Q: When is a door not a door?
Let's suppose that a secular, non-religious group, is formed for the purpose of protecting equal rights of the citizens of the United States of America regardless of religious beliefs. Now, the purpose of this group would be to make sure that no one religion's beliefs were forced upon a person of a different religious belief.
For example, suppose that religion "X" believes that everyone must remain silent on Tuesday morning, and that no talking is permitted, and if a person were to even listen to another person talking, it is a punishable offense. Well, if this religion "X" had a majority in the U.S. population, then we might end up with laws that forbid any telemarketers from making sales calls on Tuesday morning. You might think that people of this religion "X" would simply not answer the phone, but let's say they make excuses, such as they wouldn't know if it was an emergency except by listening to their answering machine screening the calls, or that they consider the actual ringing of the phone as someone speaking to them . . . whatever.
My point is, that in the U.S. it would certainly be within reason to form a "watchdog group" that made sure that one religion's beliefs were not imposed upon another's.
For the record, let me assure you that we know that such a watchdog group would never spring from a Christian group, as a Christian group would never have as an objective to try to keep citizens from being exposed to Christian beliefs, after all, Christians hold dear to the Great Commission which mandates that every Christian preach the Gospel loud and clear to everyone. Thus, to a Christian American, respecting the religious rights of others is valid, but efforts to restrict preaching the Gospel would never come from a Christian group.
You may ask, where am I going with this discussion? Well, today was the first day that I read material directly from the website of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
Now, being an open-minded person that I am (well at least I can act like one), I'd like to take this RCRC at face value and accept them for what they claim to be: An organization interested in women's issues of reproductive choice and protection from laws that would harm women, or restrict their free practice of their religious and/or moral beliefs. As best I can tell, this is what the organization wants to portray to the public.
Now, if the above statement is the true objective of this organization, then you would see RCRC working toward greater opportunities for adult women to choose physicians, to choose means of education on prenatal care, to choose birthing methods, to choose involvement in pregnancy by family and friends, to choose methods of birth control, to choose means of fertility treatments, to choose paternal legal assistance with respect to the father, and on and on, and then at the bottom of the list, you'd find a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Why would I expect abortion to be at the bottom of the list of an organization all about women's issues of reproductive choice? Obviously, because abortion is really NOT about reproduction, it's about negating reproduction, so it's like a "side issue" rather than an issue at the heart of the matter.
OK, as you've guessed, I've set up this RCRC in such a way to demonstrate the utter dishonesty in their entire approach to their purpose.
Read their mission statement: [my comments are in brackets]
"We are pro-choice because of our faith"Read more objectives of RCRC:
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice works to ensure reproductive choice through the moral power of religious communities. The Coalition seeks to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in the poverty, and other underserved populations. [This is pure baloney, as they show no evidence of this politically correct objective.]Reproductive choice when it comes down to a woman and her unborn child can mean many things: It can mean the choice of how to have the baby, where to have the baby, and for problem pregnancies such as rape and incest and women who will be unable to care properly for their baby there's adoption services, and in the U.S. there's also abortion services to kill your unwanted baby--it's the mother's choice.
However, this organization provides ZERO choice to pregnant women. This organization stands for only one thing: ABORTION. There is not one single other "choice" on this website anywhere.
Look at this position on the RU-486 abortion pill from the RCRC website:
FDA Approval of Mifepristone a Moral Victory; Restrictions,
continuing threats must be monitored
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice stands unconditionally for a woman's right to choose according to her faith, conscience and personal circumstances and without government interference, as a principle of religious freedom as well as reproductive autonomy. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) long-overdue approval of mifepristone for early medical abortion (September 28, 2000) offers American women another option in their continuing struggle to make personal decisions about abortion according to their conscience.How could the RCRC position be any more blatantly in favor of increasing the frequency of abortion? Look at the above highlighted text: improved access; abortion to be mainstreamed! This is horrific! How could I be any more emphatic about the definitive objective of this organization: To kill children!
So here are the choices that the RCRC is trying to protect for women from those bad guys (devout Christians): In the privacy of her own home, a woman can choose to 1) use the RU-486 to kill her child, or 2) . . . well, I guess there's no other choice is there?!
There is simply no way that any Christian organization could support this RCRC given this clear statement above.
Yet, guess which mainline protestant denomination supports the RCRC? Of course, who else, the United Methodist Church via it's boards and agencies.
Why in the world is this organization so bent on killing unborn babies? Only one answer: They're evil!
Have the leaders of the UMC gone blind?! Don't they see that from the Christian point of view that this organization is the epitome of evil?!
Read that mushy language in the Social Principles on abortion, ya, I know it speaks on both sides of the issue to such an extreme that it ends up saying next to nothing. However, it is at least clear what it doesn't say: It doesn't call for abortion to be mainstream.
Just in case you would like proof that every UMC member is supporting the RCRC through apportionment dollars, you can see on the RCRC website that the UMC is an "affiliated denomination," and while you're at it, look at all the other organizations that the RCRC is associated with. It looks like a veritable who's who of abortionists, including Planned Parenthood. For more information on Planned Parenthood, see this previous article, and for the latest method that abortionists use to kill children, read this article, and for a means to make abortions less painful to the unborn child, read this article.
Here's a rundown of articles from the United Methodist News Service to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that every member of the UMC is supporting the RCRC by simply being a member.
The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, pastor of Fellowship Baptist Church, Washington, has been named executive director of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an organization that includes the United Methodist Board of Church and Society and Board of Global Ministries Women's Division among more than 30 ecumenical groups.
Joretta Purdue Feb. 26, 1997
[We certainly wouldn't want anybody to not be happy, so if killing a baby makes them happy, well then, let's rejoice as they do it!]
Lawson, keynote speaker at a convocation of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice held in conjunction with the Pro-Choice Public Education Project, accused the country of continuing to oppress women.
[This guy is certainly a patriot, isn't he?]
Lawson himself was jailed more than once. A pacifist and a three-year missionary in India, he is credited with organizing the desegregation of Nashville, Tenn., through civil disobedience and teaching the passive technique to Freedom Riders.
[This is simply a bald-faced lie--he should have to substantiate such hateful accusations]
"We should demand a public policy that ... provides a guaranteed living wage for every family in the nation," Lawson said. "Over half of the poor people in our society are people who work."
[I suppose that one of his preferred types of classes on human sexuality would be the one at Tufts University.]
"The best ethical decisions are made with full freedom," [said Rev. Ignacio Castuera, minister of the North Glendale [Calif.] United Methodist Church]. That freedom to make decisions is what he wants for all women, now and in the future, including his three daughters, he added.
[lies, lies, lies]
"Where there is general apathy and cynicism about the political process, the zealots rule the day," Castuera said, adding "That's part of the reason we have the kind of Congress that we have."
[I guess that members of the UMC can be proud that through their support of the RCRC, the U.S. government was convinced that more unborn children should be killed.]
World population more than doubled between 1950 and 1990 and is expected to continue growing.[Well, the abortionists should take great pride in reducing the population of the United States by almost 40,000,000 people since 1973--yes, they killed them! The numbers from the holocaust tragedy pale in comparison to this figure.]
Speaking of the United Methodist News Service, which is funded by every member of the UMC through apportionments, below is the most blatant propoganda I've ever seen published by the UMC on the subject of abortion. These statements are certainly misleading, and arguably, outright lies. Tell me if this makes you proud to be a Christian in the UMC.
May 21, 1998
WASHINGTON (UMNS) - Clergy members strongly favor reproductive choice, according to a new survey by a pro-choice interfaith group.So, who else supports the RCRC? They're all listed on the RCRC website. There is no question as to the purpose of this organization. Look down the list of the RCRC supporters. Here are just a very few:
Alan Guttmacher Institute (read about its abortion-only purpose in another article)
Even if you don't know anything about these organizations, just look at their names: Abortion Access Project, Abortion Clinics Online, Abortion Rights Activist, Feminist Majority Foundation, Feminist Women's Health Center, National Abortion Federation, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, National Coalition of Abortion Providers, National Organization for Women (NOW) . . . .
The list goes on and on, but not one single adoption clinic is listed. So, where's the choice?!
Let's just face facts. The RCRC is a complete misnomer. It's NOT about religion (it's about politics), it's not about reproduction (it's about killing), it's not about choice (it's about abortion). This organization should be called Non-Judeo/Christians for Abortion and Political Action.
By the way, did you know that the original name of this organization was Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights RCAR? What's in a name? Refer to an earlier article on the use of language in order to manipulate perception.
So you see, they changed their name to exchange the word abortion, for the word choice, but like they say, a leopard can't change his spots, and this organization, as demonstrated above, is 100% about abortion NOT choice!
At the end of 1993, RCAR moved to larger quarters in Washington, leaving space it rented in the United Methodist Building. At the same time, the organization changed its name to Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.Click here to read a chronology of the highlights of the UMC and abortion.
Click here to see how the RCRC advocates readers to write letters to the editor during the election season.
Click here to see that the RCRC wants you to vote for Al Gore in order to make sure that future U.S. Supreme Court justices can pass a litmus test in favor of abortion.
Click here to see a primer in which the RCRC tells you how to invite friends to your home to convince them to support abortion (suggests refreshments, comfortable seating, etc.).
Who do you think is their target in all this propaganda? Isn't it obvious? It for all the "turn the other cheek" Christians who will also turn a blind eye to the evil of infanticide. Yes, these abortionists want Christians to go out and demonstrate to the worldly people that Christians are all about abortion. Can it be refuted that this RCRC is the work of Satan? Help me out, where does it say in the Bible that Christians should succumb to the evils of the world and be tolerant of the dastardly deeds of the worldly? It doesn't! The Bible tells Christians to be a beacon unto the world to show the direction to righteousness, not to be the grease on a slippery slide to Hell!
Isn't this just about the last straw? Isn't the support of the RCRC by the United Methodist Church and your apportionment dollars just about all you can take? I challenge every reader (who has made it through this entire dissertation-- congratulations!) to get up and take a stand. Find the E-mail and/or snail-mail address for your pastor and/or for your bishop from this list and write them right now and tell them that you're beside yourself with righteous anger and you're not going to take it anymore. Write to them that the UMC endorsement of the RCRC must go! A choice is one thing that some people may want to debate, but the outright advocacy of abortion for abortion sake just can't be tolerated in a Christian church!
[Click] button If you would like to add your to the UCM Article
<Back to News