Man Pleads Guilty in Ohio Gunpoint Abortion Case

From AOL.com news:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An Ohio man has pleaded guilty to charges that he tried to force his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint to get an abortion.

Dominic Holt-Reid entered his pleas in a Columbus courtroom Thursday to attempted murder, weapons and abduction charges.

He was charged under a 1996 fetal homicide law.

Police say Holt-Reid pulled a gun Oct. 6 on his girlfriend, Yolanda Burgess, who was three months pregnant, and forced her to drive to an abortion clinic.

Burgess did not go through with the procedure but slipped a note to a clinic employee, who called police.

I can't wait to hear Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW say that the worst wrong and most dangerous thing this man did was have a gun.  Legalized abortions with the kind of privacy demands that abortion supporters make end up tying them into ethical knots; the abortion clinic technically did not have to call the police or acknowledge the woman's note, and that is a problem.  How many other incidents of coerced abortions take place, shielded from the authorities because someone didn't use a gun to force a woman to the abortionist?  No one will ever know.

Dearborn Moves to California?

This video ignited a firestorm on my facebook. Take a look:


The complete story about this incident can be found here.

The controversy surrounds not with the behavior of law enforcement, which I think should be the focus this incident, but the behavior of the man reading the Bible. Much was said about how this man was an "obnoxious idiot," a "Bible-thumper," and a detriment to the Church. I really don't see that in the video, but let me grant it for the sake of the argument. Even if the man were to behave 100x's worse, would that justify an arrest? Even if he were Terry Jones can anyone justify an arrest--oh wait, that happened too!

As Lydia McGrew pointed out, this incident happened on public property on which no laws were broken. The video shows that the men were peaceful and stood at a distance away from others. Had this man been a Muslim, I think this point would have hit home, for political correctness would have seen to his protection, and no one would have dared lay a hand on him.

As believers, we should be just as compassionate for these brothers in Christ as we would have for the nonbelieving public. To reserve from them that which we would give to others is duplicitous. The man has been called an "obnoxious idiot," but not one said that the security guard or the patrolman were "obnoxious idiots," even though they were. I cannot in good conscience shame fellow Christians in public for what they were trying to do and for which they were unjustly arrested. I have even had one individual tell me that the man got what he deserved even though the patrolman was wrong--hello, contradiction? The three fellow believers in the video have been unjustly treated; I don't know why as a matter of principle we don't defend their legal rights first instead of savaging someone's character. We don't do this to nonbelievers, but we find it somehow acceptable to eat our own.

Having said that, I can now address the separate issue of the wisdom of standing at a DMV and reading aloud from the Bible to people who clearly don't appreciate the effort. First of all, that's weird. Out of context and out of place, it is a gratuitous intrusion on the sensibilities of the general public, especially to read Bible passages without an explanation of the reader's intentions. Christians and non-Christians alike readily attribute a negative character to anyone who would do so, as shown by the comments on my facebook thread.

Second, this type of "cold" preaching is, as people have accused, detrimental to the mission of the Church. By creating a situation in which the people associate the Gospel with weird, intrusive, and annoying Christians, one may taint the impression of the Gospel itself. This, of course, is not how real missionaries operate. In a strikingly similar case, believers who traveled to Dearborn, MI were unjustly arrested for trying to preach the Gospel to Muslims. But in that case, the Christians had a context, a clear limited scope, and brought people willingly into a dialogue about Jesus Christ.

I think we all agree that maybe these men should have behaved more wisely leading up to being falsely arrested, but if we justify the arrest in any way, shape, or form over and against the Constitution, we have all taken a step toward losing our own First Amendment rights. Hey, it's your freedom (and mine).  It takes surprisingly few cases to set off unconstitutional limitations if they aren't constantly being defended.

Are There Unicorns in the Bible?

Yes, there are, but it's not what you think!  :) 
Please watch:



Another lesson about why we don't read backwards in the Bible.

Denied Valedictorian Receives Her Honor, 75 Years Late

For totally inarticulate-able reasons, this story just struck me right there.  A long overdue rectification of an injustice toward a more-than-deserving individual just has the right ring of sorrow and satisfaction.  Please watch:

The story reports that “it’s believed that school leaders did not want two black valedictorians so close together.”  Fanetta’s Gordon’s sister claims that the principal of the school especially did not want two black students from the same family to graduate with valedictorian honors.   As a result, the principal ordered the music teacher to lower one of Fanetta’s grades in the class. 

Most of us would quickly judge this a case of discrimination and robbery, and I believe that it was.  But I believe it was more sinister than even that.  You see, the principal denied Fanetta not what she was entitled to as a human being (because not all human beings are valedictorians).  Far worse, he denied a title and an honor that Fanetta earned and deserved.  The principal took something away from Fanetta that she had already possessed by ordering the music teacher to change her grade.  The way I understand it, the principal did not simply discriminate, he made her the victim of affirmative action to a position that traditionally has a quota of one.  So instead of one black young woman who earned her way to the top, a most likely white student received the valedictorian honors that he or she did not deserve just because of race. 

I hope that those who support affirmative action in the contemporary debate realize that affirmative action almost always victimizes someone.  Some colleges have quotas; almost all colleges have limits on the number of acceptances per school year based on race and ethnicity, which means someone will inevitably be rejected for belonging to the wrong race.  Employers cannot legally discriminate in hiring, yet they must fill out surveys on the racial makeup of their employees (by percentages!) that can be used to accuse them of doing the very thing they try to avoid, usually at the bark of some malcontent civil rights attorney.  In affirmative action, the dividing line between acceptance and hiring vs. rejection is race-based.  As a society, we should know that what is used to allow one race to gain a certain benefit almost always means that another race must face an undeserved loss, just as Fanetta Gordon did so long ago.  Certain races have always been favored over others for whatever reasons in any civilization.  As much as I’d like to change it and would encourage change on this, I have to admit that this is the way of the world.

It is thankfully not the way of the Kingdom of Christ, however. Galatians 3:27-29 says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Every believer is a favored person under the merits of Jesus Christ. We are all spiritual paupers who have been given lavish suites in the mansion of Christ. How then can we deny another something that he/she deserves in this world? It is with the understanding that each human being is unworthy of God’s favor, yet we have it through Jesus, that we can act with justice toward each other.

I am so glad Fanetta Gordon finally received her honor, albeit a sorrowful 75 years denied. Kudos to the school for doing the right thing after all these years.

Is Faith Blind?

This is my Q&A response article up on the Smart Faith Conference website: 

Faith has become one of those terms that has come to be popularly defined as knowingly or unknowingly having positive belief in something that is not true. Even well-meaning Christians have spoken of faith as “a statement of trust in what we do not know for sure.*” With the idea of a necessary uncertainty built into the common understanding of faith, it is no surprise that many people have come to equate having faith with the opposite of having knowledge, evidence, and certitude. In other words, “faith” is the same as “blind faith.” Therefore, all faith must be blind, right?


Is faith really blind? Blind faith is certainly blind, but is this how faith should be defined? Both the Bible and our experiences tell us otherwise.


The Apostles of Jesus taught that their belief in Christ is an informed, evidenced faith. The Apostle John’s opening paragraph in 1 John is an emphatic statement of the reality of Jesus Christ in history. He states,

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:1-5).

Redundantly, John assures the reader that the Disciples’ experiences of Jesus in this life are rooted in tangible reality. 

 The Apostle Peter says similarly. “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1:16-18). Peter writes that the message he preaches came not from conjecture but through actual observance of God’s proclamation about Jesus not once but twice.


Likewise, Luke the historian says that the resurrected Jesus “presented himself to [the disciples] and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Certainly the Gospel writers considered their faith an evidenced faith; this high value on reason and evidence is a surviving legacy that continues to lead Christians today. The legacy has produced many Christian thinkers who have contributed multiple lines of reasoning, arguing not only for God’s existence but for the essential truths regarding the identity and claims of Jesus Christ.


In our own experiences, most rational people understand that blind faith is ultimately an uncomfortable faith. We demand a reality to our lives that is minimally verifiable. Even the atheist who questions the veracity of the Christian faith does so with the assumption that an objective reality exists to support his objections, though he often fails to apply his own criteria to inquire about his own views. In fact, we could ask the skeptic what his evidence is for his belief that all faith is unfounded.


Of course, people can believe things that are untrue. In a strict Christian sense that may be belief, but that isn’t necessarily faith. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” To the person who thinks that faith is necessarily uncertain, the writer of Hebrews equates faith with having confidence placed in what Christians hope for, which is actually a “Who” in the person of Jesus Christ. Christians then have the assurance of the living Jesus to see us through all of life’s uncertainties. Christian faith, therefore, is not about belief statements which may or may not be true, but it is about trusting and depending on Jesus and His promises.


Is Christian faith blind? In light of the evidence and the object of faith, certainly not.


*D'Souza, Dinesh. What's So Great About Christianity. p. 195.