T. Denny Sanford ties knot with California embryonic stem cell researcher

As a Christian with an active spiritual life, both in study and in service, I believe it is important for you to know that I am surprised a man who has chosen God's work as his vocation would use such language as I have recently read in your Voices Carry blog.  Though I will respect that you and I hold different views on abortion, I believe you have a responsibility to show the love of Jesus in your writings, instead of spreading the very judgement He warned us against.  I believe your comments are also judging me as a pro-choice Christian, and I believe that role is held up only for God.  I also am shocked that you would be willing to vilify one individual woman with such language.  Though I do not believe she should be considered an enemy of anyone, especially the many women she works tirelessly to heal everyday, I have been taught that we as Christians are supposed to pray for our enemies and to tame our tongues, in the very manner Jesus taught us by His own example.  I just wanted you to know that it will be my prayer for you to be reminded in your own devotional life and I hope in your actions as well, of the love Jesus has for all of us, and of His greatest commandment to love Him with our everything and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Thanks for writing me and sharing honestly. You are correct in that what I've written crosses the line for what people think should come from a pastor today. Yet that's my point, pastors are too soft and they aren't a prophetic voice to our culture and living human beings are being dismembered in their mothers wombs without anesthesia (they feel pain at 8 weeks). I can make a scriptural case that the spiritual leaders have a sacred obligation to do what I'm doing. There is "a time to love and a time to hate." (Eccl. 3:8) Shocking verse I know. Psalm 45 says we are to "love righteousness and hate wickedness." We are called to hate what God hates. The Bible isn't silent on what God hates- he "hates divorce" (not divorced people to clarify), he hates immorality, and he hates the shedding of innocent blood. Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood.

I've deleted and edited out the references in the post to Dr. Bell and apologize to you and I apologize to Dr. Bell for my point wasn't to attack personally. My intention was for her to represent something and that obviously didn't come across (she has put herself out there as an official representative of that sopmething). I did specify in what I wrote that she was a representation of something else and I also spoke words of blessing to her personally in the post. I even said in the post she's not the enemy. But again she is one of the main voices advocating killing children for any reason and woe to the minister who says nothing. I do apologize for stooping to the level of the anonymous bloggers on the other side - just this week one called the Unruh's "media whores."  Unlike them, I'm not anonymous and I am accountable for what I say and my attempts at using rhethoric and metaphor were ill-fated.

In his day, Dr. Martin Luther King had strong words, piercing prophetic words against those who believed blacks were less than human. I'm in good company then today to speak as I do to those who think the unborn are less than human. Also, in light of the harsh direct words/name calling of some of the Old Testament prophets and also the stinging and labeling words of Jesus and Paul on numerous occasions my words don't seem out of line at all. Jesus called people vipers, blind guides, etc.

You are a Christian and accountable to God as I am. His Word says he know us before we even enter our mothers womb. (Jer. 1) That means life doesn't begin at conception - it begins long before that in the mind of God as he has a dream for each life. How can a Christian be okay dismembering and snuffing out the life of that dream? Talk about unloving. I'd rather offend an adult than see a child hurt. Jesus spoke great judgments against those who harm children. Again, I appreciate your note and will continue to weigh my words carefully so I can stand before God and give account. I will be in prayer for you also. Blessings to you.

Nothing is more "offensive", judgmental, repugnant, and depraved language, than a Christian proudly professing he is a Pro-Abort, active in his spiritual life. WRONG!!! He is a fake and fraud and Christ would take a whip and chase him from the temple! Good grief, be Men with Chest, and stand up to that dribble! Discernment is different than judgment. This guy is a mess. I rather doubt he will be a Pro-Abort forever. He'll have Eternity to decide. Yikes. I rather doubt he would take off the "hood" and expose his face, name and family, along with his parish and friends as the Pro-Abort touting a murder mentality stance. There may be repentance for his eternal life, I can't say. He is clueless. Such apathy of ignorance.
He shows no love of Jesus for the human unborn.
His Pro-Abort status is to be judged by man as a quake is to a duck. A yuk. Period. His heart needs taming. There is Death Thirst and Drink in Pro-Choice, as we know what that means. Does he? Scary.

[…] written on the previously… No kidding… a couple years ago when we were all celebrating the 400 million dollar gift […]

I met Denny personally on a plane to Phoenix just before Christmas. I spoke with him for seven hours through two flights. His love for architecture, and the woman in question, have nothing to do with his intentions as a philanthropist. Show me the words of Denny as you have personally heard them, and then see what you say of him. He is fallible as any of us, as a man, and I don't quite agree with how he made his millions, but I do agree with his outlook, and his attitude, and his intentions as I saw them. He has become a great man trying to do great things - and alas, with every great man there are those who shield their jealousy with hateful language and unjustified, misguided conclusions.

I have read that under the new guidelines for embryonic stem cell research signed by President Obama, "guidelines only allow funding for lines derived from excess embryos that have been produced as part of in vitro fertilization." This means that research produced those embryos in test tubes, not inside a woman; these are the ones that are subject to destruction through research. It's something to think about.

On the other hand, instead of being used to save lives, embryos that are allowed to be aborted (as horrific and awful as that is, I agree it's wrong!!) are simply incinerated, when the least they could allow is for those poor unborn children to contribute to saving more lives in the human race. It is a noble death, to die for mankind, even the very mankind that has taken your life, as long as you could save even one other human being that needs you. Nowhere, no place is it allowed for them to use the stem cells from aborted children. Only from in vitro created embryos.

"Is it right?" we ask ourselves. I personally abhor the thought of in vitro fertilization. It scares me that anyone would want to do research to genetically "enhance" their unborn children. But it is being done. And as long as people are out there who want to do it, that are making their voices heard, it will be done. We can't get rid of them all. But we can take this badness and try to make good out of it. We can turn it around to help save people.

Denny (from my talks with him) is going to have a direct role in changing the future of education in America, trying to get children more interested in science. Wouldn't it be great if we all focused our energy on the education system, so more children could be exposed to science and learn other, less harmful ways of finding cures? Shouldn't we take advantage of the opportunity to have met someone like him, that wants to help people, and start talking to him about how we can help America (to stop this research in favor of your method - oh wait, do you have one?), instead of talking about him and doing nothing?

"Hey everybody, look what Denny's doing. Let's make assumptions and tell each other how much of a fake he is and how he wants to kill the children he says he wants to save, even though we don't know him. Let's spread that around." You know what your article says to me? "He's rich and he's not supporting my cause, so I don't like him." I really hope that you think of what I've said — and I hope you also see I've not been malicious to you, and instead would like you to show compassion; for he, like all of us, is a fallible man, trying to do good things.

I was fired from Crazy Horse Memorial for excersising my fundamental rights & freedoms in the Constitution & Bill of Rights. My 21st year gaurding my Lakota People and sacred ways.

School Proposal just need the funding + $100,000.00 for property + $100,000.00 for the school building…..Freedom of the Press and School Newspapers

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
The First Amendment rights of student journalists are not violated when school officials prevent the publication of certain articles in the school newspaper.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press. Before the American Revolution, English authorities often censored the press in order to ensure that articles critical of the government were not widely circulated. The Founders knew that a free press was essential for the promotion of ideas.

The Supreme Court of the United States has been highly critical of any attempt to impose a prior restraint on the press, i.e., prohibiting a paper from publishing a story. The Court has even made it harder for individuals to sue newspapers for libel and slander.

Today, suits involving freedom of the press are still prevalent in the courts. Some prominent issues are: 1) What constitutes "the press" in an age when many people can create their own blog on the Internet? 2) Must reporters reveal their sources when ordered to by legal authorities?

WHAT DOES FREE SPEECH MEAN?
print
share
FAQs
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, e.g., burning the flag in protest.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Aug.3rd I lost our everything for protecting and developing our sacred culture…..Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe.