Originally posted at Live Action News
Currently, America is a society that continues make the case for abortion by insisting that some lives have less value than others. The relentless effort to devalue life could explain why a 35-year-old single mother in Somervell County Texas thought she had the right to choose to place her little 2-year-old baby girl in the family oven.
No one knows for sure what Tasha Shontell Hatcher was thinking, or what her motivation was for burning her baby in the stove. Thankfully, as the child was being roasted alive, for some reason, Hatcher confessed to witnesses who quickly called the authorities.
As a result, shortly before midnight on St. Patrick’s Day, the Sheriff’s Department rescued the little girl who was immediately taken by air ambulance to Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas to be treated for second and third-degree burns. From there, the child was airlifted to a regional burn center at Parkland Hospital in Dallas where she remains sedated.
For burning a baby a stove, Miss Hatcher is being held in Somervell County Jail after being charged with inflicting “serious bodily harm to a child,” which is a first-degree felony. After being arraigned on Saturday, Hatcher is being held on a $300,000 bond.
Meanwhile, Somervell deputies, Texas Rangers, and Child Protective Services are investigating the case. A spokeswoman from CPS said that when the severely burned child is discharged from the hospital she would be placed in foster care.
Burning children alive is nothing new. It started in Old Testament days with the sacrificing of infants to the fire-god Molech.
Today, there are mothers who chose to forgo the saline infusion abortion (which burns preborn children both inside and out) and then, somewhere along the line, apparently change their minds and decide it’s acceptable to cook children alive outside of the womb.
Last December, 34-year-old Ka Yang was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of her one-month-old daughter Mirabelle Thao-Lo. According to prosecutors, in 2011, Mirabelle was placed along with her pacifier into the microwave by her mother for the sin of being “irritable and fussy and holding [mom] back from work” at an architectural firm.
And so, if the thought of a mother committing the crime of burning her baby alive horrifies America, it’s probably because it’s happening right before our eyes.
In the longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, in the 160th verse it is believed it was the psalmist David who wrote: “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
If those who profess Christianity understood that the “sum” of God’s Word is truth, they might be more careful to make sure that the verses from the Scripture they quote are not cherry-picked and that uncomfortable, inconvenient sayings are not ignored.
There are certain well-known political superstars that habitually inject pseudo-religiosity into pet policy initiatives and emphasize caring for the poor and feeding the hungry while misapplying Scriptures such as “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Meanwhile, the Scriptures having to do with the sanctity of God-ordained life are consistently ignored.
Jesus commanded His followers to care for the poor and feed the hungry. Yet there are many influential politicians who don’t understand the contradiction posed when they emphasize feeding and caring for the poor in His name, but simultaneously sanction exterminating the unborn despite His disapproval.
If, as Scripture says, our existence is predestined by God, and He “chose us in Him before the creation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), then killing in utero what He fashioned for life, for any reason whatsoever, is understandably not on the Biblical list of approved rights.
When Jesus said, “truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to … even the least of them, you did it to Me” – surely the helpless unborn would be much better described as “the least” than the poor and hungry who, although underprivileged, made it out of the womb alive.
But then again, to some policymakers it’s political expediency that matters, not godly approval.
Take for instance the likely Democrat nominee for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton. In an effort to sculpt her image into a presidential one, the former Secretary of State is pulling out all the stops. She touted her foreign policy experience at the University of Connecticut and is promoting her upcoming book, “Hard Choices” – a story whose title sounds more like something her philandering husband would choose for his own tome about his adulterous antics in the White House.
Adding a much-needed folksy vibe to Hillary’s pre-2016 image, next year Grandma Clinton will conveniently be burping a new grandbaby on the campaign trail.
Kicking it up a notch, Ms. Rodham Clinton decided it might be a good idea to bring out her Methodist upbringing in front of 7,000 members of the United Methodist Church in Louisville, Kentucky.
Recently in Louisville, Clinton talked about her personal faith to the United Methodist Women, the denomination’s 800,000-member female mission group that focuses on women, children and youth. The theme of the gathering was “Make it Happen.” Its emphasis: Jesus feeding 5,000 people with just loaves of bread and two fish. Prior to her appearance, Selby Ewing, communications director for the women attending the conference, said “[Hillary’s] appearance here transcends politics.” Ewing pointed out that “Our tagline is putting faith, hope and love into action.”
The problem is that Hillary is also an avid supporter of abortion, which every day affects 3,000 women and children.
Besides, if the sum of God’s Word is truth as the Bible says it is, regardless of Hillary’s rationale for supporting worldwide feticide, slaughtering 60 million pre-ordained human beings in America alone isn’t something the Jesus Christ Mrs. Clinton claims to walk with would view as an acceptable position.
The United Methodist Church, whose subsidiaries have been known to donate large sums of money to Planned Parenthood, in their Book of Discipline, without coming right out and saying it, subtly grants leeway for members searching for reasons to justify abortion:
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy.
In response to those who prefer a liberal interpretation, 17th Century English Presbyterian minister and Biblical commentator Matthew Henry wrote something Hillary Clinton and the abortion supporting segment of the Methodist sisterhood should take time to ponder: “Those whose hearts stand in awe of God’s word, will rather endure the wrath of man, than break the law of God.”
Nonetheless, Methodist founders George Whitefield and John and Charles Wesley would be appalled at the modern Methodist church’s lack of outright condemnation for abortion, which explains why the women at the conference were thrilled to hear from a political proponent of Molech, the Old Testament Semitic idol to whom the book of Leviticus forbade the Israelites to sacrifice their children.
In 1667, English poet John Milton wrote of Molech in Paradise Lost and described the calf-like bronze god as a “frightening and terrible demon covered with mothers’ tears and children’s blood.” Four centuries later, the abortion that Hillary Clinton endorses is an act that is also “covered with mothers’ tears and children’s blood.”
In his letter to Timothy, Paul the Apostle warned that “God’s spirit specifically tells us that in later days there will be men who abandon the true faith and allow themselves to be spiritually seduced by teachings of demons, teachings given by men who are lying hypocrites, whose consciences are as dead as seared flesh” (1 Tim 4:1-2).
Considering that her core beliefs fail to respect the sanctity of human life, Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to embrace her faith while rejecting the Bible’s bold proclamation of “loving the least.”
Molech was a god to whom the Israelite’s routinely sacrificed their children in order to invoke the power of the sun. They had a habit of doing this when they had turned away from Yahweh prostituting their faith for provision from a lesser source. Sacrifices to Molech took place when the first born fruit of a mother’s womb was slowly burned to death in the outstretched arms of a welcoming idol. Molech’s hungry limbs were made of metal, hollowed out, heated up on the inside and had a fire below where children, after being painfully blistered and scalded, fell headlong into the fire and were reduced to ash. And thus, Molech was pleased. It’s hard to comprehend that for these ancient peoples the promise of Molech far outweighed the value of their children, but it did!
In Biblical Hebrew culture the unfolded arms of Molech held the promise of renewed strength from the sun. The graven image was the source that insured warmth and a robust harvest. Hebrew seed was sacrificed in order to provide what antiquity deemed important for their subsistence. Worship to an idol, as a means to an end, took priority over the survival of their young. Primal primitive imposing cultures forfeited their progeny in order to assure the fulfillment of preeminent creature comfort and satisfaction of carnal needs, disregarding God’s command, “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 18:21) (KJV).
God didn’t give the Israelites the permission to thrash out what they thought “seed” was. He didn’t ask them their opinion on the meaning of “passing through”. His command was clear and sure and when yearning overtook morality they chose to disobey.
To parallel this custom with our own secularly progressive culture it would be more apropos to use the modern English language usage of the term Molech, which refers to persons or things, which demand or require costly sacrifice. I believe that there is a direct correlation between the antiquated and the contemporary.
We look back on history and perceive ourselves to be “highly evolved ”. In order to insure the health of the economy or world peace, if asked to bring our first born to an altar to be incinerated we would bristle in disgust and refuse to comply. Regardless of how we perceive ourselves, the truth is we’re no better than the Ammonites or irreverent Israelites. Blatantly, boldly and unabashedly, we follow in the path of their example worshiping at the altar of Baal. Unlike the heathens of Molech we adulate in secret, in sterile environments, under the covering of perverted laws, not in open fields celebrating our bounty with dancing. We do not drown out the shrieks of our offspring with flutes and tambourines as they cremate. Rather our children burn and writhe in a clandestine conflagration hidden from the naked eye in a fiery inferno of saline deep within the womb.
We use words like “science” and “choice” in place of murder and slaughter and as we deceive ourselves, Molech is pleased. We have gods in our culture that demand “costly sacrifice” and we are more than willing to fulfill their call to abandon what should be considered sanctified. We rush to the fore in an effort to justify and cooperate with the never satisfied blood lust for innocence from a cadre of gods who we look to for gratification in this life. The late German philosopher, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was walked from a concentration camp and hung by the Nazi’s for speaking out against their inhumane policies, once said?
Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent (beginning to exist or develop) life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.
I realize this is his opinion and what right does he have to inflict his opinion on anyone? In our enlightened society self reigns supreme. We make the rules, we define moral code and we pronounce as immoral anyone who would question our personal standard of right and wrong.
The name Molech is derived from combining consonants from the Hebrew melech“king” with the vowels of boshet “shame”. Molech is the King of Shame, but not for us. We have no shame. Shame is something that we repress along with our guilt, truth and indignity. We do not have the courage to admit what intrinsically we know is true. In turn, we rush to deny human nature and continue to supply the arms of Molech with abundant gifts. We swiftly run after politicians whose goal is a culture of death and we do so to contribute to having our corporate consciousness freed from the bondage of self-reproach by drowning it out with the roar of an adoring crowd.
Beneath Molech is a foundation that we have built for our god to rest steadfastly upon. We have justified choice and made a way for selfishness and personal aspiration to take precedence. Man, self and secularism have become the proprietor of Molech, graving and hammering out the idol in gold and setting it up in the public square in place of a basic human rights and ethics. Those are the values, which stoke the fire and await the sacrifice as we dance before our idol. We forgo the wood and fire. Instead, our tools for sacrifice are scalpels, saline and suction. We demean and diminish the worth of life in order to satisfy Molech. We are diligent as a society to substantiate our support of evil in our own minds and to endorse it in the lives of others, promoting it as righteous, upstanding and even virtuous. Molech is exceedingly pleased.
We do not hesitate to reassure ourselves that what we support is honorable. We are deluded into believing we are decent and upright. Our corporate society and culture has concluded that the value of one life takes precedence over another and we get to ordain which one. Some are allotted to die so another has the hope of wholeness? Does our self-aggrandizing altruism and compassion toward the personal desires and concern for the future of others provide rationalization for our young one’s writhing in agony in the arms of a brutal and demanding god? When helpless, defenseless infants plummet into the fire and burn up, do we rejoice because our ends justified our means? Does “choice” now take precedence over life? If the answer is even remotely yes, Molech is pleased.
As we stoke the blaze it is best to be aware that there will be no escape from the fire we ourselves have enthusiastically prepared. The day will surely come, one which is not far off, when those who sacrificed and supported human offerings at the altar of Molech are themselves in danger of being sacrificed. The same code of ethics that justified the killing of blamelessness will extend to justify the killing of all. As we are being hoisted unwillingly into the arms of Molech will we remember the value system that brought us there? Will we cry out in terror as we realize that the sacrificial system we fought so hard to defend, we ourselves have become victim to?
Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed