Category: Faith and State (Page 5 of 7)

Paris Prayer

November 14, 2015 / Allan Babcock

News from Paris last night (http://www.nytimes.com/) seemed surreal. Were terrorist attacks really erupting throughout one of the world’s major cities? Were over 100 people really slaughtered as they went about a typical Friday night? It didn’t seem as frightening as “our” 9/11 (partly because it didn’t happen here); but it seemed more threatening. Maybe because after 14 years we assumed we had better control of our own safety. Maybe because it darkly warned, “This can happen anywhere, anytime.”

Politicians urge us, “Don’t be afraid. Live life as normal.” I’m not trying to stir up fear, but we should at least be aware of how tenuous life has become. Terrorists are rocking the world. Yes, the Lord is sovereign. He is in control. But that doesn’t mean that we casually dismiss evil, or that we watch a news report as if it were a movie.

One thing we can do is pray. How should we pray in the face of the Paris attack? In his blog today, Denny Burk suggests Psalm 10:12-18. Good idea. I’ll include verse 1, because in such times the Lord seems absent. Or it seems he really isn’t involved in these “real life” tragedies.

Why, O LORD, do you stand far away?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? . . .

Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up your hand;
forget not the afflicted.
Why does the wicked renounce God
and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation,
that you may take it into your hands;
to you the helpless commits himself;
you have been the helper of the fatherless.
Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
call his wickedness to account till you find none.

The LORD is king forever and ever;
the nations perish from his land.
O LORD, you hear the desire of the afflicted;
you will strengthen their heart, you will incline your ear
to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.

The above is taken from the ESV. Or you may wish to pray from the TEV below . . .

Why are you so far away, O LORD?
Why do you hide yourself when we are in trouble? . . .

O LORD, punish those wicked men!
Remember those who are suffering!
How can a wicked man despise God
and say to himself, “He will not punish me”?

But you do see; you take notice
of trouble and suffering
and are always ready to help.
The helpless man commits himself to you;
you have always helped the needy.
Break the power of wicked and evil men;
punish them for the wrong they have done
until they do it no more.

The LORD is king forever and ever.
Those who worship other gods will vanish from his land.
You will listen, O LORD, to the prayers of the lowly;
you will give them courage.
You will hear the cries of the oppressed and the orphans;
you will judge in their favor,
so that mortal man may cause terror no more.

When I pray “Bible prayers”, I often find their words spur additional thoughts. So, rather than sticking strictly to the text (which is fine), I often pray what it has jogged in my mind. You may find it so too. Either way, let’s pray.

God shapes the world by prayer. The more praying there is in the world the better the world will be, the mightier the forces against evil…
~ E.M.Bounds

Atlanta Persecution

November 11, 2015 / Allan Babcock

I publish this to keep us informed of what’s happening in the land of religious freedom. This article from The Wall Street Journal, speaks for itself.

Christian Belief Cost Kelvin Cochran His Job

Atlanta says it terminated its fire chief because he published a book without permission. The real reason is because of what’s in it.

Jason L. Riley

Nov. 10, 2015 7:14 p.m. ET

752 COMMENTS

Kelvin Cochran, right, with his attorney, David Cortman, at a Feb. 18 news conference in Atlanta. Photo: Ben Gray/Associated Press

Kelvin Cochran has led a remarkable life by any standard. He was born into a poor family in Shreveport, La., in 1960 that became even poorer after his father walked out and left his mother to raise six children alone. “After he left, we couldn’t afford to live in the projects anymore,” he once told an interviewer.

Mr. Cochran aspired to be a firefighter from age 5, and he eventually was appointed Shreveport’s first black fire chief in 1999. In 2008 he became the fire chief of Atlanta. And In 2009 President Obama appointed him U.S. fire administrator, the top position in the profession.

At the urging of Democratic Mayor Kasim Reed, Mr. Cochran returned to his post in Atlanta in 2010 and continued to impress. In 2012, after more than 30 years of service, he was given a Fire Chief of the Year Award by Fire Chief magazine. In a related press release, the mayor’s office said that “under Chief Cochran’s leadership, the department has seen dramatic improvements in response times and staffing.” Mr. Reed added: “Chief Cochran’s pioneering efforts to improve performance and service within the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department have won him much-deserved national recognition.”

But a year ago, Mr. Cochran was suspended for 30 days without pay, pending an investigation into his behavior. On Jan. 6, at the end of the suspension, Mr. Reed sacked him. Mr. Cochran’s fireable offense, according to the city, was publishing a book in violation of the city’s ethics code and without permission from the mayor. The reality, according to a lawsuit filed in response to the firing, is that Mr. Cochran no longer has his $172,000-a-year job because of what’s in the book. The suit accuses the city of firing Mr. Cochran for his religious beliefs.

It turns out that when he’s not fighting fires, Mr. Cochran spends a lot of time helping black men turn their lives around and stay out of trouble. He does this under the auspices of Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church, where he is a deacon and leads a men’s bible study.

Mr. Cochran self-published a book in 2013, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” The book, written on his own time, is a compilation of lesson plans for his bible classes and explains how the teachings of Christ can help men fulfill their purpose as responsible husbands and fathers. What earned the ire of Atlanta officials is that the 162-page tome includes a few passages criticizing homosexual conduct as “perversion.”

In response to the lawsuit, the city has maintained that Mr. Cochran was terminated for violating protocol, not for his religious views—as if he would have been fired for publishing a cookbook. But comments from the mayor and other city officials at the time of the suspension suggest that the book’s content is what drove the decision.

“I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens—regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs,” said Mr. Reed. Alex Wan, a member of the City Council who is openly gay, said “I respect each individual’s right to have their own thoughts, beliefs and opinions, but when you’re a city employee, and those thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”

So the mayor fired someone who disagreed with him in the name of inclusivity and tolerance. And Mr. Wan believes that government employees are entitled to their own views but not entitled to share them with anyone. If this is true, the Constitution’s protections of free speech and freedom of religion are meaningless in practice.

David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal group representing Mr. Cochran, says the city is now using protocol arguments to cover its tracks after wrongly terminating someone for holding and expressing religious views that city officials didn’t like. There is no official requirement to notify the mayor before you write a book, Mr. Cortman told me, and Mr. Cochran sought and received permission from the city’s ethics department to pursue the book project.

“The ethics rule concerns moonlighting, other employment or outside work,” said Mr. Cortman. “It doesn’t apply to writing a book, religious or otherwise, on your own time at home. And if they had such a rule in place it would be unconstitutional. You don’t need the government’s permission to do that.”

Despite the left’s efforts to paint Mr. Cochran as some kind of hateful bigot, the city’s own investigation of the former fire chief’s work history found no complaints of discrimination.

Many Americans—and polls show their numbers growing—don’t agree with Mr. Cochran about sexual behavior or same-sex marriage, but all Americans have a stake in religious freedom. Consider: Would it be OK for a mayor who holds traditional views on marriage to fire an employee who wrote a book that expressed support for same-sex marriage?

“Our nation was founded on the principle that everyone should be free to not just believe what they want, but to live their lives according to those beliefs,” said Mr. Cochran in a statement last month following a court hearing. “I’m here today not just for myself, but for every religious person in America who does not want to live in fear of facing termination for expressing their faith.”

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

Carson Vs. Media

November 7, 2015 / Allan Babcock

I was shaken yesterday when I first read of Dr. Ben Carson’s “fabrications”. I read further reports and became confused. What was said when? Did the media get it right? Did Carson make misstatements?

All this concerned me because I believe Carson’s honesty and integrity are key to his campaign. And while I’d love to see debates between Carly and Hillary, I’ll be voting for Carson. (I still can’t believe people are taking Trump seriously. If he or Hillary become president I may move to Sweden.)

Gradually, as I continued to read and hear reports, I came to the conclusion that this was another case of media bias on the attack. Take, for a small example, the top line of the video: “Ben Carson Goes Off On Reporters . . . ” Goes off? (Trump goes off every time he opens his mouth!) Please note: “goes off” is subtle media commentary.

By the way, the Democrat party has a shoo-in for the presidential nomination being investigated by the FBI. Where is the media feeding frenzy over that?

America is in trouble. When the media is so blatantly biased we don’t know who or what we can we believe and often are subconsciously swayed to believe a lie. The media are as liable for division in this country as people who always cry “racist”.

Thank God we belong to a kingdom not of this world! Yet we’re called to live in the kingdoms of this world and to influence them for righteousness and justice. The video above is my tiny attempt to do that in this case.

Taxes and the Two Kingdoms

November 4, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Is it lawful to pay taxes? Of course; it’s unlawful not to. Jesus was once asked that question; but he answered differently. Here’s Mark’s report of how it all started . . .

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians to trap him in his talk . And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not. Should we pay them, or should we not?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied (Mark 12:13-16).

Commentary on the text. “They” who did the sending were members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish
Supreme Court. “Pharisees” were a sect within Judaism that had begun with deep devotion to God and his law, but over time became self-righteous legalists. To them, oral tradition about God’s laws was as weighty as the laws themselves. “Herodians” were primarily a political group in Judaism that supported the rule of the Herods.

Since 3:6 the Pharisees and Herodians had been plotting how to kill Jesus. Here they’re looking to maneuver Jesus into an anti-law answer that will give them grounds to arrest him. (Arrest is possible, because Israel was a theocracy where “church” and state were one.

First, they flattered Jesus, hoping to establish false-friendly feelings. Jesus was no fool. Neither was the gathering crowd in the temple courtyard. Mostly saw through their flimsy approach.

Second came the “gotcha” question. “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar” was a “hot button” issue. Taxes were no small thing. Since Rome “annexed” Israel, Jews were forced to pay a 10% grain tax, a 20% wine and fruit tax, a 1% of-all-other-earnings tax and a one-denarius poll tax. That was especially egregious because Caesar’s image glared from one side of the coin and his titles “High Priest” and “Son of God” emblazoned the other.

They smugly assumed Jesus was snared. Answer “Pay taxes” and a riot would erupt. “Don’t pay taxes” and the Court would be sure the Romans heard the treason Jesus was spreading.

But Jesus knew—and let them know he did. When he asked for a denaius, a few sweat drops must have formed in their foreheads. And when he asked, “Whose portrait is this?” and they answered, “Caesar’s”, their stomachs must have shuddered.

Jesus’ Answer. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him (12:17). The denarius was Caesar’s; his image marked it as his property. However unjust the tax, his government had a right to it.

The crowd was amazed; Jesus was a verbal Houdini. More stunning than his escape tactics was Jesus’ affirmation of two kingdoms (governments) in the world. The government of man (Caesar’s) and the government of God. Jesus’ well-versed-in-Scripture audiences would have recognized that. And each government had its due. That leads us to a few final questions . . .

What Is God’s? The Roman coin obviously belonged to Caesar. What belonged to God? His audience would have thought sacrifices, obedience, worship, tithes, thanks, praise and worship. Pay Caesar his taxes, but give God your devotion!

Now let us be the audience. What is God’s? As followers of Jesus, what is God’s that we’re to give him?
We could correctly repeat the Jews’ answers. But that might be like thoughtlessly mimicking the answer we know the Teacher wants to hear.

How casually we repeat familiar Christian terms! How unmindfully we mouth weighty biblical words! We’re losing the ability to think deeply, so our lips speak religious jargon. We don’t even want to think deeply about biblical things. We want sermons that give us simple steps and lessons that quickly distill doctrines debated for centuries in the church.

Maybe Jesus knew his audience would immediately and rightly identify what was God’s to be given him. Or maybe he wanted them—and us—to think deeply and definitely about what is God’s to be given him. Here are four Scriptures to guide us.

The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters (Psalm 24:1,2).

The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all (Psalm 103:19).

But now, this is what the LORD says– he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine (Isaiah 43:1).

You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:19b,20).

One Final Thought. The last two Scriptures above and Jesus’ question, “Whose image is on the coin?”, lead us to this: Whose image is on us?

foto of denarius - Hand holding a single coin - JPG

Planned Parenthood: “It’s so cute!”

October 29, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Fishing for Organs Called “Cute” While Delivering Intact Brains is “Something to Strive for” in Latest CMP Video

October 29, 2015

By Cheryl Sullenger

Washington, DC — Just days after the Texas Inspector General’s office raided four Planned Parenthood facilities, the Center for Medical Progress released its eleventh undercover video summary on October 27, 2015, which shows prima facie evidence of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood.

The latest CMP video, “Planned Parenthood TX Abortion Apprentice Taught Partial-Birth Abortion to ‘Strive For’ Intact Heads” focused on Planned Parenthood’s practice of conducting illegal Partial Birth Abortions on living babies and altering abortion procedures to ensure that organs are available for sale.

Featured in this summary video is Amna Dermish, who is a second-trimester abortionist with Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas in Austin.

Dermish explained that the Austin Planned Parenthood does abortions up to 21 weeks, 6 days, and that she uses digoxin during the abortions after 20 weeks. Prior to that, at 18-20 weeks, no digoxin is used and the abortions are done on living babies in violation of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

While demonstrating with her hands and arms, Dermish describes her grisly practice of removing the lower extremities of larger babies first then grasping the spine and pulling the rest of the baby out with torso intact.

While the Austin Planned Parenthood clinic did not seem to be selling organs at the time the undercover footage was made, the admission that partial birth abortions are used is evidence of criminal conduct.

Partial Birth Abortions were outlawed in 2003 and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2007 Carhart v. Gonzales case.

“Dermish is quick to admit that he aborts living babies at 18 to 20 weeks, sometimes converting to the breech position. This is an exact description of a partial birth abortion and should be enough evidence further investigate and bring her up on charges,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who also serves on the Board of the CMP.

The video also features Deborah Nucatola, Senior Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who trained Dermish. She discusses training other abortionists on procedures for “research cases.” Nucatola indicated that she only allows her trainees to do the abortions that will involve organ harvesting as the trainee gets “better” at doing them.

In “cases” that are selected for organ harvesting, no Digoxin or other drug can be used to induce fetal death prior to the abortions. The procedure described by Nucatola is the nationally-banned Partial Birth Abortion method, where a baby is converted to the breech position and brought down with forceps then killed during the birth process.

Dermish told undercover CMP journalists posing as representatives of an organ procurement company that the Austin Planned Parenthood where she works conducts 25-30 abortions per day for ten days per month.

When asked if Dermish was able to provide an intact calvarium (head) for the purpose of harvesting the baby’s brain, she indicated she had not, “But that gives me something to strive for!”

Dermish shared that one of their “POC” workers is “really into organ development.”

“Yeah, she’ll pull out like kidneys and heart – and like heart we frequently see 9 weeks and she always looks for it,” related Dermish.

“Oh, just for fun?” asked the CMP actor.

The Whole Women’s Health abortionist replied, “Well, it’s cute. It is cute.”

Dermish went on, “It’s amazing! I sort of have do much respect for development. It’s just incredible!”

“That’s an appalling thing for an abortionist to say. She has ‘so much respect for development’ yet has no problem cutting short that development in one of the most brutal ways possible,” said Newman. “It’s like the torn remains of babies are just playthings to her. It’s a sick way to view the dismemberment death of defenseless human beings.”

Meanwhile, the Inspector General’s office seized abortion records and other evidence from the Planned Parenthood clinics in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Brownsville. It also served subpoenas demanding “five years of records from a dozen clinics, including patient charts, laboratory tests and clinical notes as well as facility visitor logs, financial information and rosters of the names, credentials, salaries and home addresses of all employees,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

“Texas does have hard evidence showing Medicaid fraud as well as violations of federal and state law concerning abortion procedures,” said Texas Gov. Greg Abbott during an interview with Fox News.

“We have a whistleblower who worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years who has come forward to us and alleges that substantial violations have occurred,” said state Health Inspector General Stuart Bowen, who mentioned that his investigation included several ongoing audits of Planned Parenthood.

“We anticipate that criminal charges will be forthcoming,” said Newman.

Is “In God We Trust” Religious?

October 25, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Or is the phrase—on coins, bills and now police cars—just patriotic?

In a recent blog (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/19/police-in-god-we-trust-first-amendment-column/73891658/?csp=opinion), Ken Paulson (president of the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center, dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors), argues that it’s clearly religious.

A 1970 federal court decided otherwise . . .

“It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character,” the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in Aronow v. United States.

With all due respect to the court, that’s empty-headed. While it “has nothing whatever to do with the establishment of religion, of course it’s religious. God of “In God We Trust” is the Deity, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord. Methinks to declare him just another word for “flag” is not to his liking!

Paulson argues that, since the phrase is religious (despite the court’s ruling), putting it on money and police cars violates the first amendment. Now Mr. Paulson’s credentials far outshine mine (“BA, in Bible”—Wow, that’s impressive!). So dare I say that I think he misunderstands the first amendment? Its pertinent part is here . . .

“The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion.’ This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.”

I agree that police cars plastered with “In God We Trust” implies the government prefers religion over non-religion (unless we make a case that atheism is a “religion”—which, in fact, we can). But I disagree that by the motto the government is establishing “an official religion” or unduly favoring “one religion over another.” Or, to use Mr. Paulson’s words, the “government cannot promote a specific religion.“

To my knowledge (which admittedly is limited), I know of only one major world religion that has no God. Some religions have hundreds.

As I see it (I first tried to take the log out of my eye!), “In God We Trust” is a religious statement that the vast majority of the world’s religions can agree with. And therefore it does not prefer one religion over another. And it’s quite a stretch to argue that the government is preferring religion over non-religion.

Anyway, I’m sure Mr. Paulson will never read this, nor will I have set his academic pot boiling. In fact, unless God works some totally unexpected miracle (he has been known to do such), this post will pass largely unnoticed. But I just had to get it off my chest.

P.S. I’m thinking that if all us folks who sit safely at computers critiquing every little thing had to face life-and-death violence, we too might publicly declare our trust in God!

“Don’t Help Her Die!”

October 8, 2015 / Allan Babcock

God created us in his image. The sanctity of human life stands firm on that theological foundation.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26a.).

The Hebrew word for “man” (adam) is the generic term for mankind, “mankind” including both men and women as the next reference makes clear.

When God created man, he made them in the likeness of God.
Male and female he created them, and he blessed them
and named them Man when they were created (Genesis 5:1b,2)

So we argue that every human life has value and, therefore, even the terminally ill should not be assisted to commit suicide. Who are we to take the life of one created in the image of God? I write that not having a loved one cruelly suffer day after day with no hope of recovery. I know that only in my imagination, not in my experience. Nevertheless, I say, “Don’t help her die!” because her life was created in God’s image and therefore sacred.

Here is a posting from “The Federalist” ( http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/06/my-mom-just-died-of-brain-cancer-heres-why-she-opposed-assisted-suicide/ in which a daughter, Mary Karner, saw her mother slowly die from brain cancer—and still opposed assisted suicide. You’ll find her words compelling—a miracle, really, of the faith and hope and peace and joy only Christ can give.

My Mom Just Died Of Brain Cancer. Here’s Why She Opposed Assisted Suicide

I’ll admit it, I’m an adrenaline junkie. And judging from the plethora of new TV shows like “Trauma: Life in the ER” or “Code Black,” most of America is too. Except that’s my life. I’m a Trauma Nurse. I eat, sleep, and breathe trauma.

Every time I walk into work with a French Vanilla Swirl Latte from Dunkin’ Donuts in my hand, life and death are waiting for me. And up until this week I thought I’d seen just about everything. I’ve performed CPR till I thought my arms would fall off to keep blood pumping through a child’s body. I’ve administered life-saving medication to a patient having a stroke and seen the joy on his face when he regained his speech. I’ve had a patient fall through a ceiling onto another patient (I can’t even make that up.) I’ve held the hand of patients as they’ve taken their last breath, and I’ve hugged family members so tight I couldn’t breathe. I really thought I’d seen it all.

And then last week, my mom died. She had a glioblastoma brain tumor. I knew all about it, even cared for patients with her same diagnosis. I knew what was going to happen. But no matter how much I thought I was ready, I wasn’t. Death stings. And my beautiful, 52-year-old mother’s grave is freshly dug.

But my mom’s name was Dr. Maggie Karner. And she was the textbook definition of awesome. Don’t take my word for it, Google her. She devoted her entire life to helping others and spreading Christ’s beautiful gift of mercy for all. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard my mom speak more passionately then when she was talking about the word “mercy.” And that’s why my mom used her last days on Earth to campaign against a very dangerous use of that word. A “merciful death” some would call it, or a “right to die.”

My mom is most famous for a YouTube video that went viral entitled “A Letter to Brittany Maynard.” In the video my mom pleaded with Brittany, who had the same diagnosis, not to commit assisted suicide. Unfortunately, Brittany eventually chose to end her life, but my mom never stopped advocating for life. In her words, “How long will it be before the right to die quickly devolves into the duty to die? What does this mean for all who are elderly, or disabled, or just wondering if they’ve become a burden to the family?” Even while she was receiving chemotherapy, my mom spoke at the Connecticut state house to lobby against a “right to die” bill. The bill did not pass.

Difficulty Does Not Justify Suicide

That’s why my heart breaks tonight to learn the news that California’s governor has just signed legislation allowing residents of the state to take their own lives in the face of terminal illness. This makes five states in our nation allowing assisted suicide.

Believe me, terminal illness sucks. There is no way to sugar coat that. It stole my mom from me along with so many others. But it also gave me something that I could never begin to describe, the opportunity to serve her. My family and I cared for her when she could no longer care for herself. We were her left arm when hers was paralyzed. And when that became too much, we had the distinct privilege of being able to visit her at her hospice facility during the last month of her life. She was not herself, and many times confused, but she could laugh. Even up until the day before she died. We laughed about seagulls that she thought were drones. We laughed about how much she loved chocolate and McFlurry’s from McDonald’s. We laughed about all the stupid things I did as a kid. And then when she could no longer laugh, we sang to her and we prayed with her.

My mom said it best in an op-ed in the Hartford Courant: “My brain may be cancerous, but I still have lots to contribute to society as a strong woman, wife and mother while my family can daily learn the value of caring for me in my last days with compassion and dignity.”

I’m here to say that she was right. No matter how hard it was and still is. She was so right. And the greatest honor of my life was to care for my mom in her last days. I hope and pray that her legacy will continue to inspire caring American voters to support those choosing to squeeze life for every drop that it has to give. Support hospice and palliative care programs that give true meaning to “death with dignity.” Let those fighting illness and disabilities know that they are precious, no matter what. They should never have to feel for a second that they might have a “duty to die” just because the option is available.

Mary Karner is a Registered Nurse currently working in Connecticut.

Police Cars: “In God We Trust”

October 6, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Police Agencies Defy Critics and Show ‘In God We Trust’

By ALAN BLINDER and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑAOCT. 3, 2015

Sheriff Johnny Moats’s department vehicle in Cedartown, Ga., the seat of Polk County. He bought the “In God We Trust” sticker with his own money after he heard that Missouri sheriffs had begun displaying them. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

CEDARTOWN, Ga. — The chief deputy to Sheriff Johnny Moats of Polk County appeared in an office doorway one morning this month with a message he knew would delight his boss: Another Georgia lawman had heeded Sheriff Moats’s suggestion to add “In God We Trust” decals to official vehicles.

It was a small part of what has emerged as a big moment for the national motto, which has long been cherished by many Christians, criticized by those who say it infringes on the separation of church and state, overlooked by plenty and safeguarded by courts. In recent months, dozens of Southern and Midwestern law enforcement agencies have added the axiom to squad cars, usually to the vexation of vocal, often distant critics, and at the personal expense of sheriffs, police chiefs or rank-and-file employees.

“If it’s on my money and it’s on the state flag, I can put it on a patrol car,” said Sheriff Moats, who wrote to Georgia’s sheriffs this year to promote the motto’s placement on law enforcement vehicles. “Just about every single day, I have another sheriff calling and saying, ‘I’ve done it’ or ‘Can you send me a picture of your patrol car?’ ”

Sheriff Johnny Moats in the Polk County Public Safety Complex, where inmates painted a mural of the Ten Commandments. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

Some officials contend that their display of the motto is elementary patriotism, a four-word way of “standing up for America, standing up for our country,” Sheriff Moats said. Others in law enforcement say the stickers are a response to the battering their profession’s reputation has taken after more than a year of high-profile killings and extraordinary scrutiny.

“With the dark cloud that law enforcement has been under recently, I think that we need to have a human persona on law enforcement,” said Sheriff Brian Duke of Henderson County, Tenn. “It gave us an opportunity to put something on our cars that said: ‘We are you. We’re not the big, bad police.’ ”

But critics worry that displays of “In God We Trust” on taxpayer-funded vehicles cross the threshold of constitutionality, even though the courts have repeatedly brushed aside challenges to the motto, which Congress enshrined in 1956. Explanations like the one Sheriff Duke offered have not curbed those frustrations.

“This motto has nothing to do with the problem of police forces’ shooting people, but it’s a great way to divert attention away from that and wrap yourself in a mantle of piety so that you’re above criticism,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, a co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group that has demanded that law enforcement officials stop exhibiting the motto. “The idea of aligning the police force with God is kind of scary. That’s the first thing you’d expect to see in a theocracy.”

A pattern has developed: A police or sheriff’s department begins using the stickers, and Ms. Gaylor’s group sends it a letter, arguing that the practice is unconstitutional and that the agency should desist. The dispute attracts attention, and more law enforcement agencies join the trend; indeed, some appear to relish the opportunity to tweak a critic.

In Texas, for instance, the police chief of Childress, Adrian Garcia, drew attention when he denied Ms. Gaylor’s request and, in a letter to her posted on the department’s Facebook page, asked “that you and the Freedom From Religion Foundation go fly a kite.”

Ms. Gaylor disputed suggestions that the foundation had unwittingly fostered the spread of the stickers. “I don’t think it has a thing to do with us,” she said.

Protests and warnings from critics like Ms. Gaylor also seem to be of little concern in places like Polk County, a few minutes from the Alabama border, where about 41,000 people live in a rural area dotted with churches, Confederate battle flags and fried chicken restaurants. The small atrium of Sheriff Moats’s building features a pair of murals painted by inmates, including one of the Ten Commandments on tablets that are more than six cinder blocks tall. A painted golden banner reading “In God We Trust” hangs above them.

The idea to add the national motto to patrol cars here, Sheriff Moats said, came after he saw on Facebook that Missouri sheriffs had begun doing so. Sheriff Moats spent $5 of his own money to buy a sticker for his department vehicle, which he said spurred deputies to ask how they might do the same. Within a week, most of the department’s cars had the stickers.

“I don’t know why an atheist is so upset about us putting up ‘In God We Trust,’ ” Sheriff Moats said. “I’m not saying that they trust God. I’m saying that we, as the guys in this department who put this on our cars, we trust in God. And why is that a bad thing? Even if you don’t believe, you know God’s all about good.”

He maintained that the motto’s presence did not signal that his department would discriminate. “You could be a satanic devil worshiper, and as long as you’re a law-abiding citizen and you need help, we’re going to help you,” he said.

There is nothing new about government display of the motto. The United States began stamping “In God We Trust” on some coins during the Civil War, and it has been on all coins since 1938. The words began to appear on paper currency in 1957.

There have been a number of unsuccessful legal challenges to the motto, but the Supreme Court has never addressed it directly. And critics, including Ms. Gaylor, concede that they are unlikely to win a favorable ruling soon.

“The motto is pretty much immunized from constitutional challenge unless you can show really bad intent,” said Steven K. Green, a law professor at Willamette University and former legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The likelihood of success is minimal. The likelihood of creating worse precedent is actually greater.”

So for now, Sheriff Moats said, there is little reason or incentive for him to abandon the stickers. When he stopped at Gran-Gran’s here one afternoon for a lunch of hamburger steak and banana pudding, customer after customer expressed support. One man asked whether Sheriff Moats happened to have with him any of the related “In God We Trust” stickers that have been sold at his office for $2 each. (He did, in his patrol car.)

The sheriff said that he had not yet received a letter from Ms. Gaylor, but that he had considered his response to a missive he knew would surely come.

“I’m just going to politely tell them that, as long as I’m sheriff of Polk County, it will not come off my car,” he said. “If the citizens of this county want it off my car, then they can vote for somebody else, and then maybe that person can take it off.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I “swiped” this from “The New York Times” to applaud these police. Besides those who object to the “flagrant violation” of the (wrongly interpreted) “separation of church and state”, some might object that this promotes a kind of “civil religion”—the old “God is America’s God” thing. But in these days when God is banned from the public square, I don’t think we have to worry about a civil religion!

True, every law enforcement officer who displays this bumper sticker may not be a Christian (God knows)—or maybe each one is—but even a general witness that gets his name before people is a good thing. Remember what Paul wrote: “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry . . . What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:15a,18). These officers aren’t preaching Christ. But they are “advertising” the Father.

So we can rejoice that God’s name is being “preached” on police car bumpers! And we can pray that God uses it to promote greater respect for law enforcement officers and from this that the One in whom we trust receives greater glory!

Saving Christians from ISIS

October 4, 2015 / Allan Babcock

When Isaiah wrote, “they shall mount up with wings like eagles” (40:31), he didn’t have helicopters in mind. But if Chloe Valdary gets her way, Middle East Christians may.

Writing in last Friday’s “Wall Street Journal”, Valdary (a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal) recalled how in 1975 air and sea missions saved tens of thousands of Vietnamese. Eventually they were resettled in the U.S. She advocates the same approach for the persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

Since the rise of . . . ISIS, about 125,000 Christians have fled [Iraq]. After ISIS took [the city of] Mosul in June 2014, the city’s Christians flocked to Erbil, the Kurdish capital. In Syria, once home to nearly two million Christians, at least 500,000 have been displaced during four years of war. It is ISIS policy to kidnap and rape Christian women and girls. The terrorist group has razed Christian sites, including monasteries dating to the fifth century. Last October the ISIS magazine Dabiq referred to Christians as “crusaders” and vowed to kill “every Crusader possible.”

That should remind Western policy makers: Christians are not random victims, caught in the maw of Mideast strife. They are targets of genocide, much like the Jews during World War II. This entitles them to broad protection under the 1951 U.N. Genocide Convention, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

It is also worth noting that because Christians in Iraq and Syria are facing genocide—as opposed to displacement—there is a limited window for rescue. Unlike the thousands of refugees pouring into Europe, who are mostly escaping the violence driven by the sectarian war in Syria, Christians are facing a targeted campaign of annihilation. The U.S. ought to take that into consideration when prioritizing the resettlement of the additional 30,000 refugees the country is slated to absorb over the next two years.

Valdary goes on to note that a California Democrat has introduced in the House of Representatives a bill to require the secretary of state to “report to Congress a plan to expedite the processing of refugee admissions applications” for religious minorities threatened by ISIS. Valdary writes . . .

The bill hasn’t moved in Congress, partly due to inattention but also because the Obama administration seems to want nothing to do with it.

Mark Arabo has founded the Minority Humanitarian foundation, a non-profit whose mission is to get Iraqi Christians out before it is too late. Arabo . . .

. . . is essentially running an underground railroad to help Christians escape. “We are bringing them to America, Australia and France,” he said. “In the U.S. alone, we have identified 70,000 Christians who have been displaced and have matched them with 70,000 people willing to bring them in.” But that depends on the administration’s willingness to allow them to enter.

* * * * *

The scale of suffering in the world staggers my mind—and I see only bits and pieces on TV, the Internet and in print. This suffering is intentional. It’s persecution. Not as in, you might lose your job. But in, you will be killed if we catch you.

These are our brothers and sisters. Their fine points of doctrine may differ from ours. They may worship differently. But many certainly have genuine faith in Jesus. That makes them family. Whatever we believe about end-time theology, this is their Tribulation!

Should I write my representative and ask him to get moving on House Resolution 1568, the “Protecting Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act of 2015”? Should you? One thing I know you and I must do is pray. I’ve become so cynical about the government, and my faith in God’s intervention is sometimes weak. But, if not out of great faith, then out of desperation for our brothers and sisters, I (we) should pray for the Father to save his family from this demonic, antichrist evil sweeping the Middle East.

I know: something else to pray for. It never ends. The list always lengthens. But we are at war and the lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ hang in the balance. May our Father protect them. May he save them from the evil of ISIS. And may he, if he so wills, use even helicopters to “mount [them] up with wings like eagles.”

The “Living” Constitution

September 23, 2015 / Allan Babcock

I’ve written a lot about the State lately. Maybe old age is giving me a long-range perspective I didn’t have earlier. I remember when . . . Never mind, I won’t bore you with reminiscing about how I had to walk to and from school in thigh-high snow drifts with white-out-condition winds fighting me every step of the way.

I suppose most grandfathers worry over the kind of country their grandchildren are growing up in. I’m grateful that “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:15). “All”, then, isn’t ultimately in the hands of politicians or court justices. Still, what they do will profoundly determine what America will be like in years ahead—and the kind of society in which our children will be called to follow Jesus.

Yesterday Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized justices who view the Constitution as “living.” If you think this is “getting into the weeds” stuff, think again. The more justices see the Constitution as “living”, the less we become a nation of laws and the more we become a nation legally led by powerful men and women influenced by popular culture. And that culture is almost never friendly to Christ and his people.

Scalia addresses Constitution, same-sex marriage in speech

By ADRIAN SAINZ

Sep. 22, 2015 11:14 PM EDT

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday criticized judges who believe the Constitution is a “living” document, saying they amount to policy makers who are rewriting it and making moral decisions for the entire country about same-sex marriage and other issues. He also referred to this summer’s same-sex marriage ruling as “extreme.”

Scalia spoke to about 500 people at Rhodes College, where he was invited to deliver the school’s annual Constitution Day lecture. He is the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1986.

In his speech, Scalia distinguished “originalism,” which calls for adherence to the original text and meaning of the Constitution when interpreting it, from the theory of a “living” Constitution, which views the document as one that evolves and changes over time without being amended.

“They’re not adhering to the text, they’re operating as policy makers,” Scalia, an “originalist,” said of believers in a “living” Constitution. “They’re not interpreting the constitution. They’re writing one, they’re revising one.”

Later he added: “What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?” he asked. “It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale law school doesn’t teach that stuff.”

Scalia was among four dissenting justices in the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June that cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry. Scalia said at the time that he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as “this court’s threat to American democracy.”

On Tuesday, he called the same-sex marriage ruling “the furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants.”

“Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that,” he said. “I worry about a Court that’s headed in that direction.”

Scalia also noted that only one sitting Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is from the South: The others are from California, New York and New Jersey. He said believers of a “living” Constitution should be upset by that.

“You should be upset because these people are making a new Constitution and they are terribly unrepresentative of the country,” he said.

Scalia said judges who believe in an ever-changing Constitution are making it more rigid, not more flexible.

“It’s no use talking about abortion anymore. It’s just off the democratic stage,” he said. “No use arguing about it, coast to coast, now and forever, or unless the Supreme Court changes its mind. Is that flexibility?”