Syte Reitz

.

.

.

As is often the case, a Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ) article sent me on an interesting thought trajectory last week.

In a New Years Day 2011 article, WSJ author Chris Rickert wrote, “I approached a handful of more-or-less randomly chosen (Madison) people who aren’t exactly celebrities (but aren’t exactly unknown either) about coming up with resolutions for Madison.”

The Greek word "atheoi" αθεοι ("those who are without god") as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12, on early 3rd-century Papyrus"

When thus approached, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) atheist Annie Laurie Gaylor suggested the following resolution for Madison: “just say no to the (St. Paul’s Catholic Student) Center‘s unreasonable demand for a tax-free, 14-story dormitory and religious addition.”  Apparently this Madison atheist’s primary concern for 2011 seemed to be preventing the replacement of UW Madison’s Catholic student headquarters. (!)

Questions immediately came to mind:

St. Paul's from 1909

• Why would opposition to the Catholic Student center be so high on an atheist organization’s priority list?   (The replacement will be funded by private donations, and replaces an existing Catholic Student center, which has been in existence at that location since 1909.)
• Why is MY Catholic religion being singled out by the atheists?  (The atheist’s objections did not include other campus religious groups or buildings, or their tax-exempt status.)
• Isn’t the atheist being inconsistent? Isn’t atheism a religion as well?  Aren’t atheists simply opposing OTHER people’s religions in preference to their own? Why would they particularly single out Catholicism?

Searching the UW Madison student organization website, atheists came up as the second listing under RELIGIOUS student organizations– Atheists, Humanists & Agnostics @ UW-Madison. So atheism is listed as a religion at UW, along with Catholic student groups, Muslim student groups, and others.

If the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is so opposed to religion, what are they specifically opposed to?

According to dictionary.com, religion is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

• Is FFRF opposed to exploring the cause, nature and purpose of the universe?
• Does FFRF deny the right of others to believe in a superhuman agency (as 80% of Madison and 80% of America does)?
• Is FFRF opposed to a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs?
• Are atheists not contradicting themselves, since they also adhere to a system of beliefs and are listed under UW Madison religious organizations?

My curiosity piqued, I visited the Freedom From Religion Foundation(FFRF) website  “about” page, where I found the statement:

“The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.”

Abraham Lincoln

Hmmm….according to FFRF, so much for considering contributions to Western civilization by Jesus Christ, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Johann Sebastian Bach, Michelangelo, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, G.K. Chesterton, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Clarence Thomas, Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa………?

The FFRF “about” page goes on to claim ownership of prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, abolition of capital punishment, the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, and more, for people who are “free of” religion.

Johnny Cash

A brief historical tour of these topics does not support FFRF’s claims—no one group had a monopoly on reform in these areas, and numerous religious people were involved, including famous names like Abraham Lincoln and Johnny Cash.

.

A visit to Wikipedia’s entry on FFRF indicates that FFRF maintained a sign in the Wisconsin State Capitol during the Christmas season, which reads:

FFRF sign at Wisconsin Capitol

.

“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds.”

-A disturbingly intolerant statement about many religions, particularly for a city like Madison, which prides itself on its University, its intellectualism and its tolerance!

Consider a simple substitution in the last sentence of the sign:                                    “Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” instead of  “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens the heart and enslaves minds.”

How would FFRF tolerate the exhibition of that in the State Capitol on a gold sign for children to view?

The first line of the FFRF verse is also inconsistent with FFRF’s supposed mission; Winter Solstice, capitalized, refers to pagan celebrations, which are religious.  Is FFRF promoting pagan holidays, while opposing Christian ones like Christmas?  Hardly sounds like freedom from religion.

The FFRF Christmas season sign is an inconsistent curiosity at best, and surely would not be appreciated by 80% of Madison, who are Christian, when they bring their children to see the Christmas tree at the Capitol each year!

How many atheists are there, anyway? Wikipedia claims 2.5% of the world’s population, 2% of the U.S. population.

And of these, how many are so militant that they cannot tolerate a Christmas tree or a “Merry Christmas” wish?  The couple of atheists/agnostics I know have no problem with Christmas, and they participate in Christmas celebrations and Christmas giving with enthusiasm.  They are quite tolerant of the Christian majority in America, and enjoy the spirit of the occasion.  So what percentage of Americans does the FFRF really represent?  It is certainly lower than the total of all atheists, 2%.  The FFRF website lists their North American membership of 15,500, which is 0.003 of 1% of the population, or one in 33 thousand people.

City-data.com demographics list Madison as 53% Catholic, 22% Evangelical Lutheran, and only 10% of the population outside of Christian denominations.

So as we delve further into the facts, we discover that in the City of Madison, which is 53% Catholic and 80% Christian, and in the State of Wisconsin, which is 29% Catholic and 80% Christian, the insignificant number of militant atheists want to prevent Catholic students from replacing their Catholic student center at their own cost when membership swells.

Catholic students in front of St. Paul's

Perhaps it is the tax-deductible status of the Catholic Student Center that offends FFRF?  The Catholic student center is located between its brethren structures, Calvary Lutheran Student Center, and Pres House, the Presbyterian Student Center.  All three are religious institutions and all three are tax-exempt.  The FFRF is also tax exempt, and the UW Madison atheist student organization (listed under Religious Student Organizations) is tax exempt. So tax exemption cannot be the problem.

Does FFRF think that UW or the City of Madison will be paying for the new structure?

FFRF’s Annie Julie Gaylor stated:“(St. Paul’s Catholic Student) Center’s unreasonable demand for a tax-free, 14-story dormitory and religious addition.” — but St. Paul’s Catholic Center is not demanding anything from anybody.  They already own the location since 1909, and the new building will be paid for by private donations.

So the Catholic Center is not unique in its tax-free status. The Catholic students are not demanding anything from anybody.  Perhaps it is the expansion that FFRF is opposed to?

St. Paul's today

.

The expanded taller structure reflects the increase in Catholic students participating in the Catholic Center, and this is not surprising in a town which is 53% Catholic and a State which is 29% Catholic.  29 to 53% of the UW campus would represent about 11,000 to 21,000 students.  Does the FFRF, representing between 0.003% and  2% of the population (this would correspond to between 1 and 800 students), wish to deny the 80% Christian majority access to religious organizations and dormitories to support the student population’s interests and priorities?

.
In a world in which litigation has much power to intimidate, small groups such as the FFRF have made some headway toward abolishing the rights of self-expression guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The FFRF, with their $5 million fund balance, their half-million dollar yearly income, and 15,000 (North American) membership, is a small organization at best.  Yet FFRF has made some inroads towards stifling the freedom OF religion guaranteed to us in the United States– primarily by filing lawsuits against public expressions of religion.

FFRF should be reminded that the preposition used by the founding fathers in the Bill of Rights is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. They should be reminded that they are the guests among a majority of religious people in this country, who exhibit more much tolerance towards FFRF than is reciprocated.  And in preparation for the next time our freedom OF religion is threatened by frivolous FFRF lawsuits, we should start a Freedom OF Religion Fund to pay for the defense of the Bill of Rights against militant atheists like FFRF.  We 80% Christians and 90% religious people in this country, as well as the 8-10% tolerant atheists/agnostics/unsure believers, would prevail against the aggressive and intolerant attitudes of groups like the FFRF if we woke up, got organized and took action.

FFRF should take a lesson in tolerance from Bishop Morlino, another one of the people consulted by WSJ for this article’s New Year’s resolutions for Madison.  Bishop Morlino did not suggest stifling FFRF’s plans, challenging their tax-exempt status, or interfering with FFRF in any way.  Bishop Morlino suggested some daily quiet personal introspection for everyone in Madison– which Annie Laurie Gaylor would be wise to consider.

The ultra-“progressive” and Christophobic tide of the media may be turning!

Daniel Henninger, wrote an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled Popes, Atheists and Freedom, which voices the  sentiment that “secularists should recognize that the pope’s fight is their fight.” Henninger goes on to describe the crucial role of Popes John Paul II and Benedict in the defense of freedom, and quotes the second volume of George Weigel’s biography of Pope John Paul II, The End and the Beginning, in which Weigel analyzes the archives of several former Communist intelligence services.

Daniel Henninger

Henninger goes on to conclude:

It has been odd in recent years to see prominent atheists make so much effort to diminish Judeo-Christian belief. In the modern world, and certainly in the U.S. from the Pilgrims onward to the Bill of Rights, religious practice has been bound up in the idea—now the principle—of individual freedom. I don’t think secularist arguments alone for individual freedoms have sufficient strength and fiber to stand against their current opposition.

Before Christmas Henninger had indicated that the country is moving to the right in an article entitled Holiday Optimism, Limited Edition.

Conservative is the new liberal!

Praise be to God!

Daniel Henninger’s video statement:

God the Father (Sistine Chapel)

Who believes in God?

8 out of 10 Americans believe in a God who is responsible for creating human life.

The results of a new Gallup Poll ( Dec 17, 2010) indicate:

• 40% of Americans believe in straight creationism
• 38% of Americans believe in evolution guided by God
• 16% of Americans believe in evolution without involvement of God.

Add the first 2 numbers:  78% of Americans believe that God is responsible for creating human beings.

There is little correlation with degree of education; 71% of Americans with postgraduate education believe that God is responsible for creating human beings (see original Gallup Poll).

Who would have guessed this?

According to the mainstream media, only the uneducated and unenlightened believe in God, and Evolution is an absolute religion.  In actual fact, seems that most Americans, including most highly educated Americans, see evolution as one of the tools used by God in creation, or do not believe evolutionary theory at all.   I’m in the “evolution occasionally used by God” camp.  God, in His wisdom, uses many tools, and to an honest and discerning scientist, evidence of evolution, although clearly present, is neither ubiquitous nor absolute.

Nativity, Charles Poerson

The next step in logic:  if God is responsible for the creation of human life, and we are not just highly evolved mammals, do we have the right to do with human life as we please, without regard for God’s law?  There are some things on which all religions agree, and that includes the sacredness of human life.

The Christ Child is born!  Alleluia!

He came to be one of us — an embryo, a fetus, a tiny vulnerable child.

“Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.” – Luke 2:14

The headline “Pope decries Christianophobia in Europe” really caught my eye!

Pope Benedict XVI

This Reuters report sure has a catchy title, and we should be pleased with the attention that intolerance and discrimination against Christians is getting.  I am particularly heartened, since one of my most active blog categories is “Don’t Diss My Church.”

Living in liberal Madison, WI, and reading the United States liberal media, one cannot help but notice the intolerance and discrimination suffered by Christians, who have even been intimidated into the fear of wishing someone “Merry Christmas” on a national holiday which even the government observes.

However, let’s be careful of what words we attribute to the Holy Father—he is a bit too diplomatic to use sensationalism, and he did not actually say “Christianophobia.”

Vatican Emblem

On Dec 16, 2010, Pope Benedict published a really elegant treatise on Religious Freedom – “MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE (1st January 2011).”  In the message written to world leaders, the Holy Father discusses the essential role of religious freedom in establishing peace, and mentions the intolerance and discrimination suffered by Christians, particularly in Europe.  The Reuters article, other than putting the word “Christianophobia” into Pope Benedict’s mouth, encapsulates many of the Holy Father’s points well and is worth reading. The Pope’s message is particularly worth reading.

The term “Christianophobia” is worthy of some discussion in itself.  Aside from appearing in the Reuters report, “Christianophobia” is also discussed by the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, and is analyzed in the Observatory’s 5 year report on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, which states:

“Christianophobia or Christophobia are common terms that describe the phenomenon of intolerance and discrimination against Christians. The term consists of the words „Christian“ or „Christ“ and „phobos“ (φόβος) which means “irrational fear”. The term means therefore an irrational animosity towards Christ, Christians, or Christianity as a whole. As Christianity is familiar to Europeans, and antagonism against Christians is not due primarily to an „irrational fear of the unknown“, we have chosen to use the phrase Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians when speaking about this phenomenon.”

Semantics aside, it’s great to see Pope Benedict’s message reported by the media, and secretly I really enjoyed the sensational spin Reuters put on the message – Pope Benedict’s diplomatic and humble manner does not always get him the attention his brilliant writing deserves!

It is even possible that Reuter’s use of the word “Christianophobia” is not as sensational as it first appears.  Given the dwindling familiarity and dwindling level of knowledge of Christianity prevalent in Europe and in many United States locations today, the Observatory 5 Year Report’s definition of Christophobia as an antagonism stemming from a lack of familiarity or of knowledge, might after all be the correct description for the animosity commonly seen towards religion today.

“Not a hundred people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”

-Bishop Fulton J Sheen

Scott Walker

The Capital Times is moaning about governor-elect Scott Walker’s decision to decline President Obama’a $800 million offer for the construction of a “high-speed” rail between Madison and Milwaukee.

Actually, it’s all in the details, and we all owe Scott Walker a BIG THANK YOU for saving our necks.

Japan's Shinkansen, 220 mph

The proposed rail is NOT high-speed; the top Madison-Milwaukee speed without yet additional Wisconsin spending (beyond anything now being discussed) is 79mph .  High speed rails actually  travel at 160-268 mph.

The proposed rail tickets would cost DOUBLE the Badger Bus tickets, and take 10 minutes LONGER than the Badger Bus to get to Milwaukee.  Who in their right mind would use this rail?

Badger Bus

Jobs will NOT be created unless Wisconsin foots the bill – if you do the math, $800 million over 10 years to create 15,000 jobs would only contribute $5,400 per job per year.  Wisconsin is expected to come up with the rest, which would be $2.2 BILLION more, to bring up that number of jobs up to the minimum wage .

If we can’t handle our snow removal bills now, and are projecting 15% cuts to all UW employee salaries, where do dreamers think the balance of the money will be coming from?

Scott Walker is taking the responsible adult position — you don’t start what you can’t afford.  Good luck to those states participating in this.  Perhaps they have a larger population traveling the rail line which might help it work financially.  Or, perhaps they are still thinking of the long-gone magic economic bubble for which we still have to pay.

.

Madison.com news (Wisconsin State Journal/Cap Times) is a frequent source of inspiration for this blog.  🙂

Wisconsin Institutes of Discovery

Most recently, the Cap Times published an article on the grand opening of the new 205 million dollar Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery research building at UW Madison, which was formally opened yesterday, Dec 2, 2010.

The purpose of the new research building and the ethical concerns raised by peaceful protesters outside took a back seat to the coverage of a union labor dispute over food workers to be employed in the new building.  The union dispute dominated the grand opening, dominated the Cap Times article and dominated the ensuing online discussion.

It is odd the Cap Times article and discussion should consider a restaurant labor dispute to be of higher importance than the PURPOSE of the new building which was the subject of the grand opening, or more important than the ethical questions raised by the existence of the building and by the peaceful pro-lifers protesting outside.  Granted, the union protesters were unruly and disruptive, but the Cap Times should not have given them the platform they were trying to demand.  The Cap Times should also have devoted more space to the discussion of the real issues, and should have represented both sides of the embryonic stem cell research debate, rather than favoring the morally controversial research.

In actual fact, a major motivation behind building the Institutes for Discovery at

A Person is a Person no Matter How Small

UW Madison was to facilitate embryonic stem cell research by UW scientists, at a time when federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was forbidden due to moral concerns.  The majority of Americans still now oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and numerous moral authorities continue to oppose this research.  EMBRYONIC stem cell research is to be distinguished from ADULT stem research, which is morally acceptable (see Stem Cells).

The Institutes of Discovery plan was to erect a building in which one half was devoted to faculty doing research permitted by the U.S. government, while the other half of the building was devoted to doing private research, for which government approval was withheld.  Thus, scientists doing controversial research could comfortably move back and forth within the building, continuing the controversial research without losing their federal funding for other research projects.

Human stem cells

Basically, the Institutes for Discovery created a loophole to allow forbidden research to be carried out on the UW campus.

Now that President Obama has permitted federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the Institutes for Discovery is actually an expensive and unnecessary embarrassment.  The building may come in handy if the next administration again forbids federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; however, the next administration might be too smart to fall for this evasion, so that will not be certain.

The fact that this amount of money could be spent in an effort to evade federal regulations, while staff salaries are being cut by UW Madison and employees are required to take “furlough” due to the economy, is disappointing and shocking.  The initial idea was equally shocking – that UW would insist on carrying out research that was morally opposed by more than half of America (57%), and was forbidden on federally funded grants.

Such irresponsible spending and disregard for the ethical concerns  of most Americans is just as suicidal in a University as it it in a nation.  UW is making some pretty big mistakes.  We need a more fiscally and morally responsible administration.

What a maelstrom of media discussion one confused AP reporter provoked this week!

Media stories have claimed– among other things– that “Pontiff blesses condom use ”-Boston Herald.  Most of the commotion stems from one Associated Press story repeated by numerous news sources.  A bad choice was made by the Associated Press reporter regarding what to highlight from a 256-page book interviewing the Pope.  The results were pretty striking and misleading.

The Pope did NOT say that condom use is approved by the Catholic Church.

The original AP article seriously misrepresented the Pope’s position on condoms, and most copies of that original article have been pulled off the web – a cached copy is available online .

There would have been no story, no need for clarification, and no media Catholic-bashing fest if the AP reporter had reported the Pope’s statements accurately and had done some minimal homework in order to represent the Pope’s statements correctly.

Read what the Pope said in the book for yourself: Light of the World

Read a responsible, Catholic, in-context discussion of the actual meaning of the condom statement: Catholic World Report

The list of topics the AP reporter passed over and discounted (256 pages) in favor of one out-of-context condom reference include:

• What caused the clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church?
• Was there a “cover up”?
• Have you considered resigning?
• Does affirming the goodness of the human body mean a plea for “better sex”?
• Can there be a genuine dialogue with Islam?
• Should the Church rethink Catholic teaching on priestly celibacy, women priests, contraception, and same-sex relationships?
• Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics?
• Is there a schism in the Catholic Church?
• Should there be a Third Vatican Council?
• Is there any hope for Christian unity?
• Is Christianity the only truth?
• Can the Pope really speak for Jesus Christ?                             Light of the World
• How can the Pope claim to be “infallible”?
• Is there a “dictatorship of relativism” today?

Yet one more example of media misrepresentation of the Catholic Church.

So many common false urban myths about Catholicism seem to surface in online discussions every time Catholicism is discussed, and this week is no exception:

1. The suggestion that the Catholic Church is synonymous with pedophilia is completely false—in fact, the Catholic Church is the LEAST offender in this area —  .

2. Most people misunderstand the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. They presume wrongly that the Church’s opposition to promiscuity implies the hate of homosexuals. The Catholic Church opposes promiscuity in any situation, heterosexual or homosexual – promiscuity results in STD’s, as well as emotional and psychological damage to individuals, to the family, and to society . Homosexual promiscuity is equally as damaging as is heterosexual promiscuity.

3. Additional Catholic-bashing references to false urban myths include obtuse incorrect references to the Inquisition, claims that the Catholic Church is losing membership, and insulting references to liturgical vestments.

• “ the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.” – Catholic Answers.
• Catholic Church membership is actually INCREASING, at a rate slightly higher than the rate of population increase –Wikipedia.
• References to Catholic vestments can be compared with the British Monarchy — and with our modern customary wedding garb . Is God worthy of fewer honors than human monarchs, or our own wedding ceremonies?

…..and immigration regulation enforcement is tightening up……..

Now that Wisconsin has gone Republican (election results), a number of conservative plans are being introduced.  This includes the tightening up of immigration regulation enforcement in Wisconsin.  Discussion in public forums has become quite emotional, and unpleasant analogies surface.  A recent forum participant suggested that immigration regulation enforcement was racist and analogous to Nazism.

Scathing sarcasm and emotional analogies will not solve the problem.

A different analogy may be more constructive in summarizing the problem and in bringing Americans together, rather than apart.

America has a limited amount of pie.  Everybody wants a slice, and some want more than a slice.  The law attempts to divide the pie up fairly.  No law can increase the total amount of pie.  Law can only create rules by which we share the pie.

Liberals have good hearts and want to give pie to everyone.  Sometimes they forget that if they give away too much pie to one group, another group will suffer.

Conservatives believe that their share of pie has already been given away to others, and are motivated to reassess the rules for dividing up the pie, to return justice to the pie sharing.

In a bad economy, when less pie becomes available, friction intensifies between the two groups.

Rather than calling each other names and using insulting analogies which polarize America, we need to get together at the table, make everyone realize that we really have less pie these days, and figure out how to share during the pie shortage.

It is not surprising that families in Wisconsin, like UW staff who have already sustained 5% pay cuts and furloughs with more on the horizon, are concerned about their shrinking paychecks and find it hard to watch generous handouts to strangers who may be in Wisconsin illegally, and whose numbers could be swelling rapidly due to our generous policies.

Those who try to use the race card to prevent immigration law enforcement are using faulty logic.  Being asked to show I.D. is not Nazism – in the age of driver’s licenses and airport security for every citizen, immigrants cannot complain about I.D. requests by law enforcement.

When our country was growing and flourishing, we were rich enough and fortunate enough to be extremely generous.  Now that there is less pie, we cannot afford to give the same amount away as before, or there will be none left for our children.

Some do not realize that our handouts have become so large that 47% of America pays no federal taxes at all.  This includes millions of people who are well above poverty level. The burden on the other 53%  who pay all of the bills has become too large.  So people are now beginning to change their minds about government handouts, and conservative has become the new liberal (https://sytereitz.com/2010/08/conservative-is-the-new-liberal/ ).  Wisconsin has gone Republican.

I am in complete sympathy with Latinos who are here illegally and who struggle to support their families.  However, I am also in complete sympathy with Wisconsin families with shrinking paychecks who do not want Wisconsin to become the national illegal immigrant magnet, due to generous policies which were passed in prosperous times.

What we need in Wisconsin and nationally, is not name-calling and polarization, but prayer and cooperation towards finding an equitable solution.

The best solution will incorporate both justice and mercy.  For example:

• Seal the borders.   America cannot keep her front doors unlocked while looters abound.
• Identify illegals who already here, and offer them deportation/application for U.S. citizenship.
• Enforce immigration regulations strictly in the future.

Democracy still works.

Pro-Life victories.

Republicans ready to change.

Hallelujah!

.

You are reading this because nobody killed you while you were an embryo.

A pro-life vote in this election is a vote for human rights.  Unborn children have the right to life, and African-American babies have the right NOT to be selectively destroyed.   77%   of  African-American pregnancies are aborted right now, and African-American babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies.  Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the black population in the U.S.has been reduced by over 25 percent( ref).

A nation which cares about 4,295 combat deaths (~430 per year) in the War on Terror , and cares about 40,000 motor vehicle deaths per year, should also care about  1 Million infant deaths by abortion per year.

For those who are hard-hearted enough to advocate     1 million yearly infant deaths for the sake of a promiscuous lifestyle without consequence– consider, too, the financial repercussions.  The tax dollar contributions, as well as social security contributions that would be made by the  45 million Americans who are missing  since Roe v. Wade, would be staggering.

The argument that unaborted babies would be a burden on society (given the racial abortion statistics quoted above) borders on racism.  Generally, the birth of a baby transforms people of any color into more mature, caring and motivated individuals who become an asset to society.

Pro-abortion arguments such as rape or incest are attempts to sensationalize the issue, and to circumvent the real ethical questions.  Rape and incest actually represent only 1% of abortions, and are introduced to distract from the fundamental moral issue.  Planned Parenthood actually often helps molesters and rapists to hide their crimes, by assisting them with abortion and failing to report their crimes.

Many don’t seem to realize that each embryo IS actually a new and unique human person, as important and valuable as we all are.  Size or age does not diminish the value of any human being.

This irreplaceable value of each human life  is at the heart of moral teachings and respect for human life, and is essential for the healthy and balanced survival of human society.

The ethical questions behind pro-life issues cannot be so trivially dismissed as some attempt to do by masquerading murder under the banner of “pro-choice.”

Whose choice?  Certainly not the unborn child’s choice!

Madison, vote Pro-Life!  In this election, that means vote Republican.