Why Prayer, Not Politics Should Be the 1st Line of Battle for Pro-Lifers

1st of all, I am not opposed to political involvement, obviously. Working for Pro-life candidates IS important. It is just clear that that is not to be where we put all our eggs. & while the Republican party has been friendlier overall to the Pro-Life movement, again, we can't be so committed to 1 party that they will take us for granted & just string us along. We have to be so strong in our stand that they know they will lose us if we don't get real action, not scraps or lip service only. 2 recent events have again made this fact clear.

1st is the GQ interview with current head of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. He has basically said he is Pro-Choice, all the while claiming that he is Pro-Life. & that his Catholic faith has formed him in that stance. Sorry but some of this sounds way to much like the same excuses those Catholics in Name Only give over at the Democratic party.

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

Absolutely!
How so?

You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.
Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?

Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

Some of Steele's Gay Marriage comments raise a little concern as well.

Then there was this disappointing bit of news from Alaska.

Last week Governor Sarah Palin selected Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen, a former Planned Parenthood board member, as the 20th Supreme Court Judge in Alaska. OK, I will grant that there are some limits on how she picks them. But she still did have a choice. Palin chose Christen over Palmer Superior Court judge Eric Smith, the other candidate whose name was submitted to the governor by the Alaska Judicial Council. Under the state Constitution, they are the group who selected the nominees for Palin to pick from. The seven-member Alaska Judicial Council is made up of lawyers, public members appointed by governors and the Supreme Court chief justice, currently Dana Fabe.

The Judicial Council picked the 2 from a slate of 6 applicants. It takes four council votes for a candidate to be sent to the governor. None of the other candidates received any votes. Palin did take the unusual step of asking the Judicial Council to send her all information it had on the 2 finalists, Christen and Palmer Superior Court Judge Eric Smith (an environmental activist). Granted, not the best options. But she also had the option of rejecting both. It has been done before. Former Gov. Frank Murkowski once rejected all 3 nominees sent to him, then, when the council wouldn't send him more names, appointed from the list the 3 nominees came from.(Additional Source: UPDATED: Governor Palin Fills Supreme Court Vacancy)

In Palin's case, this doesn't do major damage. Still it does tarnish her Pro-life credentials a bit. & it does show the limits of the political process. & why it can't be our 1st line of battle. Prayer is where the main battle will be waged. Prayer is what will change hearts. Prayer is what will strengthen & empower people when they protest in front of abortion clinics. Prayer is what will give them what is needed to witness, to do sidewalk counciling & to bear fruit. Prayer is what will change the hearts of people so that laws protecting life will follow.

Abortion is part of the demonic "culture of death". While it has its physical aspects, the battle is ultimately a spiritual 1 & it will be ultimately won using spiritual weapons.

_____________________

(Added 5:00AM)

I was just reading an article on LifeSiteNews about Steele's post publishing spin on the GQ article. & what he said didn't reasure me.

1st, the quote from the article: "I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment."

This from the section on his views of homosexual marriage: "Just as a general principle, I don’t like mucking around with the Constitution. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I think, you know, in a pluralistic, dynamic society as the one that we have, every five years you can have a constitutional convention about something, you know? I don’t think we should be, you know, dancing around and trying to amend it every time I’ve got a social issue or a political issue or a business issue that I want to get addressed. Having said that, I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that’s exactly what a republic is all about." (emphasis mine)

OK, I know he started out by saying "as a general principle", but what does he see as an issue that does rise to his standard of worth a Constitutional amendment? The platform support statement comes across to me as merely spin, not sincerity. Why? Because he said the following about who should decide the issue of abortion being legal: "The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide." In both cases he said the states should decide, not have it decided on a National level, yet his follow-up comment claiming support of the Human Life Amendment counterdicts the original statements.

Does he realize that his original statements are like those who supported slavery in pre-Civil War era America? Let each state decide on its own.

There are some things, like slavery & abortion that HAVE to be decided on a National Level.

Steele's follow-up just confirms what I said at the start of this post, politics must never be our 1st line of battle, PRAYER MUST!!!!!