TEC Backs Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Not surprising.

The ECUSA/TEC is proudly the only “church” to have joined the RCRC!
http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm
Pictured here on the RCRC website THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (does not) WELCOME YOU (embryos and fetuses)!

“We believe that it is our social and moral obligation to ensure access to high quality comprehensive health care services at every stage in an individual’s life,”

That all depends of course on when life’s stages begin.

This is truly sickening.

Is there no sacrilege these enemies of God will not smugly indulge?

Oh.

People are actually able to write this type of thing and still sleep at night?  How?

How anyone thinks that killing babies is health care I will never understand.

Death to TEC.
Intercesor

Funding abortions with taxpayers money is a dream for the far left in America.  Since direct persecution of Christians is not yet acceptable, the next best thing is to take a Christian’s money and use it to commit an act that is most offensive to the faith.

Taking our money (so we can’t give it to our churches) which we earn through our labor (in the form of income taxes) and using it to kill babies is the perfect way for the left to humiliate, insult, demoralize, and denigrate us.  It’s really not about the abortion itself - if they wanted to create a giant fund to pay for abortions, that would be easy to do.  But that’s not the point - that is THEIR money…not Christian money.

This is just one man’s opinion, of course.  But I have read enough of the far left’s unguarded comments to understand how they think - perhaps better than they understand themselves.
DoW

i believe that as Christians we are to have certain expectations of other Christians. since the vast majority of the tec hierarchy are not Christians this letter of support is not surprising. this letter from tec could have been written by the american atheists or by wiccans for choice (if they exsist) and it would read the same to me. no expectations from a non-Christian group.

Heavens, this Clintonian parsing is getting so tiresome.  This is like the spin of all those GC resolutions.  “Neutral language” means that someone will find a way to fund it by either bureaucratic machinations or lawsuit.  What a bunch of dissembling weasels.  Of course that unduly disparages weasels.

Jesus Wept.
Another reason to have swum the Tiber.

Now that the Episcopal Church advocates taking money from taxpayers in order to change it into funding for Abortions I am reminded of what Jesus said to the money changers?

Luke 19:
45 And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therin, and them that bought;
46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but you have made it a den of theives.

What a revolting band of cretins TEC is.

They are also willing accomplices to the murder of innocent unborn children.

It’s time for me to print a new batch of “Kill the Children, I’m Pro-Abortion” bumper stickers and spend a few Sundays handing them out at local Episcopal churches along with TEC letter endorsing abortion. Folks might as well honestly embrace their religion’s practice.

BTW - take an opportunity to visit the new TEC visitor center: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/visitors.htm. You’ll quickly see why such positions get taken.

This action on the part of TEc is reprehensible though not surprising as others have pointed out above. This is just one more example in an ever expanding array of indicators that TEc can no longer claim to be a representative member of the Christian Faith. We will continue to pray for the remaining orthodox members, parishes, and clergy that still witness inside of this apostate body but the time is nearing when even they will have had enough.

Disgusting.  Revolting.  But not suprising.

Lancelot Andrewes on Christ the Embryo!
http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v1/sermon9.html
“This sure is matter of love; but came there any good to us by it? There did. For our conception being the root as it were, the very groundsill of our nature; that He might go to the root and repair of our nature from the very foundation, thither He went; that what had been there defiled and decayed by the first Adam, might by the Second be cleansed and set right again. That had our conception been stained, by Him therefore, primum ante omnia,to be restored again. He was not idle all the time He was an embyro, all the nine months He was in the womb; but then and there He even ate out the core of corruption that cleft to our nature and us, and made both us and it an unpleasing object in the sight of God.
And what came of this? We who were abhorred by God, filii irae was our title, were by this means made beloved in Him. He cannot, we may be sure, account evil of that nature, that is now become the nature of His own Son, His now no less than ours. Nay farther, given this privilege to the children of such as are in Him, though but of one parent believing, that they are not as the seed of two infidels, but are in a degree holy,O eo ipso; and have a farther right to the laver of regeneration,O to sanctify them throughout by the renewing of the Holy Ghost.O This honour is to us by the dishonour of Him; this the good by Christ an embyro!  http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v1/sermon9.html

Excellent resources: http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

As I study the Great Schism, so often, the reason given for it is the insertion of the filioque clause by the Roman Church. Certainly it is more than that but compared to the issue of abortion before us it seems like small potatoes. For those who chose to remain in TEC, I hope they protest vigorously this murder of the unborn.

Interestingly, RCRC receives very little in the way of membership dues from TEC and the other church boards that belong to it. Most of the $4 million budget comes from secular foundations such as (no joke) the Playboy Foundation. The whole purpose of denominational membership is to provide a thin religious veneer for secular abortion rights advocacy. Translation: they don’t need your dollars, what they need is YOUR NAME. “The 2.1 million-member Episcopal Church is a member of RCRC.” That counts you, if you are in TEC.

In addition to organizing letters of support for pro-abortion policies, RCRC sponsors some regular events, like the National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality. Jeremiah Wright was invited to speak at the 2009 summit (but canceled at the last minute). IRD provides coverage of this each year. Our hope is to get the United Methodist agencies to withdraw following their next General Conference in 2012. We think it is likely that this can be achieved.

http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=622

p.s. Lest people think this is something that all mainline churches are a part of, think again: the ELCA and the American Baptist Church are not supporters of RCRC.

The Episcopal Church USA has been taken captive by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (The RCRC).
I pray that our Bishops will become informed about the RCRC and that they will at least express righteous indignation about this.
The RCRC is an aggressive Pro-Abortion lobbyist organization, RCRC lawyers argued for partial birth abortion before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did NOT accept their argument in favor of partial birth abortion.  Apparently The Episcopal Church USA is not as discerning as the Supreme Court when it comes to the RCRC.

#21—Jeff, good info!  Kind of like how Catholics for Choice isn’t funded predominantly by Catholics, but rather the Ford Foundation.

The RCRC had a post bemoaning the Supreme Court ruling on its site at one time but I could not find it there. In case anyone is interested in the 2007 Supreme Court ruling you can find it here

http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release041807.html

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The Act proscribes a method of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion of the birth process. . . Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a ‘disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant.’ . . .” The majority ruled that a general ban on the method is permissible and does not violate the general “abortion right” enunciated in past decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992).

I pray that our Bishops will become informed about the RCRC and that they will at least express righteous indignation about this.

Betty,
Unfortunately, your bishops (assuming you are in TEC) are fully informed about it, and the majority support the actions of TEC.  Every attempt by conservatives in either the HoB or HoD to address the issues has been blocked.  If the majority of bishops had any intention of disassociating TEC from RCRC, they would have done so by now.

Betty, several dioceses passed resolutions dissociating themselves from the decision of the Executive Council to join the RCRC.  Some of the dissociating dioceses are now in ACNA.  Attempts to address this issue at General Convention will meet death by committee.  If your diocese has not already dissociated, consider that effort.  By all means, write your bishop and rector and ask your TEC friends to do likewise.

TEC makes me sick, and it’s glad I am that it will never again get a nickel of my money.

Our diocese - Albany - voted at its 2008 diocesan convention to dissociate itself from RCRC. I’m pleased about that, but I’m afraid that issues in TEC are getting to the point where it’s going to be impossible for people of good conscience to in any way support TEC. I already designate my giving to my local parish for our food ministries. But it’s beginning to seem to me that just being associated with this vile excuse for a church is approaching a grave wrong.

Some further comment - I think it’s time to stop worrying about offending those in our parishes who don’t see abortion as wrong, and to educate about what abortion really is. I recently read a pamphlet by a doctor who used to run an abortion clinic; she describes in detail what partial birth abortion entails. She included drawings. The procedure itself is sickening, but it’s even more sickening that our civilization has sunk to the level where this can happen. This is a moral issue. It’s not primarily an issue of personal freedom. One doesn’t have the freedom to rid oneself of a teenager who is rebellious and uncontrollable by killing him; nor does one have the freedom to choose to kill a wandering spouse. We don’t have the freedom to choose to do a lot of things, including using LSD or heroin, or drinking and driving, or any of a coutnless number of other things. As to when human life begins, even if we think that it doesn’t begin - or might not begin - at the moment of conception, are we to play God and claim to know at what precise moment it does begin?

Abortion funding is cost effective. The cost of an abortion is far less than a live birth and saves thousands more in lifetime benefits. Birth control funding would also be cost-effective for the same reasons. I would think fiscal conservatives would like this idea, but they’ll still hung up on the silly notion that sex-is-only-for-reproduction-and-only-in-marriage. The problem is most Americans and many people elsewhere in the world don’t agree.

The cost of an abortion is far less than a live birth and saves thousands more in lifetime benefits.

Even on the level of purely secular (and liberal) economics, that is sheer idiocy.  Taken to its logical conclusion, you would just abort all children because you would save on benefit costs.  However, the vast majority of people contribute positively to the economy- that is to say, the nation profits from their existence.  The benefits allotted to the person may seem expensive, but not when weighed against their economic contribution to society.  Without all those positive contributions, our society would never have advanced to the point where we could argue about these things over the internet.
No doubt you would never believe a conservative economist on that.  So try reading John Kenneth Galbraith or John Maynard Keynes- the entirety of liberal economics is based on the concept that even the poor make a contribution to the health and welfare of the general society.
If that doesn’t work, try the Bible.

The cost of an abortion is far less than a live birth and saves thousands more in lifetime benefits.

Yes, TJ, sheer idiocy.   It boggles the mind that such a statement could be made.  These modern day Herods would slaughter all the innocents- it would save money!

TJ,

“strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers” (II Timothy 2:14)

“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker…” (II Timothy 2:16-17)

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.” (II Timothy 2:23)

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” (Proverbs 26:4-5)

#30, Desert DAvid, at first I thought you were being ironic in your post; but I think now that you’re absolutely serious, which is hard to believe. Every time I think nothing in this world can shock me anynore, something does. You are making my point about how distressing is the level to which our civilization has sunk. (Post #29) Perhaps you would suggest that we kill the mentally challenged, the physically handicapped, the elderly, cancer patients - all those whom it is more expensive to keep alive than ot kill.

“Well, they’d better go ahead and die then, to decrease the surplus population!” (Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol”)

More regretable words were never spoken.

mrb

Desert David (#30),

Most of those of us opposing abortion are convinced intentionally killing a baby is a sin.  Pretty simple and straight-forward, but admittedly sort of old fashion stuff, isn’t it David?

Meditate on it, please, David.  Willfully and intentionally killing a defenseless baby, usually for the convenience of the mother, if you will pardon the expression in this context, is a sin.  Get it David?  The mother killing her baby probably, in most cases, because it is inconvenient to have it now.  Murder, David!  Murder for convenience, David.  Get it, David?

My view is that killing a defenseless baby is a sin, the 10 Commandments, in my view, say so.  I do not know precisely when life begins; I believe it begins at conception.  I do not know for sure and I doubt that you know for sure.  I think it clearly is morally wrong to risk committing murder of a defenseless baby in its mother’s womb simply because we are not sure when life, in God’s view, actually begins.

People in some parts of the world, including the United States, think it is cost effective to kill the elderly or assist them in suicide, is cost effective.  I agree it is cost effective, but it is a sin.  I cannot think of any set of circumstances, absolutely none, in which cost effectiveness is a justification for sin. 

That is my case, David.  What is yours?

Abortion funding is cost effective. The cost of an abortion is far less than a live birth and saves thousands more in lifetime benefits.

Pray, David, where do those “benefits” come from?

It reminds me of the hobo on the Taggart Transcontinental, telling his tale about the socialist policies of the Century Motor Company to Dagny Taggart.  Before the socialist policies were implemented, he said, people would be happy when a co-worker had a baby, taking up a collection to help with the new arrival.  After, when the birth meant a greater share of the pie automtically went to the family because of the greater need, people began to view children as farmers view locusts.

Collectivism is the worship of death, and David’s post is yet another confirmation of this undeniable fact.

That was, of course, from Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

I can and do respect the desire of a woman to bear a child if she and the baby’s father can afford it. I see no reason why I as a taxpayer childfree by choice (Vasectomy 1975) should be forced to fund the reproduction of those who have made the dumb decision to bear a child without the financial means to properly support one. I also have a problem with the conservative lobby using the force of law to impose its beliefs regarding when a fetus becomes a person. If you believe life begins at conception, you have a right to that belief. What you cannot do is to write that belief into law so that those who don’t believe as you do are forced to go along.  My personal belief is likely to equally offend liberals and conservatives. I believe life begins a viability - when the fetus can exist on its own separately.  Yet I am not on the picket lines demanding the legislature agree with me.

Everytime you write I am horrified afresh, #39.  I guess for you it is all about the benjamins.  Sadly, you will no doubt reap what you sow.

  I believe life begins… when the fetus can exist on its own separately

And when is that?  Exactly when is a child able to “exist on its own separately”?  Two years old?  5?  10?  Sounds like an open-ended formula for killing children.  I guess life also ends when someone is no longer able to care for themselves?  My father, aged 73 with advanced Alzheimer’s, is ripe for “cost effective” solutions?  This amoral belief has absolutely no respect for human life at all.

#39. DesertDavid,

I believe life begins a viability - when the fetus can exist on its own separately.

Actually you don’t beleive this since you don’t want to

...fund those who have made the dumb decision to bear a child without the financial means to properly support one.

My guess is that you only respect the “desire” if she and the baby’s father only have one or at the most, two children. I noticed you didn’t use the words husband or wife either.

[39] DesertDavid

If you believe life begins at conception, you have a right to that belief. What you cannot do is to write that belief into law so that those who don’t believe as you do are forced to go along.

Who says?  The definition of ‘person’ is a legal question.  Your argument in effect says “My definition of personhood is logically prior to the law.”  So perhaps you could explain why your (arbitrary) definition is logically prior to the law.  What authority establishes it?  What binds my hands against establishing a broader legal definition of personhood other than the fact that you wouldn’t like it?  Because frankly I don’t care whether you like it or not.  If I can convince 50%+1 I will shove it down your throat, and not shed a tear in the process.  That’s what laws do, you see.  They compel you to obey whether you like it or not. 

carl

#39. DesertDavid,

If you believe life begins at conception, you have a right to that belief. What you cannot do is to write that belief into law so that those who don’t believe as you do are forced to go along.

Do you see the irony in your statement? Let me put your statement to you. You have a right to believe that life does NOT begin at conception. What you cannot do is to write that belief into law so that those who don’t believe as you do are forced to go along. And we may wind up funding your belief too.

[38] Jeffersonian

That was, of course, from Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

Ayn Rand’s philosophy was just as dead as the collectivism she opposed.  Big Sister is Watching.

Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book [“Atlas Shrugged”] in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!”

carl

Desert David (#39),

You seem to conveniently overlook the headline of this thread:  taxpayer funded abortions.

You also seem to conveniently overlook that no commenter of this blog has proposed outlawing abortions.  If I have overlooked one, please call it to my attention.

You also seem to conveniently overlook that taxpayer funded optional abortions force taxpayers, such as me, to fund a practice, an act, which I believe very fervently to be a sin, a grievous sin.  I do not believe that the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the right to do that.

You also seem to conveniently overlook that sex between a man and a woman is usually a consensual act.  Either or both can abstain.  If they do not understand that a pregnancy and creation of a human being may result, they are engaging in an act to which they are not competent to consent.

You also seem to conveniently overlook that one’s financial and other circumstances which make having a baby inconvenient seldom change materially in the interim between intercourse and conception.

You also seem to conveniently overlook the authority of Scripture and the teaching of Christ’s Church in this matter.

I pray for you.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy was just as dead as the collectivism she opposed.

As a philosophy of life, I’d agree completely (though I think Chambers’ criticism was as shrill as he accuses Rand of being), but as a political philosophy there is much to recommend Objectivism.  Rand’s hostility to religion, to me, is utterly baffling and unnecessary.  You can actually see that in Atlas Shrugged, where it crops up explicitly only in Galt’s speech, nearly at the end of the book.  Until that point, the focus is entirely on the “mystics of muscle.”

I can and do respect the desire of a woman to bear a child if she and the baby’s father can afford it. I see no reason why I as a taxpayer childfree by choice (Vasectomy 1975) should be forced to fund the reproduction of those who have made the dumb decision to bear a child without the financial means to properly support one.

As Walter Williams would say, that’s a problem of socialism, not reproduction.  Remove the welfare state and you’re no longer paying the tab.  But, as Ol’ Bob points out, this is a question of you paying for the abortion.  Don’t you have an objection to that?

I also have a problem with the conservative lobby using the force of law to impose its beliefs regarding when a fetus becomes a person. If you believe life begins at conception, you have a right to that belief. What you cannot do is to write that belief into law so that those who don’t believe as you do are forced to go along.

While I’m heartened at this sudden spasm of libertarian-ish sentiment, I don’t think it goes very deep.  After all, the entire purpose of the FDA is to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies.  Or am I wrong and you’ll be springing the length of your chain to support, say, repeal of laws prohibiting the sale of organs for transplant?

Actually Ol’ Bob, I think all means of murder should be outlawed.  Abortion should not receive an exemption.

DesertDave - According to the government, there are a lot of people out there who can’t survive on their own.  Does this qualify them for extinction in your world?

Jackie (#49),

My point earlier was that no one on this thread had taken that position.  Actually, abortion was illegal in many states prior to Roe v Wade.

I believe in my heart of hearts that optional, discretionary abortion is willful and intentional murder and a sin.  I wish it were still illegal; it is not.

When my friends talk about supporting some candidate who is not a member of the Republican Party I try, frequently in vain, to point out that the government is organized around political parties.  Voting for a Democrat is voting for a Democrat Majority Leader (Harry Reid) in the Senate and a Democrat Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) in the House and control of the agenda in both houses.  That is where the battle on abortions is being and will be fought.  Democrats tend in balance to support discretionary abortion; Republicans in balance tend to reject discretionary abortion.

The argument that optional, discretionary abortion is a sin is more compelling, in my view, than that it should be illegal.

I do not believe that all things I view as being a sin should be illegal.

Keep the Faith and keep up your good work.

Happy New Year!

Murder is murder, including abortion. Murder is illegal. Therefore abortion should be illegal, just as is killing the elderly, recalcitrant teenagers, unproductive addicts, handicapped people, philandering spouses, etc. No, not everything that is a sin is illegal - adultery, for instance (although in the military it is a crime which can be punishable by brig time among other things). But murder is illegal.

[51] Posted by Ol’ Bob

Democrats tend in balance to support discretionary abortion; Republicans in balance tend to reject discretionary abortion.

Just so we are all clear on what you are talking about, what the heck is a ‘discretionary abortion’ and what kind of abortions fall outside this category?

carl

Carl (#53),

You ask:  “…what the heck is a ‘discretionary abortion’…”

Perhaps “discretionary” was not the best choice of modifiers.  I was trying to express the thought that the morality/immorality of some abortions, such as to save the life of the mother or perhaps to end a pregnancy resulting from incest, may be different from an abortion for the convenience of the mother and/or father.

Is killing in clear self-defense “discretionary”?  Is an abortion which is clearly necessary to save the life of the mother “discretionary”?

I guess I would say, Carl, that “discretionary” is, just as is beauty, in the eye of the beholder, except when it clearly is not.  As Humpty Dumpty put it so eloquently in “Alice in Wonderland”:  `When I use a word,’ …`it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’.

Based on that answer, one I might assume that I am qualified for Democrat politics or new-age ministry!  Except that I am not!

I enjoy and respect your remarkable ability to see and communicate clearly and succinctly.  I will continue to try but doubt I will reach your level of expertise and skill.  : < )

[54] Ol’ Bob

I was trying to express the thought that the morality/immorality of some abortions, such as to save the life of the mother or perhaps to end a pregnancy resulting from incest, may be different from an abortion for the convenience of the mother and/or father.

I was afraid the ‘incest and rape’ exceptions were lurking behind your statement, and that is why I asked.  There is exactly one legitimate moral reason for having an abortion.  If continuing the pregnancy would likely result in the mother’s death, then and only then is an abortion justified.  All other abortions are ‘discretionary abortions’ intended to facilitate the convenience of the mother.  A child conceived by either incest or rape is not thereby devalued as a person.  The principle that must be maintained is this - the value of the child is never determined by either the circumstance of conception or the level of responsibility that would attach after birth. 

I for one would certainly outlaw all other abortions, and prosecute both abortionist and mother for the crime.  The mother because she hired a hitman to kill her own son, and the abortionist because he is a cold-blooded murderer for hire.  Harsh?  Yes.  But it’s also consistent.  If we say it’s murder, then we have to treat it like murder. 

Anyways, I’m not so fearsome.  The Dallas Cowboys are fearsome, and if I were a particular SF blogger with an (unfortunate) affinity for the New Orleans Saints, I would be quaking in my boots.

carl

Jackie:

I think all means of murder should be outlawed.  Abortion should not receive an exemption.

A mind like a steel trap.  I like that in a woman!

My dear, this one’s for you:

Jackie Bruchi Theme Song

carl:

The principle that must be maintained is this - the value of the child is never determined by either the circumstance of conception or the level of responsibility that would attach after birth. 

I for one would certainly outlaw all other abortions, and prosecute both abortionist and mother for the crime.

Amen!

And you’ve earned a song dedication too.

Carl the Wolfman

Now, if we can just keep you away from SAC headquarters . . . 

episcopalienated - Why thank you!
I guess I do need a qualifier.  Abortion chosen for a reason that is not a part of a Sophie’s choice type scenario (mother or child), then I see it as an elective procedure.  (I pray that if that were me making the decision I would elect to give my child the chance to live.)  I do admit to being torn on the issue of rape but can’t get past the part about taking of an innocent life. 
This in no way negates or takes away from the fact that like all sins, there is redemption from the act of abortion.  It amazes me that the left aways crys foul when pictures of abortions are shown.  One would think the side that has worked tirelessly lo these many years to “inform” women of their rights, would work just as tirelessly to enable them to make such a grave decision armed with all the facts.

I agree with #28’s statement that even non-consenting association with TEC (i.e. SC & Albany) is becoming a grave wrong due to TEC’s open support of abortion w/o questions.  With the exception of these two dioceses and maybe Central Florida and Houston, most other TEC dioceses are sending future leaders to seminaries that promote the healthy “ministry” of abortion.  It is this advocacy that sickened me more than anything as a recent member of a conservative TEC diocese.  I could not stomach being in TEC after seeing their corporate advocacy and promotion of abortion.

Hi Hdscms,

It’s interesting that you determined that it was a good idea to leave TEC . . . at some point . . . but do you understand that TEC has been a part of the RCRC for years now?  So why now, have you decided that “now is the time.”

I suggest to you that “now is the time” and that it’s “becoming a grave wrong” because . . . now is the right time for . . . you.

So this leads me to another question.

In order for you to be consistent with your desire to not have “even non-consenting association with” organizations or entities that have “open support of abortion w/o questions” when do you plan to emigrate to another non-supportive of abortion country that does not use your tax dollars in support of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in the US?

Note that RCRC does not *provide* abortions—though it is a repulsive and pagan organization.  Planned Parenthood does.

So will you be consistent in your commitment not to have “even non-consenting association with” organizations or entities that have “open support of abortion w/o questions”?

Not exactly a fair question to ask Sarah.  Payment of taxes is enforced via criminal prosecution.  I think it fair to say that HDSCMS meant something entirely different by non-consensual association.  I presume he meant membership in an organization that directly, or via its participation in some other organization, promotes abortion.  For years, I have declined to participate in the United Fund charity because it contributes to/supports Planned Parenthood.  The United Fund, itself does not promote abortion, but I think its support of Planned Paenthood is the kind of non-consensual association to which the reference was made.

RE: “Payment of taxes is enforced via criminal prosecution.”

All the more reason to repudiate and disassociate oneself from such a fascist and wicked organization.

RE: “I presume he meant membership in an organization that directly, or via its participation in some other organization, promotes abortion.”

Right—like our country, the United States of America.

I’ll await his response to my fair question to determine if he will be consistent with his stated commitment.

Of course the RCRC is in favor of the taxpayer paying the expenses that they and Family Planning are now paying in order to provide abortions. 
President Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats would be wise to disregard these letters and anticipate that taxpayers will be much less in favor of abortion when they realize that their taxes are increasing because of the many unnecessary, elective, abortion surgeries that will be performed at taxpayer expense.
Regardless of whether a taxpayer in favor of abortion or not, I doubt that they are willing to pick up the tab for every abortion that any women chooses to have.

Sarah, even being generous, your questioning reveals a lack of logic and reasoning that gives me pause to even respond.  I’m not going to get into a debate, because your comments are becoming tirades and distractions.

I spoke for myself in my comment…I agree with #28…I am sickened by TEC’s pro-abortion stance and I am ashamed of an organization that associates Christ with abortion advocacy and I will be glad not to be in it.

As to your question…it doesn’t even make sense. TEC is supposed to be a Christian organization bearing witness to Christ.  My membership in it has the potential to bear witness to others that I’m okay with abortion advocacy, unless I can explain to them that “I’m not for that.”  Do I need to explain this to you, really? The government is secular…it’s not founded to bear witness to Christ.  This is asinine…are you serious about this being about my consistency…that I should also leave the US or stop paying taxes?

What a distraction.

RE: “gives me pause to even respond . . . “

Yes indeed, I should think it would be most inconvenient to respond to such a question that demonstrates the shallow generality of this statement right here: “even non-consenting association with TEC (i.e. SC & Albany) is becoming a grave wrong due to TEC’s open support of abortion w/o questions. . . . I could not stomach being in TEC after seeing their corporate advocacy and promotion of abortion.”

It appears, then, that you will not be consistent in your commitment not to have “even non-consenting association with” organizations or entities that have “open support of abortion w/o questions”.

RE: “My membership in it has the potential to bear witness to others that I’m okay with abortion advocacy, unless I can explain to them that “I’m not for that.”

Just as your citizenship in that godless country, the United States of America, does—and which also forces you to pay taxes to support the largest provider of abortions in the US.

RE: “that I should also leave the US or stop paying taxes? . . . “

Oh no need to stop paying taxes—after all, it’s not good enough if a member of TEC stops paying taxes and besides, that would be in violation of scripture.

The only thing good enough—if one is a member of an organization which offers “open support of abortion w/o questions” and according to your above-stated principle—is to depart the vile organization with which you are in “non-consenting association with.”  For of course, you “could not stomach being in [this country] after seeing their corporate advocacy and promotion of abortion”—not to mention actual funding of abortions and stem cell research using embryos with your tax dollars.

Oddly—just four months ago on this blog you stated:

“It was clear from the clergy day that those advocating for leaving TEC were also secondarily advocating for at least a 40 days of discernment.  The Bishop discerned correctly I think when he said “40 days to discern what?  That I’m wrong?” I hope and pray that the parish will discern otherwise that the bishop is right and that a unified diocese of SC is more of a witness for the gospel and body of Christ than a breakaway parish.”

But now you’ve left TEC.  And suddenly . . . you have ponderously and gravely uttered these words: “even non-consenting association with TEC (i.e. SC & Albany) is becoming a grave wrong due to TEC’s open support of abortion w/o questions.”

RE: “What a distraction.”

No.

What a puffed-up, self-serving bit of prating your above assertion was.  I wonder if you have any idea of it—I expect not.

For all the world like Mr. Collins.

But thank you for being honest about your willingness to live into your assertion with consistency and integrity. 

You’re not willing.

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, you make it way too easy sometimes.  Let’s turn your “argument” around, shall we?  The Episcopal Organization supports abortion.  The US government sends money to Planned Parenthood.

It is difficult to pull up stakes and emigrate to another country.  For one thing, there are the job and language problems to consider.  For another, most countries in the world have far more liberal abortion policies than we do. 

But it is not difficult at all to leave an apostate pseudo-Christian church that has no moral difficulty with killing babies.  So here’s where we are.

I’m an American and a former Episcopalian.  But you’re both an American and an Episcopalian.  So I’m connected to only one abortion-supporting entity while you’re connected to two.  Which by your logic makes me more virtuous than you are, at least on this issue.

Christopher Johnson, Your hypothetical claim that you are holier than those who remain in TEC because you have hypothetically left TEC is rather pretentious.  Somehow I suspect that in reality you have not left TEC and that you have another motive for making fun of Christians like Sarah who believe that they are called to stay in hostile territory and defend their faith.

Sarah,
The question for me would be, “Does membership equate with citizenship”? I think not. We are citizens of the Kingdom of God no matter what our denominational affiliation is. We can change our denominational affiliation without changing our “citizenship”. I think C.J. is saying that he is less hypocritical but isn’t that a bit like being less pregnant?

RE: “It is difficult to pull up stakes and emigrate to another country.”

Ah, but that’s what those nasty people-who-stay-in-TEC say about leaving TEC.  Pensions, purple, and power, eh, CJ?

No no—if people were serious about not being in an organization because it supports abortion, they’d cast off the shackles of all such organizations despite its difficulties.  That would prove their commitment to the principle they espoused.

RE: “So I’m connected to only one abortion-supporting entity while you’re connected to two.  Which by your logic makes me more virtuous than you are, at least on this issue.”

Not at all—for I’m not the one saying that one must leave organizations which in their leadership support abortion.  Nor am I saying that any virtue whatsoever accrues to that principle.  Sadly, hdscms has proven that he is only willing to leave such organizations if they are convenient to him, while pontificating a general principle about doing so.

RE: “Somehow I suspect that in reality you have not left TEC and that you have another motive for making fun of Christians like Sarah who believe that they are called to stay in hostile territory and defend their faith.”

No, Betty See—he’s left TEC.

He just needed to attempt to make a little hay there.  ; > )

Dcn Dale . . . “I think C.J. is saying that he is less hypocritical but isn’t that a bit like being less pregnant . . . “

Naw—I don’t even think he was saying that.  He gets a little peevish when I point out the hypocrisies of the Leavers and then he tried to turn it around.  Maybe next time.

OK - so the difference appears to be this.  Some of us have determined that to serve God more faithfully, we need to stop our “voluntary” participation in organizations that promote Godless practices. Some, apparently believe that proclaiming one’s opposition from within is a better way to bear witness to the Faith despite the resulting confusion that such continued participation could engender.  For me, I want to be a part of building the Kingdom and I can’t fathom how staying does that. I recognize the sincerity and the faith of those who think otherwise but I doubt I will ever understand how that faith and sincerity leads to the decision to stand the death vigil over what TEC has become.

RE: “OK - so the difference appears to be this.”

I would say that the differences are even greater than the one you list.

RE: “Some of us have determined that to serve God more faithfully, we need to stop our “voluntary” participation in organizations that promote Godless practices.”

Well—only *some* organizations.  The ones that are the most convenient.
; > )

RE: “For me, I want to be a part of building the Kingdom and I can’t fathom how staying does that.”

Understood.

RE: “I recognize the sincerity and the faith of those who think otherwise but I doubt I will ever understand how that faith and sincerity leads to the decision to stand the death vigil over what TEC has become.”

Understood and agree.

But the more profound difference I see is that 1) some don’t make wildly generalistic preeningly self-serving statements which they themselves are unable to keep, while leaving TEC for matters of their own conscience and faith.

2) Some do make wildly generalistic and preeningly self-serving statements which they themselves are unable to keep, while leaving TEC for matters of their own conscience and faith.

For me that’s an even more massive distinction than the general distinction between “Leavers” and “Stayers.”

At least for me it is.  The former I can respect and have fellowship with if they will have me.

Someday, I may be gone from TEC and the Anglican Communion—for matters of conscience and faith.  The folks who fall into group 1, I’ll be interested in and respectful of.  The folks who fall into group 2 . . . hopefully we’ll have no need of further interaction.