Monthly Archives: July 2014

Mark Pryor is 35% pro-life according to ARKANSAS RIGHT TO LIFE and his conversation with David J. Sanders in 2002 while Tom Cotton gets 100% rating!!!

_______

Today in Arkansas: Cotton cheers Hobby Lobby ruling

 

Bill Kristol Quotes Tom Cotton on Fox News Sunday

 

Mark Pryor is not pro-life according to ARKANSAS RIGHT TO LIFE in 2014 and his conversation with David J. Sanders in 2002!!!!

Tolbert: Arkansas Right To Life Endorses Cotton

Arkansas Right to Life, along with the National Right to Life, rolled out an endorsement Monday for Congressman Tom Cotton pointing to both his consistent pro-life record as well as what they called “waffling and ducking” from his opponent – incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor on the life issue.

“As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom Cotton has been a strong advocate for the right-to-life cause,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Tom Cotton is needed in the U.S. Senate to continue his strong advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable members of our society.”

In their endorsement, the pro-life group pointed specifically to differences between the two candidates on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – a bill which would prohibit late-term abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which the unborn baby can experience pain.  Cotton voted for the bill which has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, where it has not had any support from Pryor.

“Mark Pryor has tried to have it both ways on the right-to-life issues, but nearly 12 years of waffling and ducking is enough,” said Jacki Ragan, Arkansas director to the National Right to Life Board of Directors.

I asked the Pryor campaign for comment on this legislation back in January but never heard back.  Others in the media have had similar results.

Pryor has a 35% pro-life rating based on votes on legislation tracked by the National Right to Life, while Cotton has a 100% rating.

The 20-week ban is similar to the ban passed by the Arkansas legislature back in 2013.  I will point out that this legislation was criticized by Mike Ross on the day he announced he was running for governor, however he voted for similar legislation while in Congress.

– See more at: http://talkbusiness.net/2014/07/tolbert-arkansas-right-to-life-endorses-cotton/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tolbert-arkansas-right-to-life-endorses-cotton#sthash.eqMGlnMS.dpuf

David J. Sanders: Pryor abortion stance hard to pin

David J. Sanders
Syndicated Columnist
Published Friday, June 14, 2002

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill got in hot water with the leadership of the Catholic Church back in his home state of Massachusetts when he announced that his personal opposition to abortion wouldn’t hinder his support of the Constitution. (At the time of his announcement, the country was beginning to cope with the Roe v. Wade decision, which established that a woman’s right to an abortion was protected under the Constitution.)

Catholic leaders publicly chastised O’Neill. They were distraught that his proclaimed loyalty to what was at that time a new Supreme Court decision trumped any personal or religious convictions he had on the issue. The leaders asserted that O’Neill was worse than other supporters of abortion. They said his position was illogical in that he knew abortion was immoral and wouldn’t do anything about it.

Since entering the race for the U.S. Senate, Attorney General Mark Pryor has been somewhat elusive about his stand on abortion. Recently, questions about his position on abortion led Pryor’s pastor, Robert Lewis of Fellowship Bible Church of Little Rock, to prod his high-profile parishioner on the issue.

Lewis, a noted author and religious leader in the conservative Bible church movement, announced in Sunday’s church service that his “interview” with Pryor on abortion would be posted on the church’s Web site and encouraged members of his flock to check it out.

Having visited with Pryor about his stance on abortion — which isn’t different from the positions of Bill Clinton, Al Gore or Tip O’Neill — I decided to check his latest statements, wondering if he had changed his mind.

What I found was a transcript of a conversation between Pryor and his pastor. Pryor offered little new information.

Pryor acknowledged that out of political expedience, as recently as 1998, he had identified himself as “pro-choice.” He said that he felt all abortion was wrong except when the life of the mother is at stake. Pryor also claimed that he would consider any law to limit abortion.

Pryor asserted that he is opposed to so-called partial-birth abortions, but did not mention that as attorney general he failed to appeal a federal court decision’s striking down Arkansas partial-birth abortion law.

Lewis tried to nail Pryor down on abortion, asking him what he considered his political position. Pryor gave a canned answer, in which, like Bill Clinton, he said that he is personally opposed to abortion.

“I think women should have the right to decide in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger. As a United States senator, I would balance my personal convictions with my sworn responsibility under the Constitution as I carefully consider each issue relating to abortion,” Pryor responded.

Last March, I asked Pryor the same question and received a similar answer. Not satisfied with his answer I probed further asking him if he would be in favor of a law that banned abortion except in cases of the aforementioned exceptions.

Pryor responded that he thought it would be unconstitutional. So I went further. I asked if he would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion except in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother. He responded, “No.”

He offered up a weak argument proclaiming a “general reluctance” to amend the Constitution on specific issues. Pryor said he believes the legal doctrine on abortion will change over time with our attitudes and values.

Lewis asked Pryor when he believes life begins. (Pro-lifers consider this to be the “mother of all questions.” Since they believe that life begins at conception, any action, like abortion, after conception is destroying a human life. This is a point many pro-choice crowds will rarely concede.) Surprisingly, Pryor stated a “common sense” approach that led him to believe that life begins at conception.

Pryor was even more illusive when his pastor asked him about Roe v. Wade. He correctly stated that striking down Roe wouldn’t end abortion, but would give states the right to regulate abortion laws. Even when given a clear opportunity to say so, Pryor wouldn’t advocate the end of Roe.

He seemed more concerned with states having different standards than with curtailing abortion. If Roe were ever struck down, abortions in Arkansas would be illegal except in cases where the life of the mother was in danger.

Unlike the Catholic clergy that castigated O’Neill nearly three decades ago, Pryor’s pastor put on kid gloves. Pryor continues to advocate positions that are illogical and disingenuous; Lewis should have called him on the carpet. If Pryor believes that life begins at conception, how can he be for maintaining the status quo?

——

(EDITOR’S NOTE: David J. Sanders writes for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is DavidJSanders@aol.com.)

David Sanders announces he will run for State Representative

Uploaded on Jan 13, 2010

TolbertReport.com – David Sanders announces he will run for Arkansas State Representative District 31

________________________________________________________

Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on the “Absurdity of Life without God!!” Part 15 (Robert Lewis of Men’s Fraternity suggested too many are focused on things that will pass away and not on making an eternal difference in others lives)

The Bible and Science (Part 03) There Is A Difference Between Absolute and Objective Moral Values Published on Dec 6, 2012 For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: “Countering the New Atheism” took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. Christian academics William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Peter J Williams […]

Robert Lewis, creator of “Men’s Fraternity” nominated for President’s Citizen Medal

Men’s Fraternity – Introduction Uploaded on Mar 14, 2011 A great introduction to Men’s Fraternity with clips of Robert Lewis, the creator of Men’s Fraternity. The Quest for Authentic Manhood Uploaded on Mar 14, 2011 Clips with Robert Lewis from Men’s Fraternity “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” _________ The Men of Semper Fidelis: “The Quest […]

Balanced Budget Amendment the answer? Boozman says yes, Pryor no (Part 13, Milton Friedman’s view is yes)(The Conspirator Part 18, Lewis Powell Part A)

Dallas Fed president and CEO Richard W. Fisher sat down with economist Milton Friedman on October 19, 2005, as part of ongoing discussions with the Nobel Prize winner. In this clip, Friedman argues for a reduction in government spending. I really wish that Senator Pryor would see the wisdom of supporting the Balanced Budget amendment. […]

Simon Schama’s lack of faith in Old Testament Prophecy (Plus Gervais and Dawkins on Religion)

Richard Dawkins & Ricky Gervais on Religion Trailer | The Story of the Jews | PBS ____________________________ Robert Lewis noted that many orthodox Jews believed through the centuries that God would honor the ancient prophecies that predicted that the Jews would be restored to the land of Israel, but then I notice the latest film […]

Advertisements

Both Critics and Fans of Antony Flew’s conversion from Atheism to Theism get their say on www.thedailyhatch.org !!! (Video of Ricky Gervais on Atheism)

____________

Antony Flew on God and Atheism

Published on Feb 11, 2013

Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death (he’s a much better thinker than Richard Dawkins too – even when he was an atheist). His conversion to God-belief has caused an uproar among atheists. They have done all they can to lessen the impact of his famous conversion by shamelessly suggesting he’s too old, senile and mentally deranged to understand logic and science anymore.

News on Antony Flew’s conversion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FU…

Interview and discussion with Antony Flew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53REH…

________________

 Did Jesus Rise from the Dead Gary Habermas vs Anthony Flew

Published on May 30, 2013

Gary Habermas vs Anthony Flew – Did Jesus rise from the dead?

____________

Antony Flew – World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God

Uploaded on Nov 28, 2008

Has Science Discovered God?

A half-century ago, in 1955, Professor Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his Theology and Falsification, a paper presented in a debate with C.S. Lewis. This work became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last 50 years. Over the decades, he published more than 30 books attacking belief in God and debated a wide range of religious believers.

Then, in a 2004 Summit at New York University, Professor Flew announced that the discoveries of modern science have led him to the conclusion that the universe is indeed the creation of infinite Intelligence.

For More Info Visit:
http://ScienceFindsGod.com

__________________

Discussion (2 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas

____________

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Scientific Evidence) (Henry Schaefer, PhD)

Published on Jun 11, 2012

Scientist Dr. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer gives a lecture on the cosmological argument and shows how contemporary science backs it up.

___________________________________________

Ricky Gervais – Losing Religion and Becoming An Atheist

Uploaded on Jul 2, 2009

Ricky Gervais – Losing Religion and Becoming An Atheist

_____________________

Debate – Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs Herb Silverman

Uploaded on Aug 21, 2011

University of North Carolina Wilmington (March 23, 2010) – Does God Exist? William Lane Craig debates atheist Herb Silverman on the existence of God.

Links:

http://reasonablefaith.org
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: http://twitter.com/rfupdates

Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/reasonablefai…

The Bible and Science (Part 02)

___________________

I have learned several things about atheists in the last 20 years while I have been corresponding with them. First, they know in their hearts that God exists and they can’t live as if God doesn’t exist, but they will still search in some way in their life for a greater meaning. Second, many atheists will take time out of their busy lives to examine the evidence that I present to them. Third, there is hope that they will change their views.

At the bottom of this post I have listed every post from March and April 2014 that is about Antony Flew, who was arguably the most famous atheist philosopher of the 20th century and his conversion from atheism to theism.

Let’s go over again a few points I made at the first of this post.  My first point is backed up by  Romans 1:18-19 (Amplified Bible) ” For God’s wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness REPRESS and HINDER the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God  has SHOWN IT TO THEM,”(emphasis mine). I have discussed this many times on my blog and even have interacted with many atheists from CSICOP in the past.

My second point is that many atheists will take the time to consider the evidence that I have presented to them and will respond. The late Adrian Rogers was my pastor at Bellevue Baptist when I grew up and I sent his sermon on evolution and another on the accuracy of the Bible to many atheists to listen to and many of them did. I also sent many of the arguments from Francis Schaeffer also.

______
Adrian Rogers and his wife Joyce pictured above with former President George Bush at Union University in Tennessee.
_______________
Many of these scholars have taken the time to respond back to me in the last 20 years and some of the names  included are  Ernest Mayr (1904-2005), George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-),  Brian Charlesworth (1945-),  Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), (Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010),  Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-),  Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), and Michael Martin (1932-).
Third, there is hope that an atheist will reconsider his or her position after examining more evidence. Twenty years I had the opportunity to correspond with two individuals that were regarded as two of the most famous atheists of the 20th Century, Antony Flew and Carl Sagan.  I had read the books and seen the films of the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer and he had discussed the works of both of these men. I sent both of these gentlemen philosophical arguments from Schaeffer in these letters and in the first letter I sent a cassette tape of my pastor’s sermon IS THE BIBLE TRUE? You may have noticed in the news a few years that Antony Flew actually became a theist in 2004 and remained one until his death in 2010. Carl Sagan remained a skeptic until his dying day in 1996.Antony Flew wrote me back several times and in the  June 1, 1994 letter he  commented, “Thank you for sending me the IS THE BIBLE TRUE? tape to which I have just listened with great interest and, I trust, profit.” I later sent him Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution too. 
______________

 

The New Atheism, Norman Geisler

Uploaded on Nov 12, 2011

This video was produced by and downloaded from:http://www.youtube.com/user/rfvidz

________________

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Dr. Norman Geisler on even Atheists long for God…

 

John Paul Sarte –

“I need God…I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it myself.” (words, 102, 97).

“Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe that I have gone through it to the end.” – Jean-Paul Sartre.

Before Sartre’s death he is recorded as saying,

“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here” (National Review, 11 June, 1982, p. 677).
Sigmund Freud speaking of God admitted that

“It would be very nice indeed if there was a God.” There is “a sense of man’s insignificance or impotence in the face of the universe.”

.

Friedrich Nietzsche –

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers, of all murderers, comfort ourselves?”

“I hold up before myself the images of Dante and Spinoza (believers), who were better at accepting the lot of solitude….My life now consists in the wish that it might be otherwise…And that somebody might make my ‘truths’ appear incredible to me…”

Thus Spake Zarathustra:

“Unknown one! Speak. What wilt thou, unknown-god?… Do come back With all thy tortures! To the last of all that are lonely, Oh, come back!…
“And the last flame of my heart Up it gloweth unto thee! Oh, come back, Mine unknown God, my pain! My last happiness!…”

David Hume—

“Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these colds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium. I din, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hour’s amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strained and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”

Walter Kauffman, German American Philosopher,

“Religion is rooted in man’s aspirations to transcend himself…Whether he worships idols or strives to perfect himself, man is the god-intoxicated ape.”

Will Durant, an American writer, historian and philosopher was interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times.

I survive morally because I was taught the moral code along with religion, while I have discarded the religion, which was Roman Catholicism. You and I are living on a shadow…because we are operating on the Christian ethical code which was given us, unfused with Christian faith…but what will happen with our children…? We are not giving them an ethics warmed up with Christian faith. They are living on the shadow of a shadow.”

Alber Camus

For anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful” (The Fall, 133).

“… Despite the fact that there is no God, at least the Church must be built” (The Rebel, 147).

Bertrand Russell

“Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God…–at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd, isn’t it? I care passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all?” There must be something more important one feels, though I don’t believe there is”

The British Humanist Magazine charged that Humanism is almost “clinically detached from life.” It recommends they develop a humanist Bible, a humanist hymnal, Ten Commandments for humanists, and even confessional practices! In addition,

“the use of hypnotic techniques–music and other psychological devices–during humanist services would give the audience that deep spiritual experience and they would emerge refreshed and inspired with their humanist faith…” (1964).

Jesus felt the sadness too:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)

Thanks to Norman Geisler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LVM3GQ41vk

thanks to:

Ken Probst

http://blogs.nazarene.org/kpprobst/tag/john-paul-sarte/

___________________

 

Both Critics and Fans of Antony Flew’s  conversion from Atheism to Theism get their say on  www.thedailyhatch.org !!! (Video of Ricky Gervais on Atheism)

Former atheist Antony Flew: “Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God!”

Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 Debate – William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist? Uploaded on Jan 27, 2011 April 4, 2009 – Craig vs. […]

Former atheist Antony Flew said, “I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the MONKEY THEOREM!”

____________ Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 Is Goodness Without God is Good Enough? William Lane Craig vs. Paul Kurtz Published on Jul 29, 2013 Date: October 24, 2001 […]

The argument from design led former atheist Antony Flew to assert: “I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason, and it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being!”

  ____________ Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist, Antony Flew, and Theist, Gary Habermas, Dialogue Published on Apr 7, 2012 http://www.veritas.org/talks – Did Jesus die, was he buried, and what happened afterward? Join legendary atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian and apologist Gary Habermas in a discussion about the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Join […]

Former atheist Antony Flew pointed out that natural selection can’t explain the origin of first life and in every other case, information necessarily points to an intelligent source!

______________ Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known spokesperson […]

Former Atheist Antony Flew noted that Evolutionists failed to show “Where did a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place?”

____   Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]

(BP)–Antony Flew, a legendary British philosopher and atheist, has changed his mind about the existence of God in light of recent scientific evidence.Flew –

_____________ Famed atheist sees evidence for God, cites recent discoveries Antony Flew NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Antony Flew, a legendary British philosopher and atheist, has changed his mind about the existence of God in light of recent scientific evidence.Flew — a prolific author who has argued against the existence of God and the claims of Christianity for […]

Antony Flew in his book THERE IS A GOD talks about his “notoriety” as an atheist! ( also 7 News : Web Extra: Ricky Gervais on God)

  7News : Web Extra: Ricky Gervais on God Published on Mar 23, 2014 He’s not shy about sharing his opinion with 5 million social media followers so Ricky Gervais was happy to clear a few things up for us too. __________________________________ Discussion (2 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Atheist Lawrence Krauss loses debate […]

Was Antony Flew the most prominent atheist of the 20th century?

_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]

Why the world’s most famous atheist (Antony Flew) now believes in God by James A. Beverley

____________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]

The Death of a (Former) Atheist — Antony Flew, 1923-2010 Antony Flew’s rejection of atheism is an encouragement, but his rejection of Christianity is a warning. Rejecting atheism is simply not enough, by Al Mohler

Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 ______________________ Making Sense of Faith and Science Uploaded on May 16, 2008 Dr. H. Fritz Schaefer confronts the assertion that one cannot believe […]

Transcript and Video of 1997 Interview of Nat Hentoff by Brian Lamb

Transcript and Video of 1997 Interview of Nat Hentoff by Brian Lamb

Nat Hentoff on His Life in Journalism, Social History, Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements (1997)

__________________

Transcript:

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Nat Hentoff, author of “Speaking Freely: A Memoir,” can you remember in your lifetime when you were the maddest about anything?
Mr. NAT HENTOFF (Author, “Speaking Freely: A Memoir”): Well, it happened so frequently. I think what I was most maddest about–and it’s in the book–when the House and the Senate, back in 1984, were debating a bill that would –at least delay and maybe stop some of the ex–summary execution of disabled children–infants. And the Down syndrome kids and other kids had been, in some cases, routinely let die, to use the euphemism. And I saw the debate on the floor of the House. And I considered myself, at the time, a liberal; I don’t know what I consider myself now. And here are the leading liberals at the time Geraldine Ferraro, Don Edwards, who I’m–I admire enormously, Henry Waxman–saying, `You can’t do that. That’s an interference with the doctor-mother’–not the doctor-infant, but doctor-mother–`relationship.’

And I figured, `My God, these are –the–this isn’t fetus time. This is–they’re born children.’ And–and as Harry Blackmun said when he wrote Roe v. Wade, `Once a child is born, the child has basic constitutional rights: due process, equal protection of the laws.’ And they were acting as if you could just dispose of these kids. I was angry.

LAMB: You said that you thought yourself to be a liberal. What would that mean to you?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, I grew up in a household in which we had a clock that we won at Revere Beach during the Depression–one of those brass clocks that didn’t work–but it showed Franklin D. Roosevelt standing at the wheel of the New Deal. Even though the clock didn’t work, we kept the clock because of how we felt about FDR. A lot since then I knew about FDR I wouldn’t have been so enthusiastic.

But a liberal was somebody who expected and hoped that government would help the poor–you know, that whole routine. I did not know then and I’ve learned since that in an area that means a lot to me, free speech, liberals are as bad as many conservatives in trying to censor speech. The whole politically correct movement, if it–if that’s what it is, was spawned by liberals. So I try to avoid categorizing myself.

LAMB: How did you get to the memoir?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, I had written a book called “Boston Boy” some years ago, and that took me from the time I could speak, I guess, in Boston through the time when I finally left to come to New York. And a lot–that book had a number of sort of rites of passage for me. One was understanding and coping with anti-Semitism. Boston, at the time, was the most anti-Semitic city in the country. And I found out when I was an adolescent that you have to be crazy to go out after dark all by yourself; you’d get your head bashed in. More fulfilling, I was introduced to jazz, and that’s become a basic concern and passion of mine ever since.

This book, “Speaking Freely,” starts when I came to New York. And the first chapter is about a man who became a friend of mine, much to our mutual surprise, Malcolm X. And it goes through other rites of passage, I guess you’d say, including the–what I just spoke about, the learning that liberalism isn’t quite as liberal as it pretends to be. And it goes through my adventures with the FBI during the anti-war period and the civil rights period. And a particular moment–and I’m not, to this day, quite sure how I feel about it–I had always wanted to be in the law books–you know, Hentoff vs. something or other. And then Congressman Icord headed a House on American activities committee. It was called the House Internal Security Committee. And he put out a report, and he named a number of very destructive people who lectured at colleges and left arson in their wake and did other terrible things. And he mentioned me and he ascribed to me three organizations to which I’d never belonged, and I decided I would do something about this.

When the ACLU took my case and we got a ruling I think, for the first time, they could–the Congress could put out the report internally but they couldn’t put it out at taxpayers’ expense around the country. And I felt odd about that because I, in a way, I was interfering with free speech, but then, you can’t always win.

LAMB: When has a liberal been the most upset with you to your face?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, well, the most controversial subject-issue I’ve ever gotten involved in to this day was when I became pro-life. And liberals are very–many liberals are very angry at me because of that. In part, because–they could understand it, they say, if I came to it from a religious kin–a Catholic perspective. But I’m still a Jewish atheist, and that really bothers them. And I come to it entirely from the point of view of biology. And what Roe v. Wade has led to, I–what I did in the 1980s–I tracked all of the state Supreme Court decisions concerning people who wanted to have their relatives–their husband, their wife, their child–taken off of feeding tubes or respirators.

Every time the Supreme Court of a state would say, `That’s OK,’ they based it on Roe v. Wade. And it turned out when–the–in terms of the physician-assisted suicide, the first federal district judge in the history of the United States out in Washington–state of Washington–came to the same conclusion, basing it on Roe v. Wade. And around that time, I met the angel of death, Derrick Humphrey, who introduced the whole concept of assisted suicide, and he was exultant. He was talking about things that had happened to him for the good. He said, `When I came to this country, I couldn’t get my ideas across to anybody, practically, but then a wonderful thing happened and the door opened.’ I said, `What was that?’ He said, `Roe v. Wade, because when Roe v. Wade said that you can remove a fetus for privacy, and privacy is the safeguard of that, then it was extended through the courts to, “You can take the respirator off your husband’s–your husband,” or whatever and, finally, physician-assisted suicide.’ So when I say I’m pro-life, I mean pro-life across the legal board.

LAMB: How do you make your money today?
Mr. HENTOFF: I write a syndicated column for The Washington Post that goes to about 200, 250 papers. I write a column for The Village Voice, which I’ve done since time immemorial, and occasionally–and books. And I occasionally write minor notes for record albums and occasional articles.
LAMB: You wrote some liner notes for Bob Dylan once.
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. I’ve always been amused by Dylan; I don’t think he’s been amused by me. When I first knew him, he lived in the Village. And for a man who, years after, would disdain publicity or any attempts at interviews, whenever I’d write something about him, he’d be on the street corner saying, `When’s it going to run? When’s it going to run?’ But I must say that album that was–it was the second album he did, and though I’ve never been a fan of his guitar-playing, he did–I have to admit, he did catch the Zeitgeist of the time.
LAMB: But what made him mad with you? And what kind of relationship do you have with him today?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, that was–he was really mad with my wife. I had asked by Rolling Stone–the only assignment I ever had for them–to do a story on the Rolling Thunder Review, which was Bob Dylan, Alan Ginsberg, Joan Baez and a host of stars. My wife, some weeks before, had written in The New York Times that The Kid wasn’t The Kid anymore and he wasn’t all that winning anymore.

So when I approached one of his secretaries for an interview, I was told that Bob didn’t want to see me anymore because of what my wife Margot had written. So I went ahead and did the piece anyway. A reporter is never put off by somebody not wanting to be interviewed. And I got Joan Baez to talk and Alan Ginsberg and some of the guys in the band. And by the end of the piece, another emissary came and said, `Bob is willing to speak to you now.’ And I said with great pleasure, `No, thanks. The piece is over.’

LAMB: When was the last time you talked to him?
Mr. HENTOFF: That–well, I guess I haven’t talked to him since before then. I follow his career. And…
LAMB: When was the date of that? Do you remember?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, gosh, my chronology is not always very good. That was at least–let’s see–at least 30 years ago, maybe more.
LAMB: Where do you live today?
Mr. HENTOFF: I live in the Village right near NYU, which is taking over most of the Village. I’ve lived there for most of my time in New York. One of the things I like about the Village is, it’s considered the kind of area where you can’t have skyscrapers or, actually, many tall buildings. So you can see the sky which, I think, is a benefit.
LAMB: You say that Margot is your third wife?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. The first one–a very nice person–that didn’t last terribly long. We’d lived together before then. The second one…
LAMB: What was the–how long were you married the first time?
Mr. HENTOFF: Where?
LAMB: How long?
Mr. HENTOFF: How long? About eight months, I think.
LAMB: When?
Mr. HENTOFF: That was back in 1951–’50, ’51. Then the second wife–the best part of that union, our two daughters, and that lasted about five years. And I’ve been married to Margot now for about 38 years.
LAMB: And does Margot have a byline somewhere regularly?
Mr. HENTOFF: I wish she did. She used to write regularly for The Voice, for The New York Review of Books, for Harper’s Bazaar, and she really had the most distinctive writing style, even more than mine, than I’ve ever seen in this business. But she stopped. She decided that she had nothing more to say. And yet, every day, she has a whole lot to say, and I wish she’d write it down.
LAMB: Where are you two politically now together?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, I think one thing we share is a complete bottomless disdain for Bill Clinton. My–mine is based on the fact that he has done–and I’m–this sounds like hyperbole, but he has done more harm to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than any president since John Adams. And he outshines John Adams in that regard. Margot dislikes him because he’s totally untrustworthy, and you really ought to have some faith in whoever’s going to be your president.
LAMB: What proof do you have that he’s done harm to the Constitution?
Mr. HENTOFF: All right. To begin with, when John Adams–when– James Madison was writing–pretty much writing the Constitution, he got a letter from Thomas Jefferson, who was then-ambassador to France. And Jefferson said–I am paraphrasing–`Do not forget to keep habeas corpus and strengthen it.’ That–in–that’s the oldest English-speaking right. It goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215.
LAMB: What’s it mean?
Mr. HENTOFF: But in our country, it means that if you’ve been sentenced and convicted in a state court, either to death or to some other kind of sentence, you have the right to petition a federal court to review what happened to you. Was it fair? Did you get due process? Was there prosecutorial misconduct? There are any number of things that could happen. And until Clinton, you had three, four, five, even more years I collect records of people who have been on death row for eight, 10, 12, 14 years–this is before Clinton–who finally got a decent lawyer, usually a pro bono lawyer, and an investigator, and were able to find out–they–they’re but approved that they’re–that they were innocent. And now, these days, with DNA, that happens even more often.

But under Clinton–under this part of the anti-crime bill that he– had passed with the Republicans–they’re just as bad, but he was the power. Under Clinton, you’re limited to one year. You have one year to petition. If the court doesn’t want to hear it, too bad. And that is outrageous.

LAMB: Do you think he’s doing this consciously?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, I think–I don’t think he does anything–I don’t think it’s ill will. I don’t think he’s evil in the sense that he hates the Bill of Rights. He does what he figures will help him politically. It’s like when he was running for president. I’ll never forget this one. He was running in New Hampshire. He was not doing well. And he suddenly, over a weekend, rushed back to Little Rock to execute a guy who had killed a cop, but in the process, the policeman had shot him in the head and he was out of it. He didn’t know today from tomorrow, good, evil, whatever. His lawyer begged–his lawyer was an old friend of Clinton. He begged Clinton not to have this guy executed. It was absurd. But he did it anyway. And that was to show that he wasn’t tough on crime. And the habeas corpus business, that’s to show that he’s not tough on crime. And you have an electorate that wants to see people who are not tough on crime.

Oh, and other things he’s done. The immigration bill–the new immigration bill–he has stripped the courts, which Congress can do under the leadership of the president, so that people who had a right to asylum or to petition –for asylum who were legal residents are now unable to go through because that part of the bill has been taken out. I mean, he has called for expanded wiretaps for the FBI. I mean, he goes on and on and on. And he was the man, as a matter of fact, who, in terms of the Communications Decency Act, which would have made the Internet, the whole concept of cyberspace, vulnerable to rampant censorship–he pushed that bill, and I know the man in the Justice Department whom he persuaded — the guy didn’t want to lose his job–to write the bill. And, of course, the Supreme Court, 9-to-nothing, said it was unconstitutional.

I mean, did this happens on a regular basis. And what–the crucial part of it to me is, I–the press is practically uninterested in this. In the last campaign, the ’96 campaign, I can’t remember this coming up in any of the television interviews that were done, the presidential debates that Jim Lehrer held and the like, except for Tony Lewis of The New York Times and maybe one or two other people. Now that is dangerous, when the people don’t know what’s happening to their Constitution.

LAMB: Go back to your wife, Margot. You agree on Bill Clinton. Do you disagree on politics and anything right now?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, we disagree heavily on abortion. She thinks–first of all, she –this I hear from a lot of people beside her. She thinks that men have no business getting into this argument at all unless they’re going to be pro-choice. But it turns out that a fair number of fetuses are male, and besides that, we are all one part of humankind, it seems to me.
LAMB: Where’d you meet her?
Mr. HENTOFF: We had–well, I met her on Fire Island when I had a house there many years ago. And then I was co-editor of the magazine called The Jazz Review, which was a pioneering magazine because it was the only magazine, then or now, in which all the articles were written by musicians, by jazz men. They had been laboring for years under the stereotype that they weren’t very articulate except when they picked up their horn. Anyway, she was the–I guess, the coordinator or the production manager, and we got to know each other and we married.
LAMB: How many children have you had with her?
Mr. HENTOFF: Two boys. One, Nicholas, is a criminal defense attorney in Phoenix in which he –gets into –a lot of very controversial cases. He has sued Sheriff Arpaio, the famous sheriff who keeps people in tents, gives them green bologna and the like. My other son Tom is with Williams & Connolly in Washington, where he does intellectual property defamation cases.
LAMB: You say in the book he fights political correctness?
Mr. HENTOFF: Tom?
LAMB: Yes.
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, yeah. Tom–it started when he was the editor of the paper at Wesleyan and the–members of the staff. This was the first wave of political correctness. The editors of the staff members came and said he must–he must, from now on, stop using `freshmen’ and–in-as part of the policy of the paper. It had to be `freshperson.’ Therefore, you don’t–you’re not discriminating against males or females. They were very fervent about that, and he was equally fervent about not politicizing language. So until he left, `freshmen’ stayed. It is no longer in use there.
LAMB: What about Jessica?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, Jessica is–she is a–one of the great risk-takers in –my experience. When she was at State University of New York at Purchase, they had a 4014 system. You go to –you have four semesters. Then, in between the other four semesters, you can take whatever courses you want. And a pied piper came along, a circus performer–a professional circus performer–and Jessica found her vocation and she became, to my great alarm, a trapeze artist with a friend. She played all over the United States. I boycotted her for a while. I couldn’t stand it because–for example, I’d say, `Why don’t you use a net?’ `Oh, we don’t use a net. Europeans don’t use a net. We don’t use a net.’ And I said, `But people come and expect you to break you neck.’ And I bought her a net, which, of course, was never used. But then I figured, after all, I have my obsessions; she’s entitled to hers. And I did –see her perform, and she was very good. Fortunately, however, she now has three small children; she’s now on the ground. She runs her own everyday circus in St. Louis.
LAMB: Who got her interested in being a circus performer?
Mr. HENTOFF: The pied piper.
LAMB: I mean, is there anything in your background or your wife’s background…
Mr. HENTOFF: No, not at all. No. She’s singular in that respect. I mean, in terms of the boys, I always wanted to be a lawyer and would often talk law with them, but I certainly never wanted to be a trapeze performer.
LAMB: What about your daughter Miranda.
Mr. HENTOFF: Miranda is a complete musician. She’s a composer, a singer. She writes scripts along –with her projects. And she’s a superb teacher. Her teaching pupils have ranged from Itzhak Perlman to Sting. And, it’s one of the great, great pleasures of my life–I mean, talk about vicarious satisfaction from –your kids. She was teaching once at Lincoln Center, and the hall was full of other professionals–musicians, professors, teachers. And she was explaining how Bartok composed his second piano concerto. And she explained how the music was interwoven with the rhythms and what he had in his mind. And I was just stunned. This is a kid who used to work –on a piano with a cracked keyboard.
LAMB: Four children.
Mr. HENTOFF: Four children.
LAMB: Go back to someone you talked about in the book by the name of A.J. Muste.
Mr. HENTOFF: Ah.
LAMB: Who is he? Is he alive?
Mr. HENTOFF: No. A.J. was a–as he likes to say, a radical pacifist; that is, he never engaged in violence but he believed, as Gandhi did–and he knew Gandhi slightly–he believed that a pacifist had to be active in the community. And in that respect, Martin Luther King, whom A.J. advised in the civil rights movement, was also a radical pacifist. He–A.J. never got much credit, never got much attention. For example, I wrote a biography of him and nobody ever heard of it. But he was very influenced–in–influential in the peace movement, in the civil rights movement. And he was extraordinarily calm–the most–I couldn’t–I’ve never known a man who would go through–I mean, the cops would be arresting him. There’d be turmoil around him. And he was just watching and…
LAMB: Where’d he live? Where was he from? How old was he when he died?
Mr. HENTOFF: He was from Michigan and he grew up in the Dutch Reform Church there, which is a fairly strict church. He later came to New York. He was the minister of a labor temple in the–on the East Side. Then he founded, to my knowledge, the first, maybe the only, labor school; that is, Cornell has a labor department and other schools. But this was a school for–entirely for labor organizers, and he was the–the chairman.

He was–and this was funny in a way. Trotsky found out about him–Leon Trotsky–because A.J. worked. He was an activist. And he organized the first sit-in strike in Toledo in a factory. And Trotsky was very impressed with that. And…

LAMB: What year would that have been?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, ’33, ’34, something like that.
LAMB: When did A.J. Muste die?
Mr. HENTOFF: A.J. died in the late ’60s, I think. He was 81, something like that.
LAMB: And you knew him?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, I knew him very well. I tried for a while to be like he was, and that is a total pacifist. But then Margot hit me hard in the stomach one day to prove to me that I wasn’t as perfect a pacifist as I thought I was.
LAMB: Tell more about that story, ’cause it’s in the book. She literally hit you?
Mr. HENTOFF: She literally hit me as hard as she could, which is pretty hard.
LAMB: Did she surprise you?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah, that was the whole point. And I didn’t– hit back, but I knew that if it had been anybody else, I would have hit back, and that was the point of her metaphorical blow.
LAMB: Is she not a pacifist?
Mr. HENTOFF: No.
LAMB: And you said that when she was at The Voice, she had a contrarian attitude about some of these political issues?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, yeah, The Voice–to begin with, The Voice has been politically correct in many of its aspects since before that term was ever used. It’s always been–well, I’ll give you an example. I found out–the paper used to go to bed on Tues–on Monday. I found out that on Monday nights, the editors would cut out–literally cut out passages, sometimes whole paragraphs, of some of the writers that might possibly offend blacks, lesbians, gays, radicals. And I wrote a couple of columns about that. And they’re–of course, they were annoyed that I had written about it, but, I mean, it –another example–and she always also conjured that. She was an editor there for a time as well as a writer.

But Jules Feiffer once wrote a strip. He was then, as now, a syndicator. Of course, he’s not at The Voice anymore. But his strip would come to The Voice first. And the strip showed an Archie Bunker-type sitting in the kitchen–speaking of stereotypes–with a can of beer, saying, `I can’t say “kike” anymore. I can’t say “fag” anymore. About the only think I can say anymore is “nigger.”‘ There was an uproar at The Voice. Great pressure was put on the editor, David Schneiderman, to not run the strip. It was offensive. It was racist. And nobody apparently read the strip and saw what it was about. And I wrote a column about that.

So the –obviously, the–there have been other very good reporters at The Voice. We’ve done good muckraking stuff, good political stuff. But the–spirit of the paper, until fairly recently, with a new editor who doesn’t go on that route, has been, well, politically correct.

LAMB: What was the story about the column you wrote about Clay Felker when he ran The Voice?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, Felker took over The Voice…
LAMB: Who is he, by the way?
Mr. HENTOFF: Clay Felker was then–he had–to his credit, he had created New York Magazine, which was the first of the city magazines that covered the city and gave all kinds of advice and all that sort of stuff. And there were copies all over the country by the time he left. He had, however, a view of journalism that was very much, I must say, like Tina Brown’s at The New Yorker. You hit ’em hard, fast, give ’em something to talk about the day after the paper comes out, as contrasted with William Shawn, who gave them something to talk about two or three years from then.
LAMB: Who was William Shawn?
Mr. HENTOFF: William Shawn was the editor of The New Yorker and for whom I worked for, God, 27 years; a man I respected enormously because of what he did, –what the magazine was about. Anyway, I got a letter. He took over The Voice and tried to turn it into New York Magazine–very glitzy covers that promised practically nothing in terms of what was inside, very rushed paper anymore. You–not very contemplative, thoughtful or whatever.

So I got a letter one day from somebody saying, `You’re always criticizing the press. Why don’t you talk about what Clay Felker is doing to your own paper?’ And my 10-year-old son Tom, now with Williams & Connelly, put in a legal opinion, not –an opinion from the back of the car saying, `You know why? What are you, afraid?’ So I wrote the column. I–you know, –the column simply said that Felker is destroying this paper. And I heard that he was about ready to fire me, but two other people on The Voice interceded and, fortunately, he had a very short attention span, so I wasn’t fired.

LAMB: Any of that being done today?
Mr. HENTOFF: The…
LAMB: Being that contrary with your own publication where you’re…
Mr. HENTOFF: Did I do…
LAMB: Where you being paid–no, anybody. I mean, were you being paid at the time, by the way…
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, yeah. I was…
LAMB: …because –there was a time when The Village Voice didn’t pay.
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah, but I was getting a big fat $100 a week at that time. No, it’s being done–I mean, the most recent example and the most, I think, appalling example was when Martin Peretz, the owner–and I stress owner–of The New Republic fired a journalist who I think was uncommonly skilled and full of integrity and passion and all that stuff. But he had criticized regularly the former pupil and friend of Martin Peretz, Al Gore, so he was fired. That’s contrarianist that went around–that did–that was not rewarded.
LAMB: What’s wrong, though, with an owner of a publication like that firing somebody that won’t support his views?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, it’s perfectly within his rights. It’s a private–you know, th–it’s not censorship. The First Amendment doesn’t come into play because it’s a private magazine. What’s wrong with it is, it lowers, to say the least, the credibility of the magazine. And if I were writing for it, I would feel diminished because the owner had done such a thing.
LAMB: What does it mean to you to be an atheist?
Mr. HENTOFF: It means that I was never able–I mean, I really envy, in some respects, some of the people of faith I’ve known–A.J., for example.
LAMB: What was his religion?
Mr. HENTOFF: He was–he–I don’t know what he finally came out believing in, but it was some kind of higher being. But Kierkegaard said it for me a long time ago. He said, `You can’t really think yourself into a faith, into a religion. It’s something you have to make a leap into faith.’ And I’ve never been able to do that. I wish I could. Then maybe I could believe in an afterlife.
LAMB: What was it like in your family growing up?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, we were–I mean, my parents were Orthodox Jews but not very regular Orthodox Jews. I was bar mitzvahed and all that. But God was hardly ever mentioned in my family. Franklin D. Roosevelt was.
LAMB: They liked him.
Mr. HENTOFF: They liked him a lot.
LAMB: And what about your kids? What are they?
Mr. HENTOFF: I think at least two of them–and I’m–I better not speak them by name because I’m not sure where they are these days, but at least two of them believe in some kind of higher force. The–another is an atheist and the other is still pondering.
LAMB: You had a friendship or still have a friendship with John Cardinal O’Connor?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, I like him a lot. He–I started a–to know him–when I asked William Shawn at The New Yorker, `Sh–can I do a profile of Cardinal O’Connor?’ He said, `All right. Find out what he’s like.’ So I went to his office, and I heard somebody–and it turned out to be O’Connor–yelling outside, and I’ve never heard him since raise his voice.

At the time there was a hospital strike in New York and the Catholic hospitals were part of a general consortium, and the head of the consortium had decided that they were finally going to replace some of the striking workers. And I hear O’Connor yelling, `Over my dead body will you replace any of those workers! They have a right to strike.’ So I figured, `This is interesting.’ Here is a guy who’s supposed to be the Genghis Khan of the church, the pro-choice people hate him, and I don’t know about his labor background so I figured there must be more to him, and there is. I wrote a book about him.

My favorite story about O’Connor–one of them–is I was in Toronto at a pro-life conference. And I was –I had a session before he was to come on, and I was explaining–I thought very moderately, calmly–that the best way to not have unwanted abortions was to have much more research on contraception. And two very large, true-faith people came out of the audience, wrested the microphone out of my hand and said, `That is im–inappropriate, improper. Pro-lifers do not believe in contraception.’ And O’Connor’s watching this. I get up again and introduce him, and O’Connor said, `I want to tell you I’m delighted that Nat is not a member of the Catholic Church. We have enough trouble as it is.’

LAMB: How close did you get to him?
Mr. HENTOFF: I guess pretty close. He had Margot and me over for drinks a couple of times. That was something I never could have envisioned back when I was a kid in Boston, that a cardinal and I would be, if not breaking bread, at least breaking Scotch. And I’ve I call him from time to time and he calls me. And when I think there’s something he ought to think about doing, I call him and he usually does it.
LAMB: How many books have you written?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, counting the ones I’ve co-edited, I guess about 28 or 29.
LAMB: Can you make a living off of doing…
Mr. HENTOFF: No.
LAMB: No?
Mr. HENTOFF: No. I–this sounds corny, but I once told a kid when I was in a the library conference, the best–not the best, what I really hope for is that someday 20, 30 years from now, some kid, 12-year-old, 15-year-old, in Des Moines will be going through the stacks, if they have stacks anymore–they probably won’t–and find a book of mine and get something from it. But in terms of money, no.
LAMB: Have you been able to make a living–a decent living writing?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, it depends on what you mean by decent. I’m–you know, it’s comfortable. We live in the village. We have a summer place in Westport, Connecticut. We don’t spend a lot on all kinds of things. But I have no complaints.
LAMB: Has your wife worked anymore since she left The Voice?
Mr. HENTOFF: No. Again, I wish she would because–especially now the kind of–I mean, honesty is hardly the word. She writes with a ferocity of clarity that–nobody else around has now.
LAMB: So you’re the breadwinner?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. And she has some investments and stuff.
LAMB: Where did you go to school originally? What did–how did you train to be a writer?
Mr. HENTOFF: I read like everybody–like every other writer. I’ve been reading since I could read, which was about four or five years old. And I’d pick–my father would bring home about six newspapers. We had 10 in Boston at the time. I went to the library as soon as I could walk. So the training came from reading all kinds of people, from fairy tales and later on to–I don’t know why–Schweitz’s “Life of Christ.”

And the book that really, really shaped my politics and has forever is Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” which is a novel based on terrible fact about what it was like in Russia during Stalin’s time when people actually believed that to get to the point where the Proletariat would triumph, anything that was necessary to be done should be done; the means didn’t count. And, of course, that’s not–that’s just not Russia.

But I went to school at a place that also shaped my life, Boston Latin School. Sandra Day O’Connor–once she said that there are–there were no public schools in America until the 18th century, and she overlooked my alma mater because we started–I say we–in 1635. And among the people who went there–and they’re on–the walls in the auditorium, the names are: Ralph Waldo Emerson and Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, except he split when he was 10 years old to go to work. But it–Santiana, all that sort of–but the marvelous part of that school was all kinds of kids went.

It was a competitive examination. Poor kids, Brahmans, middle-class kids. The masters, as the teachers were called, didn’t give a damn about –how we felt, what was– things like at home. I mean, this goes against the current grain. All they thought about was: `You’re here. You made the exam. You can do the work. And if you can’t, we’ll throw you out.’ And it was a great lesson because I found out, and as the other kids did, that I could do the work.

LAMB: But what about your parents? What were they doing then for a living?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, my father–my mother’s always been–well, my mother, when she was younger, worked at Filene’s in Boston. And she was chief cashier. And I always wondered why she never went back to some kind of work ’cause that was a very responsible position. My father had always been a traveling salesman–New England, the South, whatever. He was very impressed when he saw “Death of a Salesman,” I must say. He recognized himself to some extent.
LAMB: In your life, how many different publications have you worked for?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, that’s hard to figure.
LAMB: How about the main jobs?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, the main jobs would be The New Yorker, The Village Voice, The Washington Post and–I’m thinking of the–stray one…
LAMB: You did The Reporter.
Mr. HENTOFF: The Reporter when Max Askeli was there, but I got fired from The Reporter. Max Askeli was a very courageous, principled man up to a point. He had left Italy before he was thrown in jail by Mussolini. And he started this very good magazine. In fact, Meg Greenfield, who’s now the editorial page editor of The Washington Post, was one of the star reporters there. I was in the back of the book doing music. I once did a–the first piece on Malcolm X that anyone had ever seen in the– white press.

But I was very much against the Vietnam War, and Max Askeli was visiting Lyndon Johnson in the White House cheering him on, writing editorials. And in The Voice one day I once referred to him as Commander Askeli. And I called in to The Reporter to go over the galleys of a music piece I had written, and the editor whispered to me, `It’s not gonna run. You’re not gonna run. Max Askeli has fired you because of what you said about him.’ You see, the person who has the strong ownership of free speech is the one who owns the press.

LAMB: Why did you–you did that more than once in your life where you had–we just talked about a couple of them.
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah.
LAMB: What makes you do that?
Mr. HENTOFF: I don’t know. It seems to be the thing to do. I don’t like to feel intimidated by where I make a living.
LAMB: Have you ever pulled your punches?
Mr. HENTOFF: I suppose I have. I think it–yeah, I must have. I can’t remember, but it’ll come to me later.
LAMB: And, again, –did you have people in your life, in your family at all that were like this: always kind of flaunting authority or…
Mr. HENTOFF: My father was pretty independent. He was–he was arrested once in Nashville when he was on one of his sales trips because he had a black — guy to lunch. So that took a fair amount of courage at the time. Otherwise, no, I guess not. But I don’t…
LAMB: Did you ever regret doing it?
Mr. HENTOFF: Did I ever…
LAMB: Regret doing that, like criticizing–calling him Commander Askeli?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, I thought it was funny. I mean, I’m sor–I was sorry I lost the gig, but, I mean, I felt better about myself that I did it, rather than have–rather than thinking it and not writing it for being afraid of what might happen to me.
LAMB: You do a chapter on William Shawn, and he comes up all the time over the years.
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah.
LAMB: When did he die?
Mr. HENTOFF: Again, you can see my chronology is terrible. It must have been about seven or eight years ago. It was after he was fired by Newhouse. After New–when Newhouse bought The New Yorker, he said in one of those grand press conferences that `Bill Shawn will stay here as long as he wants to be here.’ Well, he wanted to be here until he died, but he wasn’t allowed to.
LAMB: What was he like?
Mr. HENTOFF: I’ve never met anybody quite like him. He created–and I’m sure it was conscious–an aura about him of quietude. But inside that quietude there was the firmest of wills. He knew exactly what he wanted to do. He–I mean, he didn’t, at least in my case and I think most of the others, he didn’t edit the writers very strongly, but he knew what he wanted. And if he liked the piece, then he would run it. But he wanted the magazine to be something that was more than just a weekly event. And as a result you could pick up a New Yorker under him, as I mentioned before, a year from then or 10 years or 20 years and there would always be something worth reading in it.
LAMB: You say that you had something to do with getting him fired.
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. I’ve–that I regret. That was stupid and ignorant on my part. I went to a party as a guest of a friend of mine, a lawyer. And he had a client who I didn’t know, except–maybe I’m pretending I didn’t know, but he was a big investor in The New Yorker. And as I found out later in a book about The New Yorker, this guy was very unhappy about Shawn. He thought Shawn was spending out–spending too much money on writers.

And then I told him–I was complaining the way writers complain. You know, I said, you know, `He pays very well, but a lot of my pieces don’t get in,’ and that was true of most of the writers there. And then he–but he pays you for them. That’s very–that was very nice of him. This guy didn’t think it was very nice of him. He figured, `Oh, my God, that’s more of my investment gone,’ and paying money to writers for not printing them.

So that became, apparently, one of his weapons against Shawn when he–in the corporate skirmishes that went on. It was a bad mistake on my part.

LAMB: But you ran into Mr. Shawn later.
Mr. HENTOFF: That was–he had been fired. And he had always been in The New Yorker immaculately dressed–quietly, immaculately dressed, very soft-spoken. On the phone I could hardly hear him sometimes. And after he was fired, I was going to the YMHA on the Upper East Side to do a talk on free speech.
LAMB: What’s YMHA?
Mr. HENTOFF: Young Men’s Hebrew Association. YM–yeah. And I went into a coffee shop to get a piece of pie and a coffee, and I was reading a paper and I hear a voice. And it was -it was not a voice I was familiar with, but I looked across the table and I saw Lilian Ross. Lilian Ross was a –veteran writer for The New Yorker. She, in fact, brought me to The New Yorker many years ago. And sitting next to her was William Shawn–no tie, needed a shave. His voice was kind of coarse and rather loud. He wasn’t drunk, but I was just stunned.
LAMB: Did you talk to him?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. There wasn’t mu–much said, but I was thinking, perhaps unkindly–not unkindly, but on–inaccurately of Theodore Dreiser’s “Carrie,” when the main character in “Carrie” has been brought down by Carrie and his–he– dress is disheveled and all that sort of thing. And that’s the last I ever saw of him.
LAMB: Who was Carl Armstrong?
Mr. HENTOFF: Carl Armstrong was one of those people in the anti-war years who had been so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that he and some friends decided they would blow up a building at the University of Wisconsin, in which they said research was being done to help the war against the Vietnamese. What they blew up at three or four in the morning was a young scientist, who was married and had a couple of kids, who wasn’t working on war stuff at all. And he was killed.

And I was less angry at Armstrong, though I was angry at the people who came to his trial: Dan Ellsberg, who ordinarily I respected a lot; Philip Berrigan; the guy who teaches at Princeton still–I can’t remember his name. And they were saying–well, they were saying, really, what Arthur Koestler had people saying on “Darkness at Noon.” The means were unfortunate and, sadly, someone died, but the end is what is important and this was a great symbolic–something or other–sign against the war in Vietnarm–nam. And I thought that was utterly disgusting. Fortunately most of the people who were involved in anti-Vietnam activity did not con themselves into being like the violent people they didn’t want.

LAMB: You mentioned Arthur Koestler again. When did he live?
Mr. HENTOFF: Let’s see…
LAMB: And did you ever know him?
Mr. HENTOFF: I went to a lecture of his once, I never met him. I’m trying to — I know he–he fought in the Spanish Civil War. He was in prison, I think, in Spain and in–and in Russia. He came to the United States; that’s when I saw him in the mid-1940s. Then he went to England where he lived and died, but I’m not sure of the dates of his death. He wrote some other very interesting books, but that book–I mean, if I were teaching, I don’t care what the course is, I would say you really have to read “Darkness at Noon.”
LAMB: And is it still available?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. It’s in paperback.
LAMB: You remember who gave you the book?
Mr. HENTOFF: I gave me the book. I saw it lying around somewhere. In the library, I guess.
LAMB: Just read it?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. Sure.
LAMB: You also once decided you wanted to look at your FBI file.
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. I was writing–at least beginning to write Boston Boy and there were a lot of holes in my so-called research. I didn’t know the towns my mother and father came from in Russia. I didn’t know the name of the clothing store I went to work for when I was 11 years old. I didn’t know a lot of things. So I called for my FBI files, not expecting to have that stuff there, but I wanted to know what they had on me. And–but they did have the towns my mother and father lived in in Russia. They had the grocery store I worked in when I was 11 years old.

Then they had a lot of clippings, a lot of articles I’d written. And to me the–the funniest one was–I had done a piece for Playboy about J. Edgar Hoover. I had not been very kind to J. Edgar Hoover. And the field agent had written on –it was sent directly to Hoover–that–the director should see this–`And, besides, Hentoff is a lousy writer.’ And I thought that went a bit far.

LAMB: Can anybody see their FBI file?
Mr. HENTOFF: I think you can apply under the Freedom of Informa…
LAMB: How did you do it?
Mr. HENTOFF: I went through the Freedom of Information Act.
LAMB: What…
Mr. HENTOFF: You know, then they re–as they say, they redact it. If they don’t want you to see something, it comes out black. Then you can appeal. If you have enough money, you can appeal again. But they showed me a lot of stuff.
LAMB: And what year did you do it?
Mr. HENTOFF: Let’s see, I guess 1980, something like that.
LAMB: You have a lot of other people that you talk about in the book, including William Brennan, the former justice of the Supreme Court.
Mr. HENTOFF: Right.
LAMB: What did you think of him?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, I never expected to get to know him as well as I did. I called his chambers once. I’d gotten the go-ahead from Shawn to do a profile of him. I didn’t even know if he’d agree because most of the justices do not sit for profiles. And he answered the phone and he said, `Sure, come up.’ Gave -a date. And I saw him quite often from time to time.

He–I mean, my two heroes are Brennan and, even more so, a man I didn’t able–wasn’t able to write about, but–at least then was William O. Douglas because they both really–they lived the Bill of Rights. They believed, you know, as if it were religious faith, that everybody had the right to speak, the right to assemble; all those things that Clinton has a very dim view of.

And he was–the thing that impressed me about Brennan, he’d been on the court a long time; he had really shaped the jurisprudence of our times until the last 10 or–years or so, and yet he had, as the British say, no side, no pretentiousness, very easy guy. He laughed a lot. He could take criticism. Very impressive fellow.

The one thing he did that I never–I understood it, but I didn’t like it. There was a case against Ralph Ginsberg. Ralph Ginsberg edited a magazine called Eros. Eros was about –erotic material, both in print and pictures, etc. I wrote a piece for it on Sam Hyakowa and his very useful distinction between the lyrics of the blues–the black blues and popular lyrics. Black…

LAMB: Who was Sam Hyakowa?
Mr. HENTOFF: He was a semanticist who later became a rather sleepy United States senator. But he was a good semanticist. And all of a sudden at my door one day, at my office, there appeared a detective from the district attorney’s office carrying a gun. And I was to go forthwith to an interview in the DA’s office about Eros magazine. I was not hip then to the task–I mean, you know, `Where’s your warrant?’ and all that sort of stuff.

So there was a real press on to get Eros. And finally, Ginsberg himself was indicted and convicted of pandering. And Brennan, of all people, read the decision from the bench, and Brennan had been the key man on the court to get away from obscenity, let alone pornography, and to say that it also–it’s also subjective it oughtn’t to be justicable. And as he read the decision, his neck grew redder and redder and he was furious. I mean, he could have hit Ginsberg, I guess, except he wasn’t that sort of fellow.

And I asked a clerk, `What is this all about?’ And he said, `Oh, well, Justice Brennan has a daughter, and she’s of the age where he feels she might have been shaped in some way by this magazine.’ So even Brennan at a crucial point–and it didn’t last beyond that decision–succumbed to his visceral feelings rather than his liberal–libertarian feelings.

LAMB: How do you, in your opinion, stay consistent with–I mean, we’ve started talking that you thought you were a liberal, you’re not sure what you are today, and you find yourself, you know, being opposed by the different sides at strange times and being on all different sides of the issue. How do you stay, in your mind, consistent?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, I –first of all, I do believe that everybody, including people I abhor, have the right to speak and not be censored.
LAMB: How far can they go?
Mr. HENTOFF: As far as you want. I can–the only exceptions, I would think, is if someone were to threaten somebody–specifically, a person and say, `I’m gonna see you at dawn and I’m gonna knife you.’ That’s not protected speech.
LAMB: Any language, any words you want to use?
Mr. HENTOFF: Any words at all. Words are–I mean, there is a great–there was a great scene in New York once when Lenny Bruce, who was a friend of mine, was on trial for his words. And Richard Cue, the assistant district attorney, was making a name for himself trying to blast all of the witnesses for the defense. And he got Dorothy Kilgallen, who was a very famous then syndicated columnist, a devout Catholic, a conservative and a great admirer of Lenny Bruce. And he con–he strung together, Cue did, all of the words in Lenny’s monologues that could be considered terribly offensive, and he hit her with them. It was a barrage. `What do you think then, Ms. Kilgallen?’ `Well,’ she said, `they’re words. They’re words. That’s all. Words.’ That’s the way I feel.
LAMB: You resigned from the ACLU.
Mr. HENTOFF: I did, indeed. I had differed with the ACLU in the past, as most of the people in the ACLU do from time to time. But I had a lot of respect for much of what they’re doing, and I still do. I still call the affiliates from time to time to get stories. But they did one thing that was beyond the possibility of my staying.

The Centers for Disease Control, since 1988, had been testing infants at birth for various diseases–sickle-cell anemia, syphilis, whatever, and HIV that leads to AIDS. HIV was not allowed to be the results of that test was not told to the parents or the physician–the attending physician because of political reasons. The gay groups and the feminist groups didn’t want that sort of violation of privacy to go on. And the ACLU went along with that.

And, finally, a very brave assemblywoman in New York, who was pro-choice, Nettie Mayersohn, finally got a bill through that made this testing mandatory so that people–for example, if a woman took her child home and the woman was infected and didn’t know it, but the child was not, the child–the woman would breast-feed the child and the child would die. And I kept saying to the people I knew in the ACLU, `How can you allow people to die for the sake of an utterly rigid, wrongheaded principle?’ And they wouldn’t budge, so I left.

LAMB: They ever try to get you back?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, they wouldn’t try to get me back. Like Cardinal O’Connor, I think they’re delighted I’m not there. I’m too much trouble.
LAMB: I’m gonna name a bunch of folks in the time remaining. I just want you give us a little, short snippet of what you think of them…
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah.
LAMB: …and how you knew them. Stokely Carmichael.
Mr. HENTOFF: Stokely was a very bright young man who was active in the Southern civil rights movement, took over SNCC and became what I call a tribalist. He is all for blacks and is a–become a terrible anti-Semite and I think is one of those people who has done a lot of harm not only — to integration, but to the whole sense of possible communality between whites and blacks.
LAMB: How well did you know him?
Mr. HENTOFF: Not well. Too well. I didn’t know him, hardly.
LAMB: Murray Kempton.
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, Murray Kempton was, you know, perhaps the most singular journalist of our time. He was another person who wrote beautifully with great understanding of jazz, as well as politics, as well as what it was like to live.
LAMB: Why was he your mentor?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, one of the things he told me, the way Izzy Stone did, was, `Don’t go to press conferences ’cause it’s a PR thing to begin with. Anything you want to know, they’re not gonna tell you.’ That’s why they have a press conference is not to tell you things. And also Izzy then said, `Go see some middle-level bureaucrat whom nobody ever asks about–asks to see, and then you’ll find out things,’ which was true. But I liked Murray ’cause of his personality. He –he was quirky and continually interesting.
LAMB: Adlai Stevenson.
Mr. HENTOFF: Adlai Stevenson–you know, I–when he was running for president, I thought he was going to be the hope of our time. But then when he became part of the Johnson administration and was UN ambassador, –our ambassador to the UN–and lied. He lied again and again on the basis of policy that was set for Washington. And a bunch of us went to see him because we wanted–we were trying to get some people of stature to come out against the Vietnam War. And he was marvelously graceful, charming and dishonest. So I didn’t like him.
LAMB: Martin Luther King.
Mr. HENTOFF: I hardly knew him. I interviewed him once. I–the thing about King that–that I especially admire–I mean, obviously what he did in the South. But when he decided to expand his influence to go against the Vietnam War, and this went against the advice of Roy Wilkins and other black leaders and naturally a lot of white politicians, he said, `No. That’s–that’s what I have to do. I mean, that’s the thing we have to talk about.’
LAMB: Dizzy Gillespie.
Mr. HENTOFF: Dizzy was a very warm, brilliant trumpet player, general wise man. I mean, –I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. It sounds funny, but the thing I most remember about Dizzy–I hadn’t seen him for several years, and I went to a rehearsal of his at Lincoln Center. And as he came down the hall he was talking to somebody, and then he saw me and he gave me a big embrace. And he said to the guy, `It’s like seeing an old broad of yours.’ I thought, `Gee.’
LAMB: Duke Ellington.
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, Duke was–I was–I– got to know him quite well, but I was almost always in awe of him, first because he was the most original composer this country’s ever had; I think Charles Ives is a close second. But there was–the– presence of the man, the– grace, the steel behind the grace–he was an extraordinary person.
LAMB: Was there a difference between Father Coughlin and Louis Farrakhan?
Mr. HENTOFF: Not so it matters to me. And they’re both pre-eminent anti-Semites. Father Coughlin perhaps had a wider range of hatred and bitterness. I mean, he–although now that I think of it, when–I remember when I was a kid I listened to Coughlin, and Coughlin would say that the Jews are the international bankers who take away the widows’ might. At the same time, the Jews run the Politburo in Moscow, which made us very busy. And Farrakhan says pretty much the same thing: `The Jews run the Federal Reserve Board. The Jews get us into wars. The’–I mean, the fact that Farrakhan was named by Time magazine last year as one of the 25 most influential Americans I found chilling.
LAMB: You missed anything in your life that you wanted to do?
Mr. HENTOFF: Yeah. Play the clarinet well so I could be in Duke Ellington’s band, but that’s now impossible. And the other thing I miss is teaching. I did teach for awhile and I love teaching ’cause that’s the fun of getting interplay of ideas, not just talking to your typewriter.
LAMB: Do you have another book you want to write?
Mr. HENTOFF: Well, I’m working on one now. It’s called “Living the Bill of Rights,” and it’s about people–well, it starts with Brennan and Douglas as people who not only live the Bill of Rights, but try to shape the reason for that. But then–the–these are people who–there’s a valedictorian in a high school in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, a born-again Christian, who got into a lot of trouble because she wouldn’t let her principal–this is a public high school–censor or see her valedictorian speech. She said, `No. That’s First Amendment right. I’m gonna do that.’ And the whole school closed against her almost physically.

Then there’s a black lawyer in Galveston, Texas, who was the unpaid NAACP general counsel in Texas. He had a great record in housing discrimination, labor discrimination. He decided to take as a client a member of the Ku Klux Klan because the state wanted to get the membership lists of the Klan to find out if they could get something on the Klan. And he said, `I got to take you. I despise you. But we, the NAACP, won that case; NAACP vs. Alabama in the 1950s. Nobody has the right to get your membership lists.’ He was fired from the NAACP. He became a pariah, until he stopped his practice and went around the state talking to black church groups and other black groups explaining why he had done what he had done. To me, he’s a hero.

LAMB: Where was this picture taken?
Mr. HENTOFF: That was taken at the studio of a photographer in Chelsea.
LAMB: What year?
Mr. HENTOFF: Oh, about–let’s see, this year, I think. Yeah, earlier this year.
LAMB: On that note, Nat Hentoff, we’re out of time. “Speaking Freely” is the book. It’s a memoir. And we thank you for joining us.
Mr. HENTOFF: Thank you.

 

_____________________

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 633) Pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff quotes wise 9 yr kid concerning abortion, “It doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”

Open letter to President Obama (Part 633) (Emailed to White House on 6-12-13.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 621) Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff on the 19 yr old Ana Rosa Rodriguez the survivor of an abortion attempt

Open letter to President Obama (Part 621) (Emailed to White House on 6-12-13.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff on the 19 yr old Ana Rosa Rodriguez the survivor of an abortion attempt

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many   […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 541) Atheist Nat Hentoff USED TO THINK that abortion is part of a woman’s fundamental right to privacy

Open letter to President Obama (Part 541) (Emailed to White House on 6-12-13.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get […]

Atheist Nat Hentoff USED TO THINK that abortion is part of a woman’s fundamental right to privacy

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many   […]

Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff: Mr. President, did you mean what you said at Notre Dame about “working together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions”?

Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff: Mr. President, did you mean what you said at Notre Dame about “working together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions”? Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being […]

Pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff: With Obama you will get more abortions!!!

Pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff: With Obama you will get more abortions!!! Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I […]

Pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff quotes wise 9 yr kid concerning abortion, “It doesn’t matter what month. It still means killing the babies.”

The pro-life atheist Nat Hentoff wrote a fine article below I wanted to share with you. Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a […]

Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff on the 19 yr old Ana Rosa Rodriguez the survivor of an abortion attempt

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many   […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Pro-life Atheist Nat Hentoff: “Link between pro-lifers (of today) to the Abolitionists of 19th century who would not be deterred from their goal of ensuring equal rights for all human beings in this land”

Nat Hentoff is an atheist, but he became a pro-life activist because of the scientific evidence that shows that the unborn child is a distinct and separate human being and even has a separate DNA. His perspective is a very intriguing one that I thought you would be interested in. I have shared before many   […]

1978 Prolife Pamphlet from Keith Green’s ministry has saved the lives of many babies!!!!

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

_____________________________________

1978 Prolife Pamphlet from Keith Green’s ministry has saved the lives of many babies!!!!

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

Francis Schaeffer woke up many Christians concerning the abortion horrors that were taking place and at the same time Keith and Melody Green released a pamphlet on abortion and millions of people read it and it saved many lives. Below is that pamphlet which I read in 1978. Just last year I went online and read this testimony below concerning this very pamphlet:

 

____________________

teresa durham (Guest) 07/07/2014 04:41
My brother gave me a tract when I was 17 on abortion I believe from last days ministries. After I read it I told myself I wouldnt ever get an abortion. A couple monthes later I found out I was pregnant. I told my boyfriend and the first thing he said was to get an abortion. I said no and I now have a wonderful son who is 32 years old. thank-you for your ministry!

 

___________________

Last Days Ministries > AAA Pro Life > Questions about Abortion

The Questions Most People Ask About Abortion

Written and compiled by

Melody Green

In 1978 we first printed “Children – Things We Throw Away?” and since that time we have printed over nine million copies of it. It has been responsible for saving the lives of countless children (and we are ever so thankful to God for that!).We have been so encouraged by the response that we have decided to print the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about abortion, along with some “random notes” on the subject. We hope this speaks to your heart as much as it spoke to ours.

Q: Does the Bible give a stand on a woman who’s pregnant and gets, say, German measles, and the baby she carries in her womb is most likely to be deformed or retarded? What can we do then?

A: The Scriptures don’t change just because a child might be born with a handicap. What about the deformities that aren’t detected before birth shall we just kill these children on the delivery table? If we can abort the defective unborn, why not just kill the defective newborn? The baby will be just as dead if killed six months before the delivery or six minutes after. What’s the difference? What if a ten-year-old gets a disease that leaves him deformed or blind… shall we kill him too? It is no less savage to abort a deformed child than to exterminate a retarded adult. Where do we draw the line? If we decide to eliminate those who are imperfect, we need to ask ourselves two important questions:

  1. Just how perfect does one need to be before he is allowed to live?
  2. Who will have the power to make these decisions?

Does anyone have the right to play God?

“Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus4:11)

“I received a German measles shot two weeks before I got pregnant with my first child. I called three doctors, and none of them would accept me as a patient. They all wanted me to get an abortion. I went to a fourth doctor, and she also advised me to have an abortion, that my chance of having a healthy baby was 0%. When I told her no, she said, ‘Well then you will have a deformed baby, and you’d better tell your husband.’ I was in tears by this time. My husband said, ‘God loves all people the same. Then I asked God to have mercy on us, and heal my child. I told Jesus that if He didn’t, that would be okay, because I knew He would be in control. I would love my baby no matter what. “I’m very happy to say that my baby girl, Angela, is perfectly healthy! While the doctor was stitching me up, she said I still should have had an abortion! Even my father-in-law thinks we should have aborted her! The day we came home from the hospital, my husband said, ‘I’m ready to turn my whole life over to God.’ Two miracles in one day!”

– Linda Serrano, Bakersfield, CA


Q:
There is one thing I’m confused about, and that’s rape. I have never been raped, but if I had been and became pregnant, I would die at the thought of carrying a cruel, thoughtless stranger’s baby. If you did become pregnant by rape, what would God want you to do?

A: First of all, rape practically never results in pregnancy, due to the trauma involved. But if it should occur, what is needed is loving support and assistance for the mother – not added guilt for her already burdened heart. It’s a strange sort of justice that would kill an innocent child for the crime of its father. Two wrongs never make a right. One violent act does not condone another.

If this were to happen to you, I know God would help you to forgive the baby’s father, and give you a real love for the baby (whether you kept it or gave it up for adoption). After all, that baby would be half yours, no matter who the father was. Think about this: If you found out tomorrow that you were the product of a rape – would you wish that your mother had aborted you?

“WELL, DOC… I JUST DON’T FEEL LIKE HAVING IT” According to the Supreme Court, a baby’s viability (the ability to live outside the mother’s womb) is a consideration unless the mother’s life or health is threatened. The Court defined her “life or health” to mean her physical, psychological, or emotional health, her age, her marital status, or the infant’s prospects of distressful life and/or future.


Q: You have unfairly dramatized the issue of abortion by playing up the horrors. Let’s not become idol worshipers of a wad of cells that adhere to the wall of a uterus. Until those cells free themselves and become an independently functioning unit, they are hardly any different than any other tissue in the woman. Do we mourn over the loss of an appendix? A woman wanting an abortion has made a difficult decision. Let’s not become judgmental and deny her what she wants. Such a woman needs all the Christian love we can manifest.

A: How can you compare an unborn child to a mere appendix?? An appendix does not turn into a baby, it has no eternal soul… and it does not have the gift of life so generously bestowed by God. A baby is a different person with his or her own distinct set of chromosomes – different than any part of the mother. The child has its own blood supply that may even be a different type than the mother, and the child can be of the opposite sex. He or she is obviously a separate individual.

I am totally in favor of giving “all the Christian love we can manifest.” The question is, what is Christian love? One of the problems facing Christians today is that we are afraid of people thinking we are “judging them” that we are reluctant to get involved in their lives. Instead, we just stand by and let our brothers and sisters fall into a pit without opening our mouth to stop them. We can’t continue to hide behind Cain’s sarcastic question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen.4:9) Of course we are! Jesus taught that anyone in distress is our neighbor and we must come to his aid. (Luke 10:30-37) Let’s do all we can to help the mother without exterminating her baby. Complacency and failure to watch over each other spiritually is definitely the path of least resistance… but please, let’s not call it love… least of all, Christian love!

“Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold them back.
If you say, ‘See, we did not know this,’
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?”

(Proverbs 24:11-12)

Q: Don’t unwanted children usually end up being battered and abused children later on in life?

A: This is a totally false notion. Dr. Edward Lenoski, Professor of Pediatrics at U.S.C., showed in a recent study of 674 battered children that 91% were planned pregnancies and 90% were legitimate. Also, statistics show conclusively that since the legalization of abortion, child abuse has risen very sharply, along with illegitimate births, welfare, and an overall national increase in immorality that is reaching epidemic proportions. Abortions in the U.S. alone have killed 30 million children since 1973. The plain fact is, abortion is the ultimate in child abuse.

Q: Isn’t legally preventing a woman from having an abortion an invasion of her privacy?

A: Our laws are very funny. They allow police to enter the privacy of people’s homes to stop them from battering and abusing their children. Then they use the same force of law to guarantee the “privacy and right” of parents to dismember or poison their babies before birth. In fact, I think almost all crime is done in private (i.e., murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, etc.). Does this mean that if we know it’s going on, we turn our heads and look the other way, so as not to invade anyone’s right to privacy? Of course not! Abortion is murder and it cannot be tolerated any easier when committed behind closed doors than if it were performed on a street comer!

Q: Awhile back, one of my friends became pregnant. She asked me to drive her to the doctor’s office to get an abortion. Since I was the only person she trusted, I did all I could do to help. I now feel that I have become an accomplice to murder since I actively supported her in her decision. Am I as guilty as if I had an abortion myself?

A: I’m sure there are many mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and boyfriends who have either encouraged someone to get an abortion, or actually helped them to obtain one, as you did. You need to realize that since you assisted in that abortion, you are a partaker in that sin. By your actions you were saying, “Yes, I agree with what you are doing.” Since you now see the wickedness of this, you need to immediately go to the Lord, and with your whole heart ask Him to forgive you. He will be quick to do so as long as you are completely sincere. I also think it would be best for you to go back to your friend and ask her forgiveness for your help in leading her astray. Even though she may still think you did her a great favor, you might have a chance to share with her what God has shown you, and how she, too, needs to repent and get right with Him.

Human Experimentation.

Before it became publicly known, private abortion clinics in England sold live aborted babies for research. Dr. Lawn was quoted as saying, “We are only using something destined for the incinerator to benefit mankind…” Mr. Phillip Stanley, a spokesman for the clinic selling fetuses, said that they were “aged between 18 and 22 weeks” – that’s 41/2 to 51/2 months! Mr. Stanley continued, “A fetus has to be 28 weeks to be legally viable. Earlier than that it is so much garbage.”
No distinction is made in the Scriptures between babes in the womb and those already born. The word brephos, used to describe the baby in Elizabeth’s womb, is used interchangeably for both prenatal (Luke 1:41,44) and postnatal babies (Luke18:15-17). It means “an unborn child, embryo, fetus; a newborn child, an infant, brephos, a babe.”(Thayers Greek English Lexicon, p.105)


Q: Isn’t birth control just another form of abortion?

A. It depends on what you use. Some methods do cause abortions and should be avoided, such as the inter-uterine device (IUD) and most birth control pills.

When birth control pills were originally developed, they contained such high levels of estrogen that there was almost no chance of a woman releasing an egg for fertilization – starting a new life. However, most of today’s lower-estrogen-level pills are not as effective in preventing the release of an egg – so these pills also prevent pregnancies by affecting the lining of the womb in such a way that a fertilized egg has a difficult time attaching and growing. A new life trying to grow finds no place to take root. We encourage you and your spouse to draw your own conclusions what the Lord would have you do. True contraception will prevent new life from beginning, not abort that life once it has already begun.

Q: Since Adam was not alive until God breathed into him the breath of life, and since the baby does not breathe until he leaves the womb, isn’t it true that the unborn baby has no soul and therefore can be aborted without guilt?

A: There is no parallel here. Adam had no life until God breathed into him, but from the moment of conception the babe is alive and growing. James says that the body apart from the spirit is dead. (James 2:26) If the baby in the womb is not alive, there would be no one there to kill! A live baby not only has a soul – but an eternal spirit as well.

“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother andthe baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”- C. Everett Koop, MD, U.S. Surgeon General


Q: Isn’t the age of viability (the ability for the baby to live outside the mother’s womb) one of the deciding factors in whether or not someone should have an abortion? It seems to me that that would be a pretty fair way to decide.

A: According to the courts, viability is a consideration, but in actual practice it doesn’t really seem to matter. There have been many babies prematurely born as early as the fourth month of pregnancy, weighing only one or two pounds, who have survived and grown into normal children because they were given intensive medical care. On the other hand, abortions are being performed on perfectly healthy babies much older than that (even up to the ninth month in some cases!) – and if they do happen to be born alive, they are usually left unattended to suffer and die. In the face of this, the whole viability question just doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Dr. Magda Denes says, “Abortion based on viability is as logical as maintaining that drowning a non-swimmer in a bathtub is permitted because he would have drowned anyway if he would have fallen into the sea.” You also have to think about the many people on life-support systems, iron lungs, kidney dialysis machines, etc. Should we just pull the plug on anyone who cannot survive totally on his own?

Q: Is it fair to bring an “unwanted baby” into the world?

A: It’s too late to ask that question after a baby has been conceived. Whether you may personally think it’s fair or not doesn’t change the fact that the pre-born child has already been brought into this world and no one has the right to destroy his or her life. All people, born and unborn, have the same value in the eyes of God. God created each of us in His own image, and He knows each one of us by name – even when yet in the womb. “For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb…My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret…Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” (Psalm 139:13-16)

Actually, the “unwanted baby” is a myth. There is no such thing. Due to shortages of newborn babies for adoption, there are thousands of couples who long night and day to hold and love the children so many mothers are throwing away. Those who say they are getting an abortion for the sake of their “unwanted child” are obviously not thinking of the child’s happiness and well-being… but of their own.

Need Help?

Nearly every major city has at least one helpline that provides positive assistance to anyone involved in a problem pregnancy. Phone “Information” and ask the operator for the nearest Crisis Pregnancy Center, Women Exploited By Abortion (WEBA), Bethany Christian Services, Save Our Babies (Southern U.S.),Crusade For Life (California), National Right to Life, or Birthright headquarters. They will be happy to assist you.

You can also contact us here at Last Days Ministries. You don’t have to go through your pregnancy alone and afraid. We know that God loves you and your baby equally, and so we will do our best to help both of you in whatever way we can. Call or write if you need help…or if you just want to talk to somebody who cares.


Q: If your parents and/or your pastor counsel you to get an abortion, what should you do?

A: I know of one girl who was really glad her parents were “making her get an abortion,” so that she didn’t have to take the responsibility for the decision herself. However, God knows our hearts, and only through self deception do we think we can hide behind others and pretend “it was all their idea.”

Even if you are a minor living in your parents’ home, there is nothing that can be done legally or spiritually to make you get an abortion against your will. Yes, we are to honor our parents and respect our spiritual authorities, but not if they are asking us to do something illegal, immoral, or unscriptural… that is where the line is drawn. Unfortunately, abortion is not illegal, but it is definitely immoral and unscriptural. We must honor God above all others – and we simply cannot break His commandments to please anyone, no matter who they are. This is not rebellion – but true submission to God’s authority in the face of possible persecution.

Unfortunately, many parents (even “Christian” ones) are uninformed or selfishly motivated, just as many pastors and counselors are giving tragic advice to those who are truly seeking a scriptural answer.

“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)
Two tiny infants, a boy and a girl, weighing approximately three pounds each, survived saline abortions at a Wilmington, Delaware hospital. The unwanted babies have both been signed over for adoption by their mothers, and have been referred to by the hospital staff there as Sal and Salina – a reference to the saline solution that failed to kill them.- “Voice For The Unborn” 8/79


Q: Isn’t it true that before 1973 when abortion was made legal, that 5,000 – 10,000 women a year died from “back alley” abortions?

A: Dr. Bernard said that this figure is totally false, and he should know, since he was one of the several pro-abortionists who circulated this figure before the 1973 Supreme Court hearings. He now says the figure was closer to 500, and in 1972 (the year before abortion was made legal) only 39 deaths were recorded. He explains he circulated these false figures in order to bring about legal abortion. However, after presiding over 75,000 deaths as the head of the world’s largest abortion clinic, Dr. Nathanson came to believe that those infants in the womb were little people, and that he was murdering them. He has written the best seller, Aborting America, and even while involved in abortions, he could not understand how Christian clergymen could promote them when Christianity insists on protection for the weak.

“Until birth, the fetus is invisible… if the abdominal wall of the pregnant woman were transparent, what kind of abortion laws might we have?” Dr. Bernard Nathanson


Q: If we make abortions illegal, they will still go on. The poor will suffer, and the rich will get them anyway – so what’s the point? At least if they are legal everyone will get good clean medical care.

A: I agree. They will still go on – but not in such high numbers. As for the rich, they have always been better able to afford their vices. It would be just as wise to buy abortions for the poor as it would be to buy them heroin. Yes, abortions will go on. Rape also goes on in spite of our laws – should it no longer be a crime? Or should we spend tax money to buy the rapist a good clean hotel room to commit his crime in…after all, “He’s going to rape people anyway!”

“I’m a housewife and a registered nurse from Jacksonville. I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and when we weren’t busy, I’d go out to help with the newborns. One night I saw a bassinet outside the nursery. There was a baby in this bassinet – a crying, perfectly formed baby – but there was a difference in this child. She had been scalded. She was the child of a saline abortion. “This little girl looked as if she had been put in a pot of boiling water. No doctor, no nurse, no parent, to comfort this hurt, burned child. She was left alone to die in pain. They wouldn’t let her in the nursery – they didn’t even bother to cover her.

“I was ashamed of my profession that night! It’s hard to believe this can happen in our modern hospitals, but it does. It happens all the time. I thought a hospital was a place to heal the sick – not a place to kill.

“I asked a nurse at another hospital what they do with their babies that are aborted by saline. Unlike my hospital, where the baby was left alone struggling for breath, their hospital puts the infant in a bucket and puts the lid on. Suffocation! Death by suffocation!

“Another nurse said she had to stop helping with abortions. The little severed arms and legs from suction abortions were just too much for her to look at.

“Aren’t you happy our moms weren’t born in this generation? It could have been one of us in that lonely bassinet – or that ugly bucket.” –Kathleen Malloy, Jacksonville, FL


Some Closing Comments

Abortion is not an issue that you can remain “neutral” on. You are either for it or against it. What would you do if you were walking down the street, and looking up, you saw a woman about to throw her three-month-old baby out the window? Would you turn and walk away saying, “Well, I wouldn’t do that, but I won’t interfere. It’s her decision – that baby’s probably messing up her life anyway.”

Our laws give us absolute “rights and wrongs” (i.e., don’t speed, don’t shoplift, pay your taxes, etc.), and if our laws don’t, God certainly does. If you can’t tell someone “Don’t!” you might as well load them in a car and drive them to the abortion clinic yourself!

Many girls, through selfishness, have fallen into deep deception concerning God’s will. They say, “I have been praying about it, and I really feel God wants me to get an abortion,” or “I know it’s wrong, but my pastor said God will forgive me afterwards.” I have heard too many girls tell me they were counseled to get an abortion at their church. I am wondering just how these pastors and counselors are going to withstand the judgment of God for leading these sheep astray. (Luke 17:2)

The American Holocaust

The “final solution” to the Jewish problem of the Third Reich rested on the belief that it was not enough to simply be human to have the right to live. One had to have certain other qualities, and unfortunately, the Jews and Gypsies lacked them. Aren’t we doing the same things with our babies?

Each day in America over 4,400 babies are being put to death without benefit of due process – trial or defense. They are executed by techniques more cruel and inhumane than any horror movie has ever portrayed. This year, over two million will die in the U.S. alone, and it is estimated that up to 60 million abortions will be performed this year worldwide. In the face of this, Pharoah’s extermination of the Hebrew boys or the slaughter by Herod of the babes in Bethlehem pales in comparison.

Each day in America alone, over 4,400 babies are being put to death by abortion. That’s1 every 20 seconds (approx.) – 24 hours a day -365 days a year!

What You Can Do

We must take a stand… and not a silent one. I’m not saying we should all put on sandwich boards and picket our local abortion clinic… although it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. But we should take every opportunity to speak out and let our views be known. We should do everything we can to prevent someone from making a mistake they will always regret. We must offer all the help and support we can if we expect the unsure mother to carry her child to full term. Open your home to her, help pay her doctor bills… be her friend.

Too many times when an unwed mother does make the right choice, she is shunned and made to feel “dirty” by the Church. In an attempt to discourage promiscuity by penalizing the unwed mother, we have actually encouraged her to take the so-called “easy way out.” Rather than endure the social stigma and persecution by those who claim to love Jesus, she heads for the friendly abortion clinic. How do you think Jesus would treat these, who, although they had made a serious mistake, were now willing to bear the shame, whispering, and humiliation to do the right thing? Can we do any less than He would?

I pray you take this to heart and and prayer and see what the Lord might have you do. Please, try to imagine God’s grief. He sees it all, you know. I wonder if He didn’t think a mother’s womb was the safest, most loving place in the world for a little baby to be nurtured and protected. Let’s do all we can to keep it that way! – Melody

 

Related posts:

“Schaeffer Sunday” Abortion debating with Ark Times Bloggers Part 12 “Is there a biological reason to be pro-life?” and the article “How Francis Schaeffer shaped Michele Bachman’s pro-life views” (includes the film TRUTH AND HISTORY and editorial cartoon)

I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Abortion is probably the most often debated subject and I have noticed that many pro-life individuals are now surfacing on the Arkansas Times Blog.  Here are some examples. Arhogfan501 asserted: This is the beginning of the end for recreational abortion […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Abortion debating with Ark Times Bloggers Part 9 “Remembering Francis Schaeffer: On The Occasion of His 100th Birthday of Jan 30, 2012 by Don Sweeting” (includes video THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY and editorial cartoon)

I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Abortion is probably the most often debated subject and I have noticed that many pro-life individuals are now surfacing on the Arkansas Times Blog.  Here are some examples. Arhogfan501 asserted: This is the beginning of the end for recreational abortion […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion debating with Ark Times Bloggers Part 12 “Is there a biological reason to be pro-life?” and the article “How Francis Schaeffer shaped Michele Bachman’s pro-life views” (includes the film TRUTH AND HISTORY and editorial cartoon)

  I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Abortion is probably the most often debated subject and I have noticed that many pro-life individuals are now surfacing on the Arkansas Times Blog.  Here are some examples. Arhogfan501 asserted: This is the beginning of the end for recreational […]

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Abortion debating with Ark Times Bloggers Part 9 “Remembering Francis Schaeffer: On The Occasion of His 100th Birthday of Jan 30, 2012 by Don Sweeting” (includes video THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY and editorial cartoon)

I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Abortion is probably the most often debated subject and I have noticed that many pro-life individuals are now surfacing on the Arkansas Times Blog.  Here are some examples. Arhogfan501 asserted: This is the beginning of the end for recreational abortion […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop asked Reagan to issue pro-life proclamation in 1983 (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]

Abortion debating with Ark Times Bloggers Part 12 “Is there a biological reason to be pro-life?” and the article “How Francis Schaeffer shaped Michele Bachman’s pro-life views” (includes the film TRUTH AND HISTORY and editorial cartoon)

I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Abortion is probably the most often debated subject and I have noticed that many pro-life individuals are now surfacing on the Arkansas Times Blog.  Here are some examples. Arhogfan501 asserted: This is the beginning of the end for recreational abortion […]

Abortion debating with Ark Times Bloggers Part 9 “Remembering Francis Schaeffer: On The Occasion of His 100th Birthday of Jan 30, 2012 by Don Sweeting” (includes video THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY and editorial cartoon)

I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Abortion is probably the most often debated subject and I have noticed that many pro-life individuals are now surfacing on the Arkansas Times Blog.  Here are some examples. Arhogfan501 asserted: This is the beginning of the end for recreational abortion […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 437) Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 636) The IRS and the Swiss

Open letter to President Obama (Part 636)

(Emailed to White House on 6-10-13.)

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The federal government debt is growing so much that it is endangering us because if things keep going like they are now we will not have any money left for the national defense because we are so far in debt as a nation. We have been spending so much on our welfare state through food stamps and other programs that I am worrying that many of our citizens are becoming more dependent on government and in many cases they are losing their incentive to work hard because of the welfare trap the government has put in place. Other nations in Europe have gone down this road and we see what mess this has gotten them in. People really are losing their faith in big government and they want more liberty back. It seems to me we have to get back to the founding  principles that made our country great.  We also need to realize that a big government will encourage waste and corruption. The recent scandals in our government have proved my point. In fact, the jokes you made at Ohio State about possibly auditing them are not so funny now that reality shows how the IRS was acting more like a monster out of control. Also raising taxes on the job creators is a very bad idea too. The Laffer Curve clearly demonstrates that when the tax rates are raised many individuals will move their investments to places where they will not get taxed as much.

______________________

Ohio Liberty Coalition versus the I.R.S. (Tom Zawistowski)

Published on May 20, 2013

The Ohio Liberty Coalition was among tea party groups that received special scrutiny from the I.R.S. Tom Zawistowski says his story is not unique. He argues the kinds of questions the I.R.S. asked his group amounts to little more than “opposition research.”

Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg.

_______________

Because we live in an upside-down world, Switzerland is being persecuted for being a productive, peaceful nation that has a strong human rights policy with regards to privacy.

More specifically, politicians from high-tax nations resent the fact that investors flock to Switzerland to benefit from good policies, and they are pressuring the Swiss government to weaken that nation’s human rights laws so that governments with bad fiscal systems have an easier time of tracking and taxing flight capital.

I’ve resigned myself to this happening for the simple reason that it is well nigh impossible for a small nation (even one as well-armed as Switzerland) to withstand the coercion when all the world’s big nations are trying to impose one-size-fits-all policies designed to make it easier to raise tax rates and expand the size and power of government.

Switzerland v IRSBut, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the Swiss aren’t going down without a fight.

Switzerland’s lower house of Parliament voted 123-63 against the measure, which would have enabled many of the Alpine nation’s banks to sidestep the Swiss banking secrecy laws and start handing information to the U.S. Department of Justice about any past help they may have given to Americans hiding undeclared wealth in Swiss accounts. Earlier Wednesday, the smaller, upper house of Switzerland’s Parliament voted 26-18 in favor of the proposed plan. But in the lower house, lawmakers had raised concerns about the heavy-handedness of the U.S. effort to have them sign off on legislation that might have exposed the country’s banks and bank employees to legal hazards. Lawmakers had also raised concerns about the lack of detail in the plan regarding potential fines for banks that would have opted to participate.

I heartily applaud the lawmakers who rejected the fiscal imperialism of the United States government.

As I stated in my recent BBC interview on tax havens, I believe in sovereignty, and the IRS should have no right to impose bad American tax law on economic activity inside Swiss borders (just as, say, China should have no right to demand that the United States help track down Tiananmen Square protestors that escaped to America).

But I’m not opening champagne just yet, in part because I don’t like the stuff and in part because I fear that this will be a temporary victory.

The Swiss have resisted American demands before, and on more than one occasion, only to eventually back down. And it’s hard to blame them when they’re threatened by odious forms of financial protectionism.

That being said, I’m going to enjoy this moment while it lasts and hope that somehow David can continue to withstand Goliath.

P.S. If you want to understand more about the underlying economic and philosophical implications of this issue, I heartily recommend this New York Times column by Pierre Bessard of Switzerland’s Insitut Liberal.

 

_____________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Related posts:

Cartoonists show how stupid the IRS is acting!!!

We got to lower the size of government so we don’t have these abuses like this in the IRS. Cartoonists v. the IRS May 23, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Call me perverse, but I’m enjoying this IRS scandal. It’s good to see them suffer a tiny fraction of the agony they impose on the American people. I’ve already […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my bloghttp://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Video from Cato Institute on IRS Scandal

Is the irs out of control? Here is the link from cato: MAY 22, 2013 8:47AM Can You Vague That Up for Me? By TREVOR BURRUS SHARE As the IRS scandal thickens, targeted groups are coming out to describe their ordeals in dealing with that most-reviled of government agencies. The Ohio Liberty Coalition was one of […]

IRS cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog

Get Ready to Be Reamed May 17, 2013 by Dan Mitchell With so many scandals percolating, there are lots of good cartoons being produced. But I think this Chip Bok gem deserves special praise. It manages to weave together both the costly Obamacare boondoggle with the reprehensible politicization of the IRS. So BOHICA, my friends. If […]

Obama jokes about audit of Ohio St by IRS then IRS scandal breaks!!!!!

You want to talk about irony then look at President Obama’s speech a few days ago when he joked about a potential audit of Ohio St by the IRS then a few days later the IRS scandal breaks!!!! The I.R.S. Abusing Americans Is Nothing New Published on May 15, 2013 The I.R.S. targeting of tea party […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my bloghttp://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

We could put in a flat tax and it would enable us to cut billions out of the IRS budget!!!!

We could put in a flat tax and it would enable us to cut billions out of the IRS budget!!!! May 14, 2013 2:34PM IRS Budget Soars By Chris Edwards Share The revelations of IRS officials targeting conservative and libertarian groups suggest that now is a good time for lawmakers to review a broad range […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Taxes | Edit | Comments (0)

The IRS has thuggish employees and the President was right to condemn their latest actions

The IRS has thuggish employees and the President  was right to condemn their latest actions. Let’s Thank President Obama for Reminding Americans that They Should Distrust the IRS May 14, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Last week, while writing about the latest IRS scandal, I noted that the IRS has a long record of abusive actions. It has thieving employees. […]

 

Review and Pictures and Video Clips of Woody Allen’s movie “MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT” Part 6

Emma Stone | The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Review and Pictures and Video Clips of Woody Allen’s movie “MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT” Part 6

Magic in the Moonlight (2014)

MPAA RATING: PG-13

MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT Emma Stone and Colin Firth
Image credit: Jack English
MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT Emma Stone and Colin Firth
B-

DETAILSLimited Release: Jul 25, 2014; Rated: PG-13; Genre: Comedy; With: Colin FirthMarcia Gay Harden andEmma Stone; Distributor: Perdido Productions

Woody Allen movies are like birthday presents. We receive them once a year, they come wrapped in familiar packaging (the opening credits in Windsor font, the swinging strains of old-timey jazz), and we’re always happy to get them — even if we might occasionally want to return them for something different. Allen’s latest offering is the whimsical romantic comedy Magic in the Moonlight. And while it’s breezy and funny and perfectly pleasant, you probably won’t remember this particular gift by the time the next birthday rolls around.

Colin Firth stars as Stanley Crawford, a world-renowned illusionist in 1920s Europe who works under the exotic stage persona of Wei Ling Soo, a master of magic from the Orient. With his embroidered chinoiserie robes and diabolical Fu Manchu mustache, he mystifies audiences with his seamless sleight of hand. Backstage, though, when he reverts to being Stanley, he’s just an arrogant British stick-in-the-mud who dismisses his audience as a bunch of dim-witted suckers. How could any reasonable person possibly believe in magic? So when a magician friend (Simon McBurney) asks Stanley to join him in the south of France to debunk a phony mystic named Sophie Baker (Emma Stone), who may or may not be taking advantage of a rich American family, he finds the offer too juicy to resist. It’s an improbable setup, to be sure, but Firth is such a convincing grouch, you get the sense that Stanley would travel just about anywhere to dash someone’s belief in life beyond the physical world.

When Stanley arrives on the Côte d’Azur, he immediately sizes up Stone as a fraud (albeit an easy-on-the-eyes one) and the Americans as nouveau-riche dupes. The family matriarch (Jacki Weaver) believes she can contact her late husband through Sophie’s séances, while her dandyish drip of a son (Hamish Linklater) is so smitten he’s asked her to marry him. The catch is, Sophie is convincing. And Stanley starts to think that maybe she’s the real deal; maybe his cynical worldview has been wrong all along. From the moment we first see Firth and Stone swap barbed insults like the leads in a Preston Sturges screwball comedy, we know exactly where Allen’s story is headed. It’s only a matter of time before the sassy sharpie and the reformed wet blanket wind up together. The director never works very hard to buck our expectations. Maybe, after 43 films, he’s earned the right not to have to. But still…

At 78, Allen seems to have decided to make only two kinds of movies: the profound and the placeholders. In the first group are deeper, more challenging films such asMatch Point and Blue Jasmine. In the second are his conceptually slight gag pictures, which have a one-joke premise and agreeably spin their wheels for a while. Moonlightfalls squarely in that second category. Its wheels spin and spin until the tires are nearly bald. B-

_____________

 

_______________________________________________________

MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT – Official Trailer (2014) [HD] Emma Stone, Colin Firth

Published on May 21, 2014

Release Date: July 25, 2014 (limited)
Studio: Sony Pictures Classics
Director: Woody Allen
Screenwriter: Woody Allen
Starring: Emma Stone, Colin Firth, Marcia Gay Harden, Hamish Linklater, Simon McBurney, Eileen Atkins, Jacki Weaver, Erica Leerhsen, Catherine McCormack, Paul Ritter, Jeremy Shamos
Genre: Comedy, Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for a brief suggestive comment, and smoking throughout)

Official Websites: https://www.facebook.com/MagicInTheMo…

Plot Summary:
“Magic in the Moonlight” is a romantic comedy about an Englishman brought in to help unmask a possible swindle. Personal and professional complications ensue. The film is set in the south of France in the 1920s against a backdrop of wealthy mansions, the Cфte d’Azur, jazz joints and fashionable spots for the wealthy of the Jazz Age.

Related posts:

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen on the issue of the meaning of life and death

I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas in 1978. He later put his faith in Christ. Love […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s funniest scene in “Play it again Sam” deals with the meaning of life

  I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas in 1978. He later put his faith in Christ. […]

Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT (Part 1)

__________ Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT (Part 1) Emma Stone stars in the new Woody Allen movie ‘Magic in the Moonlight’ – here’s the trailer Emma Stone and Colin Firth star in ‘Magic in the Moonlight,’ which is directed by Woody Allen. Emma Stone recently starred in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen on the meaning of life and why should we even go on

  I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas in 1978. He later put his faith in Christ. […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY A Documentary on Woody Allen and the meaning of life

A Documentary on Woody Allen and the meaning of life I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Blue Jasmine” Part 26

  I have spent alot of time talking about Woody Allen films on this blog and looking at his worldview. He has a hopeless, meaningless, nihilistic worldview that believes we are going to turn to dust and there is no afterlife. Even though he has this view he has taken the opportunity to look at the weaknesses of his own secular view. […]

Truth Tuesday:The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason by Mark Peach

____________

_

_

The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason by Mark Peach

The Scientific Age

Uploaded by  on Oct 3, 2011

_______________

Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason

____________________

Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture

_______________________

I love the works of Francis Schaeffer and I have been on the internet reading several blogs that talk about Schaeffer’s work and the work below was really helpful. Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?  Wikipedia notes, “According to Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live traces Western history from Ancient Rome until the time of writing (1976) along three lines: the philosophic, scientific, and religious.[3] He also makes extensive references to art and architecture as a means of showing how these movements reflected changing patterns of thought through time. Schaeffer’s central premise is: when we base society on the Bible, on the infinite-personal God who is there and has spoken,[4] this provides an absolute by which we can conduct our lives and by which we can judge society.  Here are some posts I have done on this series: Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” episode 6 “The Scientific Age”  episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” episode 4 “The Reformation” episode 3 “The Renaissance”episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and  episode 1 “The Roman Age,” .

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer

__________________________

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason


Perhaps you are familiar with the indie band Arcade Fire. Their most recent album is entitled Neon Bible. The songs on Neon Bible certainly reflect something of the Bible itself in so far as it raises some of life’s biggest questions. Some of these questions are about fear, faith, love and disappointment. On the album is an update version of their song “No Cars Go” in which we hear the eerie tone of the line “Don’t know where we are goin.’ The line gives the listener the sense that there is no certainty to what our end is. This captures much of what I think indie music captures about our fragmented culture where the greatest questions are asked, but with very few answers.Because we live in a postmodern culture where many are not afraid to ask honest questions about life, the concept of faith is quite popular. Francis Schaeffer’s work and his book Escape from Reason have made a tremendous contribution to an understanding of Christian faith in this type of cultural context. In Escape from Reason, Schaeffer is clear in pointing out that the Bible reveals that God is both infinite and personal. He is the infinite-personal God whom created all things out of nothing and therefore the creation is finite or limited. Only God alone is the infinite Creator, the Creator without limitations. On the side of infinity, Schaeffer points out that, humans are “as separated from God as is the machine.” (pg. 26)On the side of human personality, Schaeffer is clear that humans, being made in the image of God, were made to have a personal relationship with God. Schaeffer states, “On the side of personality you are related to God. You are not infinite but finite; nevertheless, you are truly personal; you are created in the image of the personal God who exists.” (pg. 26-27)As Schaeffer fleshes this idea out in Escape from Reason, he presents a clear Biblical view of human persons. About the Biblical view of the whole of a human being, Schaeffer states,

“It is not a Platonic view. The soul is not more important than the body. God made the whole man and the whole man is important. The doctrine of the biblical resurrection of the dead is not an old-fashioned thing. It tells us that God loves the whole man and the whole man is important. The biblical teaching, therefore, opposes the Platonic, which makes the soul (“the upper”) very important and leaves the body (“the lower”) with little importance at all. The biblical view opposes the humanistic position where the body and autonomous mind of man become important, and grace becomes very unimportant.”(pg. 28)

God made the whole human being and cares about the whole human being.

Schaeffer goes on to point out the importance of understanding historically the philosophical schools that have help to shape where we are today. He points out that in Western philosophy, from the rise of Greek philosophy until now, the commonly held belief that the hope of finding complete answers which would encompass all of thought and life would come through rationalism plus rationality rather than rationality and faith in the God of the Bible. In his book Death in the City Schaeffer states,

The Bible puts its religious teaching in a historic setting. It is quite the opposite of the new theology and existential thought, quite the opposite of the twentieth century’s reduction of religion to the “spiritual” and the subjective. Scripture relates true religion to space-time history which may be expressed in normal literary form. And that is important, because our generation takes the word religion and everything religious and turns it into something psychological or sociological…a holy and loving God really exists, and He works into the significant history which exists” (Death in the City, pg. 17)

The philosophical thought during the time of Kant and Rousseau in the late 1700’s was a time of fighting for freedom. The freedom that was sought after was an autonomous freedom in which human freedom would have no restraint or limitations. The quest for this kind of freedom took place during a time when Western philosophy was rationalistic, rational, and sought to find a unified field of knowledge.

Rationalism as Schaeffer puts it in Escape from Reason is “man begins absolutely and totally from himself, gathers the information concerning the particulars and formulates the universals.” (pg. 34) The term “rational” on the other hand has no relationship to “rationalism.” This term “rational” is the act in which “man’s aspirations for the validity of reason are well founded.” In other words, if something is true the opposite is not true. Schaeffer states,

The basic position of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the centre of the universe, that he is autonomous – here lies his rebellion. Man will keep his rationalism and his rebellion, his insistence on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even if it means he must give up his rationality.”(pg. 42)

With this quest for autonomy, humans began to view reality in which there is a large gap between nature and universals. Schaeffer states,

“The hope of a connecting link between two spheres has completely disappeared. There is a complete dichotomy between the upper and lower storeys. The line between the upper and lower storeys has become a concrete horizontal, ten thousand feet thick, with highly-charged barbed-wire fixed in the concrete…Below the line there is rationality and logic. The upper storey becomes the non-logical and the non-rational.”(pg. 46)

With this dichotomy, on the basis of reason human have no meaning, purpose, or significance. On the basis of the non-rational and non-reasonable humans obtain a sense of optimism. But from this worldview humans are left with the need to take a leap of faith because they cannot rationally search for God.

The search for significance is intrinsic to who we are as people made in the image of God. Humans made in the image of God cannot live as though they are insignificant. But humans cannot live in the lower storey and find adequate answers concerning meaning, purpose, and significance. Yet as Schaeffer states, “in our day, the sphere of faith is placed in the non-rational and non-logical as opposed to the rational and logical.” (pg. 75)

Schaeffer points out some consequences of pitting faith against rationality. First, if we separate the upper storey or the world of universals from nature there is no way of establishing a relationship between the upper storey and everyday life in regard to morality. Schaeffer states, “You cannot have real morals in the real world after you have made this separation.” (pg. 80) The second consequence is that the separation creates no adequate basis for law. God revealed something real in the common world of life. Third, the separation, “throws away the answer to the problem of evil.” Schaeffer states,

“the True Christian position is that, in space and time and history, there was an unprogrammed man who made a choice, and actually rebelled against God…without Christianity’s answer that God made a significant man in a significant history with evil being the result of Satan’s and then man’s historic space-time revolt, there is no answer but to accept Baudelaire’s answer [‘If there is a God, He is the devil’] with tears. Once the historic Christian answer is put away, all we can do is to leap upstairs and say that against all reason God is good.”(pg. 81)

Without Christianity’s answer to the problem of evil what we have left is an irrational leap of faith.

Christianity thoroughly provides an answer, but rationalism must be renounced and rationality embraced. Christianity provides a world and life view with a unified answer. Schaeffer states,

“On the side of infinity…we are separated from God entirely, but on the side of personality we are made in the image of God. So God can speak and tell us about Himself—not exhaustively, but truly. (We could not, after all, know anything exhaustively as finite creatures.) Then He has told us about things in the finite created realm, too. He has told us true things about the cosmos and history. Thus, we are not adrift.” (pg. 83)

I do recognize now that doubt is real and that doubt’s role is significant in our lives and yet at a fundamental level we have answers to our cry, “Don’t know where were goin.” Although we cannot have ultimate answers without something revealed about God and God indeed is made known in the person of Jesus Christ. The person and work of Christ is communicated to us in the story that the Bible tells. It is the story of the infinite-personal God drawing near because he cares. God cares about the whole of a human being. There is not an area of our life that he does not care about and there is not an area of our life that is autonomous. The Bible says first that there is an infinite-personal God who created all things. Because he created all things the universe begins as personal. Because it is personal the longings of love and communication are intrinsic to all of humanity.

God has also always existed and has created all things. Not only has God created all things, but created them outside of himself. Because he created all things outside of himself the world is objectively real and therefore there is a true history and a true me. Schaeffer states,

“If the intrinsically personal origin of the universe is rejected, what alternative outlook can anyone have? It must be said emphatically that there is no final answer except that man is a product of the impersonal, plus time, plus chance.” (pg. 87)

Humanism or rationalism says that humans can built bridges to ultimate answers apart from anyone else, apart from an infinite-personal God. But this is impossible given that humans are finite. Humans cannot point to anything with ultimate certainty. Regarding human quests for answers Schaeffer states,

“beginning only from himself autonomously, it is quite obvious that, being finite, he can never reach any absolute answer. This would be true if only on the basis of the fact that he is finite; but to this must be added the Fall, the fact of his rebellion.” (pg. 89)

We are not only finite and limited, but by nature our own quest for true significance and meaning takes place in autonomous rebellion against the God who is there.

But we have hope. The Bible states clearly that humans are made in the image of this infinite-personal God and this gives us a starting point at which to seek for ultimate answers. The Bible says even as lost and broken as we are, seeking to live life apart from the life source, the image of God is still exhibited in humans. We are not like from machines or plants as beautiful as they might be, because we are personal. But how can we seek the infinite-personal God if we ourselves are finite humans?

We cannot possess ultimate answers apart from the reference point of the infinite God himself. The humanist or rationalist puts himself at the center of the universe in order to seek ultimate meaning and answers. Schaeffer says this persons “insists on being autonomous with only the knowledge he can gather, and has ended up finding himself quite meaningless.” (pg. 90) The knowledge we can gather is limited and if it comes only from within we have no hope for ultimate answers regarding meaning and life.

Christianity does provide a worldview in which to wrestle with ultimate questions in not simply a theoretical way, but in a personal way. Schaeffer states,

“Christianity is a system which is composed of a set of ideas which can be discussed. By ‘system’ we do not mean a scholastic abstraction, nevertheless we do not shrink from using the word. The Bible does not set out unrelated thoughts. The system it sets forth has a beginning and moves from that beginning in a non-contradictory way. The beginning is the existence of the infinite-personal God as Creator of all else. Christianity is not just a vague set of incommunicable experiences, based on a totally unverifiable ‘leap in the dark.’ Neither conversion (the beginning of the Christian life) nor spirituality (the growth) should be such a leap. Both are firmly related to the God who is there and the knowledge He has given us – and both involve the whole man.”

I would add that the Bible is not just a system, but also a story. It is a story where God is the ultimate actor and also the one who has written the script. It is a story that reveals that the infinite-personal God is there and has drawn near to his people with a passionate pursuit. He is infinite and he is personal. As finite persons we can have hope that God has drawn personally near in the person of Jesus in whom the whole story points to.

Jesus is also the one who grants us the privilege of being included in this great story as well. Jesus through his death and resurrection from death provides a way to live personally with this infinite-personal God. Our response to his grace in drawing near ought to be acknowledging our rebellion as we have insistence on being autonomous. The meaningful life comes through acknowledging our dependence on the God who is there and in Jesus Christ as The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

The story continues to move forward unfolding toward a day when lost people from all nations will have their story included in the great story of God’s personal restoration of his people and the world. The story unfolds until one day we will know fully the God who is there. No longer must we live out our own story without a script. No longer must we live out our own story by the line, “Don’t no where were goin!”

Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part A “The Pro-life Issue” (Francis Schaeffer Quotes Part 1 includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer.  I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]

The movie “Les Miserables” and Francis Schaeffer

I got this off a Christian blog spot. This person makes some good points and quotes my favorite Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer too. Prostitution, Chaos, and Christian Art The newest theatrical release of Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel “Les Miserables” was released on Christmas, but many Christians are refusing to see the movie. The reason simple — […]

“Schaeffer Sunday” Francis Schaeffer is one of the great evangelical theologians of our modern day

Francis Schaeffer was truly a great man and I enjoyed reading his books. A theologian #2: Rev. Francis Schaeffer Duriez, Colin. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. Pp. 240. Francis Schaeffer is one of the great evangelical theologians of our modern day. I was already familiar with some of his books and his […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning infanticide and youth enthansia

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ___________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political views […]

Francis Schaeffer’s wife Edith passes away on Easter weekend 2013 Part 7 (includes pro-life editorial cartoon)

The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story Pt.1 – Today’s Christian Videos The Francis and Edith Schaeffer Story – Part 3 of 3 Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the […]

The Mark of the Christian by Francis Schaeffer Part 1

  THE MARK OF A CHRISTIAN – CLASS 1 – Introduction Published on Mar 7, 2012 This is the introductory class on “The Mark Of A Christian” by Francis Schaeffer. The class was originally taught at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS by Dan Guinn from FrancisSchaefferStudies.org as part of the adult Sunday School hour […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning humanist dominated public schools in USA even though country was founded on a Christian base

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political views concerning […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning where the Bible-believing Christians been the last few decades

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political views […]

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part E “Moral absolutes and abortion” Francis Schaeffer Quotes part 5(includes the film SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS) (editorial cartoon)

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning religious liberals and humanists

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political views concerning abortion, […]

Tribute to Keith Green who died 32 years ago today!!!

“Music Monday” My favorite Christian music artist of all time is Keith Green.

My favorite Christian music artist of all time is Keith Green. Sunday, May 5, 2013 You Are Celled To Go – Keith Green Keith Green – (talks about) Jesus Commands Us To Go! (live) Uploaded on May 26, 2008 Keith Green talks about “Jesus Commands Us To Go!” live at Jesus West Coast ’82 You can find […]

MUSIC MONDAY:Keith Green Story, and the song that sums up his life (Part 10)

To me this song below sums up Keith Green’s life best. 2nd Chapter of Acts – Make My Life A Prayer to You Make my life a prayer to You I want to do what You want me to No empty words and no white lies No token prayers, no compromise I want to shine […]

MUSIC MONDAY:Keith Green Story (Part 9)

Keith Green – Easter Song (live) Uploaded by monum on May 25, 2008 Keith Green performing “Easter Song” live from The Daisy Club — LA (1982) ____________________________ Keith Green was a great song writer and performer.  Here is his story below: The Lord had taken Keith from concerts of 20 or less — to stadiums […]

MUSIC MONDAY:Keith Green Story, includes my favorite song (Part 8)

Keith Green – Asleep In The Light Uploaded by keithyhuntington on Jul 23, 2006 keith green performing Asleep In The Light at Jesus West Coast 1982 __________________________ Keith Green was a great song writer and performer and the video clip above includes my favorite Keith Green song. Here is his story below: “I repent of […]

Keith Green’s article “Grumbling and Complaining–So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt?” (Part 4)

Keith Green – So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt (live) Uploaded by monum on May 25, 2008 Keith Green performing “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt” live at West Coast 1980 ____________ This song really shows Keith’s humor, but it really has great message. Keith also had a great newsletter that went out […]

Keith Green’s article “Grumbling and Complaining–So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt?” (Part 3)

Keith Green – So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt (live) Uploaded by monum on May 25, 2008 Keith Green performing “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt” live at West Coast 1980 ____________ This song really shows Keith’s humor, but it really has great message. Keith also had a great newsletter that went out […]

MUSIC MONDAY:Keith Green Story (Part 7)

Keith Green – Your Love Broke Through Here is something I got off the internet and this website has lots of Keith’s great songs: Keith Green: His Music, Ministry, and Legacy My mom hung up the phone and broke into tears. She had just heard the news of Keith Green’s death. I was only ten […]

Keith Green’s article “Grumbling and Complaining–So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt?” (Part 2)

Keith Green – So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt (live) Uploaded by monum on May 25, 2008 Keith Green performing “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt” live at West Coast 1980 ____________ This song really shows Keith’s humor, but it really has great message. Keith also had a great newsletter that went out […]

Keith Green’s article “Grumbling and Complaining–So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt?” (Part 1)

Keith Green – So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt (live) Uploaded by monum on May 25, 2008 Keith Green performing “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt” live at West Coast 1980 ____________ This song really shows Keith’s humor, but it really has great message. Keith also had a great newsletter that went out […]

MUSIC MONDAY: Keith Green Story (Part 6)

The Keith Green Story pt 7/7 I remember when I first Keith Green. He had a great impact on me. Below are some quotes on Keith: Quotes “It’s time to quit playing church and start being the Church (Matt. 18:20)” — Keith Green, as quoted by Melody Green in the introduction to A Cry in […]

The Question of Apologetics by Francis Schaeffer

The Question of Apologetics by Francis Schaeffer

SOUNDWORD LABRI CONFERENCE VIDEO – The Question of Apologetics – Francis A. Schaeffer

 

Published on Nov 30, 2013

Francis Schaeffer workshop on “The Question of Apologetics”
L’Abri Conference, Atlanta, June, 1983
Recorded by Soundword Associates for L’Abri Fellowship

Read more about this series here:http://francisschaefferstudies.blogsp…

__________________________________________________________________

 

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 21 William B. Provine (Feature on artist Andrea Zittel)

_______ Dr Provine is a very honest believer in Darwinism. He rightly draws the right conclusions about the implications of Darwinism. I have attacked optimistic humanism many times in the past and it seems that he has confirmed all I have said about it. Notice the film clip below and the quote that Francis Schaeffer […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 20 Woody Allen and Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era (Feature on artist Ida Applebroog)

___________________________________________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR ___________________ Woody Allen on Ingmar Bergman and the death. Woody Allen et Marshall McLuhan : « If life were only like this! » What Makes Life Worth Living? – Answered by Woody Allen. ______________ Diane Keaton et Woody Allen What Makes Life Worth Living? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 19 Movie Director Luis Bunuel (Feature on artist Oliver Herring)

___________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN In the book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Schaeffer notes: Especially in the sixties the major philosophic statements which received a wide hearing were made through films. These philosophic movies reached many more people than philosophic writings […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 18 “Michelangelo’s DAVID is the statement of what humanistic man saw himself as being tomorrow” (Feature on artist Paul McCarthy)

In this post we are going to see that through the years  humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic.   In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 17 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part C (Feature on artist David Hockney plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

________________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason   Francis Schaeffer- How Should We Then Live? -8- The Age of Fragmentation Joseph Rozak· https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEmwy_dI2j0   ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________ Miles Davis and Andy below: ______________________ Dali and Warhol below: ________- __________________ Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland. How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 16 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part B (Feature on artist James Rosenquist plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

_________ John, Yoko and Warhol pictured below: ________________________ The Clash meets Warhol: ______________________ ________________ ________ Andy Warhol and members of The Factory: Gerard Malanga, poet; Viva, actress; Paul Morrissey, director; Taylor Mead, actor; Brigid Polk, actress; Joe Dallesandro, actor; Andy Warhol, artist, New York, October 9, 1969 (picture below)   _____________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 15 Francis Schaeffer discusses quotes of Andy Warhol from “The Observer June 12, 1966″ Part A (Feature on artist Robert Indiana plus many pictures of Warhol with famous friends)

    Recently I got to see this piece of art by Andy Warhol of Dolly Parton at Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville, Arkansas:   Andy Warhol, Dolly Parton (1985) Synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on canvas 42 x 42 in. (106.7 x 106.7 cm) ___________ Susan Anton, Sylvester Stallone and Andy Warhol pictured […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 14 David Friedrich Strauss (Feature on artist Roni Horn )

How Should We Then Live The Age of Non Reason Scott87508   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ___________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 13 Jacob Bronowski and Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era (Feature on artist Ellen Gallagher )

    ________ Today I am looking at Jacob Bronowski and his contribution to spreading the thought of Charles Darwin to a modern generation.  The artist Ellen Gallagher is one of those in today’s modern generation that talks about how evolution is pictured in his art works. What are some of the observations that Francis Schaeffer […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 12 H.J.Blackham and Materialistic Humanism: The World-View of Our Era (Feature on artist Arturo Herrera)

  Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)     Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)     Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)     Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth […]

Review and Pictures and Video Clips of Woody Allen’s movie “MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT” Part 5

Colin Firth opens up about Woody Allen’s process in ‘Magic in the Moonlight’

Review and Pictures and Video Clips of Woody Allen’s movie “MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT” Part 5

Magic in the Moonlight (PG-13)

Film

Romance

Not yet rated

Be the first…

Time Out says

Fri Jul 18

The more things change, the more Woody Allen stays the same: It’s a comfort that this singular artist’s worldview remains so staunchly his own—often archaically against fashion—and that nothing seems to halt his movie-a-year pace. (This, after a year in which he found widespread critical and commercial success with Blue Jasmine, and harshly refuted adopted daughter Dylan Farrow’s molestation charges.) The director’s latest—a lighthearted romance set in 1920s Germany and France—won’t do much to sway proponents or detractors from their own perspectives, though taken at face value, it’s one of Allen’s most charmingly conceived and performed efforts.

Our hero, Stanley (Colin Firth, amusingly pompous), is a popular stage magician and lifetime skeptic conscripted by a colleague to travel to a lush Côte d’Azur estate. His task is to debunk a self-proclaimed psychic named Sophie (Emma Stone, strong-willed and alluring), who appears to be bilking a rich old widow out of every cent. Yet try as Stanley might, he’s unable to uncover her trickery, and with each new “miracle” she performs, he falls deeper and deeper in love.

It’s a simple premise that Allen complicates with an illusionist’s expertise. If the essence of magic is a steady stream of pleasurable distraction until the mind-bending big reveal, then the sun-dappled French vistas—gorgeously photographed by cinematographer Darius Khondji—and a very able and attractive cast decked out in Jazz Age finery more than do the job. Firth and Stone’s head-butting exchanges may be the general focus, but there are plum supporting roles for Hamish Linklater as a ukulele-strumming suitor and Eileen Atkins as Stanley’s aunt, always ready with a wizened, world-weary observation.

None of this is to take away from Allen’s cleverly constructed script. It feels as if it could have been written in the heyday of Old Hollywood—a blithe lark that digs deep at the most unexpected times, as in a terrific scene in which agnostic Stanley dithers his way through a prayer. Allen’s never going to be Ernst Lubitsch, and there’s a bit of his latter-day laziness on display. (Few directors are as fond of one-and-done master shots that seem envisioned by a loafer longing for the five o’clock whistle.) Yet Magic still casts a lovely, lingering spell.

Follow Keith Uhlich on Twitter: @keithuhlich

______________________________

MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT – Official Trailer (2014) [HD] Emma Stone, Colin Firth

Published on May 21, 2014

Release Date: July 25, 2014 (limited)
Studio: Sony Pictures Classics
Director: Woody Allen
Screenwriter: Woody Allen
Starring: Emma Stone, Colin Firth, Marcia Gay Harden, Hamish Linklater, Simon McBurney, Eileen Atkins, Jacki Weaver, Erica Leerhsen, Catherine McCormack, Paul Ritter, Jeremy Shamos
Genre: Comedy, Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for a brief suggestive comment, and smoking throughout)

Official Websites: https://www.facebook.com/MagicInTheMo…

Plot Summary:
“Magic in the Moonlight” is a romantic comedy about an Englishman brought in to help unmask a possible swindle. Personal and professional complications ensue. The film is set in the south of France in the 1920s against a backdrop of wealthy mansions, the Cфte d’Azur, jazz joints and fashionable spots for the wealthy of the Jazz Age.

Related posts:

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen on the issue of the meaning of life and death

I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas in 1978. He later put his faith in Christ. Love […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s funniest scene in “Play it again Sam” deals with the meaning of life

  I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas in 1978. He later put his faith in Christ. […]

Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT (Part 1)

__________ Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT (Part 1) Emma Stone stars in the new Woody Allen movie ‘Magic in the Moonlight’ – here’s the trailer Emma Stone and Colin Firth star in ‘Magic in the Moonlight,’ which is directed by Woody Allen. Emma Stone recently starred in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen on the meaning of life and why should we even go on

  I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas in 1978. He later put his faith in Christ. […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY A Documentary on Woody Allen and the meaning of life

A Documentary on Woody Allen and the meaning of life I have written about Woody Allen and the meaning of life several times before. King Solomon took a long look at this issue in the Book of Ecclesiastes and so did Kerry Livgren in his song “Dust in the Wind” for the rock band Kansas […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Blue Jasmine” Part 26

  I have spent alot of time talking about Woody Allen films on this blog and looking at his worldview. He has a hopeless, meaningless, nihilistic worldview that believes we are going to turn to dust and there is no afterlife. Even though he has this view he has taken the opportunity to look at the weaknesses of his own secular view. […]