36 Years After Roe v. Wade: Is It Time to Move On?

Russell Moore discusses the stance of the pro-life movement in the face of very likely major setbacks courtesy of the Obama administration: 36 Years After Roe v. Wade: Is It Time to Move On?

Did you know that FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act), the legislation Obama has promised to sign into law, would remove the right of physicians and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions (freedom of conscience). "Freedom" of "choice", apparently, would not apply to healthcare professionals and the health care industry.

Fight FOCA

Obama avoids divisive stands

I am offended by the slant and tone of this article: Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

To be fair, the reporter has received criticism in the past for appearing to side with John McCain in this article: Analysis: Obama Chose Winning Over His Word.

The Future of the Prolife Movement

This is an excellent discussion of the future of the prolife movement now that Barack Obama is about to be President. From NPR's Talk of the Nation, Thursday, January 15, 2009:
http://public.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/totn/2009/01/20090115_totn_01.mp3

The guests are Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, Jay Sekulow, from the American Center for Law and Justice, and a catholic priest. I especially appreciated Terry's frank and honest discussion of the issue (for instance, matter-of-factly referring to abortion as "child killing." I thought that Sekulow also argued fairly well, and the priest made a couple good points, too.

According to Wikipedia, Randall Terry is a womanizer and worse. I know nothing about this, I do not know whether or not any of it is true, and I certainly would not endorse that kind of behavior. His comments on this program on the issue of abortion were excellent.

(PS. I have no idea if anyone reads my blog. If you do, please let me know. I am considering posting more often, but don't want to waste too much of my time for a completely imaginary audience.)

This made me smile

Click here if you have 16 1/2 minutes and would appreciate a pick-me-up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbk980jV7Ao

Making Lemonade

What a great way to make the best of a bad situation! Read how a radio station network found a way to spread Obama's wealth around--for life! Read about it here.

Is Tolerance Racist?

Agree or Disagree? - American/Western tolerance is at least somewhat racist

I don't have time to gather articles and statistics to back this up, but I have a hypothesis that so-called "tolerance" is racist.

Here's my reasoning:

"Tolerant" people tend to be intolerant of orthodox Christianity, which says Jesus is the only way to God.

These same people seem to want to offer concessions and special status to Muslims, making allowances for their religious practices and even their religious legal code.

Islam is at least as exclusive as Christianity, and if embraced on a large scale in the West would much more certainly result in the destruction of the rights and freedoms so dear to "tolerant" people.

So, why are the tolerant intolerant of Christianity, but more tolerant of Islam? Here's my guess:

They think Christians should be smart enough to know better. On the other hand, they think Muslims can't help their ignorance.

That sounds like racism to me (I know both Christianity and Islam cross racial borders, but I can't think of a better term for it).

What do you think?

I have some other possible explanations in mind, too, but what do you think?