THE "AFTER BIRTH ABORTION" DEBATE

By Marianne Mauti

How is it possible for people with eyes , ears and a heart to be convinced or to convince others that babies that are already born are not human beings and should still be able to be aborted, or murdered (let's call it what it really is). It sounds surreal, like a sic-fi movie and yet it has been written about and proposed since the turn of the 20th century by the brilliant academic minds of the time and it is once again rearing its ugly head, as the world becomes increasingly immoral and ethically void. If you haven't heard about this disgusting concept yet, it is called "After Birth Abortion." 

In a recent article on by Carly Hill (for GenFringe.com), she shares the horror of this renewed concept that is gaining attention and acceptance. Here what she had to say," Two years ago, two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva wrote a medical ethics paper with a shockingly horrible concept." These two bioethicists assert that "killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is allowed, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

 It is absolutely ok and legal to kill a disabled child before it is born, so it should only stand to reason that we should be willing to accept the premise of killing one after it is born, even a healthy baby! 

They go on to say in their paper," Both fetus and new born certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life.' We take 'person to mean an individual who is capable of to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." In other words individuals who are not in a condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not people."

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion (birth defects or unwanted pregnancy),abortion should still be permissible. We call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide,' to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus….rather than to that of a child." 

"Therefore we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the new born has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk"

Can I just say, for me, it takes a few moments to even process that kind of cold and calculated thinking, it is just pure evil! But it isn't anything new, it is the same philosophy that birthed Adolph Hitlers, "Final Solution."(the extreme end of this philosophy) 

Adolf Hitlers believed (after reading what the American Academic philosophers were saying about abortion and euthanasia) that if you were not capable of contributing to society you could be deemed a non- person. He simply need a scientific reason to disassociate himself and then others from the guilt and responsibility associated with killing a real person! 

Once he convinced the German people, through propaganda and scientific backing, that Jews were not real people (the were descendants of Rats) he was able to begin the systematic extermination of a religious race of people, one country at a time. This should send chills down every one of our spines! Carly Hill had this to say in her recent article ," People, this is where moral relativism has taken us. We've gone from saying it's ok to dismember and decapitate a baby, as long as it's in its mother's womb, to saying that babies that are born healthy aren't really people. Where do these professors draw the line? 

Regular, run of the mill abortions show us how sick we are- and what little regard we have for human life, but supporting the idea of killing healthy infants? I am speechless. 

A society void of morals becomes so numb to evil and so consumed with self, that they might suggest something unthinkable like, say, killing children."

She went on to report,"CNN recently reported on a story done by Yale that proved babies as young as 3 months old entertained with a puppet show featuring a 'good' and 'bad' character would take a cookie from the good character. Almost 90% of infants preferred the 'good' puppet and even chose to 'punish' the bad puppet when they were given the chance, showing that even babies have a sense of justice."

In his article,"Whats Wrong with 'After-Birth Abortion," William Saletan had this to say," Just when you think things couldn't get crazier here comes the academia left with an even crazier idea 'after-birth abortion'. Predictibly this has sparked outrage. Last week Rep. Joe Pitts,R-Pa. and Chris Smith, R-NJ., denounced it on the house floor."

But this comment  was very revealing and poignant,"It isn't the pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal, it is pro-choicers. The case for 'after birth abortion'    draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us , implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn't."

"Proponents of abortion," Saletan says, "Believe that the value of life depends on choice. They don't accept the idea that the path from pregnancy to maternity, being natural, must be followed. They argue that the choice is up to the woman. Some assert the life within her has no moral status until she chooses to give birth to it."

Giubilini and Minerva simply extend this logic beyond birth. "Since the newborn isn't a person yet, it's significance continues to hinge on it's mothers decision. They might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice. Until then, the newborn imposes no obligation on us, because we are not justified in taking it for granted that it will exist as a person in the future."

Finally Giublini and Minerva show us the true evil and deplorable nature of this way of thinking, which if left unchecked will begin to work its way into our society here:  "The discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. Fetal development can turn tragic at any point. While we already accept the termination of a child (before it is born) who has a grave defect, including the third trimester,what is to stop us from accepting the termination of a child found to have defects after they are born. Giulibini and Minerva argue that, "not all defects can be detected before birth.There are often ones that remain undiscovered until birth.

In an examination of 18 European registries between 2005 and 2009, 1700 infants were born with Down Syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. So the thinking is, these parents should have the choice to end that life when they see what defect the baby has. The few minutes after the child is born should not matter, when just a few minutes before it was born they would have legally been able to terminate the pregnancy.

Here is the crux of their belief, "If criteria such as the cost (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a new born."

Here is the moral challenge.The value of any life increases over time, through physical and mental development. What about diseases and defects that take years to come to the surface in many children's lives? Will we start slaughtering them? Who determines at what point a human life has enough value to be considered a person? Can a person become a non-person if defects are found? Adolf Hitler thought so and we see how that turned out. 

Every human being should be mad, angry, repulsed and disgusted by anyone who would even consider this as a viable option!!!!! But the truth is, this door would never have opened in America if we hadn't stopped valuing all human life, beginning with the unborn! Now that the door is open, the next logical scientific step of a society that believes we are all descendants of slime, is survival of the fittest. Is America heading for a different kind of 'Final Solution' of her own? That is horrible the  question that remains.

A PERSONAL NOTE: I believe Christians need to be informed and pro active.We can't bury our head in the sand and pretend this isn't our problem or wait for Jesus to get us out of this mess. We have a responsibility to preach, teach and advance the Kingdom of God while we are here. For us to not speak out would be a greater sin! I hope we all speak out every chance we get. Lets continue to pray for God to change the hearts and minds of these people and lets vote our conscience and not our pocketbook! When we have done all we can……. then God……..

***********************************************************

Welcome to: A Christian View on Today's Top Stories

A Christian View on Today's Top Stories is an online news source for those who ascribe to a "Christian WorldView." We hope to share current issues, top trending stories and subject of interest from all over the world! While today's major media outlets share information on events  from a very bias, humanistic world viewpoint, we hope to be a common sense, conservative, Christian voice. We hope you will join us by subscribing to our daily posts and "liking" us at our "A Christian View on Today's Top Stories," page on Facebook! 

************************************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES', Does not personally endorse any  ministry, magazine, blog or secular publication shared on this site. 

ABOUT US: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON TODAY'S TOP STORIES': Is a subsidiary of "FORGING OUR FAITH" Ministries. Editor in Chief: Marianne Mauti .

PLEASE CONTACT US: if you want to reprint any of our articles. We can be reached  at forgingyourfaith@ aol.com. Thank you!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:  Carly Hill /for GenFringe.com, Alberto Giubilini and Frencesca Minerva / medical ethics paper, William Saletan / "Whats Wrong with 'After-Birth Abortion" 

EXPOSING "COMMON CORE"

By Marianne Mauti

If you haven't heard a lot of discussion about the 'Common Core Initiative' until recently there is a good reason! The federal government wasn't wanting one. What they do want is  for you to fall in line with this new government backed, educational initiative. So for those of you want really don't understand what all the fuss is about, we here at Today's Top Story want to help!

 So what is 'Common Core'?

* The Common Core States Initiative on the surface is an education initiative that details what K-12 students should know in English, language arts and mathematics at each age. 

* What 'Common Core' does is, basically eliminate local control over K-12 in math and English. Instead it imposes a one-size fits all, top down curriculum that will also apply to private schools and home schoolers! 

 While on the surface, 'Common Core' may sound like a good idea, many parents and others alike have expressed real concern. The proponents of Common Care believe that it creates universal standards that educate and prepare children for college. Along with the universal standards, however, come other issues and problems. At the top of the list of concerns, is the federal mandate behind common core!

Common Core proponents claim there is no federal mandate, instead referring to it as, "state led" and "voluntary." Even their website asserts, "The Federal Government was not involved in the development of the standards". They further declare that it is not a national curriculum, but as they say,"It is a clear set of goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed.

Diane Ravich, a former assistant U.S. secretary of education vehemently disagrees. She said this in a recent article in the Washington Post,"They were developed by an organization called 'Achieve' and the 'National Governors Association' (both generously funded by the Gates foundation).There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core. It was not a grassroots endeavor and it did not emanate from the states, instead it is being driven by policymakers in D.C."

Those opposed to the new initiative want the public to understand that Common Core can hardly be called voluntary! The Obama administration offers educational grant's which come from stimulus funds to states that adopt the Common Core. This kind of coercion has led some states not to adopt the new national standards program. Many states simply do not believe their is enough evidence the program will work! Ravich also had this to say," We have become a nation of guinea pigs, trying a new program all at the same time….would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials,no concerns for possible harm or unintended consequences?" We have been asked as parents to support a curriculum that has never been piloted anywhere. Where is the common sense in that?????

Abeka Books (a Christian education curriculum), had this to  say about  the Common Core  on their  official web page, "Standards in education are often useful when they inform content in an effort to ensure that subject matter is age appropriate, sequentially meaningful and academically rigorous. Unfortunately,some of  Common Core goes beyond content and moves into the realm of teaching methodology.Since many of these techniques do not align with our traditional Christian approach, we have purposefully chosen not to add them,but rather to leave it up to the school or individual to make decisions for implementation in keeping with their philosophy and principles of teaching and learning."

Maureen Van Den Berg, legislative analyst for the American Association of Christian Schools, a conservative group with more than 100,000 students and teachers in its member schools, also opposes the standards. At a recent Common Core panel hosted by the conservative Family Research Council,Van Den Berg said,"Federal involvement undermines parental responsibility for their children's education."

Lindsey Burke, education policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington based think tank,said that Common Core is,"unprecedented federal intervention into education. You have all of these federal fingerprints on the Common Core, which is why we see it as a federal push to create national standards and tests to define what every child in public schools across the country will learn," Burke then said, "If you just look at an abridged history of federal involvement in education, it's been growing rapidly over the past few decades…We have not seen improvements in student outcomes because of that."

For some in the academic field,'Common Core' is a bit of an ignigma. Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas had this to say, "No material was ever provided to the Validation Committee or to the public on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics." He refused to sign off on the standards.

For others, it as a step down from our current standard system and even a possible disaster. Stanford University professor James Milgram (the only mathematician on the validation panel) concluded that the Common Core math scheme would place American students two years behind their peers in other high-achieving countries. Milgram also refused to sign off on the standards.

Ze'ev Wurman, a prominent software archetect,electrical engineer and math advisor for California and Washington D.C. had this to say about Common Core,

"I believe the Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has any reason left to aspire for first-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark enforced by the federal government."

 He then made a comment I found quite revealing, "There are organizations that have reasons to work for lower and less-demanding standards, specifically teachers unions and professional teacher organizations. While they may not admit it, they have a vested interest in lowering the accountability bar for their members….this will be done in the name of 'critical thinking' and '21st century' skills, and in faraway Washington, D.C., well beyond the reach of parents and most states and employers."

Stephanie Bell, a member of the Alabama State Board of Education, has also been speaking up against the standards.She said they were founded on a flawed idea which has every child across America  "on the same page at the same time." She goes on to say,"Every child is created differently. Sadly school superintendents and administrators are only being given one-sided information from the promoters of Common Core.The curriculum replaces the classics with government propaganda." She then added,"The Common core website uses Orwellian language to deny that the curriculum tells teachers what to teach." 

The site claims that is a myth,"These standards will establish what students need to learn, but they will not dictate how teachers should teach." In other words, it is telling teachers what to teach (sex education, evolution, etc.) , but telling them they can choose how to teach it,( using assignments, movies, class discussion or reading)! 

Here is what every American need to really grasp; Common Core amasses large amounts of personal information about students. A report by the Department of Education reveals that Common Core's data mining includes, "using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges posture, a pressure sensative computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kid's wrists." What is clear is the 'Common Core' agenda is a cookie cutter solution to a population that is different and diversified. Federal education mandates don't work because everyone is unique. When those in favor of Common Core resort to Orwellian language to hide the truth, you know it can't be good for America!

Today's Top Story's will continue to report on  'Common Core' as new information becomes available. For now I think it would be a good idea for all parents to become as informed as they possibly can. As Bible believing Christians, we have a responsibility to train up our children in the knowledge of God and His word. We also have a responsibility to protect them from any educational initiative or system (government or otherwise) devised to adversely indoctrinate our children. 

Now more than ever, it is time to question the veracity of our current public education system and what role it should have in our children's lives, while we still can!

***********************************************************

Welcome to: A Christian View on Today's Top Stories

A Christian View on Today's Top Stories is an online news source for those who ascribe to a "Christian WorldView." We hope to share current issues, top trending stories and subject of interest from all over the world! While today's major media outlets share information on events  from a very bias, humanistic world viewpoint, we hope to be a common sense, conservative, Christian voice. We hope you will join us by subscribing to our daily posts and "liking" us at our "A Christian View on Today's Top Stories," page on Facebook! 

***********************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES', Does not personally endorse any  ministry, magazine, blog or secular publication shared on this site. 

ABOUT US: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON TODAY'S TOP STORIES': Is a subsidiary of "FORGING OUR FAITH" Ministries. Editor in Chief: Marianne Mauti .

PLEASE CONTACT US: if you want to reprint any of our articles. We can be reached  at forgingyourfaith@ aol.com. Thank you!

ARTICLE RESOURCES: The Washington Post, michellemalkin.com, abeka.com, Rachel Alexander/ intellectualconservative.com

WHO CONTROLS YOUR CHOICE AND YOUR MONEY?

By Marianne Mauti

THE SOCIALIST'S SAY: Every American is entitled to healthcare……THE FREE MARKET CAPITALIST'S SAY: Every American should have the ability to access affordable healthcare…... 

There are two  fundamentally opposite philosophies at the heart of the Obama Care debate!

 The first finds it's root in socialism (the need of the many outweigh the need of the one) Regardless of your ability or willingness to pay, the government is obligated to provide you (using taxpayer money) full access to every type of healthcare, whether you require it or not. The problem is, this type of care involves a blanket requirement by law that everyone must participate or risk fines.  The government will now control 1/3 of the American economy severely reducing American's individual financial liberty and oh, by the way, the IRS ( who doesn't have to answer to congress) will be in charge of it ! Government control always results in the loss of personal liberty, religious freedom and choice (choosing your own Doctor, your procedure). The ultimate decision for your health and well-being will eventually be left to a panel of individuals who have no personal connection to you!

The latter philosophy gives every individual the freedom to purchase whatever type of healthcare they want, when they want it. In our personal 'pursuit of Happiness', we should have access to affordable healthcare with a reasonable pricing system  determined by the free market. We should not be required by law to purchase it, or any part of it violates our religious conviction. We should also be allowed to choose a plan that excludes services we no longer require (if you are elderly you shouldn't have to pay for maternity care). The implementation of exchanges across states borders, the ability to join group plans, or set up your own health accounts, would greatly improve the cost and availability of services under this system! 

The less fortunate who are not already enrolled in medicare or medicaid, should have access to medical care at a reasonable price to be determined by their income. Their should be a medical safety net within the medical community, through charity organizations and philanthropic foundations! Perhaps, if congress had taken steps to do this sooner, the socialist agenda would not have been so successful in  disrupting and fundamentally transforming the one of the most important , personal and life evolving aspects of  economy.  

The philosophical difference comes down to…….. WHO CONTROLS YOUR CHOICE AND WHO CONTROL YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!

Who do you believe will do a better job ? How will it affect the liberty and freedom you have now? Do we want to hand it over  to the inept, bloated, corrupt hands of the government or do we need to reform our old system? These are the questions we better be prepared to ask in the upcoming election! The governments answer will depend greatly on the philosophical beliefs of those who will go to Washington in 2014!

In America, there are only two people that can take money from you against your will.  The first is a thief and the other is the government.  You come home from work and open your paycheck only to find out that Uncle Sam has already been there. Whether you realize it or not you are at the beginning stage of the greatest series of tax increases this nation has ever known. These programs aren't free ,everyone of us will pay for the socialist, third party form of healthcare and as a result our Nation will suffer the consequences!

The simple definition of a nation’s economy is the total amount of goods and services bought and sold.  Higher taxes result in less freedom, fewer choices and a lower standard of living for the wage earner.   Consequently the result is a slower economy.  You can look at any state or nation and you’ll find that greater the percent of the Gross National Product that goes to the government, the less prosperous the nation.   The principal is the greater the freedom of the individual, the greater the wealth of the nation; the greater the government, the greater the poverty.

HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT SUPPRESSION AND REGULATION DO TO AN ECONOMY …….

Consider as an example North and South Korea.  They have the same heritage, culture and climate.  After the Korean War ended, North Korea had total Socialism.  In the last five years, 2.5 million Koreans have starved, the roads are dirt, and you see people walking around bent over because they have been eating twigs and grass to fill their stomachs. South Korea with the same heritage, the same culture, the same climate received freedom in 1953 and last year had the 10^th largest Gross Domestic Product in the world.  What is the principal?  The greater the freedom, the greater the wealth.  When you understand that, you can make any rich nation poor and any poor nation rich.

THIRD PARTY ECONOMICS…...

One reason is understanding the concept of “third party” purchasing.  Let us suppose you are going to buy something with your own money and plan to use it yourself.  This is called a “first party” purchase.  You care about both price and quality and you use your money for the maximum benefit.  You want the most bang for your buck.

Now let’s suppose you are going to buy something to give to someone else.  This is a “second party” purchase.  You still are concerned about the price since you are paying for it, but you are not quite as concerned about the quality since you are not the end user.  The further removed that person is from the end user, the more flexible one becomes on the issue of quality.  That is human nature. 

A “third party” purchase is purchasing something that you will not use or consume with money that is not yours.   You will not be concerned about the price, because it is not your money and you are flexible about the quality, because you aren’t the end user.  By definition, all government purchases are “third party” purchases, made with money that is not theirs to buy something that they will not consume.  Therefore, there WILL be waste in government spending.  There will be waste in the highway department; there will be waste in the defense department.   

"What percentage of every dollar collected by the government for the poor actually reaches them?  A dismal 30 percent.  The U.S. government is quite possibly the nations’ most inefficient mechanism for meeting the needs of the poor." (The Bible, Voters and the 2008 Election, by David Barton)

Every time we take a dollar from an individual to save and produce the maximum benefit and instead run it through a governmental pipeline, we are in the process of making the nation poorer.You look at any city, state or nation and you’ll see that the greater the government, the greater the poverty, the greater the freedom of the individual, the greater the wealth and that is what applied economics in politics is all about.

The social experiment in Europe has failed. Sweden (who has a 90% tax rate) is in the process of dumping it's socialist ways. While citizens in that country have a subsidy for everything and healthcare is free, Sweden's has seen in the last few decades a sharp decline in work related incentive. The newest generation of workers just doesn't see the point of working hard, going beyond what is expected and finds no incentive in the system for creating new opportunities or industries . When you only take home 10 percent of your pay why work harder to make more! 

When you take the incentive out of society, you are left with apathy. I think Europe has proven that and yet American's in favor of socialism still think we can make it work. A philosophy that has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried has now begun to dig it's deep claws into the American culture and your wallet…….watch out, here comes Obama Care!!!!!!

***********************************************************

Welcome to: A Christian View on Today's Top Stories

A Christian View on Today's Top Stories is an online news source for those who ascribe to a "Christian WorldView." We hope to share current issues, top trending stories and subject of interest from all over the world! While today's major media outlets share information on events  from a very bias, humanistic world viewpoint, we hope to be a common sense, conservative, Christian voice. We hope you will join us by subscribing to our daily posts and "liking" us at our "A Christian View on Today's Top Stories," page on Facebook! 

***********************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES', Does not personally endorse any  ministry, magazine, blog or secular publication shared on this site. 

ABOUT US: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON TODAY'S TOP STORIES': Is a subsidiary of "FORGING OUR FAITH" Ministries. Editor in Chief: Marianne Mauti .

PLEASE CONTACT US: if you want to reprint any of our articles. We can be reached  at forgingyourfaith@ aol.com. Thank you!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: The Bible, Voters and the 2008 Election, by David Barton

THE CONVENIENCE OF OF ASSISTED SUICIDE

In the wake of Belgium's new child euthanasia law, Great Britain is now looking at the prospect of adopting this into law. Not surprising for a nation that does not allow mothers to bury their unborn babies but allows the government to harvest their  cells and burn them like trash! Here is a recent article by Wesley J. Smith from LifeNews that will give you cause to shudder as  the 'convince of assisted suicide' begins to take a foothold across Europe………..

 Putting Loved Ones Out of Our Misery: The Convenience of Assisted Suicide

by Wesley J. Smith | LifeNews.com 

Emotional whipsawing is the lifeblood of euthanasia advocacy (pardon the pun). The movement thrives on often truly heart-wrenching stories to convince society to grant a general license allowing doctors or family members to help kill the disabled, despairing and dying.  The Daily Mail carried such a report recently of a mother named Heather Pratten who smothered her son as he was committing suicide because he was in anguish at having Huntington’s disease. From the story:

Speaking on ITV’s This Morning, she explained how on his 42nd birthday, Nigel had tried to take his life with a massive heroin overdose. Lying next to him and seeing him struggling to breathe as the drug took hold, she took a pillow and suffocated him to relieve his suffering. She told hosts Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield: ‘I thought “this has to end”. I couldn’t take it any longer. I put a pillow over his face. When I took it away, he was gone.’ Although she was arrested and charged, an autopsy concluded her actions would not have changed Nigel’s fate.

Nigel had always been very depressed, leaving home, drinking to excess, etc.  From what we can tell in the story, he was not receiving psychiatric help. Nor was he was not at the end stage of the disease when he took the overdose. Now Heather is campaigning to legalize assisted suicide. (Notice the Mail used a photo of Nigel as a child to hype the emotionalism. He was actually 42 when he died.)

We saw the same kind of thing in Canada some time ago when Robert Latimer was hailed as a hero by many Canadians after he murdered his 12 year-old daughter Traci because she had cerebral palsy. We can have great empathy for the anguish of Pratten–without condoning killing or opening the door to the abandonment of assisted suicide.

Besides, there is another side to this issue that usually receives media short shrift. Recall the assisted suicide of Myrna Lebov, in which her self-described “compassionate” husband became an instant assisted suicide movement hero after claiming to have helped his wife die because she had progressive MS. But it turned out that he had actually pushed her into the death and had been planning to write a book about his deed all along. From my piece about the case  in the Weekly Standard:

On March 28, 1995, Delury wrote in his diary that he planned to tell his wife: I have work to do, people to see, places to travel. But no one asks about my needs. I have fallen prey to the tyranny of a victim. You are sucking my life out of my like a vampire and nobody cares. In fact, it would appear that I am about to be cast in the role of villain because I no longer believe in you. Delury later admitted on the NBC program Dateline that he had shown his wife that very passage. Moreover, not only did he push her into “death with dignity,” but smothered her with a plastic bag to make sure she died.

For many the Pratten and Latimer cases resonate far more strongly than Lebov’s killing. We live in pro-suicide times. We should take a long, hard look in a societal mirror about that.

***********************************************************

 One Final thought:

I wonder how many people will begin to murder loved ones for the sake of convince or life insurance??? Will they claim it was assisted suicide! This is the rippling effect of a Godless society that no longer values human life ! 

The Bible teaches that human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) and therefore have dignity and value. Human life is sacred and should not be terminated merely because life is difficult or inconvenient. Psalm 139 teaches that humans are fearfully and wonderfully made.

***********************************************************

Welcome to: A Christian View on Today's Top Stories

A Christian View on Today's Top Stories is an online news source for those who ascribe to a "Christian WorldView." We hope to share current issues, top trending stories and subject of interest from all over the world! While today's major media outlets share information on events  from a very bias, humanistic world viewpoint, we hope to be a common sense, conservative, Christian voice. We hope you will join us by subscribing to our daily posts and "liking" us at our "A Christian View on Today's Top Stories," page on Facebook! 

***********************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES' ,Does not publicly endorse any  ministry, magazine, blog or secular publication shared on this site. 

ABOUT US: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON TODAY'S TOP STORIES': Is a subsidiary of "FORGING OUR FAITH" Ministries. Editor in Chief: Marianne Mauti .

PLEASE CONTACT US: if you want to reprint any of our articles. We can be reached  at forgingyourfaith@ aol.com. Thank you!

ADDITIONAL SOURCES:  LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exceptionalism.

AMERICA'S CULTURAL SHIFT

By Marianne Mauti

THE CULTURAL SHIFT AND HOW IT IS SHAPING AMERICA……..

Have you ever felt like the world has completely turned upside down? In recent years we have seen America go from a Nation that has fought for the freedom of others to a Nation whose own freedom's especially the right to exercise religious beliefs is diminishing on a daily basis.There is no denying that, as a Nation, we find ourselves in a cultural shift that has encompassed every facet of American Life!

 All you have to do is take a look at the social culture of a generation, view it's artistic expression and you will have a pretty good picture of where a Nation is heading. A recent article from "Forging Our Faith",points out the secular agenda behind the current shift, …" secularists have been working tirelessly over the last several decades to en-culturate our youth to believe their values are personal and as such could and should evolve over time.It would be hard for anyone growing up in todays ethical system to believe there used to be a firm biblical moral consensus in this country and a time when Christian Institution’s commanded respect."

Katy Perry at the 2014 Grammy's

A few month's ago we witnessed the evidence of that enculturation  when the 2014 Grammy's aired. Never before has there been so blatant an assault by the anti- christian humanists as they attempted to packaged and sell their overly sexualized and pagan display to our kids as "art". It was so over the top that even the secular media wondered if Katy Perry was actually trying to summon Beelzabub. In a recent article entitled,"How Did the 2014 Grammy's Awards signal a Shift in the American Culture," writer Ed Stetzer had this to say,"in some ways they are indicative of its shifts." He goes on to say," Views that were sidelined ten years ago (remember, Presidents Clinton and Obama were once opposed to gay marriage) are not just accepted, they are celebrated. And, those who hold to a Biblical standard of marriage are "paraphras[ing] a book written thirty-five hundred years ago". He points out the obvious disparity between the cultural statements that the "artists" of today make and the average American family. The fact is that the en-culturalization of our youth was alive and well at this years Grammy's and every parent who allowed their children to watch gave their young minds a big dose of what their pop culture hero's believe!

He then goes on to point out that, "Christians are going to become increasingly uncomfortable in this world and will struggle to express it!" While they may be true for Christians who use their talent in the secular music industry, it was encouraging to see Christian artist Natalie Grant take a courageous and very public step in showing  her disapproval of the evenings event's when she and her husband got up and left the Grammy's early. Grant who was twice nominated that evening tweeted this message to her fans later that night,"We left the Grammys early. I've many thoughts, most of which are probably better left inside my head."  "I've never been more honored to sing about Jesus and for Jesus. And I've never been more sure of the path I've chosen."

At the heart of today's en-culturalization is a belief by many young Christians that they don't need to adhere to strict tenants of God's Word, that it is no longer the source of all truth. In fact destroying the belief in the absolute truth of God's Word is at the heart of the humanist agenda!  A recent survey by George Barna (The Barna Group), of young adults (20's), indicates that less than one in a hundred has beliefs consistent with a Biblical worldview. George Barna says that the younger generation often cut and paste their beliefs and values from a variety of sources, even if they are contradictory. 

The cultural shift that Christian Americans have been responding to is the lie that we can intellectually separate our religious beliefs from our secular life and it is no longer necessary to define our morality solely on the Word of God. We see this happening when socially prominent and beloved TV personalities such as, Oprah Winfrey, (who professes to being a Christian) say publicly about theology, “I took God out of the box . . . I'm a free-thinking Christian who believes in my way, but I don't believe that it's the only way, . . ..”  A philosophy like Oprah's can only advance when Christians are willing to accept the premise  of  an evolving relationship with God and we don't challenge that erroneous way of thinking ! Our lack of a meaningful response tells the world that we are willing to abandon the God of the Bible and create a God who thinks like us! We want to decide which laws of God fit into our personal theology and which ones don't! Heres the problem with that, God has the idea that he gets to decide what is moral and immoral and we don't get to have an opinion or different interpretation! We also don't get to  pick and choose! 

What can we do to push back on the assault against our faith, values and moral beliefs. I like what Natalie Grant had to say at the conclusion of her comments on the nights event, "I AM NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST." As the worlds "cultural train" continues to careen down every avenue of American life let's be bold and courageous enough to live as passionately and as loudly as they do! Christ in us should be the standard that brings conviction and repentance and salvation to others! It almost sounds too simple. I heard someone say recently:

"Preach the Gospel and when necessary use words!" 

What they were saying was this, your life can "exemplify" what your words can only "amplify" .What truth there is in that simple statement! Frances Schaeffer (Author of "The Christian Manifesto", "Whatever Happened to the Human Race", etc.) had this to say about cultural shifts and worldview, "Today not only in philosophy but in politics, government, and individual morality, our generation sees solutions in terms of an evolutionary process and not absolutes. When this happens, truth, as people have always believed truth to be, has died." Schaeffer, in his belief of mans evolving worldview declared that man has now placed himself as the "measure of all things". Schaeffer believed that the Church had forsaken its duty to be the salt of the culture and what we are now seeing is the result. Was he right?

***********************************************************

Welcome to: A Christian View on Today's Top Stories

A Christian View on Today's Top Stories is an online news source for those who ascribe to a "Christian WorldView." We hope to share current issues, top trending stories and subject of interest from all over the world! While today's major media outlets share information on events  from a very bias, humanistic world viewpoint, we hope to be a common sense, conservative, Christian voice. We hope you will join us by subscribing to our daily posts and "liking" us at our "A Christian View on Today's Top Stories," page on Facebook!  

***********************************************************

PLEASE NOTE: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES' ,Does not publicly endorse any  ministry, magazine, blog or secular publication shared on this site. 

ABOUT US: 'A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON TODAY'S TOP STORIES': Is a subsidiary of "FORGING OUR FAITH" Ministries. Editor in Chief: Marianne Mauti .

PLEASE CONTACT US: if you want to reprint any of our articles. We can be reached  at forgingyourfaith@ aol.com. Thank you!

ADDITIONAL SOURCES: Forging Your Faith, Ed Stetzer/"How Did the 2014 Grammy's Awards signal a Shift in the American Culture," writer Ed Stetzer , The Barna Group, Natalie Grant Twitter, Frances Schaeffer/The Christian Manifesto