Posted on 11/23/2004 1:19:13 PM PST by bushisdamanin04
Here is a list of “religious” members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The list is from their website. Some may be surprised to see that their “churches” are officially pro-abort “churches.” The list:
Conservative Judaism
Rabbinical Assembly
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church
Ethical Culture Movement
American Ethical Union
National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union
Humanist Judaism
Society for Humanistic Judaism
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO)
Women’s Ministries
Washington Office
Reconstructionist Movement
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Reform Judaism
Central Conference of American Rabbis
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Union for Reform Judaism
Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
Women’s Rabbinic Network of Central Conference of American Rabbis
United Church of Christ
Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church
General Board of Church and Society
General Board of Global Ministries, Women’s Division
Unitarian Universalist
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation
Young Religious Unitarian Universalists
Caucuses/Organizations
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith
Catholics for a Free Choice [NOT recognized by Roman Catholic Church!!!]
Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus
Disciples for Choice
Episcopal Urban Caucus
Episcopal Women’s Caucus
Hadassah, WZOA
Jewish Women International
Lutheran Women’s Caucus
Methodist Federation for Social Action
NA’AMAT USA
National Council of Jewish Women
Women’s American ORT
YWCA of the USA
If you are a member of one of these "churches" or organizations, I would urge you to leave them immediately and let them know exactly why you are leaving.
Thanks for posting - useful information.
"not recognized by the Catholic Church" is an understatement! "Catholics for Free Choice" is one non-practicing, excommunicated woman and her fax machine, funded by several anti-Catholic organizations.
You're welcome. Although not an article per se, I hope that many posters will find this to be valuable information.
Was this organization formerly known as "Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights" (RCAR)? If so, they probably changed the name to make it more "appealing."
Happily, not one Baptist organization to be found!
24 out of the 38 aren't even nominally Christian.
Yep. On the one hand, I want to see Frances Kissling excommunicated (there is no question whatsoever that she has earned it), but on the other hand I don’t want to see her get the free publicity and the appearances that would surely come on every “news” outline in the country.
Sorta interesting ECLA isn't on the list... yet.
That leaves the "Pro-Choice" "churches" as being ECUSA, United Church of Christ, United Methodists and the PCUSA. Listing the Ethical Culture movement as a religion is, of course, a brilliant slap on the face, since they are atheists, are they not?
There is no need to formally excommunicate Kissling. If she has not had an abortion herself, she definitely has paid for them and "escorted" children to their deaths, so she falls under the definition of a procurer of abortion and is therefore excommunicate.
Yes, they were previously known as "Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights." And, like you, I have long suspected that they changed their name for that very reason.
American Baptists and National Baptists sure are pro-choice, though! The issue is that such organizational statements of politics are deemed by American Baptists and National Baptists to be contrary to the Baptist view of the structure of churches. They'll even bitch that the Southern Baptists have become Papist because the SBC is so powerful.
...not that I would consider that offensive :^).
Kudos to Southern Baptists for being so strongly anti-abortion nowadays!
You're welcome. ;-)
|
||
I believe I saw an article stating that Frances gets a significant amount of money from the Ford Foundation.
Wonder when we stop calling the sell-out churches "Mainline?" I bet a lot of us wonder why they should be the official face of Christianity.
Don't mean to be snooty, but I think once you compromise the teachings as far as some of these churches have, I don't know what else to call them but sell-out.
Better not let that get out or we will end up with a handful of unbelieving misfits calling themselves Baptists for Reproductive Rights.
And guess who the MSM will then turn to for the "Baptist" perspective.
I agree 110% !!! I think the problem is the same with the so-called "MSM" and the MSM leads the way with the "churches" as well. The MSM calls these pro-abort "churches" "mainline" in order to give them a legitimacy that they do not deserve. A "church" that is pro-abort is not in anyway "mainline" in the Christian world. Another assault on us by the "MSM."
Church membership of associated churches:
"The Presbyterian Church (USA) lost 46,658 members during 2003 – higher than the projected downturn and the highest percentage loss in more than a quarter of a century. The exodus reduced membership to 2,405,311 as of Dec. 31, 2003 – a loss of 1.85 million members since the PCUSA and its predecessor denominations had a peak membership of 4,254,597 in 1965. "
"For the first time since... the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has fewer than 5 million members... That reduction - amounting to 53 081 baptized members - drops the denomination's membership to 4 984 925 baptized members in 10 657 congregations. "
"[T]he UCC, for instance, has suffered a net loss of members every year since 1965..."
"UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1999 2000 2001 2002 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP In the Jurisdictional Conferences: Total lay members reported at close of last year8,365,816 8,334,204 8,294,445 8,258,352
UNITED METHODIST WOMEN* Membership in United Methodist Women874,679 834,658 811,289 775,939"
For a devestating look at UMC's crisis, take a look at Peachtree Road UMC, one of the largest in Americ (http://www.prumc.org/Default.aspx?tabid=917) Church membership: 5800, Average number of visitors per Sunday: 300. And they are bragging!
"If you are a member of one of these "churches" or organizations, I would urge you to leave them immediately and let them know exactly why you are leaving."
Been there...done that. Former member of the Episcopal Church, which is probably one of the FIRST mainline denominations to put their stamp of approval on killing babies in the womb. Like it is with so many of their heretical & unChristian acts, the National Churches stance on the abortion issue was kept relatively hush-hush for decades so that the average Joe in the pews was ignorant of it. Same thing happened with homosexual marriage ceremonies. It was just 2 years ago that I discovered our Diocese had been performing such unions with the blessing of the Church for more than a decade. It shouldn't have come as a surprise...once you take that first step fateful step on that slippery slope.....
Most of the so-called "mainline" Protestant "churches" have lost many members over the last 20-30 years, while the RCC and conservative Protestant churches continue to grow. Maybe the MSM will even notice these facts one of these days!
Kind of a Who's Who of apostate denominations.
I posted on a legal message board for awhile (mostly non-lawyers) and when I posted the fact that partial-birth abortion was legal in every state, people went nuts. "No, not here in California!" "No, not in Texas!" It was amazing how many people were ignorant of what the law is in this area despite the fact that they profess to have a special interest in the law. Even when I posted the U.S. Supreme Court cases to prove it, many of these people still were quite positive that PBAs were against the law in their states.
http://www.firstchurchseattle.org/default.htm
The answer to your question is YES. RCAR=RCRC
Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mt 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
If Wesley was aware of how the United Methodists are, as a denomination, for abortion. He would be very upset.
The same could be said for John Knox and the Prebs.
Sorry, but all of that "junk" that Jesus said has been revoked. Don't you know that "love one another" is the one and only thing that matters now? All that stuff that Jesus said, especially in Matthew and especially about Hell, has been thrown out by many "churches."
"Kudos to Southern Baptists for being so strongly anti-abortion nowadays!"
Unfortunately, there are a great many people that say they are Southern Baptist, but are only so in name not belief or practice. The most eggregious example is Bill Clinton.
"not recognized by the Catholic Church" is an understatement! "Catholics for Free Choice" is one non-practicing, excommunicated woman and her fax machine, funded by several anti-Catholic organizations.
Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church should be able to get an injunction forbidding this person from using their name.
"Don't you know that "love one another" is the one and only thing that matters now?"
You are so right. It is amazing how this truncated Gospel is spreading. Although it is true that God is love. It is equally true that He is just and will not tolerate sin. When Jesus comes again it will be as a judge.
Like the Dems, most of these are contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence!
I'm glad there's no Lutheran there... Yet, I feel sad for these brothers and sisters in Christ...
When I was converting to the RCC, I had an unofficial “coach” who answered my many questions. This woman was incredibly well-informed about the Church and her teachings and she could not only provide answers, but give the source(s) of the answers. She was, however, quite liberal.
One day we were discussing Hell and Jesus’ references to Hell. She told me that when she was young, before Vatican II, that Matthew scared the heck out of her and that she was thankful for Vatican II. My jaw still hasn’t managed to get itself off the floor.
I regret seeing my church there. Having visited the website of the RCRC, it somewhat vague as to how they count members or supporters, and whether there is any official link with a whole denomination and this front-group for abortionists.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/wherchur.htm
Yep...just like mushrooms....they feed us sh*t & keep us in the dark. What surprises them is the backlash when we do finally wake up to discover we've been played for fools. It's a lot harder to keep dastardly deeds under wraps now because of the Internet.
Just curious, does that include "reproductive choice" for MEN?
>>Seems to me that the Roman Catholic church should be able to get an injunction forbidding this person from using their name.<<
O come now, if they could do that, the medieval Catholics would never have let the Protestants call themselves "Christians." If she called her outfit "Roman Catholics for Free Choice," maybe they'd have a chance.
I've never seen "church discipline" in our church to the point where someone is brought before the entire congregation, but have to believe this is one issue that would be a line in the sand, at least in our SBC congregation.
From what I understand, there isn't much difference between Unitarians and the United Church of Christ. I've always thought that if you decide to put the Name of Jesus on your church, you'd better be correct.
INTREP
Men have no reproductive "rights." We're just donors.
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
Agreed. Something else that the law does that may knock your socks off is where a man is paying child support and tests subsequently reveal that he is NOT the father, the law will often require him to continue to pay child support because it is "in the best interest of the child."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.