According to them, every woman is enamored with her own baby to such an extent that she loses any sense of proportion. Therefore, the child must be raised by "the village," which is day-care centers and the schools. 

They have been telling us that for years, but we haven’t been listening. 

As the feminist Marcia Cohen said in her book, The Sisterhood, women who stay home to take care of their children are the "ultimate, useless parasite" according to the standard feminist mantra.  

All women will report for some "real" work, whether they wish to or not. This will not be an option. Everyone will do her share for "the village," and it will not include taking care of her own child. It is permissible to care for a group of other mothers’ children – but not her own. 

The president of the influential New York chapter of NOW, Ti-Grace Atkinson, told the New York Times back in 1968: "We’re afraid of the truth. To say that you can be both a career woman and a wife and mother, and that the institutions won’t change and won’t be threatened – that’s a cop out. . . . Any real change in the status of women would be a fundamental assault on marriage and the family. People would be tied together by love, not legal contraptions. Children would be raised communally; it’s just not honest to talk about freedom for women unless you get the child rearing off their backs. We may not be ready for any of this yet, but if we’re going to be honest, we’ve got to talk about it. Face it, raise the questions."  

Betty Friedan was just a trifle more gentle: "[W]hether we will finally have to challenge the institutions, the concepts of marriage and the nuclear family – I don’t know, I just don’t know." She also said: "[W]hen a woman defines herself as a housewife [i.e., a mother], the house and things in it are, in a sense, her identity; she needs these external trappings to buttress her emptiness of self..." 

When a woman is pregnant or has just had her baby, if she has the support of a loving family, she radiates happiness and love. Her baby is the center of the universe. Is that good or bad?  

We have always put mothers on a pedestal in our society and honored them. Are we wrong? It’s true that some mothers go to extremes as we see when a 30-year-old son is still dominated by his mother. But there can be extremes in any human behavior. 

Does that mean we should abandon motherhood to day care and the schools, while demanding that those "parasites" go to work? 

Many of the teens at Columbine were killed solely because they were Christians.  

All of the seven who were murdered at the Youth Rally in Texas were killed because they were Christians.  

The Southern Baptist Christians have been mocked and ridiculed for years by the Unitarians and the UCC-Congregationalists. Is it coincidence that the murderer was "shouting anti-Baptist rhetoric" as he was killing his victims?  

Is it a stretch to say that these two churches have contributed to a "climate of hate" against those Christians that encouraged their murder? If so, let’s consider last October. 

Remember Last October? 

This newspaper first gained notoriety when we exposed the venom that had been expressed last October in a left-wing attempt to blame Christians for the death of the homosexual Matthew Shepard. He was killed by psychopaths he had met in a bar in Wyoming. After killing him, those sick people returned to the bar and fought with other non-homosexual men and they all ended up in the hospital.  

The Standard-Times in New Bedford had a huge headline which represented the thinking of much of the establishment in Massachusetts.  

"The long, sorry history of Christian bigotry continues unabated;" and "When it comes to bigotry, Christians have the copyright." 

We thought this hatred at the Standard-Times was the work of an isolated staffer at the paper and would be quickly corrected. But we were wrong. A second article appeared that reinforced the message.  

How naive we were.  

How could anyone possibly blame this drunken brawl on Christians? It is very easy because Christians have created a "climate of hate," they say, that would spawn this type of behavior. But the problem with that logic is that no one can point to any hate being exhibited by any recognized Christian leader in this entire country – no hate anywhere. 

And yet it was not just the Standard-Times that reported this vile message. 

Had to be Exposed to the Light  

This paroxysm from the New Bedford paper could not continue unchallenged in a free country. So we wrote and distributed a reply. And in order to do so, we had to substantiate that the Christians who were expressing their opinions about homosexuality were correct that all people, including homosexuals, need love and understanding but 1) there is no gay gene and 2) homosexuals who have the desire can, and do, change their orientation. 

When we did that, we caused a "firestorm of controversy" across the state, according to Chet Curtis on Channel 5 and other media. But the media didn’t report anything about the hatred that was expressed by the Standard-Times. Instead, some of the media tried to lump us as "Christian bigots" and haters also. But that hasn’t worked, because everyone knows that it is far from truthful. 

As some of the left-wing establishment attacked us, it became sadly apparent that the Unitarians and the UCC-Congregationalists were the leaders of the assault.  

We learned from the Unitarians that they are proud they are "confronting" and "challenging" the "religious right." They won’t tell us who belongs to this "religious right," but it’s obvious that those terrible people include all of the Catholics in the country plus those Christians and Jews who still believe the Bible. It would include Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan and other great people, including most of the founders of this magnificent country. 

A "Climate of Hate" 

It’s impossible to point to any responsible Christian who has ever said anything even close to hatred of homosexuals, but it’s very simple to point to Unitarians and UCC-Congregationalists who continue to say very negative things about practicing Christians and Jews. They have truly created a "climate of hate" against Christians and Jews who believe the Bible.  

The UCC church recently told the Boston Globe during its annual meeting that they are going to continue being a political organization, as they have been since the 1960s. This is terribly divisive of the religious community if they expect people to choose a church based upon their political beliefs. The UCC has lost 700,000 members – 1/3 of their membership – since they adopted that philosophy in the 1970s. 

Do these ultra-liberals really believe that the answer to a particular social problem is to pass "Senate Bill ABC" or "House Bill ABC?" Do they think that if you don’t support those particular bills with those particular solutions from those particular politicians that you are not a "Christian?" 

By doing so, these ultra-liberal churches have spawned Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others. Although many people do not necessarily feel comfortable with Falwell or Robertson, they are forced to join their organizations just to have a counterpoint to the point-of-view being expressed as the "Christian" one by the ultra-liberals. 

When Massachusetts News invited the leaders of the UCC-Congregationalist Church in Massachusetts this month to do an interview where every word they uttered would be reported by us without any editing, they refused to do so. Like the Unitarians, they are not interested in any dialogue – whether with Christians or not – who do not agree with them. 

It’s time for the other 2/3 of the UCC-Congregationalists who have not yet left their church in disgust to stop pretending that this is none of their business. It is their business. As long as they continue to go to this church and give it their money, they cannot pretend that what their church is doing in their name at the national level is unimportant. It’s time for them to become involved. The citizens of a democracy like the United States cannot continue to think of themselves as mere spectators or we are in serious trouble. 

The Globe knew it was treading on dangerous ground last month in that the incidents at Columbine and Fort Worth qualify as "climate of hate" crimes much more than the murder of Matthew Shepard.  

The Globe printed an editorial which was titled the "Texas gun massacre." But the most important message they got from this tragic incident was that we need more gun control. They know they should have printed a "climate of hate" editorial in their paper, so they never even mentioned in the editorial they wrote about gun control that these were teenagers who were targeted, much less that they were Christians. They said merely that the killer "fatally shot seven people with two semiautomatic handguns before turning one on himself." 

It said the "motive for killing seven people in a Fort Worth church may never be known," although another story in the same paper said that he was "shouting anti-Baptist rhetoric" as he was murdering. 

Just imagine, if you will, that the seven people who were killed in Texas were attending a gay/straight alliance. We would never hear the end. But Christian teenagers and . . . in Texas . . . ? 

When the Unitarians, the UCC-Congregationalists and the Globe next mouth the words about the "inherent worth and dignity of all people," they should think about whether they can bring themselves to include Christians and Jews who still believe the Bible.  

They might even look into their hearts to see whether they could include Southern Baptist teenagers. 
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE

 

Copyright ©1999 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. 

Postage paid at Ashland, MA and Brockton, MA. 
------------------------ 

Subscribe Today To Our Print Edition.  1-888-462-6654