Last week we saw how elimination of the ‘undesirables’ can become policy in a world controlled by ‘man’s politics’ and mainly void of the ‘politics of God’, made possible by church congregations that find comfort hiding behind the walls of their churches and praying that God will assume their responsibilities. We saw how one person, Margaret Sanger, could so influence politics that her theories on life have permitted the legal murder of millions of unborn humans…and even now they can be born and are not safe in our ‘culture of death’. When someone makes a comment not favorable to someone of a minority race, we get all excited and offended and try to act so righteous. What about someone who has gained political power and professes policies that go way beyond being offensive? You guessed it…Margaret Sanger. Yet, we let the organization that she ‘parented’ continue to operate. Where’s the concern? In the study of Margaret Sanger it gets even more sinister. Try this on for offensiveness!
Sanger also considered blacks to be an inferior race that had to be sterilized, controlled, and aborted out of existence. She said and was never called to account for this diatribe:
“If we can train the Negro doctor at the Clinic he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results among the colored people…The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideas and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members”. [Margaret Sanger, “Letter From Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10, 1939”, Smith College Libraries].
Had the KKK made such a statement all ‘holy hell’ would have broken out but not so with the founder of Planned Parenthood, that ‘organized savior of women’. This is a particularly chilling quote, given the fact that today Planned Parenthood is extraordinarily active in African American communities. A recent study by the group Protecting Black Life found that 79% of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American neighborhoods. [Steven Ertelt,”79% of Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics Target Blacks, Hispanics”, Life News, October 16, 2012]. Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute, added:”This solid evidence is overwhelmingly convincing that Planned Parenthood’s business model is to generate income from an increased number of abortions in minority neighborhoods…census results clearly show that Planned Parenthood continues to pursue the eugenics philosophy of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who believed that Blacks and the poor were ‘unfit’ to reproduce.”
As a matter of fact, African American babies in New York City have a better chance of dying in the womb than of being born, according to a report from the New York City Department of Mental Hygiene. On average, for every thousand black babies born in New York City every year, twelve hundred are aborted. [Conor Beck,”More Black Babies in New York City Are Aborted Than Born Alive”, Life News, February 3, 2016]. In Mississippi. 72% of the total number of abortions are performed on black babies…this is in a state where whites “outnumber blacks by a ratio of 1.6 to 1.” [Michael W. Chapman,”In Mississippi, 72% of the Babies Aborted Are Black”, CNS News, February 25, 2014]. Margaret Sanger would undoubtedly be thrilled to know that her ‘culture of death’ vision of a eugenically engineered society is at last coming true.
But our ‘culture of death’…brought to you by the ‘politics of man’…doesn’t stop at ‘murdering’ the unborn. Then there is infanticide…the killing of babies that have already been born. This gruesome practice is already legal in the Netherlands. ‘Postnatal abortion’…as it is so euphemistically termed…is now being considered in Canada for disabled children. Udo Schuklenk, a well-known Canadian bio-ethicist has stated,”Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible”. [Udo Schuklenk,”Physicians Can Justifiably Euthanize Certain Severely Impaired Neonates”, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 149, no. 2 (2015): pg 537]. I can’t help but wonder what is God’s opinion of such reasoning? ‘Godless’ professor John Harris, likely the most highly respected member of the British Medical Association’s ethics committee (with his kinds of ethics, who needs ethics?), has stated that infanticide is “justifiable” because it is simply not “plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal”. [Elizabeth Day,”Infanticide Is Justifiable in Some Cases, Says Ethics Professor”, Telegraph, January 25, 2004]. In other words there is no moral difference between aborting a fetus and killing a baby. If you redefine person as only those beings who are capable of rational thought and self-reflection, then not only are fetuses and embryos not persons, but neither are infants. I propose that neither are professors who think like this. The ‘politics of man’ and not ‘of God’ permit such a thought process. Then we have the ‘godless’ researchers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva who add to the chorus of those professing ‘baby killing’ as a way to solve many of man’s problems. They use the following argument: “1) Both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons; 2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant; and 3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people.” For these ‘godless experts’ to even use the term ‘moral’ should be a crime. They conclude: “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all cases where abortion is ‘called for’…including cases where the newborn is not disabled. [Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva,”After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”, Journal of Medical Ethics 39, no. 5 (2013)].
This is where our culture is going. The Supreme Court of the U.S. opened the door to the murder of the unborn and now ‘the camel has his nose under the tent’. Next is the newborns. Maybe in the future an unruly teenager will be on the target list. In a world of the ‘politics of man’ where ending life is the answer to every problem; where killing is always preferable to love and sacrifice; where eugenics, abortion, fetal harvesting, euthanasia, assisted suicide, forced suicide, and infanticide are routinely practiced all the time for any reason, we will find a world where ‘the politics of God’ are shunned, discredited, and treated as religious paranoia. This could be the future we have to look forward to. The Church must wake up and face facts. If the Bible says that God’s primary motive is to bring forth life then today’s godless ‘politics of man’s’ motto must be ‘We have come that you may have death, and have it more abundantly.’
After the Thanksgiving holidays we will start to take a look at how ‘the politics of man’ has contributed to the warped perception our society has toward the ‘politics of God’. Seen by many to be intolerant, backwards, superstitious, lacking in thought process, and encouraging of blood shed, the ‘politics of man’ has encouraged movement away from God and set up a society of tolerance that accepts anything and everything that contributes to free-will and pleasure.
– Bob Munsey