Ever since the devil convinced Adam and Eve to eat the apple, it has been game on! In the past, he mostly worked undercover because obvious evil repelled most people.
Of late, however, the devil feels safe enough to come out of the closet. He once operated under the cover of atheists like Madeline Murray O-Hare who fought to rid the world of public prayer and religious displays. More often these days, the satanic church works openly. For instance, in Lansing, Mich. last Christmas, a “snaketivity” scene was erected at the capitol. No one had bothered with an actual nativity scene until after the satanic one showed up. Then, Bronners Christmas store in Frankenmuth, MI quickly loaned one out.
The Satanists protest religious displays and demand equal time. In Oklahoma a Satanist group sued to remove the Ten Commandments from its capitol or else allow for a nine-foot-tall, 2,000-pound statue of Baphomet, a horned demon. Rather than have the 1-ton demon preside, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state had to remove a 6-foot tall granite Ten Commandments. The reason on paper: it violates the state’s constitutional ban against the use of public funds or property to benefit a religion. The real reason—and the one that the Satanists claimed: evil won. There was a time when being offensive to community standards kept such rubbish at bay.
Dancing with the Devil
What has happened to our community? Many lost their sense of reason. In an interview with CNN affiliate KOCO, Bruce Prescott, a Baptist minister who was against the religious display said, “I’m not opposed to Ten Commandments monuments. I’m just opposed to the placement on government property, because I think that the government needs to be neutral.” Neutral? No such thing. Take away good, and evil moves in.
The statue then moved on to Detroit—as if they don’t have enough problems. It was unveiled in July for a big bash with the Detroit chapter of the Satanic Temple. You would think that an invitation to buy tickets to “dance with the devil” would be a flop, but TIME reported that 700 people attended.
Thanks be to God, there was a Catholic response. Detroit’s Mother of Divine Mercy church held Mass, confessions, and Eucharistic Holy Hour on the same day in reparation and prayer for Detroit. The statue may be leaving at any rate. Since the Governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson recently signed a bill that will put a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the State Capitol, word is that the statue may be taking a road trip.
What Happened to the Culture?
Just a few nut jobs trying to get attention, some will say. Except, overlay the satanic church’s values with those dominating the culture. Here is where the Detroit chapter of the Church of Satan stands:
1) Campaigned against Michigan’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
2) Pro-abortion and pro-contraception
3) In favor of same-sex “marriage.”
4) Believes the unborn baby is “tissue that belongs to a woman.”
5) Demands that religious symbols not be allowed in the public square.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote an excellent piece explaining how the 9-foot statue of Baphomet statue reflects our culture’s current standards on human sexuality. The liberal culture should shudder to realize how well their values match up with the demonic.
What do we have to do with It?
In the Rolling Stone’s song, “Sympathy for the Devil,” Mick Jagger introduces the devil.
Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man’s soul and faith And I was ’round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game…
Further down is the line:
I tell you one time, you’re to blame.
Really? What is he talking about? How are we to blame?
“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself” Ezekiel 3:17-19.
54 thoughts on “The Devil is Out of the Closet and is a Liberal”
Pingback: Satanism Surging – Holy News Daily
Pingback: Satanism Surging | Catholic Headline Agency
Pingback: Satanism Surging – Via Nova Media
HOW EVIL TO POLITICIZE CHRIST. IN HIS TIME, THE PHARISEES WERE THE RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES AND JESUS WAS THE LIBERAL.
You all are off base on many issues that liberals believe in. They believe in many of the same things that Jesus himself would fight for. Help the poor, take care of the old and veterans, make sure every is on an equal playing field socially and economically.
And as far as liberals being “pro-abortion” is the most absurd thing I have EVER read. No one is pro-killing unborn fetus’. Pro-choice is about giving the woman the choice. Maybe liberals would be more pro-life if we actually took care of children that are in the adoption agency and the hundreds of thousands of poor kids around the nation that are starving daily. It really is sad.
You know why we don’t take care of them? Business’ can’t make a profit from it. So the government has to deal with it, but it’s “socialism” (democratic socialism, meaning the government creates an equal economic and social status for everyone), so we can’t create the programs to deal with these issues.
One last thing I’d like to say- if the church in the U.S. paid taxes like every other profiting organization in the country, it would be enough to pay for every food stamp for everyone on welfare in the country AND there would be enough money left over to house every homeless person in the country (cracked.com). Isn’t that what Jesus would want?
THere is NO difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” because THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES! You either let your child live, or you kill it.
What a load of dissembling you dumped above!
Jesus said nothing about an equal or even playing field.
As for the nonsense about no one being pro-killing an unborn fetus, I’ll work at politeness you don’t deserve. Supporting a woman’s “right” to murder her child is EXACTLY THE SAME as being pro-murder of the infant in her womb. The very use of the word “fetus” by you and your ilk is a cold-blooded attempt to de-personalize that infant and by it desensitize your audience to its claim to life. It literally means “the young while in the womb” and its functional meaning is “baby.” Use of ‘fetus” is a cynical attempt to escape charges of baby-murderer. By supporting the phony “right” of a woman to murder her infant, you are EXACTLY THE SAME as any Germans supporting the Final Solution.
In the third paragraph you shift responsibility for perceived failure from yourselves. Again, with the dissembling. Business has nothing to do with it. You’re just taking another shot at for-profit businesses because you think you can. Your excuse for why government “can’t” take care of children is another falsehood. Honestly, do you stay up late smoking dope to trigger your creative juices to make up this crap?
The school lunch program has grown top-heavy and wasteful, even feeding the children of those who can afford to pay. You are not addressing stupid people who believe government programs are models of effectiveness. We do NOT have starvation in this country or our news media would love to broadcast footage of the bodies piling up in the streets. There may be hunger, but if there is it is temporary at worst, given the wasteful ubiquity of school lunch programs.
And it figures you’d make the liberal bid to tax churches. In your derelict mind they are profit-making centers. And NO, taxing them would NOT accomplish either goal you describe. Read up on Charles Krauthammer’s analysis of the actual effect of taxing the wealthy at 100% (that’s right, 100% – that’s not taxation, it would be confiscation). He found that confiscation of ALL private wealth in the country would be severely insufficient in paying the cost of one year of the operating budget of the nation.
Liberalism is either the devil in disguise, or a severe mental illness substituting feelings for thinking. You obviously dashed off your comments from the liberal play book, because there surely is no evidence in your words of either thinking or the fundamental building blocks of thinking – facts.
I suppose this makes you EXACTLY THE SAME as the Germans who knew Jews were being hauled off to their deaths but did little more than whine about it. Why are you wasting your time arguing on line? You have murders you could be stopping right now!
Ironic that Pope Francis has embraced and promoted liberalism and Communism, two of the biggest enemies of the Church.
You do realize that if the pop didn’t change the churches view on many of these issues that the church would lose many members, especially the young generations? If you don’t see this, then you need to open your eyes.
If you think Jesus wouldn’t love a man if he were GAY or not, you must be insane. Jesus loved all for who they were.
Yes, that’s true. And Jesus Who is God loves each of us far too much to leave us as we are.
Or else, why suffer and die for us just to make it OK to continue to be “just as we are.”
Wait a minute! Didn’t someone recently say, “who am I to judge?” ;(
Yes. He says many foolish things.
It’s not so much the openly Satanist that is harmful to souls, as it is the opposite–those (many in the clergy) that appear to be workers for God, but actually do the bidding of Satan while always claiming to be doing it “for the good.”
In the words of C.S.Lewis; Satan uses a pint of poison in a lake of clear water.
Google “Hindu temple Detroit”. Where was the Catholic outrage when those were built? Back before Catholic bishops started explaining how a married man having sex with a prostitute is not really adultery or any reason to avoid Holy Communion (at least until after Confession), they knew that “the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.” (1 Corinthians 10:20) They would not see an important difference between a goat-headed demon called Baphomet and an elephant-headed demon called Ganesha, except that there are close to a billion people more who worship Ganesha than worship Baphomet. Of course, St. Thomas was martyred, not invited to ecumenical breakfasts.
Ah, Ganesha isn’t a demon. I wonder if its a sin in Christianity to slander another religion.?
The Apostles said pagan gods were demons. Moses said they were demons. The psalmist called the demons. The Fathers of the Church called them demons. What grounds do you have for claiming to know them all to be wrong?
Oh. In that case I’ll consider the source and move on..
Move on? You were never really here.
Right, and In case anyone asks, we never had this conversation.
By my standards, this never rose to a “conversation”. It was much less of an exchange than even the small talk one has with the cashier at a supermarket.
But in the spaces between the 112 words – on both sides – volumes were exchanged.
For any who wonder about the ‘personality’ (is it real?) of evil read the old book “Hostage to the Devil” by Malachi Martin S.J.. The book details 5 modern day exorcisms in the US. Many people do not have the spiritual fortitude to finish reading this book although it is not written in a sensational style. We may not understand why God allows the Devil to exist or why He allows devils to tempt us or subtly attempt to occupy us, but if one will read this book, I’m pretty sure one will be utterly confirmed in the reality of evil spirits.
We need to become poor in spirit (one of the Evangelical Counsels) through becoming to be willing to be willing in poverty of heart to do life God’s way rather than our own way. In this obedient willingness we enter into Christ’s Life and His sufferings. Where there is no pain, there is no sacrifice.
Physician heal thyself. Clean out the inside of the cup. By doing this, Satan and evil will have no power over us.
This is how Jesus showed us to live. He is the Way. We have to earn the privilege of becoming sons of God and that through suffering.
Satanists? Well, about .01% of the world population self-identifies as Satanists, and those are peoples who ascribe to primitive earth borne mythologies. I reject Satan as a being, as someone or something which is NOW influencing social change. I believe that all religions do not belong in the public marketplace…they belong in places of worship. They do not belong in places where there are captive audiences where people are unduly influenced by a particular belief. As to an individual their belief is always right and the one that is right for everyone else. We became a democratic republic to avoid the “one shoe fits all” syndrome.
If you want to make a case for the existence of evil from all time I can ascribe to that. Historically, most evil, the worst evil, stemmed from sectarian religious belief and that evil came to us in the form of genocide. Genocide, the deliberate extermination of large groups of people is the greatest evil. In modern times you have extremist Muslim jihadists, we have Rawanda, Dafur, we have Armenia, we have th infamous Shoah….in the earliest times we have the god-sanctioned Israeli genocide of the the Canaanites, we have the Monguls, we have : simply google the history of genocide which began with the extermination of the Neanderthals.
Evil exists throughout history and predate any formal religion; formal religion provided a modern justification of the evil of genocide. It was not Satan, the 10 commandments, Sharia law, etc that caused nor prevented genocide, it was man’s desire to impose their truth on other men (peoples) Absolute certitude promulgates evil….and the greatest evil, genocide. Every religion has been a player in historical genocide, no religion has escaped being the target of this genocide….Evil flows from man…not something out there, nor O’Hair or her ilk.
Phil, this page does not subscribe to religions that promote evil genocide such as ISIS. That is a corruption of religion and God and it is not Christianity. Certainly, we agree on that much.
Atheists like to blame religion for war. Without getting into the fallacies of the Crusades, let’s just look at the big picture. The following was pointed out by an article on Catholic 365 on the dilemmas for atheists vs religion. “There has even been a much bandied about quote that “Religion has caused more and bloodier wars”. Yet the leading killers and killing machines in the 20th Century were atheists.
“Stalin. Mao Tse Tung. Pol Pot. Ho Chi Minh. These men were responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. Smaller murderers like Castro and Guevara fit into this mold as well. All in the name of the revolution to liberate humanity, they turned on human beings and wiped them out.
“All you have to do to prove the lie about religion causing more wars is to Google “List of Wars by Death Toll.” You’ll see.” Here is the whole article: http://www.catholic365.com/article/2075/some-dilemmas-of-atheism.html
You missed my point…its was man’s desire to impose their truth on other men which caused the greatest of evils….genocide. My statement was that absolute certitude promulgates evil…..by the way the OT if loaded with genocidal commands from above…like the wiping out if the Canaanites? All religions have participated in genocide and been the target of the evil of genocide, ie Rwanda
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/rwanda-genocide-20-years-priests-catholic-church
You’re one of the blind, my friend. I pray you will come to see.
If you insist..but…
Luke 6:42 ” How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Phil,
You make the same mistake every other non-believer who’s failed to acquire an understanding of how to read Scripture and the necessary skills which develop through continuous hands-on experience. Ironically, folks who take the tack you just did share several characteristics with fundamentalists. who also read Scripture literally in cases where it’s not intended to be read so. The only difference is that the two groups diverge on core beliefs (what atheists call ‘values”), with the result that your interpretations are so different the resulting applications are as well.
A variation of that practice is to take a single verse and inappropriately misapply it in a self-serving manner. Because of your atheist statements above, you have zero cred citing Scripture to believers.
I am quite acquainted with the literal, historical, figurative and contextual reading of the Scriptures. I believe that that my reference to Luke 6:42 was meant literally and that’s the way I interpreted it. Do you have another revisionist interpretation to make it say what you want to?
literally? wow! you think people had planks in their eyes? so you do believe in miracles. or you don’t understand English never mind understand scripture.
Yet it is considered an Act of Mercy to admonish the sinner as well illustrated by the reference to Ezekiel at the end of the article. Rainingagain’s post that elicited your “Log in the eye” response indicates they feel you are being “blinded” by the evil of society at large. I tend to agree. However, the parable of the mote in the eye is only applicable if the “accuser” feels they are better or cleaner than the person being admonished. I can’t speak for the other person, but I can say that I am a humble sinner myself, with many challenges to my holiness and many personal failings. I can say honestly, you endanger yourself by believing that evil has no personification, as that makes it easier for him to get to you. I won’t make assumptions based on your picture and general attitude but I would say there are likely several beliefs you hold that might endanger your soul. I’d be happy to have a private discussion, which I assure you would be as civil as this, but then, also, I am no confessor, nor spiritual director. That said, I say it out of love for you as another human, that I want the best for your soul and eternal happiness. I respect that I may not be one iota “better” than you in terms of my spiritual well being, but that doesn’t mean I can’t help someone I see having trouble. To use a water analogy, I may be drowning myself, but if I can push another drowning man even an inch closer to safety, I will. Jesus wasn’t talking about that in Luke, but about people that only saw fault in others. That, I think, is why the other Phil took umbrage to your quoting scripture, though he was not, perhaps, clear enough to make that known to you.
You need make no assumptions about my picture as it is of my 30 year old spastic quad son who is non verbal as the result of an anoxic event where he was under water for 25 minutes without 02 at age 12. I have taken care of him at home for the past 17 years, he is my hero and so I use his picture as we are one. The colors of the gay rainbow symbolize my union with all marginalized people especially the severely disabled with whom I work. I have no fear for my soul because it is constantly united with my Source. I always enjoy private discussions and exchange of perspectives with civility….philipdz@aol.com and my blog is http://www.healingandempowerment.blogspot.com.
Why do you think that passage in Luke shouldn’t be taken literally? It sounds like good advice to me, though it may not be completely appropriate in context.
So, like you imposing gay marriage on everyone else?
Nobody is imposing gay marriage on everyone else…the Courts have given gays the same rights as straight people based upon “due process” and “equal protections” of the Constitution. The Catholic Church is not in any way bound to honor or participate in gay marriage or to marry gays.
A few questions to ponder when saying such things.
1) How many people died in WWI?
2) Would you characterize the leaders of the nations involved in WWI as atheists?
3) Do you find it plausible that, in WW2, most of Germany*, Russia, etc. all momentarily became atheist under these regimes, and then switched back to religious belief afterwards?
4) Can you think of any factors – other than atheism – that might have something to do with making “modern” warfare, that begins to emerge in the 20th Century, deadlier than it has been in the past?
*Germany’s leadership was never, to my knowledge, publicly atheistic. In fact, Hitler – in order to guard against the Soviets later in the war – would often condemn the ‘godless communists’.
PS. None of this is to say, one way or the other, whether or not the “Religion has caused more and bloodier wars” quote has any merit.
Your example is idiotic. WWI and WWII involved many different nations, with shared responsibility at different levels.
Stalin, Mao, and all Communist/atheist regimes, Idi Amin, and yes, Hitler are the prime examples. As far as citing evidence against Hitler’s atheism, there are many more examples of statements by the man which reveal his anti-Christian views. The only “religion” he embraced was Nazism and Aryan supremacy.
Calling Communists “godless” is self-serving rhetoric, and nothing ore. It should be recognized as such by anyone with an appreciation for facts.
Phil,
Merely stating that these two wars involved different countries and factors doesn’t show how my example was idiotic.
One of these is not like the others.
Whatever anti-Christian statements made or views held in private, for what it seems clear were merely pragmatic reasons, Hitler presented himself (and his party) publicly as (or at least pro-) Christian.
Redundant statement is redundant.
My statement of idiocy stands.
Hitler is vastly more like the others than not. You are easily fooled. Hitler’s occasional use of Christianity was inconsistent and used only when it served the interests of the party. It is only atheists and other non-Christians who betray their ignorance by insisting his mention of Christianity was sincere and legitimate. The same applies to his rhetoric of godless Communism. Serious historians of the time are not among your ranks and do not hold your view.
It sure does!
—
You: “Stalin, Mao, and all Communist/atheist regimes, Idi Amin, and yes, Hitler are the prime examples.”
Me: “One of these is not like the others.”
You: “Hitler is vastly more like the others than not.”
*BUZZER NOISE*
I was talking about Amin.
—
I mean, maybe…or maybe you just lack reading comprehension. I’ve already said that: “Whatever anti-Christian statements made or views held in private, for what it seems clear were merely pragmatic reasons, Hitler presented himself (and his party) publicly as (or at least pro-) Christian.”
If only there was a term for misrepresenting the views of another, attacking those misrepresentations, and ignoring the actual views presented. Oh well, until such a term is coined, I’ll just have to respond long-form, and say that I have never said anything to the effect that Hitler was a sincere Christian.
It’s important to understand the religion of the average German at the time, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Make of it what you will, but Germany was mostly Christian.
Yes, but she didn’t say the countries were atheist – she said “the leading killers and killing machines” were atheist. She is right.
The majority of Germany was Christian, so they did the killing. Hitler never killed anyone directly. This is a good article on the relationship between Christianity and Nazism, I’ll quote a portion from the conclusion
See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/robert-carr/nazism-and-christian-heritage#sthash.vr7WfVrx.dpuf
See how pathetically dumb modern man has become when it comes to a true understanding of history? Phil’s position is pretty much Satan triumphant, where evil is called good and good is called evil. In his twisted, pathetic world, evil is something primarily caused by religion. In his bizarre world, we became a democracy so that everyone can please themselves and have no responsibility to anyone else. Yes, pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name.
You either can’t read my responses or intentionally twist them. For the simple, I did not accept a being named Satan, I believe that evil exists and that evil exists in everyone, in some much more than others. I also stated that many genocides, like the OT command to wipe out the Canaanites had foundation in the certitudes of literal religiosity. You comment makes little sense to me …. you ramble illogically.
In the Rolling Stone’s song, “Sympathy for the Devil,” Mick Jagger introduces the devil.
Yes, he does, but one caveat that may have been missed is a clue further down the lyrics
I watched with glee While your kings
and queens Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out, “Who killed the Kennedy’s?”
When after all It was YOU and ME
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saint
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
Cause I’m in need of some restraint
Evil lies in every human heart and under the right conditions, manifests itself
Furthermore… Satan demands:
So if you meet me have some courtesy,
and some sympathy,
and some taste
Use all your well-learned politeness
or I’ll lay your
soul to waste
Here’s how we do that:
“Oh, I’m so sorry I hurt your feelings, you know, I personally would never have an abortion, I mean, you know, on average, generally, you know, in most cases, I wouldn’t go for that. But every man and/or woman and/or species is entitled to his and/or her and/or its opinion and of course choice, especially in the case of …”
Satan is laughing at us. He’ll murder a baby before our eyes and demand we apologize for questioning him. And most of us will apologize.
The lines you listed remind me of an interview Bob Dylan had about how most of his lyrics will be studied by musicologists trying to decipher things that are meaningless and in some cases gibberish. This cryptic phrase is hard to understand and falls into that category, i think. On another note, just attended an organ recital and heard a beautiful piece by the Catholic composer, Oliver Messiaen entitled Joie et Clarté des Corps Glorieux from the work Les Corps Glorieux. Of course, the Church deemed
most of his theological religious work suspect due to Hindu influences in rhythm and tone. What a world !.
You all are off base on many issues that liberals believe in. They believe in many of the same things that Jesus himself would fight for. Help the poor, take care of the old and veterans, make sure every is on an equal playing field socially and economically.
And as far as liberals being “pro-abortion” is the most absurd thing I have EVER read. No one is pro-killing unborn fetus’. Pro-choice is about giving the woman the choice. Maybe liberals would be more pro-life if we actually took care of children that are in the adoption agency and the hundreds of thousands of poor kids around the nation that are starving daily. It really is sad.
You know why we don’t take care of them? Business’ can’t make a profit from it. So the government has to deal with it, but it’s “socialism” (democratic socialism, meaning the government creates an equal economic and social status for everyone), so we can’t create the programs to deal with these issues.
One last thing I’d like to say- if the church in the U.S. paid taxes like every other profiting organization in the country, it would be enough to pay for every food stamp for everyone on welfare in the country AND there would be enough money left over to house every homeless person in the country (cracked.com). Isn’t that what Jesus would want?
What a load of dissembling you dumped above!
Jesus said nothing about an equal or even playing field.
As for the nonsense about no one being pro-killing an unborn fetus, I’ll work at politeness you don’t deserve. Supporting a woman’s “right” to murder her child is EXACTLY THE SAME as being pro-murder of the infant in her womb. The very use of the word “fetus” by you and your ilk is a cold-blooded attempt to de-personalize that infant and by it desensitize your audience to its claim to life. It literally means “the young while in the womb” and its functional meaning is “baby.” Use of ‘fetus” is a cynical attempt to escape charges of baby-murderer. By supporting the phony “right” of a woman to murder her infant, you are EXACTLY THE SAME as any Germans supporting the Final Solution.
In the third paragraph you shift responsibility for perceived failure from yourselves. Again, with the dissembling. Business has nothing to do with it. You’re just taking another shot at for-profit businesses because you think you can. Your excuse for why government “can’t” take care of children is another falsehood. Honestly, do you stay up late smoking dope to trigger your creative juices to make up this crap?
The school lunch program has grown top-heavy and wasteful, even feeding the children of those who can afford to pay. You are not addressing stupid people who believe government programs are models of effectiveness. We do NOT have starvation in this country or our news media would love to broadcast footage of the bodies piling up in the streets. There may be hunger, but if there is it is temporary at worst, given the wasteful ubiquity of school lunch programs.
And it figures you’d make the liberal bid to tax churches. In your derelict mind they are profit-making centers. And NO, taxing them would NOT accomplish either goal you describe. Read up on Charles Krauthammer’s analysis of the actual effect of taxing the wealthy at 100% (that’s right, 100% – that’s not taxation, it would be confiscation). He found that confiscation of ALL private wealth in the country would be severely insufficient in paying the cost of one year of the operating budget of the nation.
Liberalism is either the devil in disguise, or a severe mental illness substituting feelings for thinking. You obviously dashed off your comments from the liberal play book, because there surely is no evidence in your words of either thinking or the fundamental building blocks of thinking – facts.
Abortions will always happen. We are at a record low number under President Obama. The issue is not abortion. The issue is whether women, in consultation with their doctors, or male strangers off in Washington, should make the decision for the woman.
PS There is a rule in online debating – when someone has no valid points to make, they resort to Nazi Germany comparisons.
PPS If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.
“If men needed abortions, they would be a sacrament.” – Rose Kennedy
Excellent! People still want to avoid acknowledging Satan and evil, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny his existence and intent. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see! Soon, in his pride, he will cross the line and reveal his true nature to even the most obstinate…May the Lord grant sight to the blind!