The Most Heartless (And Senile) Republican In The World: "Ship The Mentally Ill Off To Siberia"

URGENT UPDATE: My bad. Check out the answers given by Harty for his 2008 campaign. They're as disturbing as hi "Siberia" comment!

Martin Harty, a Republican New Hampshire state senator, is 91 years old. It is possible that he has turned senile. It is also possible that he will be shipped to Siberia.


It's sad when someone becomes so senile that he doesn't resemble a human being. The question that comes immediately to mind: has he actually outlived his usefulness? In the case of New Hampshire state senator Martin Harty, his philosophy of getting rid of useless people might return to bite him in his wrinkled old ass. 

Think Progress: Barrington Republican Martin Harty told Sharon Omand, a Strafford resident who manages a community mental health program, that “the world is too populated” and there are “too many defective people,”according to an e-mail account of the conversation by Omand. [...] Harty confirmed to the Monitor that he made the comments to Omand.

“I wish we had a Siberia so we could ship them all off to freeze to death and die and clean up the population...Hitler did something right, and I agree with (it).

The "I was kidding" defense.

Harty has absolutely refused to apologize for the remarks, saying he was kidding her because she was an "unidentified caller."

"I was kidding with her ...It was a girl that wanted money for the crazy people... a good percentage of the homeless people are mentally disturbed." Unfortunately, he overstepped the bounds of humanity in his "kidding" by referring to any form of eugenics or genocide. He can, of course, place the blame of his comments on his age, since he was first inaugurated last January, making him the oldest "freshman" Republican office-holder in the country.

The issue of age and mental stability may not lie in Harty, however, but in his constituents. After all, you have to wonder about a populace who votes in a politician simply because of age. Because if you try to find out anything about "Marty Harty" you don't find much.

A plebecite of "No Response" 

- Does Marty Harty even exist?

Go to the website for Vote New Hampshire, a site supposedly devoted to "connecting voters to candidates. The results will surprise/shock you. In Harty's candidate profile, which includes age, gender and all political positions, the only answer is: "no response."

Gender: No response, Religion: No response, Education: No response, Civic: No response, Military: No response, Political: No response.

And accomplishments: No response. Maybe Marty Harty is so old, he's turned translucent - or completely invisible.

Ditto on the website for Project Vote Smart:
Representative Marty C. Harty refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

This candidate has demonstrated 0% courage during the test.


There is NO email for the senator and only the New Hampshire Republican Party references him - vaguely, making "connecting" very difficult for someone like Sharon Omand. At this point, the question of Marty Harty's existence comes into play and wild conspiracy theories against New Hampshire's Republican Party could start to sprout.

The Concord Monitor (unfortunately) was able to get a hold of him in response:
Harty said nature has a way of "getting rid of stupid people," and "now we're saving everyone who gets born."

He's so senile, he's pissing off Republican-based pro-lifers. Not good. Pat Robertson pissed off a multitude of Christians with his Haiti-contract-with-the-devil comments. They tried to cover it all up with a kind of senility defense, but it didn't work.


So now the focus needs to shift to the New Hampshire Republicans who voted-in Harty for no reason at all other than he's very old and very senile. If you research the demographics of Barrington, NH, the place (and its newest educational make-up - an all-white, upper-middle class charter school), might give you a better picture: Harty has obviously had no contact with emotionally or financially disabled people. None. Zip. And the area looks as if it wants to stay that way, with help from the Republican Party. Sharon Omand may be a humanitarian in a developing sea of intense contempt for everyone else. True, the area is very, very small, so let us hope it is in no way representative of a larger trend.




Wisconsin and Michigan, on the other hand...

Have We Now Gained The Right To Sadism? The Horrible Story Of The Deaver Fetus

I've long had the stance that pro-lifers are actually pro birth, only caring that a child is born ... no matter the consequences. To some, "life" is only precious at the point of birth. And in the case of Danielle and Robb Deaver, neither life before, nor life after mattered to the State of Nebraska. 


The Deaver story, as told by them below, is certainly heart-wrenching and, in short, involved a mother being forced to carry a child to term even though doctors said that the pregnancy would be painful, the child would be born prematurely, be seriously deformed and live for only minutes after birth. As Danielle put it, "we decided that some things were worse than death." Some "things?" Or someone like Senator Mike Flood and Julia Schmit-Albin of Nebraska Right To Life. Some media were more succinct about the situation: 




Abortion Law: Mother Denied Abortion, 
Then Had To Watch Baby Die


Nebraska State Senator Mike Flood was the primary architect of the state's two-month-old law banning partial-birth abortions after the age of 20 weeks - no matter what the consequences.

"Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there's not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life." 

Of course, the Nebraska Right To Life doyenne, Julie Schmit-Albin, came to the defense of the law:

"We acknowledge the tragedy that occurs with a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby. But isn't it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?"* (emphasis mine)

"We acknowledge the tragedy." The words seem hollow. While the pro-life movement has stressed that ALL children should be born no matter what the circumstance, it automatically erases any concern for the individuals involved and in some case, even that of the child: in the interview below, Danielle Deavers raises a good point: because of the child's inabilities to develop normally, how could she not think that the child was suffering? True, there was a heartbeat (evidently all that mattered to lawmakers like Senator Flood), but since muscles were pressing on the unborn child's head, she had to assume that the child was experiencing some discomfort. Added to those hollow words is this little point of sadism: since the Nebraska law reinforces a belief* that a fetus feels pain after 20 weeks, Danielle Deaver was right to be concerned for the suffering of her child. She was concerned, but obviously, the pro-life law of Nebraska wasn't. It's only concern was for the child to be born. Period.

One commenter on the situation brought up another concern: medical expenses. While the state forced the couple to proceed with the pregnancy, it certainly didn't feel liable for any of the medical expenses which added to the Deavers' woes. 

I'm struggling here not to take on a possible little-Elizabeth-Deaver stance, but I'm losing the battle:

"OK, Ms. Julie Schmit-Albin, let's get this straight: the doctors say I'm not going to live past fifteen minutes. If, by the odd chance I do live, then I'm gonna be a vegetable gasping for breath for a while longer. Since I've been here in the womb for over 20 weeks, you believe I should feel pain. I've already had a hard time breathing in this place, but my mother feels a lot more pain than I do. She, being humane, thinks that both she and I would feel a lot better if things didn't continue. You, on the other hand, think that it's God's will that we both live through this. You, who are not related to me in any way, have passed a law that says I have to come out of this place into my mother's arms so that we both can suffer as long as possible."

"Take a hike, b*tch."

At this point, while I'm not about to paint pictures of Flood and Schmit-Albin rejoicing at both pre-birth and after-birth agonies, I don't think their reasoning could be looked upon as humanitarian, although a glance at the Des Moines Register's piece and its comments section shows that both sides are screeching about "God" and the concept of being "humane." 

People like Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, took a more hopeful attitude:

"I think those that hear her story will be very, very moved," June said. "Hopefully some of them that are on this reckless stampede against a woman's right to decide with her doctor what is in the best interest of her health and well being - I hope they will hear her words and listen to her."

Fat chance, Jill, if you're telling it to people like Tony Perkins, the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of The Royal Order Of Self-Righteousness. 

OK, sarcasm aside, there's a nagging feeling that while outright sadism may not be involved, a quiet, smug, self-righteous little voice inside of people like Flood and Schmit-Albin is whispering, "Glory Hallelujah!" 

*On the website of NRTL there is a link to this "Tiller the killer" murder statement:
"National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller’s family over this loss of life." Right.
** There is intense medical debate on whether or not any pain is felt after 20 weeks. Many scientists believe that neurons are not really formed in the brain until 28 weeks.

Janet's Porter's FETUS MAY REFUSE TO TESTIFY!!

"Personhood" will now make its debut in Ohio. Janet Porter has seen to it. 


Think Progress had the best take on Janet Porter's latest Reconstructionist/oh-so-biblical stunt:

Admitting that “there is no scenario” in which this bill survives in court, Ohio Right To Life and the right-wing advocacy group Faith2Action are still going to absurd lengths for the sake of promotion. Tomorrow at a hearing on the bill, the House Health Committee will hear “testimony” from its youngest witness ever: a “nine-week old” fetus:

Two in-utero babies will appear live before the committee by an ultrasound projector which is able to not only show that baby’s moving arms and legs, but also display–in color–the baby’s beating heart.“When passed, the Heartbeat Bill will insure that once that heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected,” added Porter.

I've always said, however, that people like Janet Porter are NOT pro-life, but only PRO-BIRTH. There's a big difference: do you actually think Porter cares anything about the kid once it's born? She'll insist that the kid be born, but not fed, housed and educated at any decent level. Those things would cost waaay too much money!! I believe that Porter is also in favor of the death penalty. Pro Life? Not on yours!

The Outbreeders: Mandating A Baby Boom For The Culture War

             

Flooding The Nation With  

Christian Rightwingers

Imagine a country full of home-schooled children who are taught that people who do not believe what they believe, act the way they act, live the way they live deserve to be discriminated against, deported, incarcerated, or worse... Sounds like a B movie filled with tykes whose eyes emit laser beams, vaporizing people they feel threatened by, doesn't it? 

Well, that B movie is just the thing envisioned by Bryan Fischer's D-class intellect.  The reasoning goes like this: the left has so many pro-choice people, feminists and homosexuals that the right will outbreed them and (insert maniacal laughter) take over the world!  

Bryan Fischer of the AFA:

What this means quite simply is that liberals are breeding themselves out of existence ... All this represents a marvelous opportunity for conservatives. We can regain political control of this country by simply following the biblical mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”

Of course, the thought never occured to Fischer that  some gays, feminists and pro-choice peopler might be bred in the process, because true Christians NEVER have gay,  pro-choice or feminist children. Note to Fischer: breeding to outnumber doesn't guarantee complete extinction, unless you couple overbreeding wityh conscious genocide - the kind that your friends want in Uganda (and Zimbabwe and Texas).

And those conservatives he speaks to, none of them are "on the dole" are they? Popping out kids for the sake of a political population explosion means that the parents better have the means to support them. Fischer is a typical pro-lifer who confuses being "pro-birth" with "pro-life." After the infant gets slapped on the butt and cries, Fischer doesn't care what happens to the kid. Pay for those kids? Their homes, their food, their clothes, their education? Don't be ridiculous! Once that kid is born, the parents have to make do.  Let them shell out for Fischer's beliefs. After all, that's the American way! And if the kid winds up becoming a criminal on death row, well, Fischer will never attempt to stay his execution. So it's pop kids out as fast as possible, imbue them with as much hatred for liberals as you possibly can, hope they survive to voting age, then sick them on an unsuspecting Congress (OK, the last may not be very hard to do). Pretty cool idea, huh?

QUIVERFULL

The Quiverfull movement espouses having as many children as possible, faithfully following the dictum "Be friutful and multiply." If every child is a "gift from God" then the movement's followers can be viewed as somewhat greedy. But according to some, Quiverfull people are more than greedy for "gifts from God", they are "culture warriors":

wikipedia:

On July 25, 2005, ABC Good Morning America segment, "Is eight really enough?" Deborah Roberts interviews Rachel Scott, author of "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors". Rachel Scott discusses the trend toward larger families, managing finances with more mouths to feed and she states, "when good people stop having kids, society fails."

If this militaristic stance seems familiar, look back to  evangelical leaders like Rod Parsley and Lou Engle. Their sermons are filled with militaristic jargon that would make a general proud. The unfortunate thing about religious militarism is that too many congregants react emotionally and physically to it. 

Fundamentalists aren't very good with metaphors.

And the militarism is most effectively used on children from day one. Breeding little armies is very "fruitful". One of the most blatant examples of "breeding for God" has been cable TV's Duggar family. The family's promoting over-population to such an extent that one wonders about the parents' motives: are they supporting the kids or are the kids supporting them? 

A century and a half ago P.T. Barnum would have figured out a way to make the Duggars a sideshow in his circus. Or at least Michelle Duggar: "Meet the amazing woman who just can't stop bearing children!!" But in essence, they've already done that to their family and in this day and age, being a sideshow, ahem, I mean a celebrated family, can be very lucrative. They can afford to propagate.

More kids! More kids! Don't Abort! Seriously, Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins (to name a few) are getting frightfully demented with their hypocrisy. Can you imagine how the Duggars would be treated if they were black and on food stamps? Perkins would have  advocated forcibly tying Michelle's tubes at least 10 kids ago as well as questioning the "morality" of the parents for introducing the children to welfare and poverty.


Quiverfull is also promoting sterilization reversal surgery. As yet it hasn't purchased fertility drugs en masse, but give it time. 


Critics of Quiverfull add one more flaw in the crank 'em out movement: 


wikipedia:

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former ardent Quiverfull adherent, birth-mother of eleven children, and former editor of Gentle Spirit Magazine, argues that the Quiverfull movement is one "in which women and children are routinely and systematically subordinated and subjugated by the men in their lives - fathers, husbands, older sons,. . .pastors, elders, leaders - as a matter of biblical principle." Seelhoff charges that Quiverful adherents "never talk about the victims of the movement, other than to distance themselves, to explain how it is that the victims are aberrations."

The most famous victim of Quiverfull's proselytizing has been Andrea Yates, the Houston housewife who drowned her five children in a bathtub on June 20, 2001. 

Her first psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, warned Yates and her husband against having more children, stating in Yates's medical record two days later, '"Apparently patient and husband plan to have as many babies as nature will allow! This will surely guarantee future psychotic depression."

From the Dionne Quintuplets to Octomom, extreme fertility will always be a headliner, but the topic has never really had political implications. Until now.

The Duggars are slated to headline Tony Perkins' Values Voter Summit

Known Diseases Attacking the Republican Brain: Prognosis Negative

The guy whose brain was scanned for the above picture doesn't have a chance of survival - at least not as an American human being. He has been diagnosed as one of those unfortunate beings who places in the lowest twenty percent of self-identified Republicans and as such suffers chronic attacks of bigotry, intolerance, self-righteousness, secessionist tendencies, overbearing (fake) patriotism, hard-boiled homophobia, and totally rank hypocrisy. His I.Q. has been reduced to a level below that of an amoeba. This reduction is brought on by irrational hatred of just about everything he is told to hate.

None of these terrible conditions have ever been treated simply because he was unaware of them. If caught in time (before the age of reason since these viruses attack rudimentary reasoning first) they might have been treated.

The most obvious sign that his mental capacities were impaired was when he stated on a Research 2000 survey that he thought Sarah Palin was better qualified for the position as President of the United States than Barack Obama. Examining researchers were horrified that this man's deterioration had been so long and advanced.

He also AGREED to all of the statements below. To be fair, they were put in question form, and some ideas were delineated by proper grammar, so they might have been put in a way that may have been difficult for him to understand.

NEGATIVE THOUGHTS AND IDEOLOGIES OF REPUBLICANS

Abortion is murder	76%
ACORN stole the election	21%
Congress shouldn't make it easier to join unions	68%
Contraceptives should be outlawed	31%
Creationism should be taught in public schools	77%
Gay couples should not have state or federal benefits	68%
Gays should not be allowed to serve in the military	55%
Gays should not teach in schools	73%
Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to work here	59%
Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and heaven	67%
Marriages are equal partnerships	76%
Obama is a racist	31%
Obama is a Socialist	63%
Obama should be impeached	21%
Obama wants the terrorists to win	24%
Obama was not born in the United States	42%
Sarah Palin is more qualified that Barack Obama	53%
Sex education should not be taught in schools	51%
The birth control pill is abortion	34%
There should be no same-sex marriages	77%
Women should be able to work outside the home	86%
You support the death penalty	91%
Your state should secede from the U.S.	23%

Put together in a different graph, the poll shows us that there is the possibility that a substantial amount of people could have agreed with ALL of these statements. Let's look at it in another way:

Now let's see to possible variables: some Republicans did NOT agree with every statement. Some statements may not be considered too radical. Also, some statements do no necessarily mean that a person negates the opposite. E.G., it's possible that some Republicans believe that Creationism should be taught along WITH evolution.

Variables aside, however, the results of the poll (2,000 self-identified Republicans across the country and across demographics) show a very, very sczisophrenic group of people, the majority of whom agree with the statements that: a. abortion is murder, but they would voted for the death penalty, b. gay cannot teach in public schools, but some of them could serve in the military, c. purport to be patriots but some of them want to secede from the Union, and d. folks who think abortion is murder would also outlaw contraceptives - at a time when more "misbegotten" children are born than at any other time in history.

Indeed, the reasoning power of self-proclaimed conservatives has been on a downward spiral for the last generation. That may be why the number of self-proclaimed Republicans has decreased steadily since the 1960s. 55 million people in the U.S. were registered Republicans in 2004. It's doubtful that today's number is in the high 40's. Look at the bottom part of the graph and make some assumptions of our own: counting a wide range of variables, that bottom 20% can be honed down to 10%, don't you think? Is that fair?

Well, if it is, than 10% of people who identify as Republicans are: pro-Sarah Palin, anti-Obama people who will refuse to let their children have any sex education let alone purchase condoms. They will allow their women to work outside the home and think that their marriages are equal partnerships, although domestic violence cases continue to rise. They will certainly support the death penalty but at the same time chant that they are "pro life," without any qualms of hypocrisy. Some of them want gays to serve in the military more than they want them to teach in schools, but giving them any rights concerning marriage or spousal claims is beyond their comprehension. Finally, why any of them would think that Obama WANTS the terrorists to win is incomprehnsible. That statement alone defines the bottom 20% as irrational and, dare I say it, not qualified to vote.

And according to the least amount of calculation, there are approximately 4 MILLION people out there who have agreed to ALL OR MOST OF THE STATEMENTS. Four million. Who are voting irrationally. Who are amongst us. Who want their state to secede from the Union. Who do not like the rest of the people in the U.S. simply because they are not made of 100% whatever they label themselves as.

I'm sorry, but it looks to be true. Movements start with just a few people, but when movements begin to mass and affect the nation's psyche, then we all have to deal with them. Sorry, but at this time, to go on would make me seem like a fearmonger. Please, just think about it.

For Thought-Crimes In The Catholic Church: "Just Go To Hell!"

When I was a kid (yeah, that's me all right), I followed all the rules of the Catholic Church as assiduously as the nuns taught me. After all, dealing with the rules of the Church was dealing directly with God. I never messed with them. And the most important rules were the ones laid out for the sacraments - especially Holy Communion.

The nuns told us that in order to receive Holy Communion, we should be in the state of "grace" - in other words, free from sin. Now, in canon law terms, there is venial sin and mortal sin. Venial sin was not really a big deal (although to the nuns, well, EVERYTHING was a big deal) so you could take Communion, even if you knew that you purloined a Snickers bar from Felix Linder**. Mortal sin, however, ranked up there with grand theft auto, rape, and killing your mother-in-law (caveat: sometimes only a venial sin). But, as with most thing sunlawful, there was an escape clause: if you said a "perfect act of contrition" (to God) and promised to go to confession, you could get away with - literally - murder and still take Communion.

And, as with some escape clauses, this one also had a piece that was binding on the opposite side: since a priest couldn't read your mind before Communion, he could not refuse you Communion. At least, that's what Srs. Mary Florence, Mary Benedict and Sr. Boom-Boom Bernadine* told us. I used the escape clause only once (or so I thought) after the first time I masturbated.

Roman Catholic Canon Law #916:

Can. 916: A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

There is now a renewed push to punish pro-choice members of the Catholic Church by refusing them the rite of Holy Communion and then, of course, making that refusal public. The latest from Randall Terry's group, Insurrecta Nex:

Beginning Wednesday, December 9, Insurrecta Nex team members will travel to 13 Cathedrals in 9 states to hold vigils and press conferences. The tour will finish at the Boston Cathedral, the seat of Cardinal O'Malley, the site of decades of scandal with the Kennedy and the Kerry families.

They will ask Catholic Bishops: "Your Excellency, if any Catholic US Senator from your state, or member of the United States House of Representatives from your diocese votes to fund the murder of children by abortion in any 'health care reform' bill, will they be denied Communion?"

What a way to tell people to "go to hell!" - literally.

Now here's the Catholic voter conundrum: what if the pro-choice candidate's opponent goes against all of the other ideologies the voter espouses? What if that candidate is inexperienced, corrupt, racist, or just plain stupid? Should the voter be forced to vote for the pro-life candidate? Should the voter shirk civic duty and not vote at all? Let's face it, today's social issues and politics are hard enough to deal with without being told that if you even think of voting for a pro-choice candidate you're committing a grievous sin.

Oh to have separation of church and state!

* Boom-Boom Bernadine may have been a fictional character in the wonderfully fertile mind of John Powers (Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?), but to anyone growing up Catholic in Chicago during the 50s, she was as real as rosary beads. "She could throw an eraser with the speed and accuracy of a bullet."

** Also from John Powers, except his full name was Felix-the-Filth-Fiend Linder: "Felix had enough dirt in his mind to apply for statehood."

The Manhattan Declaration: Hypocrites United

The Christian Right has arrogantly come up with their own Nicene Creed. However, the Nicene Creed only states a belief of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, while the Manhattan Declaration states a whole host of beliefs not the least of which is that the holiest of all actions is hypocrisy. I'm certain that better writers and more intelligent people have attacked it by now as a blathering piece of BFD. So this post is, by its timing, anti-climactic.

But it is this kind of bloviating sanctimoniousness that drives people to respond anyway, because after reading it, one is prompted to react with "Do Something!"

So here is my take, such as it is. Sorry about the length, but when dealing enormous amounts of hot air, it takes an equal length of writing to respond to them.

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages [In other words, they don’t intend to address the topic of pedophile priests or ministers], we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues [Like the onslaught of AIDS?], and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. [And for almost 1000 years, kept them all for themselves.] It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. [American Christians, however, were rather split at the time, weren’t they?] Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. [Of course, Christians allowed Europeans a breather after 782 wars in 800 years – all sanctioned by Christians] And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. [And that, my friends, is the last you will read about women's rights in this polemic] The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class. [Take that, Southern Baptists!]

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination. [Their “devotion to human dignity” skipped 1981 to 1999 simply because people with AIDS were anathema. Period.]

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason [Quite a jump from Scripture to “natural human reason”] (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies: [Well, at least they admit we’re fashionable!] that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image . [This means freedom to be Christian ONLY.]


We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences. to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. [“ecclesial differences” – Why is it that organized religion only bonds together when hey are AGAINST something? They can agree on base generalities like “peace,” but when dogma – the absolute heart of the church – is necessary, they agree to disagree – and hope that the bottom won’t fall out from underneath their congregation’s base.] We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

****

Life
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. [Whether or not they like it, people are paying for abortions through their insurance premiums. The “taxpayer expense” is really a singular jab at Planned Parenthood.] Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. [“Pro-life” is a misnomer. It should be “pro-birth.” Would pro-lifers ever put their money where their mouth is and help to SUPPORT those children after birth? There are still a few “maternity hospitals” left (I was born in one), but they are not adequately supported by any faith-based organizations. One solution: provide a box to check on the taxpayer’s 1040 that states: “I stand pro-life. I want my tax return to benefit (fill in blank with name of legitimate social non-profit) so that a child may be fed, sheltered, clothed and educated according to the standards set by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.” ] Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable.[ No such word, but it has probably been used time and again on “birther”\“teabagger” signs.] As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. [Only recently did Christians value the life of a child born out of wedlock: it was until about 1920 that birth certificates of such children were stamped “illegitimate.”] For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. [Now the conspiracy theories start. This statement is wild supposition of the Pat Robertson kind. And science fiction has absolutely no place in a manifesto such as this.] At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. [This invites a wild analogy: so many of us have our pets “put to sleep” because we don’t want them to suffer anymore. Yet good “Christians” will force our loved ones to suffer and have no say at all about the continuance of their lives.] The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need . and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. [While the incident may have involved another country, I feel I must remind Chuck Colson that the last Magdalene Laundry was closed in the early 1990s. He’s portraying all Christians as self-effacing saints.] Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. [Equating the Bible with reason?] We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. [You won’t do it with “abstinence only” programs.] We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage


The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem. Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. [Including everyone and every culture is totally false: out of 1300 cultures studied, only about 250 were based on one-man-one-woman marriage. The rest were polygamous. And only in the last 300 years or so has the idea of love as a basis for marriage been recognized. Past cultures almost exclusively supported arranged marriages based on money, property and other assets.] Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. [Personal note: I was born in Chicago at St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum and Maternity Hospital and put up for adoption from birth. I was illegitimate. Ann Coulter(geist) has brazenly (and stupidly) characterized and generalized ALL children born out of wedlock as drug addicts and criminals. I must be the odd one out.] Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same. [Too little, too late and too lame.]

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. [Tell that to battered wives. One in particular pleaded with Pastor Rick Warren to counsel her after a brutal beating. His answer: divorce is not an option – after all, “he only hit you once. Only after you can prove that he’s beating you consistently, after counseling, then you should just leave him. But no divorce.”] We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. [There's a contradiction in there somewhere.] In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; [In a struggle to see their POV, I have come up numerous times frustrated and empty-handed as far as any kind of believability: their past behavior towards gays and lesbians shows them to have no respect and certainly no compassion. The Age of AIDS (1982-2002 – approx.) proved what harm hypocritical self-righteousness can do. True compassion existed only in pockets of the country and AIDS agencies were all (gasp!) secular.] and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. [This is, at best, disingenuous. The most radical idea Christ espoused was to love your enemies. He knew that this went against human nature. Most Christian preachers know that this sentiment will never be taken to heart, but they spout it occasionally to look benevolent.] For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual—on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation. [This is a grand attempt to make the institution of marriage holy, untouchable and mystical beyond which we mortals can comprehend. The union of two people in love and who fervently attempt to sustain that union with physical and emotional gestures are totally discounted because in the mind of a “true believer” the two people MUST be of the opposite sex and have the intention at all times of procreation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is also a sinner.]

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential. [To insinuate that a minority such a gays is “powerful and influential” is absurd: can societal outcasts – deemed outcasts because they are sinners – be “powerful and influential? And to infer that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy and incest is sanctimonious demonizing.] No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. [Religious liberty is never compromised if that liberty does not demand that everyone else must have the same frame of mind.] Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. [Which rights would he rather abuse, the parent or child? Children have an intrinsic right to know that other philosophies and cultures exist and exactly what they are. If they are not given the entire spectrum of beliefs, they unnecessarily doomed to become bigots.] Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”) that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. [Mr. Colson assumes to speak for the rest of Christendom and that is a grave mistake. He is authorized to speak only for the ones who have signed the Declaration.] How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well. [Yet we are compelled to embrace Christianity every day in every way: “Our forefathers were Christian.” “America is a Christian nation!” “Secularists are atheists!” The Christian religion is the ONLY worthwhile religion” “I knew my God was better than his god.” “Keep the Christ in Christmas"]

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard [ “Persecution!!”] of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. [Maybe the government has to dictate morality because “righteous” people WOULD discriminate, fire and ruin the lives of people in the name of “conscience.”] After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here. [Do Biblical “norms” include the insulting and incendiary speeches of Fred Phelps?]

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of. Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny. [This assumes that Christians are always “civil”]

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. [That is why Christian clergy are calling for the death of the President.] We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. [One could create a wild “slippery slope” from this: not biding by the law of non-discrimination against gays could eventually lead to “Kill a Queer for Christ.” Seriously, this manifesto could validate “birthers” and “teabaggers.”] There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. [Proselytizing your version of the truth is one thing, while pummeling people with the Bible, cherry-picked verse by cherry-picked verse is another.] We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Thus this “Declaration” ends leading us towards a puzzling but crucial question:

Who gets to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?