---- — ‘Immediatism is just treating sin as sin’
Some thoughts on abolitionism: Immediatism is our call and cry! Not our time frame, expectation or prediction.
We call abortion a national sin and demand its total and immediate abolition. This is our conviction. Our call. Our cry. And our understanding of what must be done and said if we are ever to remove this abomination from its state of approval and prevalent practice within our country.
But we do not expect this evil will be abolished overnight (though we would not deny the fact God could send a revival so incredibly powerful that this did in fact occur, following our repentance as a nation).
The charge from incrementalists, regulationists and professional pro-life leaders is that we are saying abortion must be abolished overnight or we must do nothing at all. This is a straw-man misrepresentation of our views and is contradicted by our daily actions. It is as silly and unfounded as the claim we think you have to be an abolitionist to go to heaven. (We don’t.)
Incrementalism is the purposeful strategic regulation and temporization of evils that ought to be immediately abolished. Incrementalists believe the best way to abolish something is to allow it to continue in many cases along the way to abolishing it.
The fruit of immediatism will often help produce incremental changes while we await the total abolition of human abortion, but the call for an immediate and total abolition of human abortion will lead to repentance and transformation.
The fruit of incrementalism will always be a protraction of evil, and rallying around incrementalism and compromise for another 40 years will only lead to the protraction of abolition.
Immediatism is just treating sin as sin and believing in God as God.
That is all. It doesn’t get any cleaner, clearer or more concise than that.
Michael J. Amatuzzo
Can humanists put up their own display?
In Warren, outside of Detroit, Mayor Jim Fouts is telling local resident Douglas Marshall he cannot have a “reason station” in order to promote reason in Warren’s city hall atrium, where there is already a Christian prayer station.
The mayor, in his rejection letter, made illogical arguments. He stated Mr. Marshall, being a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, was trying to “discourage religion.” No, this group exists in order to promote keeping the government neutral when it comes to religion. It does not discourage the practice of religion.
One’s First Amendment right to practice religion is not dependent on a mayor opening part of a city hall to a prayer station, just as Mr. Marshall’s free speech rights as a non-believer aren’t depending on a reason station in city hall. But once it is made a public forum, then the government cannot discriminate based on viewpoints.
I would hope that in Kokomo, the city government would support the rights of atheists or humanists to put up their own display, if Christian or religious displays are already allowed. I hope they are better then this mayor from Michigan.
We welcome “Letters to the Editor” on any topic of general interest. All letters must be signed with a full name, address of the author and a daytime telephone number so authorship can be verified.