites Jesus Christ as the chief motivation in her government-based healthcare ministry to children. “We know so well what Jesus said to his disciples, holding a small child in his arms, that whoever welcomes one such child in my name, welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me, welcomes not me, but the one who sends me,” says Hillary. “Take the image we have of Jesus—of Jesus as the Shepherd. Taking that face and transposing it onto the face of every child we see, then we would ask ourselves, ‘Would I turn that child away from the health care that child needs?’”

- How Senator Clinton’s faith is responsible for her position that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman.

Looks like a good read heading into the political season.

Addendum: Click the link for additional posts and information regarding abortion and mental health.

Addendum 2: The Washington Post columnist, Michael Gerson, covers this issue this morning.

Print Friendly

  • Lynn David

    LOL! Snuck that last one in didn’t you…. even so, I support Hillary. I believe she is that person on the democrat side (no republican is going to win) who has the expertise and even the solidus of mind to handle the job.

    You know what the problem for the fundamentalist mindset concerning marriage is? It’s that no matter how you define or legally construct marriage to be between a man and a woman, that does not matter in the least. For if two men or two women should enter into a conscious union together which they would call their marriage, how can you say otherwise? Such will be railed against it being anti-family, or not really a marrriage, yet it is. Marriage is a concept which is held in the minds of those who enter into such a union. And eventually that concept will become common-place and come to rule the day (legally). If not in a decade, perhaps several, perhaps a century, but it will come.

  • Drowssap

    Let me be the first person to jump to my keyboard to give Hillary a good thashing but instead use every ounce of my willpower to hold off the assault.

    Willpower… starting to fail… let the…… reasonable…. discusion…….. begin without me….

  • jayhuck

    Drowssap -

    Thank you for so subtly suppressing that, by now cliche radical right urge in you to pummel Hillary. I cannot even begin to tell you how tired I am of the Hillary and Bill Clinton bashing. The rest of the world has moved on, as have Bill and Hillary.

    I think this would be a very interesting read. I’m not sure if I would support Hillary for president – I still don’t know a great deal about her – but I would love to know more about her personal and spiritual “journeys”.

    What is so funny, is that the people who appear to dislike her the most, really know her the least. They seem to feel they only need to know enough about her to hate her – and that’s just sad. I’m thankful that a book like this has come out

  • Drowssap

    Jayhuck

    Lynn

    Call it a mental illness but at 7 or 8 years old I was already interested in politics. I have alwasy been a conservative Republican, I was born that way. 8-)

    You guys are correct, Hillary will probably win the presidency. Ten years ago that might have stirred me up but today I am completely demoralized. My side had complete power for 6 years and did nothing with it. No IRS reform, no flat tax, we spent worse than Democrats, no effort to control the border, idiotic war in Iraq. When the baby boomers begin retiring in another 4 or 5 years the deficit, taxes and interest rates are going to mushroom. Our sollution is a ponzi scheme of increasing immigration. If we stay on the same path we’ll have nearly a billion people living inside of our borders by the end of the century. Nobody wants that except land developers and CEOs.

    Unless something big changes the USA might not be a very nice place to live in a few more decades. I am sad for our countries future.

  • jayhuck

    Drowssap -

    Just for the record – I’d consider myself a moderate Democrat – although I’m a registered Republican. I’ve had friends call me a RINO before – but they are ultra-conservative – sometimes it simply comes down to one’s vantage point :)

    I would never weigh in on whether Hillary will take the Whitehouse – I’m just intrigued by this book, because it gives us some real insight into the person – not just more political rhetoric.

  • jag

    Lynn David -

    I couldn’t agree with you more…great thoughts in your post.

    Warren -

    As for the book…I understand giving some publicity for your colleague at work Warren but, to be honest, it has little to do with the forum.

    There are many things I examine in voting…but I don’t critique their faith or its origins. I usually go by stances/actions taken on the issues, votes given, funding accepted, etc..

    Perhaps I have become jaded, but I really don’t trust most politicians stated faith, or their practices as being necessarily authentic….so a book on this topic doesn’t really mean much to me.

    It is fairly obvious that a Democrat will win the presidency. Even Drowsapp, who I hold to be a dedicated conservative on this blog states “My side had complete power for 6 years and did nothing with it. No IRS reform, no flat tax, we spent worse than Democrats, no effort to control the border, idiotic war in Iraq.”

    I have to agree that there is hardly a way to look at the past 6 years as anything but a political mess.

    A book on Hilary is more publicity for her, translating into more votes…that’s okay by me.

  • http://www.byron-harvey.com Byron

    You know what the problem for the left-wing mindset concerning marriage is? It’s that no matter how you define or legally construct marriage to be between a man and a woman, that does not matter in the least. For if four men, or seven women, or one man and two women, or six men and five women, or three men, four women, a goat, a Cadillac, and a geranium (OK, I’m teasing about the last one, but ONLY about the last one), should enter into a conscious union together which they would call their marriage, how can you say otherwise? Marriage is a concept which is held in the minds of those who enter into such a union. And eventually that concept will become common-place and come to rule the day (legally). If not in a decade, perhaps several, perhaps a century, but it will come.

    God forbid.

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren

    jag – No offense, but I know it has little to do with the usual topics. However, given that this is my personal blog, all kinds of topics may end up here.

    Drowssap – I guess I had that illness too. I remember telling one of elementary teachers that I hoped one day to study geopolitics. I think it was the first time she had heard the term.

    And before everyone piles on Byron, let me say that whatever we personally think of same-sex marriage, it will eventually be decided by the Supremes. Cases in Iowa and Maryland and other states I am forgetting will work up to that level and then we will have the Roe v. Wade of this era (a defining case). So debate it (cordially) if you want to — it is not likely to matter – my bet is that the Roberts Court will have the last say.

    Furthermore, I prefer to keep discussion to Hillary and her views since that is the thread we are on.

  • jayhuck

    Warren,

    I can promise you that the Roberts court will not have the last say if they vote it down – no one is going to let that kind of injustice slide. And it depends on what the court looks like by the time it gets to them on how it will be decided – Roberts may still be there then, but I doubt some of the other people will.

  • Don

    Ya, Byron, let’s keep it on topic, will ya! Just go back to your pit of vipers! (Just kidding, y’all.)

  • Eddy

    The final noted point of the topic commentary intrigues me:

    - How Senator Clinton’s faith is responsible for her position that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman.

    Wouldn’t she lose a lot of gay votes for taking this stand?

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy,

    She might. If it comes down to Hillary v. Rudy, quite a few moderate gays may vote for Rudy.

    As for gay marriage before the SCOTUS, I’m reminded of the predictions of Sandra Day O’Connor about this century. She said that in the same way that the 20th Century was about racial issues, the 21st Century will be about sexual orientation issues before the court.

    I truly doubt that gay marriage will be before SCOTUS, however, within the next decade or so. It took something like 60 years for mixed-race marriage to make it’s way to the Supreme Court. I suspect the same will be true for gay marriage. Generally marriage has been left up to the states and I doubt the Supremes will want to tamper with that without there being a culture change.

  • jayhuck

    Eddy,

    That’s a good question – I think she might lose some gay votes for that, BUT, if memory serves me correctly, she DOES support Civil Unions. I can’t speak for the gay community – obviously :) – but some of my gay friends intimate that what is important is having the same rights and privileges, even if they are doled out under another name.

  • http://www.byron-harvey.com Byron

    Agreed, amigo; only pointing out the obvious logical problems with our friend’s statement. I too agree that this issue will wind up at the Supreme Court level one day.

    And that’s a scary thought…

  • Lynn David

    Warren wrote:

    And before everyone piles on Byron, let me say that whatever we personally think of same-sex marriage, it will eventually be decided by the Supremes….

    You mean I shouldn’t point out how assinine he [or many a fundamentalist right-winger] is to compare his own holy sacred marriage to beastiality?

    I don’t think it will come down to the Supremes. My thinking is it will turn state by state. It will be long and somewhat tortuous path, with Virginia [for lovers] holding out till the end.

    Eddy wrote:

    Wouldn’t she lose a lot of gay votes for taking this stand?

    Perhaps, and most likely the “Pam’s House Blend” crowd and many more vociferous others. But there are among gay people, like anyone, a greater, more pragmatic middle, which sees the efficacy of a Hillary Clinton candidacy, not just for our own issues but for all of America’s issues.

  • Drowssap

    Warren

    I guess I had that illness too. I remember telling one of elementary teachers that I hoped one day to study geopolitics. I think it was the first time she had heard the term.

    Glad to know I’m not the only crazy one. 8-)

    I’ll give the Republicans one thing, they banned partial birth abortion.

  • Pingback: Reflections of a Paralytic » Hillary’s “Religious Devotion” to Abortion Rights

  • TAAD

    It really makes sense. Jesus said let the little children come to me, so we give them health care. Okay, I’m not against this. Sounds good so far… but wait, how do you apply that to killing them in their mom’s womb? Huh? It’s okay to kill them, and that’s following what Christ said? Huh? Did I miss something here in the translation?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    TAAD – Well, no one said she was consistent…

    Maybe what Jesus meant to say was let the [lucky] children [who made it to birth] come to me…

  • mary langdon

    Earth is the middle ground of staging for an eternal destiny; ( Its obvious to me that no matter how hard we trythat this place is in a constant state of change); therefore marriage has got to have not merely an earthly meaning, but an eternal one. This means that there is God given pleasure to the sexual act to insure the human race continues, and brings into being those whom He wills to send here, and marriage protects the institution of the family from disintegration.Most human beings nowadays seem to be commiting the sin of the fallen angels— that of not living up to their eternal destiny !

  • bigbadbluto

    I am *only* 39, but in my lifetime I have never known presidents who I would admire. They have all lied and twisted politics to serve their own agenda. Most often we have seen that that agenda serves business and not individual people. Fact of the matter is they are all the same, dem or rep. Roe vs Wade proved that. No matter who gets in office, or how many of this or that justices sit on the bench abortion is still legal. No matter who gets in office healthcare costs still rise. No matter who gets in office the middle class worker still gets the shaft on taxes, cost of living, and education. No matter who gets in office we still move forward with the murder of innocent life in the name of science with various kinds of research (to include stem cell research). No matter who gets in office they still have their same secret handshake and paranormal idiosyncrasies. Carter saw UFOs, the Reagans had their own psychic, Hillary apparently too. W sees ghosts in the White House, seems to me its all just part of the job. I do believe democracy is in its dying throws so it is important to pray for our country, our leaders, and people like/including Hillary. As a conservative Christian I do not believe she is evil, and I do pray for her. Peace & Love All.

  • ART DeANGELIS

    Wake up GOP!!!

    Your only chance to beat Hillary is to select RON PAUL as your candidate. As an Independent voter I am interested in the PEACE & PROSPERITY of USA and FAMILY VALUES.

    Dr. Paul has the medicine to cure America’s Imperialism, funny money, unjust income tax etc.

    Your first tier candidates are all puppets of the “SHADOW GOVERNMENT” that will lead America into the tyranny of the NEW WORLD ORDER!!

  • Linda

    I do agree with you Bigbadbluto, no matter who gets into offce the middle class worker still gets the shaft. But, George Bush has really taken us places we shouldn’t of gone. So, I guess what I have to figure out who is the lesser evil of the two party’s. Because Bush has shown us over and over some Presidents are worse than others.

  • N Roberts

    Does nobody but me see the hypocrisy of Hillary saying, “We know so well what Jesus said to his disciples, holding a small child in his arms, that whoever welcomes one such child in my name, welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me, welcomes not me, but the one who sends me,” and at the same time advocating doing away with a child who happens to be a few months younger than the photo-op ready one in the arms? Hmmm….

  • jag

    N Roberts -

    I think it’s a little more complex than that. You have to draw the line at where the “child” begins? Some say at conception….which would eliminate a women’s option of going to the hospital immediately after rape, etc..after all, she just may have conceived.

    Some, such as many catholics, would even go as far as to say that by using birth control, you are preventing a possible life in this way- which is also dispicable.

    Look, I know there are many sides to this…but maybe it’s a little more complex than your quip would indicate.

  • christine

    “Take the image we have of Jesus—of Jesus as the Shepherd. Taking that face and transposing it onto the face of every child we see, then we would ask ourselves, ‘Would I turn that child away from the health care that child needs?’”

    Does this statement not reflect the value and diginity of the children she wishes to help ?

    Lucky for them, they made it out of the womb alive, based on Hillary’s stance on abortion. Let me get this straight, THESE children take on the face of Jesus, but NOT the hidden little ones ?

    Hillary, please… go back to Jesus and ask Him yourself, what He desires for the children….ALL children !

    Many continue to pray for your conversion in this matter. God bless you and all who read this !

  • Ann

    Jag,

    If the pre-born child is not alive at the most beginning stage, then why does it’s life have to be terminated to prevent it from continuing to live? Most pre-born children who’s lives are terminated are more than 3 weeks into gestation – the heart begins to beat audibly at three weeks. That heart stops beating when the decision is made to terminate that life. This to me is a hate crime at the core of the definition yet there are no laws to protect this innocent human being from the hands of those they are at the mercy of.

  • Ricky

    A child always begins at conception, just like anything else, there is a beginning. The world had a beginning, because the universe had to come into existence by a Creator. It had to start somewhere. A human being starts from the moment of conception. The embryo has all the tags of what the person will be like. The other day, I saw a woman on TV who was about to implant some living embryos into her womb because she wants a child. We have to understand the truth about life, not what we invent for our own convenience. Rape is significantly more rare than irresponsible sex acts in which the woman wants freedom from the consequences of having to carry a child. She just doesn’t want the baby. Because of Roe vs Wade , we no longer respect life and much evil has come from it. When Jesus stood befor Pilate, he said, “I come to give testimony to the truth”, but Pilate’s response was “what is the truth?” Pray to understand the truth because because there are so many lies out there. In the very short span of our lives, we will have to give account of how we accept or reject the truth. Pray for genuine clarity. Read the scriptures. Abortions are performed more as a convenience than anything else today. You only have to look at the statistics. Ricky

  • jag

    Ann -

    I did not take a stance either way on this, and you make a solid point. I am simply saying that the issue is more complex than a simple “this is life” and “this is not.”

    For example, you state:

    “If the pre-born child is not alive at the most beginning stage, then why does it’s life have to be terminated to prevent it from continuing to live?”

    Some might say that it is terminated to prevent life from taking place…to prevent organs from forming, prevent the heart from developing or beating, etc.

    Some might also say that by using contraception, you prevent a life before it even has a chance. Taking away an opportunity for a life you will never meet or will never form.

    Others would say that, for example, if the cells are washed away quickly enough (for example, after a rape) then, because we do not know if conception has or has not taken place (it would be too early) that we have not ended a life.

    It is complex, and I’d rather not taint this forum with an abortion discussion…all I was saying is that it is not simple. From the woman sexually assaulted who seeks immediate assistance, to the women possibly dying in the birthing stirrups from complications, to the married woman using contraception…we all have to mull over difficult issues and take our personal stand on them.

    I don’t find it an easy judgment or decision, and I wasn’t implying my stance one way or another.

    That being said, I also don’t judge other women who may have made their own personal decisions around this in their past. I am nobody’s judge, and I let God handle that.

  • Lucy

    No matter how much politicians come out for children, champians for abortion have something missing inside of them that is so against life. How did the safest place in the universe, A mother’s womb become so dangerous. We have wiped away a generation that we are finding out now, that we needed.

    Something else that disturbs me about Clinton being president, is that the last 20 years we have been governed by two dynasties, The Bushes and the Clintons. Think about it America, is this what democracy is all about.

  • Ricky

    In the end, we will judge ourselves, just ourselves, because we will have to choose the truth or turn away from it. It will be like walking into the light or it will be like turning away from the light and choosing darkness for all eternity. Life here is really short. Eternity is eternal. When you read of near death experiences, people talk about encountering this light. .

  • Concerned

    JAG,

    The other side of the Catholic position is that a person should be emotionally mature before engaging in sexual activity that could lead to pregnancy. What a concept, being responsible enough to understand the consequences of ones behaviour.

  • Ann

    Jag,

    As always, thank you for your reply – I know you didn’t take a stance one way or the other. I replied to you because you have made it comfortable for me to do so – my questions were really for anyone that read them. My view has always been if one wants to terminate a life, then there has to be a life to begin with in order to terminate it. I apologize for being off topic – whatever this particular topic is – think I will look now :-)

  • Eddy

    Darn those pingbacks!

    LOL! The Hillary Thread died a natural death back on the 20th and then resurrected, it appears, due to a pingback. To all of the new voices: Welcome. While you’re here, shop around a bit through the topics on the sidebar and see whether you’d like to join any of those discussions as well.

    Please note that this is more of a ‘discussion blog’ than a ‘preachy blog’. We actually have serious ongoing discussions about things we disagree markedly about. (LOL, THAT’S what makes it a discussion…if we all agreed, we’d have nothing to talk about.) If you like what we’re about, feel free to visit often!

  • mellmen, tory

    Heaven help us if we elect a person that touts concern for the disadvantaged but yet stands for the killing of innocent HUMANs

  • jayhuck

    Lucy,

    I don’t know how old you are, but do you have any idea what life was like BEFORE abortion? I had to ask myself, but I suggest you talk to doctors or nurses and ask them how it was. Abortion still happened – but it happened in back alleys and in unmonitored poorly-run clinics where often the mother would sustain life altering injuries or death along with the death of the child.

    Mrs. Clinton has said before that abortion should be Safe, Legal and RARE!!!! I agree with her. I don’t like abortion, I don’t personally support abortion as an option, but I will not impose my values onto others through legislation.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Philip Saenz

    So liberals are angry because conservatives bash Hillary. Why do suppose this is? Conservatives bash Hillary because she is still there causing a lot of trouble.

  • s d

    jayhuck, I suggest you find out what abortion was like before roe v wade. the same butchers who did them before are the same butchers doing them now… incompetant doctors (for the most part) who couldn’t make it in practice. you need to read dr. bernard nathan’s book, he was one of the 3 md’s and on the board of NARAL who testified before the supreme court and now admits they falsified the numbers to promote the legalization of abortion. the butchers just have our consent to kill now and the numbers of “botches” are much higher now with the constant use of abortion as a form of birth control. i am both a medical professional and a woman. abortion hurts women, kills children and destroys lives. if you have any intellectual honesty at all you’ll get the facts.

  • Mary

    Tory,

    What would you call the military action in Iraq?? Unfortunately, alot of us just sort of assign innocence here or there etc… Every President we have ever elected has made a decision that commanded another human to kill an innocent human. At least Clinton wants to provide health care for the children on our land. Something the current elect does not want.

  • Cartman

    To Lynn David: Byron did not compare marriage to bestiality. He used an argument, known in logic as reductio ad absurdum, to demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning. You, on the other hand, used a fallacious argument, viz. an ad hominem, when you referred to Byron as asinine. I recommend “Logic for Dummies” by Mark T. Zegarelli.

  • christine

    Mrs. Clinton has said before that abortion should be Safe, Legal and RARE!!!! I agree with her. I don’t like abortion, I don’t personally support abortion as an option, but I will not impose my values onto others through legislation.

    please visit: http://www.archangelinstitute.org/

    you will find a story that supports S D’s position.

    in summary, the ‘back alley’ abortionist moved out of a building after almost 25 years. ‘back alley’ would be a compliment to the deplorable conditions this abortion mill was found in. tragic and sad….those women (victims) didn’t even value their very person, they couldn’t have. any sane, logical thinking person would never allow themselves to have any such procedure done to them in such a place. to allow this in the name of “freedom of choice” is a direct violation of their human and civil rights. if hillary and other Americans want abortion to continue to be legal, they better roll up their sleeves and prepare to see the unacceptable medical conditions that most abortion mills provide.

    Please America, see this LIE for what it is !

    God bless you !

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton » Blog Archive » Can Hillary Clinton reach the religious right?

  • David John

    How can anyone compare Hillary Clinton, this demon, this old fashioned Methodist, to Saint Joan of Arc. Saint Joan of Arc, was not in favour of the execution of unborn children. And her gift, as a seer, she did not seek for herself, because truly what a sad gift for the human mind. One should read “My Utmost For His Highest” the Golden Book Of Oswald Chambers, Introduction by Richard C. Halverson, Chaplain, United States Senate, to understand the evil amongst the old fashioned Methodist, and John Wesley’s credo that “the world is my parish.” What is “The Overmastering Majesty Of Personal Power”, “the Golden Rule”, and as quoted on page 22, “the lives of the Saints become a hindrance to our concentration on God. There is no salvation in this way.” Or “El-Shaddai, the Father-Mother God, page 19, of My Utmost. And other quotes, such as “Master ambition,” and “Mastership of Jesus.” Also page 77, “Paul is like a musician who does not heed the approval of the audience if he can if he can catch the look of approval from his Master.” ????? What kind of Christian faith is this, in the US Senate, and the old fashioned Methodist Church, were you see so many of the US leaders walking out of. Free Masons? Washington, DC?

    Skull & Cross Bones? Pray we are forgiven, for such a comparison

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    David John – Just so you understand – Dr. Kengor was not making this comparison – Jean Houston did as reported by Dr. Kengor.

  • David John

    Thank you Warren. I do understand that. But just be very careful. God Bless.

  • Pita

    I recommend voting for a Pro-life candidate. The blood of the unborn has slowly been collecting these last 30+ years. God is watching, has been listening to all the lies, all the deceit…all the forked-tongue politicians…and believe me, He’ll give us the president our country deserves. (May not be a good thing, people! Hillary would be a definite punishment!)

    Who we are is who we vote for. During the 1990′s, Americans voted 8 years of Presidency for a sex-addict man-whore who did everything in his power to allow for the cruel brutal murders of unborn and partial-born children. Very shortly after his administration left the White House in shambles for the Bush administration to clean up, we had 9/11. We didn’t get health-care reform, impoverished minorities didn’t get out of the slums and ghettos (for some reason so many believe Clinton is their savior???) We didn’t get any of Clinton’s promises for a better America. Instead, the same old liberal soup was served. Taxes went up and more of our tax money went to Abortion services, more little babies were murdered in atrocious ways, and we got 9/11. America, why haven’t you learned? If you want abortion to be legal, if you want your homosexual marriages, if you want God out of the classroom, and out of politics and out of government, then you want out of America. Cheers! You are aiding the terrorists in destroying America! If the moral backbone of a country disintegrates, so does the country. Just look back at the great empires throughout history. America is dying. America is dying in the womb…

  • Ricky

    Pita

    That’s why we can’t afford to have a pro-choice person in the white house like Hilary. Soon several of the supreme court judges will be ready to retire during the next president’s term and I hope for our good that it is a pro-life person who will do their best to promote pro life issues.. We have gone so far in erring in these areas of life. the more time it is allowed to exist, the more damage is happening. We have erred in not respecting life because it has grown into other areas besides abortion. There are end of life issues and what’s so disturbing is what scientists are beginning to do with human cells. I don’t like it. It is unethical to me. The bottom line is, we can’t control life…….we aren’t God. God should decide when it ends and when it begins. People like Hilary may take us further down that road of doing things that we have no business doing.

  • Mary

    PITA,

    Are you SURE you want to say who we are is who we vote? I’m not so sure I want to bet my life before God on the values of another human being. A pro-lifer by word may be more life destroying in other covert ways.

  • Ricky

    A pro-lifer respects life

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton » Blog Archive » More on God and Hillary Clinton: Interview with historian Paul Kengor

  • Mike

    I hope and pray, that in the future, votes for Hillary will be safe, legal and rare.

  • Ricky

    We shouldn’t worry about imposing our views on others through legislation. Legislation is what got us in the mess we are in today regarding pro-life issues. Roe vs. Wade is a perfect example of a small group of people imposing their views on the world, because that is what it has come to. We are responsible for the evil of abortion being propagated in the whole world because we allowed it to start. Abortion should never have been made legal. Evil things have always existed, say for instance, prostitution, but legalizing these things which are demeaning to human dignity, only leads to the propagation of more evils. That’s why I’m against any candidate who is not for life because we need to reverse these things and return to compliance with the natural harmony of God’s creation.

  • Elaine

    For how long have politicians been using the slogan, “keep abortion safe and legal,” and now they’re adding the word rare? If abortion is a help to women, and a necessary right, why does Hillary promise to make it rare?

  • Theresa

    I’m glad that Hillary pictures Jesus holding the little children in His arms. Does she also notice Him holding the little ones mutilated by abortion? She can spout all she likes about her love of children and religion, but as long as she espouses the barbarity of killing innocent human life in the womb, I will never vote for her or any other pro-abortion politician. Besides, if she thinks abortion is so wonderful, then why is she promising to make it rare?

  • Elaine

    How is Hillary going to make abortion rare? I think it’s too late for this proposal.

  • Elaine

    Mother Teresa said that abortion is the greatest threat to world peace.

  • jag

    Wow – The fact that people are getting so worked up about Hilary, gives me great hope that she’s got a shot. If she didn’t matter, it would all be a non-issue. You don’t see people caring about Mitt Romney like this.

    I thank those like the author of the book that continue to keep Hilary on the forefront of people’s minds and tongues. The publicity is phenomenal.

  • merrymix

    Why doesn’t Hillary see the face of Jesus on each of the little babies being tortured and mutilated by abortion?

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    We shouldn’t worry about imposing our views on others through legislation.

    Thank you, Ricky, for illustrating what so very many secretly believe.

  • jag

    Ricky -

    I’d ask you to reevaluate this statement:

    “Evil things have always existed, say for instance, prostitution, but legalizing these things which are demeaning to human dignity, only leads to the propagation of more evils.”

    You know, maybe it’s after working with women who’ve gone to prison, and many who have been in prison…. but many women who have been prostitutes were just trying to do what they could to put food on the table, or struggled with an addiction that led them down roads that were terribly self-destructive. I don’t think prostitution is “evil.” Prostitution is a way that some made money…it is a poor choice, they often pay for it (with STDs, beatings by clients, etc..) but it’s a voluntary act that clients engage in…they don’t make men sleep with them. If you wanted to go down the road of “evil,” I’d argue the clients are far more “evil.” Married men or simply men who see women as objects to have sex with.

    The plight of others may be outside of our realm of experience, but I think it’s important to be sensitive. I don’t judge people who have experienced circumstances I could not even imagine. Who knows, maybe I would have turned to prostitution too?

  • Ann

    but many women who have been prostitutes were just trying to do what they could to put food on the table, or struggled with an addiction that led them down roads that were terribly self-destructive. I don’t think prostitution is “evil.”

    Very, very true – also prostitutes are victims of horrible hate crimes and yet are not protected. My bet is that if a prostitute is offered another way to live and encouraged with support and protection, prostitution would be the last thing they would chose to do.

  • jag

    Ann -

    I absolutely agree.

  • Mary

    Ann,

    I agree. Prostituion is not a vitimless crime. There are many children out on ther streets who prostitute themselves to get food, shelter, drugs, protection etc… boys and girls. Who do you think is taking advantage of this situation??? Prostitution is not the best way someone knows how to make ends meet – it is societies poor answer to abuse.

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton » Blog Archive » Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Guiliani - A pro-life dilemma?

  • Don Costello

    Only a Biblically ignorant Christian would be fooled by Hillary Clinton or for that matter any pro-choice candidate. Any one who is an advocate for child sacrifice is outside of the will of God and should be excommunicated out of the church. Any one who votes for said candidate is sinning against God. I have done much research on this subject, and I am fully persuaded of this view. It is a shame that someone would desire to explore the so called faith of an advocate of child sacrifice and also one who would like to read it.

    Don Costello

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton » Blog Archive » God and Hillary Clinton, Part 4 - Pro-choice Christians?

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton » Blog Archive » Should a pro-life voter prefer Hillary to Rudy?

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton » Blog Archive » Anne Rice converts to Catholicism, endorses Hillary Clinton

  • Don Costello

    Mr. Throckmorton,

    The research I was referring to was primarily Biblical, in particular, the practice of child sacrifice that was practiced in ancient Canaan and Judah. I just took the attitude of God toward child sacrifice and applied it to abortion. There were Old Covenant Jews who practiced and supported child sacrifice but from God’s point of view they were outside the Covenant, he did not hear their prayers and they were going to be judged very harshly. In fact they were conquered and exiled from their land because of their sin. The research I did resulted in a 16,800 word document. The inescapable conclusion I arrived at was since believers under the Old Covenant were outside the Covenant because of their sin of child sacrifice; believers under the New Covenant were outside the Covenant because of their support from child sacrifice. In light of that, I believe it is a waste of time to explore the “faith” of those who are pro-abortion.

    Don Costello

  • Pingback: 2008 Presidential Election » New book explores God and Hillary Clinton

  • jag

    Don -

    You stated:

    “Only a Biblically ignorant Christian would be fooled by Hillary Clinton or for that matter any pro-choice candidate.”

    I would say that only a “biblically ignorant christian” would judge another’s perspective. Not everyone is a “single-issues voter.” While your vigor for this topic is, well, interesting…I hope you consider the lives of others just as important as the lives of the unborn when examining a candidate’s position on foreign policy/aid/humanitarian efforts/war/poverty/genocide/ etc…

    Being “pro-life” should encompass a lot more than the singular focus on the womb. That’s my perspective, and that’s why I don’t just vote on a single issue.

    Maybe reconsider your “biblically ignorant christian” position a bit more, restate your words, and actually inquire as to the perspectives or reasoning of others before judging them.

  • jayhuck

    Jag,

    You are absolutely right, being pro-life should encompass much more than simply what is going on in the womb. I find it interesting that some Christians who protest so loudly against abortion also support the death penalty. I’ve never quite understood that – pro-life and death penalty do not belong together. To be fair, many Christians are becoming vocal about the death penalty too.

  • Don Costello

    I am pro-life and support the death penalty, because the Bible supports the death penalty, or wern’t you aware of that? Why people find that to be a contradiction in terms can only be because of their ignorance. Yes you can say I am a one issue voter, but the one issue of shedding innocent blood was the main issue that brought judgment upon Judah: 2 Kings 24:1-4. There were other issues then and there are many important issues now, many important issues. The one issue that brought judgment though was the shedding of innocent blood.

    Don

  • jag

    Jayhuck -

    I agree with your perspective on this.

    Don -

    I would encourage you to examine your interpretation…or at least realize that it is one interpretation of many that exists. If you believe “the one issue that brought judgment was the shedding of innocent blood,” I encourage you to expand your view a bit. You may also want to look into the amount of innocent people executed by the dealth penalty…if you are concerned with the shedding of “innocent blood.” I would also encourage you to take a look at world events and our place – as a nation – in them.

    Look at the amount of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the war, examine the ongoing genocide in Darfur which we have not intervened in, the amount of people dying of AIDs in various African nations due to lack of education and proper medicines, etc.. I could go on for pages about such things.

    Again, you may think that you are a “single-issues” voter…but to be consistent, that one issue has to be examined in context. Preventing the shedding of innocent blood is a noble goal – but the expression of that goal, if consistent, seems to go far beyond the abortion issue.

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck

    You are correct, preventing the shedding of innocent blood goes beyond the abortion issue but I do not believe the death penalty is part of it. I do believe though that every effort must be taken to prove the guilt or innocence of individuals on death row. Every available tool that modern science has at its disposal should be used to accomplish that.

    As for the deaths of Iraqi’s Are you laying the death of those civilians at the feet of American soldiers? The majority of those deaths are from either other Iraqi’s or foreign terrorists.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    I’m just curious – does your belief of the sanctity of life only extend to the developing fetus, or does it apply to all the children of God? THAT, was where I was trying to go with this discussion! The Bible supports MANY things that don’t apply anymore. There is no support for the death penalty by Christ – in Fact, when the prostitute was to be stoned to death as was law, Jesus said “you who are without sin cast the first stone”.

  • Don Costello

    Ok Jayhuck,

    Since you brought up John 8 lets see what it says. John 8:5 “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” But what did Moses say? Well in Leviticus 20:10 it says both the man and the woman should be stoned. In Deuteronomy 22:22 it says both the man and the woman should be stoned. I believe the main reason that Jesus acted the way he did was if he would have said stone the woman he would have been guilty of showing partiality in judgment, which the Law condemns also, Deuteronomy 1:17. Remember, the Law commanded both to be stoned not just the woman.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    You apparently didn’t understand what I said before. Perhaps you need to read Leviticus – do all those things still apply? No, they don’t. You keep quoting Old Testament stuff to me, and I’m trying to tell you there are many things in the Old Testament that simply don’t apply anymore. You have yet to quote me something from the New Testament, or that Christ himself said, that would support the DEATH penalty.

    And, you did not answer my question regarding whether your belief in the sanctity of life extends only to the developing fetus, or to all the children of God.

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    Why would Jesus have called ALL people’s sin into question if all he was trying to say is both people should die? That doesn’t make any sense.

  • http://www.jimphelan.vox.com Jim Phelan

    Read my blog about Hillary: http://www.JimPhelan.vox.com

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck

    We are getting sidetracked here, and I would like to get back to the original subject, about Biblically ignorant Christians would be fooled by any pro-choice/pro-abortion candidate. The death penalty subject will have to wait for another day. I will say this though, I quoted Old Covenant to you twice, the first time to show that child sacrifice brought judgment upon Judah and the second time because your brought up John 8. As far as Jesus goes, his ministry cannot be separated from the Old Covenant. He was a minister under the Old Covenant, everything he did was in fulfillment of that Covenant, Romans 15:8. The examples which speak to that are many, Matthew 8:1-4, Luke 5:12-14. The New Covenant was not instituted until Jesus placed his blood upon the Mercy seat in Heaven, according to Hebrews 9:11-15.

    Getting back to the original subject, let me explain to you Scripturally why a Biblically based Christian must be pro-life and not be fooled by pro-choice pro/abortion deception.

    Before we can come to a Biblically based belief, in our hearts we must accept the Bible as the final authority. We must regard what God says in his word on any matter, including prenatal life as the final word.

    First, from the moment of conception and while we are being formed in the womb we are regarded by God as individuals. A careful study of Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:39-45; Genesis 25:22, 23; Jeremiah 20:14-17;Job 3:11 and others regarding prenatal life will bring a Christian to this belief. God’s word does not differenciate between babies in the womb and out of the womb, they are children. This is the first principle that should guide us.

    On that note I have to part, for now.

    Jesus is Lord!

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    You still haven’t addressed any of my questions regarding the Death Penalty. This is part of the original subject – which, if I understand things right, is being Pro-Life. No Christian, if they are truly Pro-Life, can also be Pro-Death Penalty. If you support the Death Penalty, it is wrong and terribly hypocritical of you to speak against those who are Pro-Choice.

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    Ok, I will state my basis for the death penalty. But before I do I have to know we are on the same page. Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? Do you believe to be a Christian you have to be born again?

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    Well, it depends on what you mean by “inspired” and “born again”. I DO indeed believe both those things, but I’m not sure if we both define those words/phrases the same. I belong to a very “traditional” and orthodox segment of Christianity that has strong ties to ancient Christianity.

  • Ann

    I DO indeed believe both those things, but I’m not sure if we both define those words/phrases the same.

    Jayhuck,

    I know this is another subject / thread but please allow me to make the point that this is the exact thing I was saying on another topic. You are so right to question definitions as to how they apply to you. How you define something could be completely different from how another defines it. This goes for labels we give people too – there should be no assumptions.

  • jayhuck

    Ann,

    I agree with this when it comes to matters faith, but not when it comes to science – does that make sense? Science requires a consensus for definitions.

  • jayhuck

    Ann,

    Let me also say that for some words, we already have established definitions. The other problem with definitions is, if people can’t come to an agreement on the definitions for words, they cannot have meaningful discussions using those words.

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    As for the definition of inspiration i go to 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” The word for “inspiration” in the Greek literally means “God breathed”. I believe the words of the Bible are God breathed, to the extent they are the final authority for me in all matters of faith and life regardless of what others say. As Paul was inspired to write in Romans 3:4, “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”

    As far as being “born again” I believe there is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 14:6, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

    We gain that by believing and acting on Romans 10:9, 10. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” We have to realize we have sinned against God, and accept the only way out that God has provided, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    When we do that we have entered into covenant with God. When we trust His words for our eternal salvation, trusting His words for all other areas of life is the right and the appropriate and the natural or super-natural thing to do.

    If we can’t agree on those definitions, or use other words that arrive at the same meaning. There will not be agreement on anything else.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    You use words without adequate definitions to describe other words without adequate definitions. What does “God breathed” mean to you? The word we use for inspiration in English also means something similar. I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God – but what does inspiration really mean. Does it mean everything in the Bible is to be taken literally – it didn’t to the earliest Christians and it doesn’t to me. There are some things in the Bible that are very literal and others that were never meant to be taken literally. This is a discussion that we might not be able to have on a blog, simply because of all the nuances and complexities involved.

    Remember, the Church was around before the Bible – and the Bible that we know today, that you use, was put together by the ancient Church – and not until the 4th century.

  • Ann

    Jayhuck,

    Yes, what you say does make sense in many ways – please tell me what you mean by “the science” – are you referring to the research and surveys done with people connected to ministries? I know you are about ready to throw me down the toilet =-0 but here I go again – I am not sure if there is ever going to be a term or terms that everyone can agree upon – how can we when we are talking about the uniqueness of people? Ok, I hear a flush coming!

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    I believe the first five books of the Bible were given to Moses by God. The part of those books that make up the law, were given on Mt. Sinai when God appeared to him literally. The books of the prophets were given as 2 Peter 1:21 says, through “holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Paul says the New Covenant was given to him personally by Jesus himself. He said that if even an angel said something that contradicted it, it was not to be believed. Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” I believe that some of the inspiration was word for word while some was not, regardless it is the word of God, it is exactly what God wanted to convey.

    Yes I take the Bible literally unless it is impossible to do so! For instance, in John 10:9 Jesus says, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved…” Do I believe that Jesus is a door? Of course not, he is an entrance point. It is by trusting and believing in what he did at Calvary is how we are saved. Do I believe in a literal devil and demons, a literal heaven where believers go when they die, and a literal hell, where unbelievers go when they die? Yes! I Believe in a literal creation, a literal fall and a literal redemption, and a literal eternity.

    Don

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Philip Saenz

    Same sex marriage is anti-children.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Yes I take the Bible literally unless it is impossible to do so!

    Ah. But therein lies all religious debate. We all draw the line of “impossible” at different points.

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    I Believe in a literal creation, a literal fall and a literal redemption, and a literal eternity.

    This is a good place to start – we have these things in common!

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    What part of the Bible did the early Christians not take literally? What part do you not take literally?

    Don

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    The following piece is my view of the Church and Abortion, I wrote it after over twenty nine years of studying Scripture.

    I think it is safe to say that a large percentage of the Body of Christ is indifferent to abortion. Some may be against it but on the list of important issues it is too far down the list to affect matters such as where to worship. But the truth is that because we are followers of Christ we cannot be indifferent to abortion. Under the Old Covenant if someone knew child sacrifice was occurring and they “hide their eyes” from it, Leviticus 20:4,5 says the LORD, “will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off…” I realize that we are not under a Theocracy as Israel was, but on principle alone our heart should be as equally abhorrent of abortion as it is of child sacrifice. Proverbs 24:11, 12 can be applied to abortion in the same spirit. “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not, doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth the soul, doth not he know it? And shall he not render to every man according to his works?” Why then do we have hundreds of thousands of people within the “church world” that are advocates of child sacrifice? The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that they are not born again and never have been, or they have left the faith.

    Perhaps we can use the following as a guideline. Under the Old Covenant there were crimes punishable by death. For instance, in Leviticus 20:11 we read, “…the man that lieth with his father’s wife…both of them shall surely be put to death.” It is the same in Deuteronomy 17:2-5 where the crime is idolatry. “If there be found among you…man or woman, that hath,…gone and served other gods…Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman…and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” Yet under the New Covenant that individual is not stoned but is dis-fellowshipped. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 where fornication with a father’s wife is mentioned and in 1 Corinthians 5:11 where idolatry is mentioned, the judgment listed is “taken away” in 1 Corinthians 5:2 and “put away” in 1 Corinthians 5:13, instead of the death penalty. The phrases “taken away” and “put away” are the same Greek word, “exairo”, and it means “to expel or excommunicate”. Included in this church discipline according to 1 Corinthians 5:5, the church was to “deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh…” The desired effect was that the individual would repent and come back to the Lord. The only example in the New Testament where the individuals are named is mentioned by the Apostle Paul in First Timothy 1:19, 20:

    “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

    Jesus himself discussed discipline during his earthly ministry.

    Matthew 18:15-20 “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witness every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered to gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

    What Jesus is saying here is that God in heaven will back up what is decided on earth when it comes to Church discipline, including removing the offending person from the fellowship. When dealing with “excommunication” as a tool in Church discipline both of these instructional sources of Jesus and Paul should be combined in the process. I cannot stress enough that ideally this is a temporary process to be merged with much prayer and love, intended to bring the offender to repentance and inclusion within the local assembly, though until the offender repents this is not possible.

    In light of that, can we apply that same wisdom to the abortion debate within the Church? I think we can and must. Leviticus 20:2 clearly says those who engage in child sacrifice, “…shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” Likewise in the same spirit they should be dealt with as fornicators and idolaters. Under the New Covenant, those who engage in promoting the philosophy of abortion as a choice or a constitutional right should be excommunicated from the Body of Christ.

    Let’s look at a couple of Old Testament passages that I believe can be applied to this argument. The first is Isaiah 57:3-5.

    “But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood, Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?”

    The prophet says those who slay children are “sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore…children of transgression, a seed of falsehood.” The phrase “children of transgression” is almost identical to the phrase, “children of disobedience” used in Ephesians 2:2 to describe those who live their lives, “according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh” in them. That is why they need to be expelled from the Church. They are not right with God and the system they are associated with is a religious whore. They are her “seed”. This in effect links them with “the great whore” of Revelation 17. There are hundreds of thousands of believers who attend churches within denominations where the official position of that work is pro-abortion. In that case I would obey Revelation 18:4 that says, “…Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” This helps answer the question of, ‘Has the church placed herself under a curse by advocating abortion?’ Yes!, and the church will be judged as a result! If we are attending a church that supports abortion rights and we are giving tithe and offerings to that work, we are partakers of her sins. It is an abomination for someone to claim to be a follower of Christ and be pro-abortion.

    The next passage I will list is Zephaniah 1:4, 5. This passage I believe can be applied to specifically ministers of the gospel who support abortion rights.

    “I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests; And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by the LORD, and that swear by Malcham;”

    The Hebrew word used for “cut off” means not only “to destroy and consume”, it also means “to covenant with”. There is no question in my mind that this is a covenant keeping element charged to the LORD’S side of keeping covenant. In other words, God is going to destroy these Chemarims in his part of being faithful to his side of the Covenant. Chemarims were idolatrous priests who worshipped the host of heaven. They also included those who worshipped the one true God and also worshipped Malcham. Malcham is a variant spelling of Molech, the god of child sacrifice. This is supported by Unger’s Bible Dictionary; Easton’s Bible Dictionary; American Tract Society Bible Dictionary and Holman Bible Dictionary. So what they had was priests who worshipped Jehovah but also worshipped Molech. We have in our day a contemporary application of this in so called ministers of the Gospel who support abortion rights. The group is called the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, [RCRC]. Their official mission statement listed on their website says,

    “The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice brings the moral power of religious communities to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy. The Coalition seeks to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations. RCRC was founded in 1973 to safe guard the newly won constitutional right to abortion. The Coalition founders were clergy and lay leaders from mainstream religions, many of whom had provided women with referrals to safe abortion services before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade. The founders believed that there would be at most a ten year struggle to secure to secure the right to choose. In fact the struggle is far from over. It has changed and intensified, and the stakes are growing.”

    The so called clergy in this group are nothing more than modern day Chemarims, upholding modern day child sacrifice in the form of abortion on demand/a woman’s right to choose. These Jews that Zephaniah wrote of worshipped the one true God and the false god Malcham or Molech, which involved child sacrifice. This is no different than modern day individuals, churches and denominations who profess Christ but at the same time defend abortion rights. It is clear from Ezekiel 20:31 how God feels about it.

    Ezekiel 20:31 “For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.

    God does not hear the prayers of those who participate and support child sacrifice. They have polluted or defiled themselves. In Ezekiel 23:36-39 the LORD adds more to His indictment.

    “The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah [symbolic name for Samaria]and Aholibah [symbolic name for Jerusalem]? Yea, declare unto them their abominations; That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire to devour them. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house.”

    Those who participate in child sacrifice commit murder, spiritual adultery and they defile God’s sanctuary when they enter it. Does that mean that those who uphold the constitutional right of abortion are upholding the right to murder of the unborn? Are they guilty of spiritual adultery and of defiling God’s sanctuary? Yes! Yes! and Yes! When all the Scriptural evidence is studied, the links between child sacrifice and abortion on demand are undeniable. The least the church can do is use the disciplinary tools God has given them to purge this evil from its ranks.

    From this study we can summarize that a born again believer in Jesus in fellowship with him cannot be pro-choice/pro-abortion. It is impossible.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    From this study we can summarize that a born again believer in Jesus in fellowship with him cannot be pro-choice/pro-abortion. It is impossible.

    That is YOUR interpretation, not mine. You are free to interpret things the way you wish, but it is terribly arrogant and self-righteous of you to say that others who believe differently aren’t Christian.

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    I will say this again, because I think you missed it above – you and I are Christians who believe fundamentally different things. The discussion that we need to have to resolve our issues is not one that can take place on a blog. If you like, I can allow Warren to share my email address with you and we can take this offline.

    And you STILL haven’t answered my question regarding how you can be Pro-Life and Pro-Death at the same time.

  • jag

    Jayhuck -

    Though I admire your perserverence, it might be time to stop banging your head against this wall.

    For some, religion and personal beliefs are open to examination and discussion, growth and learning. For others, they are closed topics that sadly, may never be expanded, informed or reworked.

    Deciding to grow as a person is a challenge for many. Even if one keeps to their original beliefs, refusing to challenge or examine them says worlds about the person behind them.

  • Don Costello

    To all,

    No need to stop banging your heads. I’m leaving this blog.

    I’ll see you on Judgment Day.

    In Christ’s service.

    Don

  • Ann

    Don,

    I hope you reconsider – one of the most important things Jesus did was interact with people and talk with them. That’s what most of us do here. I have had many discussions with Jayhuck and Jag and while we don’t always agree, our exchanges have been cordial, enlightening and I have learned a lot from both of them. I think you can have very meaningful discussions with others here as well as long as they are interactive and you listen as well as opine.

  • jag

    Don -

    There is no offense meant in the email…just knowing when to stop pushing an issue that someone is likely not going to respond to or consider.

    Sorry to hear that you are leaving the blog, rather than giving the opinions of others consideration and thought. I would hope you would be up to the task, but I suppose if you are unwilling to do that, it will likely be difficult for you to remain.

    Best of luck as you continue your own path.

  • jag

    Sorry…not “email,” but “post.”

    Ugh, too much time online.

  • Don Costello

    To all,

    I have reconsidered and have decided I’m not leaving.

    I will be giving thought and consideration to what all say on matters where God has not finally spoken, where there is much room for varied opinions; but where God has finally spoken it will be as the saying goes, God said it, that settles it, and I believe it.

    God Bless.

    Don

  • Ann

    Don,

    I am glad you are going to be posting – thank you for re-considering – the things you write about are so important and I will look forward reading them.

  • Eddy

    Don–

    I’m also glad to see you’ve reconsidered. I sympathize with the frustrations that led to your decision to leave. Remind yourself often that you simply won’t get through to some but that your words might speak to others who are reading silently in the wings.

    LOL! I don’t mean to scare you but have you noticed the topic that we debate MOST of the time? Drop in on any other topic in the “Recently Commented” list to get an idea.

    (PS–it seems I’m not having overwhelming success retiring from this blogsite either.)

  • Don Costello

    Thank you Eddy and Ann

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    As long as you’re hanging around, would you mind answering the question I posed to you at the beginning?

    Remember, there will ALWAYS be people “in the wings” on any site you go on the world wide web who will want to hear what you are saying. There is an audience for almost all voices out there.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ Warren

    jayhuck – are you referring to the question about abortion and the death penalty? He did answer it:

    I am pro-life and support the death penalty, because the Bible supports the death penalty, or wern’t you aware of that? Why people find that to be a contradiction in terms can only be because of their ignorance. Yes you can say I am a one issue voter, but the one issue of shedding innocent blood was the main issue that brought judgment upon Judah: 2 Kings 24:1-4. There were other issues then and there are many important issues now, many important issues. The one issue that brought judgment though was the shedding of innocent blood.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Warren,

    I guess it was simply an issue of not having it answered to my satisfaction.

    I need to take Jag’s suggestion and just let sleeping dogs lie I suppose :)

  • Ann

    Jayhuck,

    I know it sounds like a contradiction to be for the death penalty and against abortion – my thought is that at least with the death penalty there are many people making the decision and the person is given many chances to state their case. With an abortion, there is no voice for the victim. They are at the mercy of someone who does not want them to live with no chance of being able to defend themselves. Also, they are innocent whereas often the death penalty recipient is not. When a death penalty is carried out, it is done in a way that causes the least amount of pain to the individual – with a baby, that is not even considered and the procedure is horrific. I am not referring to any religious aspect of this – just my own observations and thoughts for whatever they are worth.

  • jayhuck

    Ann,

    I appreciate the thoughts – and I do understand a little bit about how others view the issue. My point is that, innocent or not, life is still a sacred thing. I think many people who call themselves pro-life will talk about the inherent sanctity of life – which – to me anyway – doesn’t have anything to do with whether someone is innocent or not. Perhaps, those who want to support abortion and the death penalty then shouldn’t call themselves pro-life – because, in reality, they are not. They should probably just call themselves Anti-Abortion. Those churches I know that stand up to both abortion AND the death penalty – THEY are the people who are truly – in all sense of the word – Pro-Life!

  • Eddy

    Ann–

    That was very well said. I am personally against the death penalty but I think you presented a reasonable picture of how someone could be for it and vehemently against abortion at the same time.

    My reasons for being against aren’t all that lofty. 1) I have a general distrust of the judicial system so don’t have faith that they always come to the right judgements. 2) For the guilty, the death penalty ends everything–including their chance to respond to the gospel. (LOL! Can anyone spell E-V-A-N-G-E-L-I-C-A-L?)

  • jayhuck

    Ann,

    Perhaps, those who want to support abortion and the death penalty then shouldn’t call themselves pro-life

    Let me rephrase that just a bit – what I should have said is “those who want to support the death penalty BUT not abortion….” I’m really having a hard time being accurate this evening :) I’d like to blame it on the leftover turkey, but I think the problem existed prior to Thanksgiving ;)

  • jayhuck

    Eddy,

    1) I have a general distrust of the judicial system so don’t have faith that they always come to the right judgements. 2) For the guilty, the death penalty ends everything–including their chance to respond to the gospel.

    I would have to agree with you on all counts!!!!! I think DNA testing has shown us just how injustice our justice system can be at times. Not that I want the system done away with – but I think its good to acknowledge its flaws when we are talking about ending the life of another human being.

  • jayhuck

    Eddy,

    1) I have a general distrust of the judicial system so don’t have faith that they always come to the right judgements. 2) For the guilty, the death penalty ends everything–including their chance to respond to the gospel.

    I would have to agree with you on all counts!!!!! I think DNA testing has shown us just how unjust our justice system can be at times. Not that I want the system done away with – but I think its good to acknowledge its flaws when we are talking about ending the life of another human being.

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    I believe the death penalty was instituted by God in Genesis 9:6 “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” It is for this reason that most if not all cultures have had death penalty’s within their judicial systems. Yes there have been problems within each of them but whether we like it or not it was instituted by God. Even though there are problems within our own system of justice, I believe that the one in America is the best in the world. Because of that I do not have a problem with the death penalty for those who are according to God’s word, worthy of death.

    Don

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    The previous post was an Old Testament passage but it predated the Old Covenant, the Mosaic, I’m guessing by about 900 years. So it was not just for Israel, it was for all mankind.

    Let me give you some New Testament passages that show it has not been abolished. In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle Paul deals with the believers heart attitude toward the civil authority. In verse one he says, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” Paul goes on to say in verse four; “For he is God’s servant, to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

    Under Roman law the death penalty was implemented by various ways, whether it was decapitation, crucifixion or other means, it was a part of Roman civil authority. When Paul was appearing before Festus in Acts 25:10, 11 he made this statement. “I am now standing before Ceasar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving of death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Ceasar!” In that statement Paul not only honored the God ordained institution of civil government, he also honored their God ordained authority to put to death those worthy of death.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    “Yes there have been problems within each of them but whether we like it or not it was instituted by God. ”

    They were not instituted by God – If anything, God in Christ told us that they are morally wrong. Roman Law and the teachings of Christ were often opposed to each other.

  • jayhuck

    Don – A statement from the governing body of my church – note the paragraph that discusses how Christ himself prevented the execution of a woman – and remember that Roman Law and Christ’s teachings were often completely opposed to each other:

    “WHEREAS Orthodox Christians should be called to go beyond the political, social, and legal issues raised by capital punishment and recognize and address the deeper moral, ethical, and religious questions of the supreme value of human life in a manner consistent with our opposition to abortion and mercy killing, and in all such questions involving life and death the Church must always champion life; and

    WHEREAS in an effort to further the respect for all human life and to witness to the redemptive nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who Himself prevented the legal execution of a woman (John 8:3-11) and realizing that premature death resulting from the application of the death penalty can prevent the rehabilitation, reconciliation, and redemption of the offender; and

    WHEREAS, while we recognize the necessity to punish those guilty of violent crime, we also recognize that there is no humane way to execute a human being;

    BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ninth All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America supports the abolition of the death penalty in this and all countries and does urge our elected and appointed officials in those states where prisoners are still executed to introduce and support appropriate legislation aimed at abolishing the death penalty;

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Council requests all governors of states where the death penalty is still in force to halt all further executions according to the power of their office, but that legislative provisions be made for life imprisonment without possibility of parole for those subject to the death penalty;

    FINALLY, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ninth All-American Council of the Orthodox church in America supports and encourages religious bodies, organizations and human rights groups which seek the abolition of the death penalty.”

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    What part of Genesis 9:6 do you not understand? What part of Romans 13:4 do you not understand? It does not matter what your church says, God’s word says He instituted it.

    Let’s look at another passage. Paul wrote in 1 timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” Paul writes that laws that deal with murderers and manslayers i.e., capital punishment are sound doctrine and according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. So don’t tell me what your church says, because God’s word says something different; and as Romans 3:4 says, “…let God be true and every man a liar;” The interesting part in all of this is that God’s word prophesies that the time would come when people in the church would not hold up sound doctrine. Check out 2 Timothy 3:16-4:4. The interesting thing in all this Jayhuck is the fact the more you or your church deny what the word of God says, the more you fulfill it.

    Don

  • jayhuck

    Don,

    God’s word doesn’t say anything of the sort. Genesis 9:6 is part of the old Mosaic law that doesn’t apply anymore – It is not “the commandments of Christ in the Gospels”. If you’re going to use that passage in Genesis, what about the book of Leviticus that talks about not wearing certain types of fibers, or not eating certain types of foods, or animal sacrifice and how necessary it is? Do you still abide by all these things?

    Romans 13:4 and the verses around it are talking about the purpose of a civil government and it upholding social order – it doesn’t say anything about killing people. In one verse it says “to execute wrath on him who practices evil”, but in that instance the word execute means “to carry out”. In the following verse Paul goes on to say that the Church and state are distinct, and if the state is forcing people to do evil, it is better to follow the word of God. I see absolutely nothing about killing people in any of these passages.

    As for 1 Timothy 1:8-11, those verses are talking about how the law is good. “it is good because God gave it (Rom. 7:16). It was 1) A schoolmaster for God’s chosen people to confront and control their sin until the Incarnation of His Son FULFILLED THE LAW and 2) A Guide to lead all people to Christ”

    Don, the fact is that you seem to be stuck in Old Testament law and can’t seem to accept the teachings and commandments of Christ – of forgiveness and redemption. We fundamentally disagree and I don’t think it would be productive to continue this conversation – You may if you like, but I think I’m going to lay my pen down :) God bless

  • Don Costello

    Jayhuck,

    No problem, Be it resolved!

    Don