Class Of 2018 - John Carroll University: Fill & Download for Free

He certainly doesn't go to church and admitted also to have been dissillusioned by Christianity by about age 16/17 finding them stultifying, adding to that he is also a staunch evolutionist stating in his book 12 Rules for Life about a time in his life he started to really question:I was truly plagued with doubt. I had outgrown the shallow Christianity of my youth by the time I could understand Darwinian evolution. I could not distinguish the Christian religion from wishful thinking.So that narrows what he is to some degree does it not. But is he therefore an atheist? Is the question even valid anymore, as if you can only be a scientific rationalist atheist or a theist, or that unhelpful label agnostic?Is he not the intellectual well read equivalent of a growing number of self-informed people today of which I include myself who accept scientific rationalism that might otherwise bias towards atheism if it were not obvious our young today seem to need the moral foundations normally found in most religions in order to stop becoming lost. While there are a number of us who can be moral principled people without believing in some religious faith tradition, how many of us can really say that without the religious structures from our parents or grandparents while growing up we would still be morally stable members of society?Therefore, forget Peterson for the moment. Our very language is missing the necessary additional adjectives to describe these self-educated ones who can see and respect the scientific evolutionary arguments from people like Sam Harris and theoretical physicist Sean Carrol, but also detect we are throwing something valuable out by rejecting every aspect of religion. Surely one look at the younger generations (I'm 61 at 2017) who have been raised by non-believing parents with no moral structure to their lives demonstrates that we have lost the road somewhere.That damage is never more in display than the adoption of notions of Left-wing identity politics. This being manifest by quashing another person's opinion through disrupting healthy rational debates on university campus by force because it doesn't agree with one’s own. All under the distorted view this is somehow acceptable in a supposed tolerant civilised society and an exercising of one's social right to free speech!Being atheist or theist in my opinion is just another tendency to pigeonhole people into old mindsets when the world needs more nuanced thinking and Jordan Peterson in my view is showing a new way. So is it any wonder he doesn't fit into pre-existing moulds.How Jordan Peterson is DifferentSocial science shows society is made up of individuals that can affect society to a greater or lesser extent. Conversely society feeds back and can, and very much does, affect the individual. So any good in society, or evil (Auschwitz) to use JP's ideas, does not come from some omnipotent God or from some Satanic religious figure of course, but can only come from the individuals that make up society being expressed at the collective level.Hence JP is recognising that even the very themes that are common within all religion, because there are a set of common themes, must therefore come from within our subconscious. Each of us according to JP are capable of thinking any of the good or evil thoughts that get manifest at the social level under the right life circumstances. The rest of us through complicity or inaction can facilitate evil and give it life at the national level, which is why democracy and our vote is the only bulwark against it.JP believes these good and evil themes within each of us that takes form at the social level as religion, came through the process of evolution, believing that it's not just our physical characteristics that are under the influence of evolution but our psyche too.Fundamentalist atheists on the other hand do not believe religion was evolved but is an “emergent phenomena", whatever that means. I actually know what they mean by that, and it means basically, that while evolutionary atheists wax lyrical about how our various physical attributes evolved even something as insignificant as our eye colour, which is all true of course, the massive glaring feature though called ‘religion’ they can’t explain. So rather than suggest it might be an evolutionary phenomenon, which they know may give fuel to religionists they have preferred to wave it away under a euphemism called an “emergent phenomena”. This because they are materialists, believing the only thing that exists is matter, not feeling that psychologically there is anything special going on.I remember one famous public debate Peterson was having with Sam Harris where Peterson made a most important point. Peterson said in the month or two leading up in preparation for the debate he read literally all Harris’ books (harris had written many books by this time). It transpires Peterson is a phenomenally fast reader able to assimilate what he reads on the fly – good grief I wish I had that ability. What he noticed as a professional clinical psychologist was that Harris, a neuroscientists, had never once touched the area of psychology in any of his works, never once tackled what this side of the human condition, that is the psyche, might bring to the table of human understanding.It is this very facet of Jordan Peterson’s deep knowledge in his area of expertise that I feel has brought something really fresh and plausible to the area of scientific materialism that hitherto just rejected religion as of no evolutionary consequence, creating the unhelpful divide that became atheism and theism for decades, with a broad barren no-man’s land in between.Once one believes that religious themes are a product of evolution as JP does, though any specific religion isn't, then that presupposes there was a survival benefit from having those themes.JP has stated that while he has studied many religions, hence how he discovered the common religious motifs, his experience growing up was predominantly Christian. Thus he says the greater experience and familarity of the Christian theology makes him use Christianity as a prop to explain its psychological architypes within all of us.Did he not say he was a Christian?Yes, he has called himself a Christian too at times which for some only adds to the confusion, but Christianity can mean different things to different people. So what does Peterson mean by “Christianity"? To understand that you really need to know both the Old and New Testaments in-depth to appreciate what Peterson means. Let me explain.We adults are so much like children in many ways. Take 3 year-old children playing on their own in a room without adult supervision with plenty to amuse themselves. It is found after not too long that adult intervention becomes necessary to deal with arguments between some of the children, shouting even, crying perhaps because one of the other children took their toy, or someone pulled their hair. Yet when an adult is present and vigilant this squabbling doesn’t happen, why? Because adults are seen as an authority figure by such 3-year-olds and so each time we say, “Johnny, don't do that it's not nice”, “Richard, you have three of them so let Lucy have one, it's good to share”, “Sharron, no, don't push Ahmed", we in effect are laying down rules of the game of life.These tolerant pro-social rules don't come naturally, as thousands of years of inter-tribal fighting has demonstrated and still does in certain parts of the world. Do 3 year-old children therefore really understand the rationale behind ‘sharing', or the idea of being ‘nice’? Unlikely.What in effect young children are receiving to become socialised are many commands and dictates from parents and grandparents that corrects each small transgression shaping them as they grow. Left to a child's own devices they would not take this path naturally and descend into depths of depravity, think the book Lord of the Flies.So dictating lots of small corrections by commands to young children like, “No!”, “Yes you can do that", “Bad, not nice", is called legalism, the laying down of rules that must be followed, they are not a choice for the creation of a civilised society but essential.Now the Old Testament is a book full of legalism: what a Jew can do on the sabbath, a Jewish woman must keep her hair long, how far up the arms one must wash before a meal, etc, etc. The number of rules is exhausting but this is typical and actually essential for uneducated cultures generally who have no time to be educated with the whys of a rule. The civilising must be inculcated by rules or we regress.One problem with a legalistic system is that it creates humans that tend to not think for themselves but become robots to the rules. When new circumstances arise not governed by the rules they become stumped, uncertain what to do, looking to the source of the rules for the answer rather than be able to reason a situation through for themselves.In comes the New Testament Bible character Jesus, he butts against those rules openly disobeying them. Was he a rebel, in effect saying to the Jewish people those rules and the Judaistic legalistic system was wrong? No, because he knew that without the legalistic framework for almost 1600 years, the Jewish nation would not have been at it's present level of civility in the first century compared to surrounding nations. He was in effect saying the human mind is now ready to move on to a more autonomous way of looking at life without always needing recourse to the source of the rules when faced with every new situation.How he suggested the early Jew do that was by exercising compassion, love and using a term not found in the legalistic Old Testament, ‘thinking ability' as one translation of the New Testament puts it. So enters the idea of taking responsibility for our own conduct, what JP continuously goes on about that for him makes Christianity unique, ‘individual sovereignty'. He has said that this one notion of the importance of having individual sovereignty, a concept not found in any other religion or political ideology, and now a pillar of the West with their ‘human rights', is the ingredient that enabled the Enlightenment and consequentially the emergence of atheism as a phenomenon.Remember, what gets forgotten in the Christian story is that actually Jesus was foremost a Jew and stipulated he came for only the “lost sheep of the house of Israel", thus contrary to popular belief he didn't come to start a religious movement for Gentiles called ‘Christianity'. It was the apostle Paul — a dubious ex-pharisee - who it has been suggested manipulated Jesus’ words into some theological expression that embraced non-Jews, thus evolving what was in fact a Jewish sect into what we know today as Christianity.So, as implied, Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion, he was happy with the basic Jewish system but wanted just to break the legalistic grip from those who dispensed such rules, the Jewish religious leaders, the Sadducees and Pharisees, because with every legalistic culture there is corruption. Legalism always creates a wealthy elite along with an impoverished underclass.From an objective reading of the Bible it is obvious Jesus wanted to break the spell the legalistic system had on the Jewish people by encouraging them to see the hypocrisy of the religious political class. He wanted them not to reject necessarily all the rules of their Jewish upbringing, but analyse for themselves the motives behind the rules. If the rules were honorable and sensible, keep them, if not and only appeased or ingratiated the ruling class, reject them.Even though I am non-religious it is clear Jesus was seen by many in the first century as the manifesting of a verse quoted in Jeremiah 31:33-34 written hundreds of years before Christ,“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”Thus, this ‘Jesus’ propagated the notion Jeremiah here was prophetically pointing to him, as do most Christians today. Therefore from Jesus’ perspective people were ready mentally in the first century to see the religious leaders for what they were, “white washed graves", and start taking responsibility for their own behaviour. He wanted the Jews to see that the hitherto Jewish view, that just by being a Jew and following all the Jewish customs would have you in god's favour irrespective of actual personal conduct, was false. He was advocating the taking control and responsibility of our individual actions, no longer following rules blindly but meditating on their import, and if worth keeping then such an intellectual process writes them on the figurative heart acting as a reminder. No longer would adult Jews need to ignorantly follow rules and regulations like an infant must, stifling freedom of thought.This of course is not new in today's thinking but was very revolutionary 2000 years ago to minds trained legalistically, thus discouraged from independent thinking.To emphasise once more, Jesus never intended creating another alternative religion as he knew all religious institutions become legalistic with time stopping individuals from thinking for themselves.That said Christianity today does encapsulate much of Jesus' first century sentiments though Christianity has hijacked a Jewish spirit of change that was only meant for Jews. Even a Christian's belief in the afterlife is very ‘Jesus’. No longer does one get the heavenly benefits by just being associated with the legalistic collective as accepted under Judaism, but under Jesus it now depended on individual conduct. That said, some Christian groups still harbour the notion that faith is all that is needed irrespective of conduct, and other fundamentalist groups that believe that any future paradise is achieved by just being on the figurative congregational bus, almost negating the Christian notion of personal vigilance and self control.Bringing it back now to Jordan Peterson stating he is a Christian. When he says that, he doesn't mean he believes in god the way a devout Christian today believes it, or believes in the saintliness of the 11 apostles, or the transubstantiation of bread at holy communion in the Catholic church. No, these and many many others are all embellishments of Christianity post Jesus, in fact post 4th century.Jesus wanted to start a movement, not a religion, encouraging people to have self agency and take responsibility for their own actions, keeping to rules they see as sensible rather than obeying some written catechism. This as we have learned while in childhood requires being inculcated with a set of ethical norms and values to start with, which can be later scrutinised by the trained rational mind once reason is given freedom of expression post puberty. Hence why Jesus specifically called his movement “The Way".So Jesus 2000 years ago was the start of obtaining a new mental perspective for human existence based on reason which thanks to the subsequent 18th century Enlightenment enables us to think rationally today without questioning how such a personal outlook ever got here.Jordan Peterson would argue that our way of rationally looking at the world today could not have happened without the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment couldn't have happened without Jesus' observations though buried ultimately in religious trappings.Thus, just as infants need correcting by many legalistic commands to become civilised and with time and appropriate training use reason to see the sense to keep their ethical framework, adult society to maintain stability and not fragment need to collectively continue to value those moral norms (not theology). But which set of morals?For Peterson the best inculcation is Christianity, not in it's theological sense, but in its original philosophical sense as envisaged by Jesus own words. So for him it is important to inculcate with the original Christian moral idea to create a foundation of civility within our young while showing the benefits of separating religion and state. Next, with a democratic free thinking environment give those young when adults the ability to question and think about their own ethics in the light of expanding knowledge and our historical past.Jordan Peterson believes, as I do and many others, that scientific rationalism has over time generated an unhealthy fundamentalist form of atheism that encourages a rejection of the idea of religion and a religious god, which our collective knowledge has not proven unequivocally yet we can do without and not lose something of sociological value. So, for Peterson, to reject the themes of religion that have run the gaunlet of evolutionary time through the filtering process of billions of minds, the ‘wisdom of the crowd’, and to assume it has no value at all, is for Peterson to throw the baby out with the bath water. This especially so when we look below the Western world’s bonnet of what we have technologically achieved and the moral framework we inherited and are letting go, and see that all is not civilised and dignified down there in the engine compartment of society.The sad and ugly political ruse by the Democratic protestors to unseat the Republican Brett Kavanagh in Sep 2018 as a nominee for the US Supreme Court, after he had gone through a vetting process longer than any other judge, perfectly demonstrates to someone like me in the UK, the west is losing its moral compass and is in a highly weakened and vulnerable condition as a consequence. When shouting and disruption rather than allowing ‘due process’ to take place is deemed the way politics should be exercised, just because a person is a member of a different party, we are in danger of socially disintegrating.Therefore Peterson is not wrong to call himself a “Christian” in the early non-religious philosophical sense of what Jesus meant. That of being someone who was walking “The Way”; intellectually free from being a follower to legalism but able to see for oneself the wisdom of the pre-existing tenets of moral behaviour as passed down through the judeo-christian ethic.Therefore, using that definition, I am probably a Christian too I suppose, and I'm sure many other atheists are in the light of the foregoing. It has even been given a term. A person with such an atheistic mindset is said to be called a ‘Christian Atheist', a label likely to be misunderstood and corrupted with time, but I'll accept the term just now.The term is also apt, because how we have taught our own children is to encourage the need in interpersonal issues to reason a matter through preferably without emotion, but to also consider other people as themselves before deciding a matter. Is this not very ‘Jesus’.ConclusionTherefore, let's stop wanting to compartmentalise people into atheist, theist or agnostic and allow JP to blazon a new way of seeing the world.

There are a dozen or so interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Here’s what I’ve picked up from various sources:If you find the quantum world confusing you’re not alone. A recent survey shows that physicists disagree over the picture of reality that quantum mechanics describes – and that many of them don’t even care.There was no consensus among the 149 survey participants. While 39 per cent supported the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, the conventional picture of quantum mechanics, 25 per cent supported alternatives and 36 per cent had no preference at all.In addition, many weren’t sure they understood what certain interpretations described.Despite some enthusiasm for alternatives, 32 per cent of respondents didn’t understand the interpretations enough to have an opinion, and 23 per cent thought interpretations were irrelevant. “One physicist wrote in the comments that he found the survey a complete and utter waste of time”.Furthermore, some thought that certain interpretations couldn’t be experimentally verified, and thus belonged more in philosophy than physics.The number of diverging ideas suggests that maybe all of them are off the mark. (NewScientist 2017)For example, in answer to the question “Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?”, 48 per cent replied “no”, while 52 per cent replied “yes, in some cases”. A further 3 per cent said “yes in all cases” and 9 per cent were undecided (respondents were able to select more than one answer).The question “What is your favourite interpretation of quantum mechanics?” had 12 possible answers. The most popular answer was the Copenhagen interpretation with 42 per cent but 18 per cent chose the many-worlds interpretation. 21 per cent admitted to having switched their interpretation several times with one respondent writing that he sometimes switched interpretations several times a day. (MIT 2011)… experiments led by a group at the University of Vienna, Austria, provide the most compelling evidence yet that there is no objective reality beyond what we observe. Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality. (NewScientist 2007)(Researchers) at the University of Sydney and the University of Queensland … have made a measurement of the reality of the quantum wave function. Their results rule out a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics and suggest that if there is any objective description of the world, the famous wave function is part of it: Schrödinger's cat actually is both dead and alive. (NewScientist 2 Feb 2015)The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past. "The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence".Such a view appalled many physicists, who fought desperately to find a way out, and for much of the 20th century it still seemed possible to imagine that, somehow, subjectivity could be squeezed out of the frame, leaving a purely objective description of the world.Albert Einstein was in this camp, but his position hasn’t panned out.Forty years ago, the American theoretical physicist John Wheeler proposed a series of thought experiments to test if an observer could affect whether light behaved as a particle or a wave and,in 2007, the French physicist Alain Aspect proved that they could. phys.org/ - 27 May 2015 (Australian National University)It starts with quantum mechanics, which is our best theory of elementary particles and the microscopic world. There’s this thing in quantum mechanics that says, before you look at an object it’s not in any definite location. It’s in a wave that you can think of as a superposition [overlap] of all the different locations it could be in.So it might be more likely than you observe it in one place or another, but it’s not actually located at any particular place until you observe it.It’s really weird to think that the behavior of this thing is different depending on whether you’re looking at it or not.That’s the fundamental weirdness of quantum mechanics: that objects behave one way when you’re not looking at them, in another way when you are. Sean Carroll, Discover mag, Oct 2019(In) April (2015), Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms.Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’.In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world. Margaret Wertheim, aeon.com, Dec 2015This raises all sorts of hairy questions. For a start, what counts as a measurement that takes us from probability to certainty?Quantum experiments have shown that it seems to involve not just doing something with a measuring instrument, but also consciously noticing the result. NewScientist Dec 2018“Fundamentally, I have an ideal of what a physical theory should be,” says Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg. “It should be something that doesn't refer in any specific way to human beings…“It shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature.“And yet I don't see any way of formulating quantum mechanics without an interpretive postulate that refers to what happens when people choose to measure one thing or another thing.”But for now, at least, quantum mechanics largely seems to withstand every test.“No, we're not facing any crisis. That's the problem!” Weinberg says. “In the past, we made progress when existing theories ran into difficulties. There's nothing like that with quantum mechanics. It's not in conflict with observation at all.It’s a problem of failing to satisfy the reactionary philosophical preconceptions of people like me.” Scientific American July 2018For almost a century, physicists have wondered whether the most counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) could actually be true.Only in recent years has the technology necessary for answering this question become accessible, enabling a string of experimental results—including startling ones reported in 2007 and 2010, and culminating now with a remarkable test reported in May—that show that key predictions of QM are indeed correct.Taken together, these experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests a primary role for mind in nature.Now that the most philosophically controversial predictions of QM have—finally—been experimentally confirmed without remaining loopholes, there are no excuses left for those who want to avoid confronting the implications of QM.Lest we continue to live according to a view of reality now known to be false, we must shift the cultural dialogue towards coming to grips with what nature is repeatedly telling us about herself. (Sciam 2018)So apparently the Copenhagen Interpretation is the one that has been shown to be true over all the others, but nobody likes it very much. It provides for a fundamental role for humans in the existence of reality itself, and since we’re all Copernicans at heart, it’s quite upsetting. We need to get over it. Humans are fundamental.

As a conservative, my stance is that every life has value from the moment of conception.I believe that we are made in the image and likeness of God as told in the Bible. Beginning at that foundation, it is impossible to align with the belief that killing a child is noble, righteous or even healthcare.One of the reasons planned parenthood has the reputation that it currently holds amongst the pro infanticide crowd is because they have been the recipient of endless PR campaigns marketing them as an institution worthy of praise.Let’s start at the beginning of the attitude that gave rise to the modern incarnation of murdering children for profit/gain/convenience.Margaret Sanger is hailed as a champion of women’s rights and bodily autonomy. Her beliefs however go largely underreported and even hidden from the public. But if you’re going to support an organization it’s important to do so knowing full well the mindset behind it.“Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Actin 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US.”Promoting the idea that exterminating living beings was not always as popular an idea as it is today. We are seeing a steady shift in the mindset that once believed pro life is equal to suppression of choice.Democrats are increasingly out of line with public opinion on abortionWhen the public is asked about specific scenarios instead of abortion overall, there are deep divides amongst those who support it.Public Opinion About Abortion -- An In-Depth Review“Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Publicly, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and claimed to be opposed to abortion through the bulk of her career. Privately, she helped to pay for abortions surreptitiously, and encouraged her staff to do likewise.”Having a public stance that garners support while allowing you to privately do the exact opposite is deceptive and begs the question, if what you’re doing is so noble why would you need to deceive people?Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights movement.This is quite telling…She has been criticized for supporting eugenics.”WITH GOOD REASON, in her own words…1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."-- Interview with John Parsons, 19472. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) Sanger, Margaret. 1920. Woman and the New Race3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2Smith Libraries Exhibits...4. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 3665. “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit.”-- Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 19576. “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...7. “Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”-- Sanger, Margaret. (1919) Birth Control and Racial Betterment. The Birth Control Review.8. “As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes.”-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda. The Birth Control Review, p. 5. http://birthcontrolreview.net/...9. “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...11. “A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 3, 27 Mar 1934.https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 5, March 27, 1934.14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 6, March 27, 1934.15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."-- Sanger, Margaret. “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."-- Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization.18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...19. “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.”-- Margaret Sanger, "Morality and Birth Control," Feb-Mar 1918.http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sa...20. “Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.”-- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922documen | Scribd...21. “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.” -- “Woman and the New Race,” 1920Here’s where we truly get to the soul (or lack thereof) of this entire issue.“Eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenicswas coined in 1883 by British explorer and natural scientistFrancis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by “survival of the fittest,” helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and ’40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.”This underlying belief or foundation that human beings are nothing more than accidents of nature robs all of us of the intrinsic value placed in us by our creator. It opens the door for excusing mass genocide of ‘undesirables’. If we all have value given to us by a creator then killing one of us is an affront to that creator. Margaret was very much a racist and into the occult, she believed that ‘negros’ were ‘human weeds and needed to be ‘exterminated’. Those who support planned parenthood often ignore the hypocrisy and difficult questions that they are unable to reconcile to their belief that planned parenthood is a noble organization.Armed with this information, it is not difficult to understand why this belief system has been repackaged and sold to us and especially minorities through deception and well funded PR campaigns.The real question is why? Why so much effort to bring the masses into the fold and adopt such a horrific practice? Based on my research there are a few that stand out.Spiritual -http://www.ancientdestructions.com/baalbek-temple-human-sacrifice-worship-baal/Baal worship is alive and well in America and the world – though they do not call it that today. Let me explain.First we must look back in time, and see how Baal was worshiped. Actually, there were two gods which were essentially worshiped the same way, Baal and Ashtoreth. Molech was another such god. Two practices in particular are mentioned in Scripture.First was sexual orgies “under every green tree,” where promiscuity and perverted sex acts were the norm.Second was passing their babies through the fire. This was murdering the babies that resulted from the orgies by throwing them alive into a fire pit to be burned to death. These things were done in the name of the pagan idol-gods Baal, Ashtoreth, and Molech.How are we doing this today? The gods have been renamed “Sexual Freedom” and “A Woman’s Right to Choose.” The religion is called “Pleasure and Convenience.”We live in an age of loose moral standards, where it is acceptable and encouraged for us to have sexual partners outside of marriage. Just watch television; There is hardly a show on tv that does not glorify hunting sexual partners, or having such relationships without being married first.Then when the seed bears fruit, we murder the unborn baby. One method of abortion is a saline/chemical solution injected into the womb which literally burns the baby to death. Another is to go in with a knife and cut the baby up (torture and cutting also being a popular form of satanic worship). Then there is the partial birth abortion, where they crack open the skull of a partially born child and suck out the brains with a vacuum.The priests are the abortion doctors, and the teachers are our television writers/producers and others who promote this lifestyle. One of the high temples is “Planned Parenthood,” an organization whose sole purpose is make modern Baal worship acceptable to the people.In ancient times much of Israel was drawn into Baal worship. Their neighboring countries practiced it, so they wanted to practice it too, to get along with their neighbors. God called them out to be separate, but they wanted to be liked by the worldHistory repeats itself. Many churches today take a soft stance on sin, particularly sexual sin. Divorce/remarriage and sexual immorality of almost every kind is found almost as often in many of our churches as it is in the world. Some even approve of abortions. Like the ancient Jews, they are mixing worship of Christ with worship of Baal.Jesus told us to come out from among them, be separate, be holy. He taught that if we are really His followers then we will be different from the world. He warned us that the world would hate us, because our righteousness would convict them of their sin.But the Bible also teaches that in the last days the professing church would become more and more like the world. That we would have a form of religion, a form of godliness, but no real power. Even that we would claim Christianity while actually denying that Christ is the only way of salvation.Like never before in history, this is happening today. We are joining ourselves to other religions, we are raising up the flag of Baal worship in the name of Tolerance and false love.God judged Israel by sending Babylon and Assyria against Israel and Judah. These were the first two of seven beast empires which have come (for more on these, read Beyond Fiction, by Donald Rowen). The same thing is soon to come upon the professing church!In Revelation we read that one of the heads of the beast, one of the kingdoms/kings, will come back as an eighth head. He will first attack Israel at the Abomination of Desolation. But much of Israel will flee into the wilderness and be hidden by God. Scripture says that then he will turn against the rest of her offspring who have the testimony of Jesus. That is the professing church. He will war against the saints of Jesus and overcome them (but we can overcome by the blood of the Lamb, by our word of testimony, and by not loving our lives even to the death.)This is the fourth seal of Revelation 6. The rider of this horse is death, and Hades follows with him. He has power over ¼ of the earth to kill with sword (symbol of war), with hunger, and with death by the beasts of the earth. The false prophet (the second beast in Rev. 12&13) requires all people to worship the beast Antichrist and take his mark, or else they cannot buy or sell – thus hunger. War against the saints and hunger because they cannot buy food without the mark are done through the two beasts, the beasts of the earth.For those who refuse the mark, death comes searching. If you were to count all those who profess to be Christians from all denominations, it would be about ¼ of the earth.Many will give in to the beast and take the mark. Their love will grow cold and they will turn against other Christians, betraying them (Matt 24:8-22, all related to the rise of the Antichrist). A time of fiery testing, of proving our faith, will come on the earth. Just as ancient Israel had to go through the judgment of God, so will the church. Scripture says judgment begins first with the house of God.Bear in mind, that those who give in to the beast and take his mark will be lost forever. Hades follows with death. Those who choose the mark and physical life choose Hell. Those who choose against the mark choose death – they love not their lives even to the death. This time of testing will last probably between 2 and 3 years.Jesus is coming back for a bride without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. Fiery testing not only proves who has faith, but also purifies that faith. When the sixth seal is opened, the sun and moon darken in obeisance, and the earth shakes when Christ knocks on the door (Matt 24:29ff). The trumpet will sound, and angels will gather the elect together. The dead in Christ will rise first, then those who are alive who have survived will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air. (See my book, The Prewrath Rapture: Answering the Critics for full Scriptural evidence.)In the Parable of the Virgins (Matt 24) there were five wise and five foolish virgins. When Christ gathers the wise virgins, the foolish ones come knocking, seeking entrance into the kingdom. They are denied. Why? Because they are the ones who took the mark, who worshiped the beast so they would not be killed. Once they worshiped the beast and took his mark, they were allowed to keep attending church. They thought they were okay, but their light went out the moment the bowed to the beast.If you are one of those who worship Baal and Ashtoreth by approving sexual immorality and abortion, do not think you will escape God’s judgment just because you claim to believe in Christ and in God. 2Thess 2 warns that those who hate the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness, to them God will send a strong delusion that they believe the lies of the Antichrist.Please note that this judgment is not on those who struggle with bondage to sin, but acknowledge that it is sin. It is not on churches who try to help those trapped by addictions to overcome. This judgment is upon those who whitewash the sin, such as those who call homosexuality acceptable to God, those who wink at sexual immorality – pretending to call it merely “wrong” while they really don’t care. This judgment is upon those who approve of abortion as “a woman’s right to choose” above God’s commandments. It is upon those who love the passing pleasure of sin more than they love God.So I set before you this question. Will you serve Baal, or will you serve God. You cannot do both!Financial -These people are SICK!” #Qanon Takes on Planned ParenthoodJanuary 7, 2018 By Operation Rescue 47 CommentsPlanned parenthood has connections to the political dirty tricks group Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton and the corrupt Clinton Foundation, Obama, and to at least one “pay to play” scheme in which Clinton and the Obama Administration allowed Ecuadorian criminals into the U.S. so they could sell aborted baby remains.“We are grateful to Q and the Trump Administration for taking the evidence against Planned Parenthood seriously and bringing it to the attention of an audience that may otherwise never have been exposed to the truth. We hope the Qanon exposure helps wake up Americans to the barbarity of abortion,” said Newman. “Planned Parenthood is a corrupt enterprise that makes their money off the backs of dead babies and taxpayers. We urge Congress to defund Planned Parenthood immediately, and are praying for their speedy prosecution.”Control -The Fight over Abortion in the UN’s New International Development AgendaAbortion Is Now Promoted at the Highest LevelAll 193 Member States of the UN, and international institutions worldwide, will be expected to fall in line with the new agenda. Countries bear the responsibility of implementing the SDGs, and foreign aid will be allocated according to these new parameters. Target 5.6 of the SDGs seeks to ensure “universal access” to “reproductive rights”—a term commonly understood to include abortion, but not explicitly defined as such. Up to this point, resistance to “reproductive rights” has been strong enough to keep it out of the UN’s official development agenda. Although the UN has been in the business for a long time of promoting insidious population control policies, never before has it promoted “universal” access to abortion in such a high-level document.The UN’s prior development agenda—the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which guided the world for the past fifteen years—made no mention whatsoever of “reproductive rights.” The MDGs represented a relatively neutral conception of universal betterment, with Goals such as “achieve universal primary education” (Goal 2) and “improve maternal health” (Goal 5). Markedly absent was any sort of controversial language of the kind we often see in UN documents today. A reference to “reproductive rights” in the MDGs was never even entertained—but fifteen years later, its inclusion in the SDGs was almost automatic.This development is partly because the term “reproductive rights” is so vague. Over time, pro-life countries have lost the political will to stave off this most dangerous term, since it has not been entirely clear whether it includes abortion. This gives rise to a very peculiar conundrum: Pro-life countries are forced simultaneously to fight “reproductive rights” while insisting that these rights do not include abortion. Opposition to “reproductive rights” within individual countries ebbs and flows as a consequence of factors that include the position of their governments, the personal convictions of their diplomats in New York, and the amount of pressure the country is facing from the UN.As a result, the trajectory of “reproductive rights” at the UN has been fraught with inconsistencies, but ultimately its twenty-year history reveals that the majority of UN Member States are, at the very least, uncomfortable with the term. UN pressure has compounded the effects of this ambiguity, compelling pro-life countries simply to accept “reproductive rights” rather than go against the mighty forces of the UN population-control machinery.We need to follow the money trail that feeds these organizations and look beyond the rhetoric.Planned Parenthood and the Democrats - FactCheck.orgContributions to Federal Candidates, 2018 cycleThere is also well documented fraud taking place within this organization, but much of it goes unreported to the public likely due to the enormous effort and funding by those of benefit from its actions.Planned Parenthood has been cited for Medicaid fraud... so why is it still getting taxpayer funding?People should ask themselves, why would federal funds be allocated to an organization that uses the bulk of that money to donate right back to 99% Democrat candidates?This was a lengthy response but I felt it was important to at least scratch the surface of why many are opposed to planned parenthood and those in positions of power who seek to destroy humanity at every stage of life. This is much deeper than merely an argument about reproductive rights, there is a war for the souls of men and women around the world.Every life is precious, it’s up to us to acknowledge that and act accordingly.The choice is ours to make, choose wisely.PSALM 139:13–16“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”YOU ARE LOVED BY YOUR CREATOR