formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing young
people)
May 2, 2014, Vol. 13
No. 2
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 195
Editor, John Dunkle
“Contraception” is Murder, a weak,
pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you yet for
defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or
go to the website. Emails are free but
snail-mail is free only for PFCs, two grand for others.
Because I believe we should examine every
legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from
being tortured to death, I want to hear
from people who’ve been forceful and from those who defend them. I’d also like
to hear from those who oppose the prolife use of force and call it violence.
Prisoners For Christ:
1. Evans, Paul
Ross 83230-180, FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036
2. Griffin,
Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
3. Grady,
Francis 11656-089, USP Allenwood, P.O. Box 3000, White Deer, PA 17887
4. Holt,
Gregory 129616 Varner Supermax, PO
Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600
5. Kopp, James
11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300,
Waymart, PA 18472
6. Roeder,
Scott 65192 PO Box 2, Lansing,
Kansas 66043
7. Rogers,
Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP
Beaumont, PO Box 26030, Beaumont, TX
77720
8. Rudolph,
Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
9. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI
Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca,
MN 56093
10. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP,
P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837
Jim
Kopp asks me to post these excerpts from an address given by Russian Orthodox
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:
Your
holinesses and beatitudes, your eminences and graces, dear brothers and
sisters, esteemed delegates of the assembly,
The World Council of Churches has a long and
rich history. Set up after the Second World War, the Council responded to the
expectations of Christians of various confessions who strove to meet, to get to
know each other and to work together...
The World Council of Churches today remains a
unique instrument of inter-Christian cooperation that has no analogy in the
world. However, the question arises as to how effective this instrument is. We
must note with some regret that, in spite of all of the efforts aimed at
bringing Christians of various confessions closer to each other, within
Christendom not only are the divisions of the past not disappearing, but new
ones are arising.
The contemporary situation demands from us
more decisive action, greater cohesion and more dynamism. And yet it also
demands a re-orientation of the basic direction of our work, a change in
priorities in our discussions and deeds. While we continue to discuss our
differences in the comfortable atmosphere of conferences and theological
dialogues, the question resounds ever more resolutely: Will Christian
civilization survive at all?
In my address 1 would like to focus on two
fundamental challenges which the Christian world today faces in varying
degrees. The first is that of the militant secularism which is gathering
strength in the so-called developed countries, primarily in Europe and America.
The second is that of radical Islamism that poses a threat to the very
existence of Christianity in a number of regions of the world, mainly in the
Middle East, but also in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Militant secularism in Europe has a long history,
going back to the period of the French Revolution. But it is only in the 20th
century in the countries of the so-called socialist bloc that godlessness was
elevated to the level of state ideology. As regards the so-called capitalist
countries, they preserved to a significant degree the Christian traditions
which shaped their cultural and moral identity.
Today these two worlds appear to have changed
roles.
In the countries of the former Soviet Union,
in particular in Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Moldavia, an unprecedented
religious revival is underway. In the Russian Orthodox Church over the past 25
years there have been built or restored from ruins more than 25,000 churches.
This means that a thousand churches a year have been opened, i.e., three
churches a day. More than 50 theological institutes and 800 monasteries, each
filled with monks and nuns, have been opened.
In Western European countries we can observe
the steady decline of the numbers of parishioners, a crisis in vocations, and
monasteries and churches being closed. The anti-Christian rhetoric of many
politicians and statesmen becomes all the more open as they call for the total
expulsion of religion from public life and the rejection of the basic moral
norms common to all religious traditions.
The battle between the religious and secular
worldview is raging today in academic auditoriums and on the pages of
newspapers. And the subject of the conflict is far from being exhausted by the
question of belief or lack of belief in God. Today this clash has entered a new
dimension and touches upon the fundamental aspects of the everyday life of the
human person.
One of the main directions of its activity
today is the straightforward destruction of traditional notions of marriage and
the family. This is witnessed by the new phenomenon of equating homosexual
unions with marriage and allowing single-sex couples to adopt children. From
the point of view of biblical teaching and traditional Christian moral values,
this testifies to a profound spiritual crisis. The religious understanding of
sin has been conclusively eroded in societies that until recently thought of
themselves as Christian. Particularly alarming is the fact that we are dealing
in this instance not only with a choice of ethics and worldview. Under the
pretext of combating discrimination, a number of countries have introduced
changes in family legislation. Over the past few years single-sex cohabitation
has been legalized in a number of states in the USA, a number of Latin American
countries and in New Zealand. This year homosexual unions have attained the
legal status of "marriage" in England and Wales and in France.
We have to
state clearly that those countries that have recognized in law homosexual
unions as one of the forms of marriage are taking a serious step towards the
destruction of the very concept of marriage and the family. And this is
happening in a situation where in many historically Christian countries the
traditional family is enduring a serious crisis: the number of divorces is
growing, the birthrate is declining catastrophically, the culture of a family
upbringing is degraded, not to mention the prevalence of sexual relations
outside of marriage, the increase in the number of abortions and the increase
of children brought up without parents, even if those parents are still alive.
Instead of encouraging by all means possible
traditional family values and supporting childbirth not only materially but
also spiritually, the justification of the legitimacy of "single-sex
families" who bring up children has become the center of public attention.
As a result, the traditional social roles are eroded and swapped around. The
notion of parents, i.e., of the father and the mother, of what is male
and what is female, is radically altered. The female mother is losing her
time-honored role as guardian of the domestic hearth, while the male father is
losing his role as educator of his children in being socially responsible. The
family in its Christian understanding is falling apart to be replaced by such
impersonal terms as "parent number one" and "parent number
two."
All of this cannot but have the most disastrous
consequences for the upbringing of children. Children who are brought up in
families with "two fathers" or "two mothers" will already
have views on social and ethical values different from their contemporaries
from traditional families.
One of the direct consequences of the radical
reinterpretation of the concept of marriage is the serious demographic crisis
which will only grow if these approaches are adhered to. Those politicians who
are pushing the countries of the civilized world into the demographic abyss
are in essence pronouncing upon their peoples a death sentence.
What is to be the response of the Christian
Churches? I believe deeply that this response can be none other than that which
is based on Divine Revelation as handed down to us in the Bible. Scripture is
the common foundation which unites all Christian confessions. We may have significant
differences in the interpretation of Scripture, but we all possess the same
Bible and its moral teaching is laid out quite unambiguously. Of course, we
differ in the interpretation of certain biblical texts when they allow for a
varied interpretation. Yet much in the Bible is stated quite unambiguously,
namely that which proceeds from the mouth of God and retains its relevance for
all subsequent ages. Among these divine sayings are many moral commandments,
including those which concern family ethics.
In speaking out against all forms of
discrimination, the Church nonetheless must vindicate the traditional Christian
understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman, the most important
mission of which is the birth and upbringing of children. It is precisely this
understanding of marriage that we find on the pages of the Bible in the story
of the first human family. This same understanding of marriage we also find in
the Gospels and the apostolic epistles. The Bible does not know of any
alternative forms of marriage...
Unfortunately, not all Christian Churches
today find within themselves the courage and resolve to vindicate the biblical
ideals by going against that which is fashionable and the prevalent secular
outlook. Some Christian communities have long ago embarked on a revision of
moral teaching aimed at making it more in step with modern tendencies.
It is often said that the differences in
theological and ethical problems are linked to the division of Christians into
conservatives and liberals. One cannot but agree with this when we see how in a
number of Christian communities a headlong liberalization is occurring in
religious ethics, as a rule under the influence of processes taking place in
secular society. At the same time the witness of the Orthodox Churches should
not be reduced to that of conservatism. The faith of the Ancient Church which
we Orthodox confess is impossible to define from the standpoint of
conservatism and liberalism. We confess Christ's truth which is immutable, for
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever" (Heb.
3:8).
We are not speaking about conservatism but of
fidelity to Divine Revelation which is contained in Scripture. And if the so-called liberal Christian
Churches reject the traditional Christian understanding of moral norms, then
this means that we are running up against a serious problem in our common
Christian witness. Are we able to bear this witness if we are so deeply divided
in questions of moral teaching, which are as important for salvation as dogma?
In this regard, I would like to speak about
the Church's prophetic vocation. I recall the words of Fr. Alexander Schmemann
who said that a prophet is far from being someone who foretells the future. In
reminding us of the profound meaning of prophecy, Schmemann wrote: "The
essence of prophecy is in the gift of proclaiming to people God's will, which
is hidden from human sight but revealed to the spiritual vision of the
prophet" (Schmemann, The Celebration of Faith, Vol. 1: I Believe..., p.
112).
We often speak of the prophetic voice of the
Churches, yet does our voice actually differ much from the voice and rhetoric
of the secular mass media and non-governmental organizations? Is not one of the
most important tasks of the WCC to discern the will of God in the modern-day
historical setting and proclaim it to the world? This message, of course, would
be hard to swallow for the powerful of this world. However, in refusing to
proclaim it, we betray our vocation and in the final run we betray Christ...
One of the important directions of the WCC's
work is interreligious dialogue. I believe that we ought to pay more attention
to the development of a deep and interested mutual interaction with traditional
religions, especially with Islam.
Keep
this ‘cause Jimbo takes off on it next issue.
______________________
---------------------------------
War Party Oligarch
By
Patrick J. Buchanan
Is the
Republican Party's Middle East policy up for bid?
For four days ending Sunday, March 30, a
quartet of presidential hopefuls trooped to Las Vegas to attend the annual
gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Impresario: Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau
casino mogul whose fortune is estimated at $39 billion — eighth richest man on
the planet — and who dumped $92 million into the election of 2012.
Adelson kept Newt Gingrich alive with a $ 15
million infusion of ad money, gutting Romney, and then sank $30 million into
Mitt's campaign.
This time Sheldon wants to buy himself a
winner.
Ari Fleischer, press secretary to Bush 43,
and a member of Adelson's RJC fiefdom, put it plain and simple: "The
'Sheldon Primary' is an important primary....Anybody running for the Republican
nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side."
One such man is Jeb Bush, son and brother to
presidents, who was the prize bull at Sheldon's cattle show. Daniel Ruth of The
Tampa Bay Times speculates on Jeb's motive in showing up:
"Would you slink into Las Vegas to
schmooze gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson who regards GOP presidential nominees
as if they were trophy heads mounted in his den, if you had no interest in the
White House? Bush is not going to Vegas to catch Meat Loaf's act at Planet
Hollywood."
The 2016 presidential hopefuls "are
falling at his feet," said a veteran Republican strategist of the
80-year-old oligarch. Each of those who came — Bush, Chris Christie, and
Governors Scott Walker and John Kasich — apparently auditioned, one by one,
before the godfather.
In 2016, says Adelson's top political
adviser Andy Abboud, Sheldon's "bar for support is going to be much
higher.. . . There's going to be a lot more scrutiny."
Guess that means no more Newts.
Victor Chaltiel, a major donor and Adelson
friend who sits on the board of Las Vegas Sands, tells us Sheldon "doesn't
want a crazy extremist to be the nominee." Adds Shawn Steel, a big
California GOP money man, Sheldon is a "very rational guy."
Perhaps. But last fall at Yeshiva University,
this "very rational guy" gave this response to a question from Rabbi
Shmuley Boteach on whether he supports U.S. negotiations on Iran's nuclear
program:
"No. What do you mean support
negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is,
'Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something'. ... You
pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, 'OK let
it go.'
"So, there's an atomic weapon, goes over
ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn't hurt a soul. Maybe a
couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.
"And then you say, 'See! The next one is
in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go
ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.
" 'You want to be peaceful. Just reverse
it all, and we will guarantee that you can have a nuclear power plant for
electricity purposes, energy purposes'."
Adelson's response was recorded by Philip
Weiss of Mondoweiss web site who was at Yeshiva and filmed the interview. Weiss
says the audience cheered Adelson's proposed nuclear strike on Iran and no one
on the stage, not Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, peeped a
word of dissent.
And this is a "very rational guy,"
who doesn't want "a crazy extremist to be the nominee"?
This is someone Republican presidential
candidates must appease, if they don't want tens of millions in attack ads run
against them?
This is someone the Republican presidential
hopefuls must hearken to now?
Again, so it would seem.
During his talk before the few dozen members
of the RJC, Gov. Chris Christie recounted his recent trip to Israel: "I
took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories" and came "to
understand the military risk that Israel faces every day."
Christie's effort at bonding boo-meranged. An
angry Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America confronted Christie
to demand that he explain just what he meant by "occupied
territories."
For half a century, the United States has
considered the West Bank occupied land where Israeli settlements are illegal
under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Whatever Christie's response, it did not
satisfy the ZOA or Klein who declared: "Either [Christie] doesn't
understand the issue, or he's hostile to Israel."
Whereupon Christie, in a private audience
with Adelson, apologized.
A source close to Adelson told Politico that
Christie made clear "that he misspoke when he referred to the 'occupied
territories.' And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed
supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a
result of the misstatement."
The governor is a tough guy, but this sounds
like groveling.
Is this what Republican presidential
candidates must do now?
Kowtow to this fattest of fat cats who wants
to buy himself an American war on Iran?
Is that what has become of the party of
Reagan?
Christians
and Jews face a dilemma: vote for a Republican who will try to eliminate
Israel’s enemies, or vote for a Democrat who will try to eliminate legal
abortion’s enemies.
Chief
among the anti-lifers is Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would try to do
both. An article about her in the April
17 New York Times says
“people
who worked with her say, [she] would be instinctively less reluctant than Mr.
Obama to commit the military to foreign conflicts.”
See Buchanan above. “Commit the
military to foreign conflicts” means fighting the Israelis wars for them. It means obeying the bully boys who want “the
gun” to solve every problem.
Here’s how fattest cat Israelophile Sheldon Adelson threatens his
enemies, “The next one [exploding atomic weapon] is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want
to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position . . .”
Notice
that “the next one” comes from Nebraska.
_________________________
--------------------------------------
The
Untold Story of How El Salvador Passed a
Total Ban on Abortion
It took a national prayer campaign and a
miraculous turning of hearts in politics.
It is totally illegal for a mother to abort
her child in El Salvador, the smallest country in Central America. But the
amazing story about how a country with a name meaning "savior" came
to constitutionally protect its unborn children from conception-despite ongoing
massive international pressure to the contrary-remains practically unknown.
"It was a miracle," said Julia
Cardenal, president of Sí a la Vida of San Salvador, to attendees at
Campaign Life Coalition's national pro-life conference last weekend in Toronto.
Cardenal related to about 200 attendees how
underdeveloped countries like El Salvador depend on foreign aid to help improve
the country. But she said that such aid usually comes with "reproductive
rights" strings attached.
She remembers one cabinet minister saying
after returning from a foreign assistance meeting in Europe: "All these
people want to do is talk about abortion."
"If you go to the international conferences
of the United Nations, it's incredible how in every treaty they want to put
[in] abortion," she said.
In 1998, a massive pro-life effort resulted
in El Salvador removing from its 1973 penal code exceptions that permitted
abortion, including to save the mother's life, and in cases of rape and serious
congenital disorder. Abortion was now illegal, but the victory was tenuous.
Pro-lifers feared foreign aid groups would
too easily woo the country into signing onto a treaty that would override the
penal code and effectively bring back abortion. They knew the only way to
guarantee protection for the unborn was a constitutional amendment that no
treaty could override.
Cardenal and her group began a national
campaign for a constitutional amendment that would "defend the right to
life from conception."
They passed the first hurdle when about half
of the country's legislators voted for the amendment. But for the amendment to
be enshrined in the constitution, it had to be ratified by a two-thirds majority
in the next parliamentary period.
But then an election was called and a
significant number of pro-life legislators lost their seats to socialists.
Pro-lifers felt sure the amendment was doomed.
"We thought it was going to be
impossible to get it, but we said we have to try. We have to do our best,"
said Cardenal.
Pro-lifers immediately ramped-up their
efforts, calling for a national prayer campaign. The spiritual battle reached
its height during the last three days of the legislative period for that
year...
What happened next shocked everyone.
"When the time came for the vote, the
first one who spoke was a socialist woman who said: 'I'm going to give my vote
as a woman and as a medical doctor for the constitutional amendment."
"After that, there was no vote against
it," said Cardenal to applause.
"We
could not believe [it]. It was a miracle."
_________________________
--------------------------------------
In the
last issue I included part of an article about the dwindling number of
auschwitzes in Montana. A reader said I should have included the whole
article. Here’s the omitted begriming:
Abortion
Desert
Taking a page from liberal
activists concerned with "food deserts" in America s inner cities, it
seems abortion rights absolutists are taking a rhetorical test drive with the
arid metaphor for areas lacking many abortion clinics.
"There is a nearly 1,200-mile-wide desert
of abortion providers stretching from the western boarder of Idaho to the
eastern boarders of North and South Dakota," the Daily Beast’s Robin Marty
whines in her April 14 story, "America’s Abortion-Free Zone Grows."
“Montana used to be an oasis in that abortion
desert, with four clinics in four different cities offering both surgical and
medication abortion options, but not anymore.”
Susan Cahill, a physician’s assistant,
provided abortions in Montana for decades, through fire-bombings and lawsuits,
but is now no longer practicing. After learning that the building that housed
her clinic had been bought and her lease was not being renewed, Cahill moved to
a new building this February. Three weeks later, that new clinic was broken
into and vandalized beyond repair. (tbc)
______________________
----------------------------------
\
For back issues of this newsletter go to
skyp1.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------
To send money to the federal Prisoners, those
with eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the
Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947-0001.
Ask the non-feds how they may receive money –
check, money order, etc. It varies by state.
---------------------------------------------
Receipt of this excellent missive
notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future,
simply advise me.
