African American Pastor Endorses Church Project and Use of Lynching Photos To Condemn Abortion
We really should not have to ask why a Church Project but the real question is why should there have to be a Church Project. We have not learned the lessons of the past and once again the church has failed to respond to America's most egregious sin. This time that sin is abortion. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther king said of the church of his day, ‘the contemporary church is often a weak , ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is often the arch-supporter of the status quo.’ As it was then, so it is today; the agents of social justice long for the voice of the church along with the commitment to join in the struggle. As it was then so let it be now that the visualization of the victim will move the church to action and final victory. Dr. King also said, ‘We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.’ Though we may debate the priority of targets, we all stand in agreement on the necessity of the Church Project's mission. And not least because African American children have suffered disproportionately from this country’s abortion genocide, I support the use of signs which bear the images of President Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in American history, displayed beside photos of lynched African Americans, whose humanity, like that of today’s unborn children, was once called into question. We now have a face to put on Black Genocide in America and paradoxically, that face belongs to America’s first black president.
Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress Jr
Responsibility for Life
Star Parker Commentary
January 26, 2009
The Washington Times
In these uncertain times, some things remain constant. One is the arrival each Jan. 22 of tens of thousands of pro-life Americans to Washington, D.C., to note the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and to mourn.
Forty eight million American children, given the gift of life, but deprived of seeing the light of day, have been destroyed in the womb since that 22nd of January in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion. So, again this year they came.
Change really is not such a new idea in America. They have been coming to Washington seeking change now for 36 years. But apparently the change they want is not change our new president can believe in.
Unlike his predecessor, who annually addressed the shivering crowd, Mr. Obama declined their invitation to speak. However, he issued a brief press statement, not about change but about the status quo - celebrating the 1973 decision.
Maybe our first black president doesn't know that, despite blacks being just 12 percent of the American population, black babies constitute 37 percent of all our aborted children: 1 of every 2 black pregnancies is aborted.
In the words of my friend, the Rev. Clenard Childress, "the most dangerous place for an African-American to be is in the womb of their African-American mother."
According to Mr. Obama's statement, Roe v Wade was about "reproductive freedom" and a "woman's right to choose" and our "daughters" having "the same rights ... as our sons." What responsibilities go with these "rights" Mr. President? And do we have ultimate responsibilities? And if so, to whom?
In his Inaugural address, Mr. Obama appealed for "a new era of responsibility," bemoaned "greed and irresponsibility" and "failure to make hard choices." But, Mr. President, if you condone a culture that has no sense of awe and responsibility toward the greatest of all miracles and mysteries - life itself - how can you expect responsibility elsewhere?
The president's statement proposes to "reduce" abortions by expanding "access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services." But if there is no problem in destroying the unborn child, why is reducing abortions a goal? If it is OK to do it once, why not 20 times? Or a million times a year, like now?
And, sir, will you continue to force us taxpayers to pay for the "unintended" consequences of women exercising their "reproductive freedom"?
Can it be accidental that along with the millions of abortions that followed the Roe v. Wade decision, the stability of American families spiraled downward, divorce rates increased, and out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed to where today 4 in 10 babies are born to unwed mothers?
As columnist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, as late as 1970 most black children were raised in two-parent families. By 1995, one-third were.
For those who claim Christian conservatives care only about abortion and gay marriage and are indifferent to social issues such as poverty, know that they are all one and the same issue.
The black poverty rate, which has been frozen at twice the national average for decades, is almost exclusively a phenomenon of single-parent homes. Black families with two married parents at home are on approximate economic par with white families.
According to the most recent report on sexually transmitted diseases from the Center for Disease Control, these diseases are increasing and spreading in our nation. Blacks account, depending on the disease, for between 50 percent and 70 percent of them.
No, this is not about "reproductive freedom." This about respect for life, for others, and a true culture of responsibility. What can be done?
Understand that our crisis is one of values. Restore law that protects all life. And free at-risk children from the tyranny of government schools where they are taught moral relativism. Allow these children the freedom to go to church schools.
Meanwhile, Mr. President, we'll see you again next Jan. 22.
Star Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist, author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (http://www.urbancure.org).