Monthly Archives: February 2020

What? 47% of mainline pastors support same-sex marriage

Results from a nationwide survey reveal that nearly half (a whopping 47%) of mainline pastors approve of and “see nothing wrong” with same-sex marriage.


Lifeway Research conducted a phone survey on 1,000 Protestant pastors to get their take on same-sex marriage and civil unions between August 30 and September 24 last year and compared it with results from previous surveys taken in 2018 and 2010, and a nearly double-digit (9%) increase in approval of the former was registered over the decade. )

Israel slated to unleash coronavirus vaccine in 8–10 wks.

I call this child abuse

Writing at The Federalist 
last week, Kaeley Triller Haver remembered sitting in the legislature as the state of Washington legalized commercial surrogacy. While surrogacy has long been legal in the U.S., commercial surrogacy has not. In fact, it’s banned in most countries because of the potential for human exploitation.

Haver was struck by the lack of safeguards in the legislation: no background checks for would-be parents, no limits on the number of children they could order, no minimum compensation for surrogate mothers, and no barriers against pedophiles or human traffickers who might exploit the kids created. Incredibly, the rights of the children themselves weren’t even a part of that 2018 discussion.

This month, New York is following suit, considering two similar bills that would legalize commercial surrogacy in that state. Like in Washington, the push in New York is being made with “heartstrings rhetoric and celebrity endorsement,” Haver writes, but again, almost no restrictions to prevent opening floodgates for the “exploitation and commodification of women’s bodies,” and the “buying and selling of humans.”

An untold part of this story, by the way, is that among those pushing hardest for commercial surrogacy are gay couples. According to an informal study commissioned by the Chicago Tribune in 2016, ten to twenty percent of donor eggs in fertility clinics went to gay men ordering babies through surrogacy. The overall number that represents was, at the time, skyrocketing, having increased by fifty percent in just five years.

Now keep in mind that, if ten to twenty percent sounds like a low number, self-identified gay people make up only about three percent of the population. By the way, the sponsors of both bills currently before the New York State Assembly, just like the sponsor of the bill that became law in Washington state, are openly gay.

In New York, LGBT activists are mostly rooting for the less restrictive of the two bills on the table, insisting that any safeguards on commercial baby-making would “unfairly harm LGBTQ families.” The safeguards these activists oppose are the same as those applied to adoptive families: home studies, waiting periods, and protections for birth mothers.

According to a joint letter by several LGBT rights groups, such evaluations “would be unthinkable for parents who planned to have children through sexual intercourse.” Therefore, I suppose their logic goes, restrictive measures should also be unthinkable for couples unable to have procreative intercourse and instead wish to buy someone’s eggs and rent someone’s womb in order to gestate a baby they will call their own.

What we’re seeing here is the logical conclusion of the ideology that brought us same-sex “marriage.” Gay unions were sold to the world with the slogan, “love is love.” Of course, the only way that heterosexual love is the same as homosexual love is to make all the biological aspects of love irrelevant to the conversation in the first place, which is just another way of saying biological sex (i.e. that we are male and female) and procreation are both irrelevant to marriage.

Now, so many of those who have intentionally chosen sterile unions and argued that procreation is irrelevant to those unions, are now demanding children. They are demanding procreation without sex, and they’re demanding it as a right.

The only way to claim a right to what is impossible (same-sex couples cannot conceive children) is through a transactional workaround with women whose wombs they wish to rent.

In other words, the sponsors of these bills want the reproductive abilities of mothers, divorced from the mothers, themselves. They want the wombs, but not the women.

Of course, those who suffer in this cynical economic exchange, like in each and every chapter of the sexual revolution so far, are woman and children. As Haver points out, surrogate mothers or “gestational carriers” as they’re called, are at risk of permanent sterility or other serious health consequences from ovarian hyperstimulation.

The children whose rights are not even considered will grow up, and as we’ve seen from other situations, they’ll want to know who they are and where they come from. Many understandably condemn how they were conceived, bought, and sold like products.

The European Parliament has denounced surrogacy as “an act of violence against women,” and countries like India whose citizens stand to profit from renting wombs to rich Westerners have recognized the built-in exploitation and outlawed the practice.


Yet if activists and legislators get their way, New York it will soon welcome commercial surrogacy. By doing so, they’ll be endorsing the idea that families, including children, are commodities to be bought and sold. But it’s always the women and children, especially the most vulnerable ones, who will pay the highest price.



New York To Consider Allowing Men To Commission Babies From Rented Wombs

Kaeley Triller Haver | The Federalist | February 18, 2020

Washington State Democrats Legalize Child Trafficking

Stacy Manning | Them Before Us | March 7, 2018

Rejection of parents and their values

Penna Dexternever miss viewpoints

Where do public school bureaucrats get the idea that they, not parents, have the final authority to decide, in some very sensitive areas, what is best for children? In Madison, Wisconsin, this attitude is some parents’ worst nightmare as teachers help children begin gender transitions without notifying their parents.

Fourteen Wisconsin parents, representing eight families, are bringing a lawsuit against the Madison Metropolitan School District. They are asking a state court to halt a district policy whereby teachers are instructed to assist and encourage students who wish to assume a different gender identity at school, while living as their biological sex at home.


In an affidavit he filed in Dane County Circuit Court, Dr. Stephen Levine, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychological Association, points out that this is the wrong way to treat troubled and questioning kids. “Extended secrecy,” he writes, “and a ‘double life’ concealed from the parents is rarely the path to psychological health. For this reason, at least,” he says, “schools should not support deceit of parents.” 
( )

Billy- Is  it time for school choice and for Godly parents to remove their kids from the government schools.

BREAKPOINT The Born Alive Protection Act Voted Down, Again

Once again, Senator Lindsey Graham has sponsored the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” Once again, on Tuesday, the measure failed, this time 53-44, with two Democrats supporting it, and two Republicans voting against it. As Graham put it, “we vote on this every year.”

As the title suggests, the act would ban abortions after 20 weeks, once the fetus can feel pain. Right on cue, abortion supporters labeled the act “outrageously restrictive,” and the idea that children in the womb feel pain as “scientifically disputed.”

That the measure failed is no surprise, but to call it “outrageously restrictive” ignores abortion laws across the rest of the world. Germany and France both restrict abortions at 14 weeks of gestation. Norway restricts at 12 weeks, as does Ireland. Even notoriously liberal Sweden restricts abortions at 18 weeks.

In other words, the “Pain-Capable” Act, especially given the way we protect animals in our country, is quite reasonable. And if it’s reasonable, the other bill introduced Tuesday should be seen as downright obvious and humane.

As Republican Senator Steve Daines of Montana described from the Senate floor: “…the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act… mandates that if a baby is born alive following a botched abortion, the doctor must protect that baby and give the same medical care that any other baby would receive.” Then he added, “Is that too much to ask for?”

Unfortunately, once again, it was; 41 senators, all of them Democrats, voted to block the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which was sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse.

Again, like the previous piece of legislation, the title accurately describes what the measure seeks to accomplish. Unlike many other pieces of legislation, the language of the measure is straightforward and easy to understand: “If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”

Furthermore, “Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall . . . exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

That this Act is considered controversial proves that the ideology of abortion has slipped any of the surly bonds of rationality. Given the straightforward clarity of the Born Alive Protection Act’s title and substance, the language used by its opponents should be noted too.

In an online article that practically celebrates the failure of these two bills, CNN called the Born Alive Protection Act an “abortion restriction bill.” Perhaps they received that talking point from Planned Parenthood, who claimed in their communication that the bill pushes “misinformation meant to end access to abortion.”

But the bill says nothing at all about a woman’s access to abortion. In fact, it acknowledges the fact of abortion. It even assumes an abortion was attempted and does nothing to penalize or criminalize anyone seeking or anyone performing an abortion. All it does is confront the reality that babies sometimes survive abortion attempts.

But the worst abuse of language award still goes to CNN, for this line from the article, “…the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would require abortion providers to work to ‘preserve the life and health’ of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby…”

I am not making this up. CNN reporter Caroline Kelly literally referred to “a fetus that is born” and contrasted that with a “newborn baby.”

All of this underscores something Chesterton said, “If words aren’t worth fighting for, what on earth would be?” Or even better, one attributed to Confucius, “When words lose their meaning, people lose their lives.”

Simply put, Christians must engage this battle at the level of language. Words matter. Definitions matter. Truth matters. And human lives are at stake.



Powerful picture worth viewing this election

Ash Wednesday by John Stonestreet

Today, Ash Wednesday begins the season of Lent, a church tradition that dates back centuries. Ashes are smudged across foreheads with these words, “You are but dust and to dust you will return.”

Recently, some churches have replaced ashes with rainbow glitter, to express what’s called LGBTQ affirmation. Affirmation, however, is the wrong word for rejecting observable realities about the human body: That men’s bodies were made for women and vice-versa, and that this design is good, life-giving, and irreplaceable. Rejecting God as creator by rejecting His created order is a sin, one of which we are all guilty of, according to the Bible.

Imposing glitter says that such a rejection isn’t sinful. But that’s not loving. After all, the cruelest thing you can tell someone who’s not okay, is that they are.

Lent begins by telling us we’re not okay. Thank God it ends by telling us how to be forgiven.

Democrats are out of touch with the majority of Democrats on right to life

Kristen Day asked former mayor Pete Buttigieg an important question. She is the executive director of Democrats for Life. She explained that there are 21 million pro-life Democrats and wanted to know if he would support “more moderate platform language in the Democrat Party to ensure that the party of diversity, of inclusion, really does include everybody.”

He was not interested in changing the language. None of the other Democrat candidates for president show any interest in returning to a more moderate perspective. Not so long ago, the platform followed the phrase used by Bill Clinton, who wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Alexandra Desanctis reminds us that eight years ago, the party removed the word “rare” from its platform. Four years ago, the party platform called for the repeal of the Hyde amendment, which has been added to spending bills on a bipartisan basis since 1976. ( )

Continue reading

challenger challenge-for-us-

It still sickens me to see it on a news replay. Those plumes of smoke over Cape Canaveral – the awful trail from what had been the Space Shuttle “Challenger.” Teacher Christa McCauliffe and six other crew members were gone before our eyes. Hard to believe it was so many years ago. Hard to believe the memories and the feelings are still so vivid.

Once we had mourned those devastating losses, the national outcry was, “What happened? How could something like this happen?” The answer was found by an investigative commission, and it seemed so simple it was almost surreal. The shuttle blew up and seven American heroes died because a little “O-ring” seal on the solid-fuel rocket failed. An O-ring did this???

According to the commission report, it turns out that space officials had ignored warnings about the possible flaws in that seal. And so, something very small caused a disaster that was very big.

I’m Ron Hutchcraft, and I want to have A Word With You today about “Challenger’s Challenge For Us.”

That happens a lot in our personal lives where something very small can cause a very big disaster. The life of a family, a church, a business, a ministry. You ignore a small problem, and ultimately everything blows up. A little “innocent” flirtation today becomes the betrayal of adultery you could never have imagined. You let the “sun go down on your anger” as Ephesians 4:27 says. Just tonight. Never dreaming that “stuffed” bitterness will grow into a bomb that can shatter your marriage. You put off dealing with a “small” problem until it morphs into a conflict that can ruin everything. Under pressure, you make a couple of small compromises in telling the truth, in doing everything with integrity – and later you drink the bitter cup of the trust you lost.

It’s just so easy to bury it or ignore it because it seems so small. After all, you’re on a mission, and who’s got time for little malfunctions? You can be sure that ultimately you’ll have time for it – when it’s a raging inferno. When it’s too big to ignore, maybe too big to fix.


So in our word for today from the Word of God in Song of Solomon 2:15, the Bible says it is “the little foxes that ruin the vineyards.” So today would be a good day for me to look at my anchor relationships, my work, my personal walk with God and ask myself, “Is there a small problem.

 that I’ve put off dealing with? It’s not going to go away just because I ignore it.” It will never be smaller than it is today. It will never be easier to deal than it is today. I don’t need any more explosions from what I could have fixed when it was small. )

Religious Ideals

Kerby Andersonnever miss viewpoints

There was a time in the past when political leaders of both parties talked about the importance of religion in the founding of this country. Terry Jeffrey found a speech by an urban northeastern Democrat that illustrated this so well.

The candidate proclaimed that “a devotion to fundamental religious principles has characterized American thought and action.” He argued that the nation’s greatest leaders understood the “essential religious idea” of our founding. “Our earliest legislation was inspired by this deep religious sense,” he explained. “Our first leader, Washington, was inspired by this deep religious sense” and “Lincoln was inspired by this deep religious sense,” he continued.


Then his speech turned to a warning. He sensed that the very principles on which the nation was founded were being attacked. He warned that “these basic religious ideas are challenged by atheism and materialism: at home in the cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals, abroad in the doctrine of collectivism, which sets up the twin pillars of atheism and materialism as the official philosophical establishment of the State.”
( )