[kirkguardian]

Just like every other day of the week, 4000 babies were killed today. Where was the church? Where were the preachers? I'd sure like to know.

Those of us who have been involved in the prolife movement (or for that matter, any other movement that impinges upon moral issues) for any length of time know how frustrating it can be to get churches mobilized in any kind of formal and organized way in defense of the preborn.

The process of mobilizing a church begins, in most cases, with the church's pastor. If the pastor is unsupportive, it's unlikely the church will be supportive. I know from much personal experience that there are thousands of pastors who claim to be prolife, yet they are noticeably nervous when I ask them to work with me in organizing a Life Appreciation Sunday, or join us for the Life Chain, or participate in any active way in defense of the preborn.

When pressed on the matter, the conversation inevitably turns to the pastor's fear of jeopardizing his church's tax-exempt status.

The Rev. D. James Kennedy has stated:

• "The federal government has proved a tremendous impediment to the ongoing work of Christians. In all the laws that they have passed against Christian schools, gagging the church, taxation, and all kinds of things that they have done, they have made it harder for the church to exercise its prerogatives and to preach the gospel.
  
  "Take the last presidential election. There were numbers of things that I knew that I was never able to say from the pulpit because if you advance the cause of one candidate or impede the cause of the other you can lose your tax exemption. That would have been disastrous not only for the church, but for our school and our seminary, everything. So you are gagged. You cannot do that. The IRS, a branch of our government, has succeeded in gagging Christians." (from In Caesar's Grip, by Peter Kershaw)

Dr. Kennedy is right, but he's also blaming the wrong party. The IRS has never required any church to be 501c3.

The IRS' own publications plainly state that all church are "automatically tax-exempt and tax-deductible" without ever having to apply for 501c3 recognition.

Not only is 501c3 status unnecessary for any church, when a church becomes a 501c3 they place themselves under the regulatory control of the IRS, and all the potential threat and intimidation that comes along with it. Why would any thinking pastor want that, when it's not at all necessary? It just doesn't make sense.

Thankfully, there's a remedy. Churches can stop "rendering unto Caesar" those things which belong exclusively to Jesus Christ. For some insight on the issue you might want to check out: http://hushmoney.org

[JimGunther]

I’ve looked at your posts and rather than asking real questions, you are obviously attempting to advance your agenda and persuade others to believe as you do. Despite this, I will attempt to respond as though your statements were really questions to be answered. You are obviously confused with the meanings of some words and have a misunderstanding of some common sense principles on how some things should operate in the real world

First of all, you have some obvious definitional problems. You need to take a look at a dictionary where you will find that, whether you like it or not, there is a difference between the word “baby” and “fetus.” When you say that 4000 are killed each day, you obviously mean “fetus.” Under current law, killing a baby is a homicide and at worst, murder. This is not always so with a fetus.

You are also confused when you state, “Where was the church?” on the issue of abortion. You apparently have never heard of the Catholic Church, which has plenty to say about abortion and will bend over backwards to prevent it to the point of interfering in people’s lives with lawsuits and other measures in an attempt to protect a fetus belonging to a stranger where an abortion is contemplated.

It doesn’t make sense to say “Where was the church?” on this issue because there is no such thing as “the church.” There are many kinds of churches, or more accurately, religions, some not only believe it is OK to kill fetuses, but also to kill those that do not believe in their particular religion. I assume you have heard of Osama Ben Laden and people of his persuasion who rejoiced when the twin towers fell.

If you are involved in the pro-life movement, you are not one who “impinges upon moral issues.” To impinge means to restrict or limit, what you are trying to say is that you are involved in a movement that has an effect on or is involved with moral issues.

It also make so sense to say that “The process of mobilizing a church begins, in most cases, with the church's pastor”, because for one thing, not every church has a pastor (ever heard of a Rabbi?) and the pastor, or other church leader, is bound by the body of law that governs that particular religion. If their beliefs don’t agree with yours, it doesn’t matter what the pastor thinks.

Your quote from Kennedy is most enlightening:

“Take the last presidential election. There were numbers of things that I knew that I was never able to say from the pulpit because if you advance the cause of one candidate or impede the cause of the other you can lose your tax exemption.”

Is it the purpose of a church, particularly a Christian church, to “advance the cause of one candidate or impede the cause of the other?” If you believe that this is the proper thing to do in a Christian church, you have forgotten the story of Jesus casting out the moneychangers, who misused His temple for purposes for which it was not intended.

Christians are told to “Preach the gospel to every living creature” so as to ensure that as many possible can find salvation. This noble cause is not advanced by political discourse in the church and valuable time and resources are wasted in such an effort, possibly losing the souls of some that might have been saved if the resources of the church had been used properly. What a horrible burden for a Christian to bear.

I hope my responses have been of some value to you. I’ll address some of your other posts and issues at a later time.

[labman]

How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg? Four, calling the tail a leg, doesn't make it a leg. How many babies do we kill if we call them a fetus? 4000, using the medical term fetus doesn't change the fact we are killing somebody because we find them inconvenient.

Many Christians are actively fighting abortion. Sadly that does not include many of the leaders of our mainline denominations. I question whether some of the leaders of my PCUSA are even Christians. The church has always been divided on moral questions, always some ignoring the Bible and following the world.

I strongly feel the answer to abortion is in people's hearts, not in legislation or courts. I admire Christians that are reaching out to unwed mothers helping them to continue their pregnancies and then adopt abstinence as a lifestyle.

[JimGunther]

We don't call a tail a leg for the same reason that you shouldn't call a fetus a baby. How many babies do we kill if we call them a fetus? None. Look in the dictionary to find out what those words really mean and don't try to change the definition of words to suit you own purposes.

If you think that we are "killing someone because we find them inconvenient," your view of abortion is too limited and doesn't include situations like the horror that myself and my wife found ourselves in several years ago.

My wife had an infection of her "female parts" and while I will not go into the gory details, it was serious. An antibotic was prescribed and the condition persisted. A stronger antibitoic was prescribed and other measures were taken. During treatment it was discovered that my wife was pregnant and the doctor advised us that the treatment she was receiving had quite likely damaged the fetus. One of the options he suggested was abortion. Making this decision was the most difficult we have faced in our married life and while the ultimate decision myself and my wife made is not for public consumption, I will say that it had nothing to do with inconvience.

If you are going to use things "PCUSA" in these posts you would do well to explain what you are talking about, as I, and certainly others, have no idea.

My friend, it is blatently obvious to me that the answer to many, many problems we see in society is in people's hearts rather than in any public institution or policy. People of bad faith often ignore public policy and
Challenge their victims to do something about it, wasting public funds on court actions and more laws. If their heart was in the right place to start with, more public resources could be directed in more useful directions.

It is obvious to me that killing for convience, whether we use the word "baby" or "fetus" is wrong. On the other hand I would have deeply resented it if any government, religious or other institution or person had attempted to inject their input into the decision myself and my wife faced without our consent.

[alicka]

After reading this thread I couldn't help but reply.
Ur ignorance is blatant, you obvious have a very narrow veiw on the world I was a pentacostal and I'm almost on the con-vert. Go to Korea or china for that matter and try telling them what your trying to get across hear. Stop trying to control the world. Because you can't and never will! Freedom is everyone's right and regardless of bloody what the church thinks. Their veiws and beliefs kept my mother with my father and it kills me because of the influence they put on my mother. Their beliefs can not be applied to every situation. They aren't always right as they think! They are still trying to control the world and make it one big happy place. Well if their was no religion we'd have no conflicts, there'd be no war or racial discrimination. Religion is the root of all evil! All they are trying to do is say 1 is right from the other and that there's was here first. In my eyes the church is so uncivilised they are blinded by their own beliefs, they can't see that soon people will realise that christians, muslims whatever is just a load of c.rap, and that it's a ploy to get control of society in an effort to be more and greater then the other.

>:( pe ad off~

[JimGunther]

You’re the kid who in the Business + Carrers/Workplace Relationships forum advised, “Just smash his face in, violence solves everything” and in the Family+People/Relationships forum asked, “If you love your partner is it worth losing her for a screw?” And you think that my post indicates that I am ignornant and am trying to control the world.

You obviously need to learn some manners and do a lot of growing up. When that happens, I will be glad to debate you on any subject.

[psi42]

If you find out the fetus is gay, then is is OK to flush it?

[labman]

God loves the gays and is ready to accept their repentance just like he does the rest of us sinners, the born and unborn. I won't say if the unborn sin and repent, but God loves and values them.

[speedball1]

Kirk, You said, "Just like every other day of the week, 4000 babies were killed today."
That's terrible! 28,000 babies murdered in a week and Peter Jennings didn't say a word about it on TV. MASSIVE COVERUP BY LIBERALS!! Who would do such a thing? To go into a home or nursery, pull a "widdle Baybee" out of its crib and murder it?
Wait a minute! You wouldn't be talking about abortion would you? Because that's not murder and a fetus is not a baby.
That's just a pro-life term to make a fetus seem more "cuddly" Now let's address what you REALLY want..
You want to take control of a woman's body and make personal medical decisions for her without her consent. You wish to intrude upon a woman's privacy and force your agenda upon her to the point that there is no privacy between her and her doctor.
Fortunately the law won't let you do that. But that doesn't stop you people from trying does it?

[speedball1]

Jim,
" I question whether some of the leaders of my PCUSA are even Christians."
Labman was saying he was beginning to question his Presbyterian Church elders.
PCUSA or PC(USA) = Presbyterian Church USA

Your statement ," If you think that we are "killing someone because we find them inconvenient," your view of abortion is too limited." is right on.

After I retired from plumbing in 1988 I volunteered as a escort at a local clinic. In 1993 when the lifers began to murder doctors and escorts the clinic put me on staff as head of security and chief escort. In the 9 years that followed I found out that no two women had the same reason for choosing abortion. Every story was different. "Lifers" like to say that because they wish to define abortion as unnecessary and just a "convenience". That is simply not so and your case proves my point.

"My wife had an infection of her "female parts" and while I will not go into the gory details, it was serious. An antibotic was prescribed and the condition persisted. A stronger antibitoic was prescribed and other measures were taken. During the course of treatment it was discovered that my wife was pregnant and the doctor advised us that the treatment she was receiving had quite likely damaged the fetus. One of the options he suggested was abortion. Making this decision was the most difficult we have faced in our married life and while the ultimate decision myself and my wife made is not
for public consumption, I will say that it had nothing to do with inconvience."

I hope your wife is recovered and that her medical problems have been
resolved. Regards, Tom