UPDATE

It appears I was wrong in my understanding that estrogen acts in an abortifacient manner if ovulation has already occurred. I do not fully understand the medical science behind all this, and I tried to read the article I was referred to, but I did not find it easy to comprehend. I will quote from the discussion on Facebook, and link to the article in question.

Dr. Paul didn’t say progesterone, he said estrogen. According to my research, an estrogen shot tends to inhibit ovulation and fertilization, but doesn’t seem to have any affect on implantation of an already fertilized egg. It would basically have the same effect as a woman breastfeeding an infant, although presumably would not be as strong given a single shot. Some have mistakenly assumed he was speaking about a treatment that would inhibit implantation, or even worse, would cause the shedding of an implanted embryo, but those assumptions just aren’t factually correct. Those may actually be effects of a regimen of low dosage birth control pills with estrogen and progesterone, but that’s not how the estrogen shot works. (This is particularly ironic in light of recent revelations of candidates who have cheerfully voted to fund PP dispensing birth control under Title X … )

Here is a link that discusses some of the science, from a Christian perspective: Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications

Dr. Paul didn’t handle the interview well, but I don’t believe he said anything inconsistent with a true pro-life position.

So my position is further strengthened if this is true so I’m glad of that. But I am sorry that I in any way contributed to what appears to be myth.

Original article follows unaltered…

I’ve been wanting to write about this since it first started blowing up a couple weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. I don’t technically have the time this morning, but I’m going to write about it anyway because I need to. I need to get my thoughts out there on this. I need to get it off my chest

Please be aware that this topic can be sensitive. I’ll be talking about some things quite frankly so please, if you are a minor reading this post, I highly encourage you to ask your parents to read this first and let you know whether it is appropriate for you to read about this subject. I will try to keep it clean certainly, but this topic over which allegations are being presented against Ron Paul includes rape, abortion etc. So please be advised.

So with that necessary disclaimer out of the way, let’s get started.

What’s the problem?

It all starts with this video (at least that seems to be what has instigated the current trend of dropping support for Ron Paul like a hot potato). I have set the video to start at the specific time code of the views in question.

The gist of this is that Ron Paul would give a shot of estrogen to a women who comes in to an emergency room and who has just been legitimately raped. She would obviously not like for this to result in a pregnancy. She wants to know what can be done. Ron Paul says a shot of estrogen would do the trick.

The problem seems to revolve around the idea that estrogen can cause a fertilized ovum (otherwise known to Christians as a baby!) to fail to implant on the wall of the uterus. This results of course in a very early miscarriage. The idea is that to purposely cause this is not a pro-life position.

Of course I’ve seen other views espoused on this issue too. Such as that all sexual intercourse should be able to result in a pregnancy and that even in the case of rape you should not try to prevent pregnancy. This is usually in line with the view that all forms of birth control, whether abortifacient or not, are wicked and evil.

Advancements in medicine

As anyone who knows me might guess, I think the issue is much more complex and nuanced than either of those two views allow. Consider this; we have made enormous strides and advancements in the last 100 years or so (give or take) in medical science, technology, knowledge, technique, etc. I do not have a problem with this, I see this as part of the dominion mandate. I am not espousing at all the idea that our dominion over this area of life is not good or that we should go back to the dark ages of leeches and bloodletting. But I do want to point out that we wrestle with ideas and concepts that no other generation has had to before. And we have a problem as well that many of the men and women in the field of medicine are not Godly at all but wicked and evil. They do not see medicine as an area of taking dominion as prescribed by a biblical dominion mandate. Rather they see our advancements as evidence that we are in the place of God. That we may make decisions on life and death, that we may kill babies. There are lots of ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but this seems to cause the most uproar among Christians, and I would even say rightly so. We should protect life, no matter the age, no matter the status, inside or outside the womb.

The beginning of life

Let me state for the record here and now, I firmly believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation, not when cell division occurs, but when a sperm fertilizes an ovum. This places me firmly in the perhaps stereotypical evangelical pro-life camp. But, Ron Paul has stated in the video above that he also believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Further, in his book Abortion and Liberty, Ron Paul had this to say:

To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before ‘viability,’ a nebulous term that has no meaning, it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as “insignificant,” claiming it is only a ‘touch’ of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.

I think this easily shows Ron Paul’s position on the matter. Ron Paul is pro-life.

What’s Paul saying in the video then?

The gist of it is, I think, this. How can one regulate the use of estrogen? Do we regulate that a woman can’t have a shot of estrogen under these certain circumstances but can in any other? Do we outlaw estrogen? Further complicated, a pregnancy can’t be confirmed at this stage. I daresay women have done things that caused a very early abortion without realizing it. This is the approach I see Ron Paul taking.

To me the medically challenging part is this: As far as my understanding goes, the large dose of estrogen will cause a thickening of mucus that would prevent the egg from being released (ovulation). It also causes mucus thickening in the uterine walls. This could have one of two effects.

1. If estrogen is administered immediately after sexual intercourse and before ovulation has occurred, it will prevent ovulation. If ovulation does not occur, the sperm will find no egg, and fertilization (conception) will not take place.

2. If estrogen is administered after ovulation, the thickened mucus on the uterine wall will have the abortifacient result of preventing implantation.

This is why Ron Paul says this is a moral choice and not one the state should be involved in regulating. And I agree it’s a tricky issue. I also admit to not having a clear cut answer. Though I disagree with his personally stated choice of saying he would administer the estrogen presumably without finding out more about the woman’s current state in her cycle, I do not know personally whether we should have state intervention that would prevent this. As I stated previously, on what basis would we propose such regulation? And it’s complicated by the fact that women can and do chart their cycles in such a way as to know whether they have ovulated or not, whether they are close to ovulation etc. My wife does this. She, along with our midwife, has been able to predict with a high degree of accuracy the due date of each of our three children based on when she ovulated from her charting. In the case where a woman was legitimately raped, was charting and knows that she has not yet ovulated but is close, would a shot of estrogen to prevent ovulation from occurring be morally wrong?

You see what I mean by this issue being nuanced and complex? It’s not cut and dry. I personally believe we should always err on the side of life. If there’s even the slightest doubt, then I would preserve what I believed may be the life inside the rape victims body. This is a stance that many find hard to stomach, and I know I have not been faced with this circumstance personally. But I believe that were my wife (or in the future my daughter) to be raped, God forbid such a thing would happen, but if it were to happen, and a life were to be conceived because of such a circumstance, then it would be our duty, my duty, to preserve and care for this life.

What does this mean for my voting conscience?

Ron Paul has stated on many occasions that as president, he would only support legislation that defined life as beginning at conception. He makes absolutely no exceptions. And his record over the many years he has served proves his pro-life position beyond a shadow of any doubt. He is the most pro-life candidate we have seen in a very long, long time.

After much consideration, this has not impacted my voting decision at all. I still support Ron Paul for president. I believe that when considering all the possibilities and weighing all things carefully, it is the best possible choice I could make. It is the best possible choice any Christian could make for president. Upon reflecting on this issue, I have determined that absolutely nothing has changed.

One more thing

I want to put out this final thought. I think perhaps those of us who bleed conservatism when pricked, who are as far to the right of the conventional American “conservative” as the east is from the west, those of us who for years and years and years have been on the outside looking in because the so called conservatives in this country were just less liberal but still so, are so very used to being in the minority and on the outside that we are unconsciously uncomfortable with having a candidate get anywhere close to mainstream. Ron Paul’s surge in popularity has scared us and so our subconscious minds began looking for something wrong. And when this popped up, I think many jumped on it (again, unconsciously). It was like, “Ah HAH!, I knew it! We just can’t support those main stream candidates. They’re all the same.” This is a defeatist mentality, and one I suggest we dump immediately! Ron Paul probably isn’t even going to win this, so what do you think would happen if we actually advanced a candidate into a position where he would actually win? Let’s loose this defeatist attitude, and I mean right now!

I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).

So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.

What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.

However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.

This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.

If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:

“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”

You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:

1. Family
2. Church
3. Civil

There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.

The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.

Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

I posted this on Facebook, and I’m also posting it here. So if something appears to be in the context of Facebook, that’s why.

I’m writing this over my lunch break, because of some things that have happened on Facebook over the last several weeks.

In the last few months, it seems I have acquired quite a few new Facebook friends, many whom I do not know. That’s fine. The more the merrier. But I think there’s some things you should know about me, because sometimes there seems to be some confusion.

The idea of writing this sounded far less self important when I thought of it. However, hopefully without sound too self important, allow me to go into a few things you can expect to see from me. Read if you’re interested. If not, that’s fine too. If you’re like me, you’re really busy and don’t have time to read every long winded thing on Facebook.

So here we go, a few things you should know about me:

1. I am without apology and without compromise, first a foremost a Christian. This means I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I acknowledge my sinfulness, inherited through the sin of Adam (original sin), and my need of a Savior. God sent His Son to redeem His people, of whom, because of His grace, I can count myself among. This motivates and drives everything I do. I desire to advance the Lordship of Christ in any capacity He has called me. Christ is King!

   This is first for a reason. It is because I identify myself with Christ’s Church, and many churches that I count to be part of The Universal Church may not hold to the specific doctrines or political views I do. Yet I still count them as brothers and sisters.

2. I am Reformed Presbyterian in my Theological understanding. This means among other things that I believe in what is commonly called the Doctrines of Grace (or sometimes Calvinism). I believe in the Total Depravity of Man, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement (that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross accomplished all that it was intended to. Sometimes referred to as the efficacy of the atonement), Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. Though not all Reformed Presbyterians are, I am Post Millennial in my understanding of eschatology. This means I believe Christ is ruling and reigning right now. He is King!

   I subscribe to The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Standards and Confession of Faith.

   I hold to, as does the Church where I am a member, Liturgical, Covenant Renewal Worship. And as a Presbyterian, I believe that the New Covenant is not only for adults, but for the families, the Children of believers. And just as in the Old Covenant where the children were given the sign and seal of the covenant in circumcision, so too do New Covenant children receive the sign and seal of our Christian faith; that of baptism. And, this is important in how we understand our Worship. We do not whisk our children away from us as soon as we enter the door of the church, to be off and worshipping apart from us. We believe that Children should worship along side us, as members of the congregation.

   And one points leads into another…

3. I am a strong advocate for Christian education. My preferred method is homeschooling, but the primary goal is Christian education and parental responsibility over a child’s education which should not be abdicated. I do not believe this must be homeschooling, but that I believe is the best way.

   But primarily, Christian parents are to raise their covenant children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Christian children do not “belong” to the parent, nor do they belong to the evil one. They belong to Christ. They are not enemies of the gospel, they are Christ’s disciples. Christian parents are to realize that the children entrusted to them are not their own but Christ’s. We are to take heed to follow the instructions of the Bible when it comes to raising our children. We are to be faithful to teach them correct and sound doctrine, in short we are responsible for every aspect of our children’s training. We do not have the authority to abdicate and hand that off to someone else. Not to the Church, not to government schools, but we bear the weight and responsibility entirely.

4. Politically, I am very conservative. And at this time, I am strongly “campaigning” you might say for Ron Paul. In fact, you will find at the moment, because I am so passionate about this, that most of my Facebook statues, updates, posts, whatever you want to call them, have to do with Ron Paul. It’s a phase I’m going through (because I believe it is very important right now), and I’ll become slightly less annoying on this topic after the elections (probably).

   Some other political points you will often see me making, and that I believe strongly:

   I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to feed the poor, to hand out welfare checks, to meddle in our affairs for our safety. It is the Church’s responsibility to care for the poor, the fatherless, the widows. That the Church has largely abdicated her responsibilities has led to the disastrous situation we are faced with today.

   I believe we should seek to elect Godly, Christian men to office in our country on every level of government.

   I support shrinking the size and scope of the federal government.

   I believe we should return to a constitutional and Biblical monetary system. The system we have now is based on fiat currency which is unjust and unbiblical (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11).

   I believe we should only engage in Biblical, and constitutional wars.

   I support state’s rights.

   I desire to return our nation to a Biblical and constitutional foreign policy.

   However, though I am very passionate on political subjects, none should make the mistake that my faith is in politics; who wins, who looses. God is in control whoever wins and looses. He has already written the history of the future. Nothing surprises him or catches him off guard. My faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And now, if you cared to read this, you know a little bit more about me and what to expect.

→ Why I Love (True) Religion Because I Love Jesus

I haven’t had enough abuse about this subject yet, so…

My previous article got a fair amount of traffic. By far the biggest source was Facebook. But this article was my second biggest source of traffic. He linked to me at the end of his article and so I’m returning the favor. At first I was hesitant because it took me a bit to find his name ¹ , but then I realized it was in the sidebar by way of linking to his Facebook page, and his Google+ page. Also his about page lists the Church he pastors. He is Rev. Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, pastor of an Orthodox Church in Emmaus, Pennsylvania. As such I offer the disclaimer that he holds to theology which I very much disagree with (and some comes out in his article). And this is especially important for me to point out now because that’s really what this issue is about, that theology is important, that words, are important. In a word, worldview: it’s very important.

The above video by Jefferson Bethke has been making the rounds lately via various bits of social media. A few people have sent it to me to ask what I think. This touches on a lot of themes that I’ve written on before, and while it doesn’t particularly make any new theological claims—it’s really just a sort of standard, monergistic, anti-ecclesial, sentimentalist Evangelical Protestantism—for whatever reason (perhaps the emotionally moving music in the background), it seems to be getting some attention.

See, almost right away the differences in our theology are apparent. If you didn’t catch it I’ll get to it in a bit. I did enjoy reading his article despite my disagreements with him because the general point he is making is the same as mine.

Here’s my favorite part:

But if Jesus came to your church, would they actually let Him in?

Well, since you asked about my church… He comes to my church every day, and He actually is present on my altar at least once a week, and we not only let Him into the church, but we let Him into our actual bodies.

As someone who believes and practices weekly communion this was great.

Also this:

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention, how Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums. See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention, see one is the cure, but the other’s the infection.

Actually, I thought sin was the infection. When Adam and Eve infected the whole human race with what they did, was their error the founding of “religion”? I seem to have missed that part.

But I do have to do the rest of my disclaimer here since I am linking to this. I have done my due diligence in reading it though and thoroughly and I don’t want there to be any confusion. Theologically I am a Reformed Presbyterian, and obviously Calvinist. Fr. Damick is obviously not. So just to clarify:

Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin. Because it doesn’t depend on me, it depends on Him.

Actually, it depends on you, too. If you don’t cooperate, then it won’t do anything for you at all.

Sorry my brother, we aren’t going to get along here. It’s one of the few things I really didn’t have a quibble with in the video. If salvation requires us to cooperate then it is not salvation by grace, it is salvation by works. Again, I’m not surprised since he is a pastor in the Orthodox Church, I’m just pointing it out.

Religion is man searching for God. Christianity is God searching for man, which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own, not based on my merits, but Jesus’s obedience alone.

“Religion” is a lot of different things. I agree that it is God Who has come to reconnect (religio) with man, but He also created man to have a longing for God. What you’re revealing here actually has a technical theological name, and it’s the heresy of monergism, the idea that the whole of salvation is exclusively the act of God. You’re right that salvation isn’t based on your merits, but you’re wrong that Christianity isn’t about man searching for God. It’s both about God Who has come to be with man (“searching” seems to suggest that He doesn’t know where man is) and about man’s response to his desire for the divine.

When did monergism become heresy? I suppose the Orthodox Church may have declared it that and I didn’t know about it. I’m not well studied on all of the Orthodox Chruch’s positions. But so far as I understand Monergism, it is exactly the opposite of heresy, it’s correct and sound theology.

But I do agree with that last part, it was the exact thoughts I had at that part of the poem/song. God searching for man? Did he not know where we were?

This video has been making the rounds, and I felt the need to say something about it.

So many things, where to start? First, I think that it’s very possible, likely even that this young man, and those involved in the making of this video are quite sincere. But let me be clear, the premise of the message is dead wrong. He does not make the distinction between true religion and false religion, something which the Bible does. Scripture says in James 1:26-27 (emphasis mine):

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

The Bible talks about religion here as a good thing. This is why I think, regardless of how well intentioned, this video is damaging in that it can (and probably will) confuse people who don’t understand the distinction between true religion and false religion. ¹

And it even talks of works as a good thing. In this video, this guy says:

Religion says do, Jesus says done

This is dismissive of anyone who is a believer in Jesus Christ doing anything. It’s dismissive of works, which indeed do play a part of a redeemed person’s life; not to save him (or her) but as a response to God’s saving them.

1 John 4:19:

We love him, because he first loved us.

1 John 14:15:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Keeping His commandments is a work. It is not a work we can do of ourselves, it is not a work which saves us. It is a work enabled in us by the Holy Spirit. So Jesus does indeed say do. What does he say to do? To follow Him, to love Him. How do we love Him? We keep his commandments.

He says in the video:

[The church] is not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Church is. The Church is made up of those who are God’s people. God’s people, who have been redeemed, are to go and minister the Gospel then in the capacity which they have been called by God to do so (again, works — just not works to get salvation, but works enabled by salvation).

Jesus did not hate religion as suggested in the video, he hated dead religion. He hated false religion. He did not hate “pure religion and undefiled”.

I’m not going to respond to every single line in the video, but there are some lines I want to directly quote, and then talk about.

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion

But this is not what the Bible says Jesus came to do. What Jesus did had the effect of abolishing dead religion; false religion. Jesus came to redeem his people from their sins. He came to seek and save those who are lost. But when they are found, what do they have? What do they get? They are redeemed, this is religion, this is true religion.

What if I told you Republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian

On this one point we agree muchly!

If Religion is so great, why has it started so many wars.

Yeah, I’m guessing the folks in the land of Canaan hated the religion of Israel. And yes, many wars have been fought in the name of false religion.

Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor

See above, this is not true religion, this is false religion according to the book of James.

…it’s just behavior modification like a long list of chores

And the problem with this is…? Our behavior should be modified if we have true religion. God’s redeemed people are a holy people.

Acting like a church kid while addicted to pornography

Yes, this is a problem, but why does this make religion bad?

acting if I was simply created to have sex and get wasted

What sort of church were you in buddy? A good, Bible believing Church (a Church of true religion by the way) would have called you to repentance.

now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

Look, I know this rhymes, but if this is true you need to repent. It is not good to boast in anything that is of yourself, even your weakness.

(sorry, I know I said I wasn’t going to go line by line, but some of these lines I can’t help it)

if grace is water, then the Church should be an ocean.

Seriously?!? Really? I. Have. No. Words. Okay, I have one word. Hackneyed.

Alright, I’m going to stop myself here. You get the point. This video is very disturbing to me. It is not good, in fact I would call it damaging and I’ve been surprised at the people I’ve seen posting it and sharing it.

I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD. - Psalm 122:1

We started with a shooting competition

I wasn’t the only one with a camera

I just happened to snap the right photo at the right time to get this cute shot

DANGER!! DANGER!!

Yes, I actually shot a gun! *gasp*. It had been about 7 years since I shot a gun, but I actually tied with Pastor Lovett for 1st place

So we had to have a shoot off, but since I was under pressure this time I didn’t win the shoot off.

Cutest baby at the Reformation Celebration, or in the world for that matter!

There was a “Diet of Worms” for the kids…

The challenge: eat the “dirt” and “worms” without hands.

No hands? no problem!

Mission accomplished

All participants got a “marshallow shooter”

And there was a cookie competition

Beginning Tuesday, March 3rd, Pastor Lovett will begin a 6 week teaching series. It will be an informal but very deliberate time of teaching.

Pastor Lovett will begin this series by going through the Apostles Creed, line-by-line and considering both the theological and practical implications of this historic creed. The Apostles Creed contains the essentials of the Christian faith and is the oldest existing creed we have (dating back to the 2nd century), and churches of different stripes use it regularly to profess the faith of Christendom.

We will be investigating what different phrases in the creed mean, and will spend some time discussing what is perhaps the Creed’s most controversial line, “He (Christ) descended in to hell.”

This study is open to all and we hope you will join us. We will be meeting at Studio D on the Centerville Square.

Learn more

Dear Readers,

I want to let you know about a most heinous piece of legislation called “The Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA).

FOCA has many sponsors in both the senate and the house, notable (and telling) are such sponsors as Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator Joseph Lieberman, President Elect Barack Obama, Representative Rahm Emanuel, and many many more in both the senate and the house.

FOCA would establish abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide. It will eradicate state and federal abortion laws that the majority of Americans support and prevent states from enacting any protective measures in the future.

I encourage you to contact your representative, and your two senators and ask them to oppose this heinous, God despising bill! I believe there are many more people against this than for it, but the problem we face now is the same problem we have faced on many occasions, which is apathy and inaction by Christians. There are many liberal activists for this bill, but many more who should be actively opposed to this bill that need to take a stand! Let your representatives and senators know (liberal or not) that if they vote for this bill that you, their constituents, will not re-elect them! Or if you know they are opposed, thank them, and affirm your support against this bill.

Our voice needs to be heard!

Contacting your representative and senators is very easy, and can be done online. I know they pay attention to these forms of communication because I have received acknowledgement on more than one occasion.

Here is the form for contacting your representative: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

And here is where you go to contact your senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Please also visit http://www.fightfoca.com, to sign their petition and find out more information.

And please pray for our country!

I suppose this is an easy one for me to do since I really hate McDonalds food anyway and already mostly avoided it.

I know we have to pick our battles, but it looks like this boycott is gaining momentum…

http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/

I realize that probably every major food chain has some problem or other but maybe this will send a message, and McDonalds is being very open and flaunting this one right in our faces.