U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child - 3

Last year, Austin Ruse of C-Fam launched the U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child. The purpose of this online petition is to reaffirm that human rights begin with the right to life and the integrity of the family unit, as stated in the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The petition attracted some 437,000 signatures by the time it was submitted to the UN in December 2008. Ruse has kept the petition up, hoping to resubmit it this year with a million signatures. Last I saw, it had some 626,000 signatures, up from a year ago, but far from the goal of 1,000,000.

This kind of action is quite effective in promoting the pro-life and pro-family message at the UN, a critical front in the battle. So, if you haven't already done so, please read the petition (it's brief) here. If you agree with it, fill out the form and click the 'Submit' button to sign it.

If you want, you may also review what this blog said about the petition last year here and here.

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child - 2

Have you heard about C-Fam's U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child? I promoted it in an earlier post ("U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child"), and many others have weighed in, too.

This is an interesting story, dating back to mid-2007, when Marie Stopes International, one of the largest and richest abortionists in the world, was running an online petition calling for the U.N. to read a right to abortion into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After well over a year, their petition still has only a few hundred signatures.

In response, Austin Ruse of C-Fam launched a counter petition on Sept 29, 2008. By Nov. 10, when I wrote my blog post, the C-Fam petition had garnered over 100,000 signatures, including 67,000+ just from English-speaking respondents. By Dec. 10, when Ruse presented the petition to the UN, the total number of signatures had grown to 437,000 from 168 countries. To the many nations who are not marching to the abortionsts beat, such a show of solidarity can be very powerful.

C-Fam, and Austin Ruse continue to impress me. They are a strong, faithful, and prophetic witness in the United Nations, a crucial arena today. And besides that, Mr. Ruse himself visited my little blog and left a comment, thanking me for the post. (See the comments section of the aforementioned post.) That's class.

So, thank you, Austin, for what you are doing. Thanks, too, to all of you who signed the petition. And for those of you who haven't signed, you still may. They are keeping the petition up for a few more months, now aiming at a million signatures.

You may read more at this C-Fam page. You may also read the petition itself (it's brief) here. If you agree with the petition, fill out the form and click the 'Submit' button to sign it. You may receive email updates from C-Fam, or you may opt out of those updates.

U.N. Petition for the Unborn Child

As just noted, we have much cultural evangelization and political work to do. Let's begin with something easy. C-Fam, the pro-life presence at the United Nations, has prepared an online petition to be presented to the U.N. early next month. Many lobbyists and unelected panelists at the U.N have been illogically claiming that the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights must now be interpreted as mandating legalized abortion and same-sex 'marriage', and so have been pressuring member states to enact these legal changes. The purpose of this C-Fam petition is to reaffirm that human rights begin with the right to life and the integrity of the family unit.

Please read the entire petition (it's brief) by clicking on this C-Fam page. If you agree with the petition, fill out the form and click the 'Submit' button to sign it. You may receive email updates from C-Fam, or you may opt out of those updates.

I have been greatly impressed with the work of C-Fam, and can personally testify that they are the real deal. The last I saw, the pro-abortion campaign had only garnered 600+ signatures in over a year, while this pro-life one has secured over 67,000 in a relatively short time just from English-speaking respondents. By getting lots of signatures on this petition, we can show our support for those nations that still uphold the integrity of human life and of the family in their legal systems.

Back to normal

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you.
  - 1 Peter 4:12

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake
  - Phil. 1:29

Let's be honest - this election cycle was a bust, pretty much an unmitigated travesty. Well - (sigh) - what's done is done, and at least now we can return to our normal lives. But -- just what is normal?

The New Testament norm for the followers of Jesus is to be outside the mainstream. Historically, this has often meant hardship and persecution. Jesus repeatedly told his disciples to expect hatred from the world in which they lived. (e.g. Mt.10:22, Jn.15:19)

We must continue to evangelize our culture, but at the same time recognize the signs of the times. As demonstrated in the popular vote, the evil and immoral policies of the Democratic Party are acceptable to most people. Chiefly, the raw injustice of legalized and tax-funded abortion, the ghastly practice of human embryonic experimentation, and the growing acceptance of homosexual "rights" all indicate the continuing decline of our collective conscience. The political landscape, now swung far left, will likely result in further erosion -- an even more intense assault upon goodness and a greater intolerance for truth.

Who can tell where it might lead? We may hope - and pray - for a swing back to the right. But we ought also to be realistic, and know that may not happen. We must be prepared for even greater evil. Perhaps the Church - the true believers, that is - will soon be driven underground. Perhaps the whole damned system (and I do not use the 'd' word in a flippant or crass manner here) will finally collapse, as all godless systems eventually do. In either case, we seem to be facing an adventure, and ought to steel ourselves for a bumpy ride.

When pro-lifers choose death

"Father forgive them; for they know not what they do."
  - Lk. 23:34

The sober and troubling reality is that, even as I write this, millions of U.S. citizens are casting their votes for Barack Obama. Many of these voters are Christian, and many identify themselves as pro-life Catholics.

How can this be? Is it because they have an uncritical loyalty to the Democratic Party, an unthinking herd instinct reaching back to early childhood? Are they disgusted with the Republicans' pathetic failures, and suppose there is only one other option? Is it a matter of "white guilt", of feeling obliged to support the African-American candidate? Do they not recognize the intrinsic evil of abortion? Are they therefore intimidated into seeking a "balance" between this and lesser evils? Have they been duped by media bias, and actually believe the euphemism that it's about "choice"? Do they believe the over-population myth, and secretly fear human propagation?

The plain truth is that Barack Hussein Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion candidate to ever seek the U.S. Presidency. Whether or not he wins it today is not the main issue. Folks who say they are pro-life Christians are voting for him. Followers of Jesus are choosing death. I wish I could find a reasonable explanation for this.

"I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller..."

---

(The original of this brochure by Randall A. Terry can be found, in pdf form, at http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/StopObama.pdf. Since the Google text format of this appears scrambled, I offer the following full text of the pdf brochure, adding only the 2 images for visual reference.)

---

A debate has emerged among Catholics and Evangelicals as to whether or not a Christian may in good conscience vote for Obama for President.

Certain Evangelicals who declare themselves "born again," believe the Bible is the Word of God and are traditionally pro-life, have publicly embraced Obama's campaign for the Presidency. Certain Roman Catholics who say they are pro-life are likewise working for Obama, and claiming to do so in clear conscience.

Most Christians (from any Trinitarian Communion) will agree that our vote is a political expression of our faith and ethics; a part of how we integrate the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the teachings of Christianity into public life. Hence, it is valid to question voting for Senator Obama in this election cycle; the principle of moral vs. immoral voting is germane in every election. For example; we can agree that no devout Christian could in clear conscience vote for an avowed racist who wanted to reinstitute slavery, even if we agreed with him on other issues that were important to us.

The core question in this debate is this: can a Christian vote with a clear conscience for a candidate who supports legalized abortion?

I will answer this question with three simple illustrations. You be the judge if the morals and logic stand true.

Case #1:

I am in my car at a red light, and a man comes up to my window and says: "Hi. Could you please give me a ride to the bank? I have some banking to do and my car just broke down."

I say, "Sure. Hop in..." and take him to the bank. As I am leaving, to my horror I see him pull a mask over his face, draw a gun from his pocket, and enter the bank.

Gunshots and screams fill the air, and the man I drove to the bank comes running out - after he murdered the banker, and stole all the money he could carry. He flees successfully.

The question is: did I sin by giving this murderer and robber a ride to the bank?

The answer is: no. I did not sin, because I did not know his intent.

Case #2:

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "Excuse me; I'm going to rob the bank, then shoot the teller so that he won't be able to testify against me at trial if I get caught. Would you please give me a ride to the bank?"

I say, "Sure, hop in..." and give him a ride to the bank, and he fulfills his promise.

Given those facts, have I participated in the sin of theft and murder?

The answer is: yes. In the eyes of God, and in the eyes of any court of law, I would be guilty of participating in the sin (and crime) of murder and robbery, because I knew his intent.

Some say, "But Obama is not actually killing children. He is only supporting laws permitting abortion; he is not the abortionist killing the child." Good point. Let me give the third illustration.

Case #3:

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "I have a friend who intends to rob the bank and shoot the bank teller. I want to keep him out of trouble, so I promised to watch out for him while he commits the crime. If a policeman comes, I will distract him so that my friend won't get caught. Will you please take me to the bank?"

I say, "Sure. Hop in..." and take him to the bank. (On the way over, we discuss how neither of us could ever rob a bank or murder a bank teller.) We arrive and see the thief/murderer drive up, exit his car, cover his face, draw his weapon, and enter the bank.We hear screams and gunshots.Within seconds, a policeman emerges on foot from around the corner with his gun drawn, looking anxiously for assailants or victims.

The man I gave a ride to plays his role perfectly. He jumps out of my car, yelling and pointing; "I just saw a man running down that alley with a gun in his hand and a bag he brought out of the bank!" The policeman takes the bait, and runs down the alleyway, vainly chasing a villain who is not there.

The murderer emerges from the bank, glances over at his friend (my passenger), nods appreciatively, gets into his car, and escapes.

Given these facts, have I participated in the sin of robbery and murder?

The answer is: yes. Because I knew the intent of the accomplice and I helped him and his friend accomplish the crime, I became an accomplice; I participated in the sin (and crime) of robbery and murder.

Which brings us to voting for Obama...

First of all, abortion is murder, a violation of God's commandment, "You Shall not Murder."

At the very least, Obama is an aggressive accomplice of child-killers. He has declared his intention to keep child-killing (abortion) legal; to help child-killers murder the innocent with impunity. He has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) if elected, and to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will uphold Roe vs. Wade.

Obama boasts a 100% pro-abortion voting record; he is in FAVOR of partial birth abortion, and he opposed a bill in Illinois that would require medical care for a late term baby that survives an abortion.

Let the full weight of that sink in: if a late term baby girl is aborted, and survives the attempt on her life, Senator Obama OPPOSES that doctors be required to give that resilient new-born fighter the medical care that would save her life.

Such devotion to the Angel of Death defies all decency.

The fact that Obama doesn't suck the bodies and blood of innocent human beings out of their mother's wombs, or carve out their mutilated corpses with his own hands is irrelevant. By working to continue this holocaust, he is an accomplice to the murder of innocent pre-born children - like the accomplice to theft and murder in the illustrations above.

And if we vote for Obama knowing his intent to help murder millions of children, we too are accomplices in the sin of child-killing.

The accusations of this logic being "extreme," or "single issue driven" or "insensitive to the common good" are chaff in the wind. Let the proponents of voting for Obama for "the common good" make their shameful argument before a mountain of dead children. Or better yet: let them use their perversion of "the common good" to justify voting for a proponent of slavery. Such reasoning would appear as cruel and idiotic concerning slavery as it is for child-killing.

Don't be deceived. You know that abortion is murder. If you vote for Obama, you will betray innocent blood. And future generations who escaped Obama and his accomplices to murder will curse your memory for your part in slaying their sisters, brothers, cousins, classmates, neighbors, friends, spouses, bishops, pastors, teachers, doctors, priests, babysitters, policemen, firemen, engineers, and more. Do you really want their blood on your hands?

He who declares that it is immoral for a Christian to vote for Obama is not mistaken; rather, he is mistaken who declares it is not.

Randall A. Terry
Founder, Operation Rescue
Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul 2008

"When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that It is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a 'tyrannical' decision with regard to the weakest and most defenseless of human beings?... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it... The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize we are dealing with murder."

- John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

Voting matters - 2

When I wrote the "Grassroots nudges" post a few weeks ago, its main theme was supposed to be on moving our culture's center of gravity by small personal nudges. The parenthetical reference to election year personalities spurred a rather lively political debate that continued on to the next two posts. The two main viewpoints offered were
 1) Vote for the Constitution Party, as it is the most truly pro-life and Christian platform.
 2) Such a vote is useless, since the Constitution Party will never win.

Unfortunately, the proponents of the first view stayed on the comments page of the "Grassroots nudges" post, while the latter group moved on to the next post, so they weren't hearing each other. I think both sides had something important to say, and there seemed to be more salient points to add for both viewpoints, but when I tried to get them on the same page (literally), the debate petered out. (sigh)

So, here is a post specifically dedicated to this year's election, coming down to the wire. The "Baldwin 2008" icon & link at upper left gives you a good idea of my opinion. Moreover, the Jan. 23 post entitled "Voting matters" still reflects my general approach to voting. But I remain open to other viewpoints. Present a logical refutation either against the principles outlined in the original "Voting matters" post, or, using those principles, tell me of a better way to vote. But hurry, time is short!

Faithful, not successful

Inadvertantly, the last two posts have a common thread: the true measure of our actions is whether or not they are the right actions to take, not how well they turn out.

Vote for the best candidate, whether deemed electable or not; you can't answer for other voters.

Act with true charity towards the other person, whether appreciated or not; you can't answer for his response.

Mother Teresa understood this principle, and could say without hesitation that we are called to be faithful, not successful. And she was faithful, even when all seemed dark.

Voting matters

The stench of politics grows daily stronger, and I have yet to decide for sure who will get my vote. But two decisions are firmly in place, and have been for some time.

First, I will vote solely on the basis of three issues:

1) Restoring legal protection for all human lives.

2) Preserving the unique legal standing of permanent, heterosexual monogamy, in recognition of the institution of marriage as the basis of civilization.

3) Reversing the trend towards judicial tyranny, and restoring constitutional checks and balances. This is an issue because of items 1 & 2. Namely, the legalization of abortion and of same-sex 'marriage' was thrust upon us mostly by judicial fiat, and not via the democratic process. This simply must be rectified; judicial oligarchy must not be allowed to take over completely.

These things are fundamental. When/if they ever become resolved satisfactorily, I may consider other, lesser political issues, but not until then.

Second, I will not cast my vote based upon which candidates are doing well in the polls or in other states. I ignore polls. Here's why:

1) Consider two hypothetical candidates A and B, with roughly equivalent policy positions, but with one difference: Candidate A is known to vacillate according to popular opinion polls, while candidate B is more solid in his positions, even when they become unpopular. In such a hypothetical case, I would prefer candidate B, as more principled and reliable. I think most voters would concur. We voters ought also to do likewise, voting on principle without watching poll numbers.

2) Watching the polls, and voting only for an electable candidate is circular reasoning.

3) Don't tell me I'm wasting my vote. Besides being circular reasoning, voting based upon how others vote is to be, by definition, a trend follower; it is to allow other voters to dictate your vote. I'd rather be a trend setter.

4) God is watching.

4-year locusts

My brother Jim, who lives in central Iowa, has told me about the cicadas that appear there like clockwork every 17 years. I guess it's quite a spectacle when the cicadas come. People make an effort to go out to where they congregate, bringing their children, grandchildren, and cameras. Maybe they bring tape recorders, too, because the most notable feature of a cicada is its noise. If you've ever heard a lone cicada whirring loudly up in a tree, you might imagine the din that must emanate from thousands (millions?) of them all at one time. I suppose, then, it's sort of a relief when the cicadas disperse, and there is relative peace again for another 17 years.

Likewise, Iowans may soon breathe a sigh of relief when their caucuses are finally over, and those other cyclical noisemakers go away. Once again, Iowa will become a relatively quiet flyover state, a place to be ignored for the next 4 years.

Although popularly called locusts, cicadas belong to the order Hemiptera, which also includes aphids, bedbugs, and lice.

Slaughter of the Innocents

...Rachel weeping for her children...(Mt. 2:18, Jer. 31:15 [RSV])

In a sort of inverse of the progression from Good Friday to Easter, just three days after the joy of Christmas we commemorate the very first Christian martyrs, those infants who were slaughtered by Herod out of rage and fear towards the newborn Christ. Pro-life Christians have adopted this feast day of the Holy Innocents (Dec. 28) as a fitting commemoration of the slaughter of the innocents that continues in our abortion clinics today.

The modern Herods are those who wear a doctor's attire as they ply their vile trade, shedding the blood of innocent and helpless babies for monetary gain. These present-day Herods have a large army of soldiers to help and enable them. They have the arrogant judges who have decreed that this murder must be allowed and sanctioned by the state. They have the politicians who enact legislation to grant them public subsidies and punish those who would rescue the innocent. They have voters who continue to elect such, in tacit approval of the slaughter.

I will repeat the last sentence. Herod today has voters who enable his wicked slaughter by their choices in the ballot box.

Here's a helpful link.