The War on Voting

Using the Department of Justice, friendly governors, and its usual propaganda outlets, the GOP has propagated the myth of voter fraud to purge the rolls of non-Republicans.

One week before the close of voter registration in Kentucky last fall, in an election that culminated with the victory of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear, Johanna Sharrard, a fresh-faced 26-year-old national organizer for the low-income advocacy group ACORN, gathered her canvassers in a run-down Louisville office and told them some good news: "We got 396 people yesterday -- that's really great!" Then she added what could have seemed a jarringly discordant note: "We know it's getting harder to reach people with the cards in this area. It's really important that you guys are not slipping up and turning to filling out your own applications or other fraudulent activity. Just yesterday we had to let another person go because she did not follow protocols." Sharrard continued sternly, "What's important is that we get 15,000 new voters. We're not out there to get 10,000 new voters and 5,000 false applications." Indeed, the voter registration waged by ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) in Kentucky was also an effort to test the group's new system for rooting out any fraud. The organization is readying itself for the challenges to voter participation that the poor and minorities -- and Democrats -- are sure to face in 2008. Sharrard's cautionary tone was a response to the Republican Party's ongoing nationwide campaign to suppress the low-income minority vote by propagating the myth of voter fraud. Using various tactics -- including media smears, bogus lawsuits, restrictive new voting laws and policies, and flimsy prosecutions -- Republican operatives, election officials, and the GOP-controlled Justice Department have limited voting access and gone after voter-registration groups such as ACORN. Which should come as no surprise: In building support for initiatives raising the minimum wage and kindred ballot measures, ACORN has registered, in partnership with Project Vote, 1.6 million largely Democratic-leaning voters since 2004. All told, non-profit groups registered over three million new voters in 2004, about the same time that Republican and Justice Department efforts to publicize ?voter fraud? and limit voting access became more widespread. And attacking ACORN has been a central element of a systematic GOP disenfranchisement agenda to undermine Democratic prospects before each Election Day. Revelations that U.S. attorneys were fired for their failure to successfully prosecute voter fraud have revealed how fictitious the allegations of widespread fraud actually were -- but the allegations haven't gone away. They live on in all the vote-suppressing laws and regulations that will likely affect this year's election, in GOP rhetoric and, most recently, in the arguments presented by champions of Indiana's restrictive voter-identification law in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, progressives have tended to pay more attention to Election Day dirty tricks and to electronic voting machines than to a more systemic threat: the Republican campaign to suppress the votes of low-income, young, and minority voters through restrictive legislation and rulings, all based on the mythic specter of voter fraud. Those relatively transient voters, drawn to the polls this year by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, could find themselves thwarted in November and thereafter by the GOP-driven regime of voting restrictions -- particularly if, as many observers believe, the Court upholds Indiana's restrictive law before it adjourns this June. Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person, according to data compiled by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. As Lorraine Minnite, a Columbia University professor, observed in the Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud, "The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud." In October 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft launched an intensive "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative" that required all U.S. attorney offices to coordinate with local officials in combating voter fraud. Yet even after the Justice Department declared the war against voter fraud a "high priority," only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter. (The Justice Department declined to answer questions about more recent fraud prosecutions.) And despite the anti-immigrant frenzy fueling photo-ID laws, only 14 noncitizens were convicted of illegally voting in federal elections from 2002 through 2005 -- mostly because of their ignorance of election law. Unfortunately, the public hasn't heard just how nonexistent the voter fraud epidemic actually is. While progressives have successfully challenged some of the most restrictive laws in court, they're still playing catch-up when it comes to combating the glib sound bites of voter-fraud alarmists. Republicans and the Bush Justice Department have cloaked their schemes under such noble-sounding concepts as "ballot integrity." The GOP's vote-suppression playbook features everything from phony lawsuits to questionable investigations to authoritative-seeming reports, all with the aim of promoting restrictive laws. These tactics were first perfected in the hotly contested swing state of Missouri. The roots of John Ashcroft's passion on this issue go back to the chaos of Election Day 2000 in St. Louis, when hundreds, if not thousands, of mostly inner-city voters were turned away from polling places because their names were not on voting rolls. The resulting last-minute court battle kept some polling places open for 45 minutes after their scheduled closing time of 7 P.M. Ashcroft, then the Republican U.S. Senate nominee, lost his race to the dead Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan, whose name stayed on the ballot weeks after he died in a plane crash. At an election-night party, an infuriated Republican Sen. Kit Bond pounded the podium and screamed, "This is an outrage!" -- and subsequently charged that Republican losses were due in part to dogs and dead people voting. As one local government official observed, "In St. Louis, 'dogs and dead people' is code for black people [voting fraudulently]." That election night gave birth to the new right-wing voter-fraud movement, while Missouri became a proving ground for the vote-suppression campaigns that later spread to other key states. Missouri's then-Secretary of State Matt Blunt, now governor, launched a trumped-up investigation that concluded that more than 1,000 fraudulent ballots had been cast in an organized scheme. A Justice Department Civil Rights Division investigation, started before Ashcroft shifted the department's priorities, found no fraudulent ballots, however. Instead, it discovered that the St. Louis election board had improperly purged 50,000 voters from the rolls. Nonetheless, the template for smear campaigns, groundless lawsuits, and politicized prosecutions used across the country had been set in Missouri. Key roles were played by many of the same GOP zealots who later made their mark on the national drive to fight voter fraud, among them St. Louis attorney Thor Hearne, the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign election counsel who later launched the GOP front group, the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR). And as early as 2002, the executive director of the Missouri Republican Party pioneered a new dirty trick: publicly "filing" with the Federal Election Commission a 26-page complaint against the state's leading registration group, known as Pro Vote, that charged it with secretly conspiring with Democrats in the Senate race -- but then failing to sign the document so the agency never considered it. The goal of such complaints and allegations was to create a barrage of negative publicity about voter-registration groups and the voter-fraud menace that could pave the way for restrictive laws. In Missouri, the Republicans' cries for a new state photo-ID law began in 2002, before the GOP blitz in most other states. The legislature passed such a bill in early 2006, before it was struck down that September by a Missouri state court as unconstitutional. The GOP in Missouri also turned to prosecutions and lawsuits, most either overblown or groundless. In November 2005, Bradley Schlozman, then the Justice Department's acting civil-rights chief, insisted on filing a lawsuit that accused Missouri's secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, of failing to purge supposedly ineligible voters under federal law. (U.S. Attorney Todd Graves was forced out in March 2006 for having balked at filing the suit.) A federal judge, who found that the Justice Department did not produce any evidence showing fraud justifying the purges, dismissed the lawsuit in April 2007. The department continues to appeal the ruling. The fraud-obsessed Schlozman was then moved into Graves' old post without Senate confirmation, through a loophole in the Patriot Act. In an apparent effort to discredit both Democrats and ACORN, just five days before the tight Senate election in 2006 between incumbent Republican Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill, Schlozman announced, in violation of the department's own standards, the indictment of four former ACORN workers who had been fired by ACORN for filling out false voter-registration forms. The indictments were part of a broader effort to tilt the campaign against Democrats by bashing ACORN and limiting voter access. St. Louis' Republican election director, Scott Leiendecker, sent out a chilling letter shortly before the election to 5,000 mostly African Americans registered by ACORN, asking them to verify to the election board that they were eligible to vote. Leiendecker backed off after he faced the threat of a voting-rights lawsuit and received a warning letter from Secretary of State Carnahan. *** What began in Missouri soon went nationwide. Starting in 2003, the Justice Department's civil-rights division issued a flurry of advisory letters, rulings, and lawsuits under the guise of fighting fraud that appear designed to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. Federal and state courts have struck down some of the laws shaped by policies promoted by the Justice Department, such as strict database-matching laws limiting new voters in Washington state and Florida. Even so, Justice Department-backed secretive purging policies have targeted voter-registration applicants and current voters in several key states: In Ohio in 2006, 303,000 voters were purged in three major urban counties, while the Brennan Center reported that Pennsylvania's rigid database rules, later loosened, had excluded up to 30 percent of eligible registrants. Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin played a major role in state GOP voter "caging" operations (that is, challenging the eligibility of registered voters) in such states as Ohio and Florida. These schemes, Project Vote reports, challenged the right of 77,000 mostly minority voters to cast ballots between 2004 and 2006, under the pretext that non-forwardable letters sent by GOP activists to their addresses were returned as undelivered. Thor Hearne's now-vanished ACVR lobbied for strict voter-ID laws in nine states, according to McClatchy and other news organizations. Voter-ID laws in states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Indiana have, for now, been allowed to stand. All these campaigns have created a kind of GOP vote-suppression playbook that aims to limit voting rights in the states and attack registration groups such as ACORN. In most states where ACORN wages ballot-initiative and voter-registration campaigns, Republican lawyers, officials, and some prosecutors routinely file dubious lawsuits and complaints to generate bad press for the voter-registration drives. The lawsuits seldom if ever succeed, but the bad press they engender creates a climate to pass restrictive voting laws. In New Mexico by the summer of 2004, ACORN's effort to register voters in advance of the closely fought presidential election was a stunning success: The organization registered 35,000 voters, mostly in the Albuquerque area. "Republicans were freaking out," recalls John Boyd, an attorney for the state Democratic Party. Republicans accused ACORN of "manufacturing voters," conflating error-plagued cards with fraud while trumpeting one registration card filled out in the name of a 13-year-old boy. The boy's card became the centerpiece of the lawsuit Rep. Joe Thompson, an Albuquerque Republican, filed in August 2004 demanding that the state government require photo ID for voters registered by ACORN and other nonprofits. The lawsuit claimed that the Republican plaintiffs' votes were "diluted" by supposedly false registrations. Their case fell apart in court, and by September, a judge dismissed the lawsuit. But Republicans were not deterred by their loss in civil court and pressed for a criminal investigation, a probe which U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias started on the same day that the court ruled against the GOP. Iglesias was a true believer in the menace of voter fraud. As one of just two U.S. attorneys in the nation to form such task forces, he was invited to lecture other U.S. attorneys in 2005 as part of the annual Justice Department ballot-integrity conference. Iglesias' efforts weren't enough for Patrick Rogers, the Republican National Lawyers Association point person in the state, who mounted a campaign to pressure Iglesias to bring criminal charges before the election, rather than form a task force. Indeed, even before Iglesias concluded in 2006 that there wasn't enough evidence to indict on voter fraud, major Republicans in the state had started asking the Bush administration for his removal. In early December 2006, Iglesias was one of seven U.S. attorneys whom the Justice Department fired. Today, Iglesias says of voter fraud: "It's like the boogeymen parents use to scare their children. It's very frightening, and it doesn't exist. U.S. attorneys have better things to do with their time than chasing voter-fraud phantoms." But the damage of chasing phantoms proved more substantial. In 2005, the state legislature, with the blessing of its Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, passed legislation that essentially crippled the ability of groups like ACORN to do mass voter registration. In 2006, ACORN had only 10 certified canvassers in the whole state, and registration plunged to 2,000 new applicants from 35,000 two years before, according to ACORN's top New Mexico organizer, Matt Henderson. In Florida in 2004, ACORN's initiative to raise the state's minimum wage looked to be cruising to victory (it won with 71 percent of the vote), and brought in over 200,000 newly registered voters. That led business lobbies and the GOP to find a poster boy for fraud in a fired ACORN employee and ex-con named Mac Stuart, who spun elaborate tales of ACORN squirreling away hundreds of GOP voter applications it gathered but did not turn over to election officials. Republican attorneys filed two lawsuits featuring Stuart's claims. After the election, Stuart ultimately conceded that he made false statements about ACORN. In December 2005, federal judges dismissed both lawsuits. But in the same month, the legislature passed one of the most restrictive voting-registration laws in the country. The new law fined every registration worker $5,000 for any lost application, potentially wiping out the entire budget of the state League of Women Voters if just 14 forms were lost and forcing the group to stop registering voters for the first time in over 70 years. It was not until August 2006 that a federal judge blocked enforcement of the law. However, a slightly revised version passed last year. Responding to the GOP-generated hysteria over voter fraud, criminal investigations were launched in 2004 and 2005 in Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, and Ohio, with ACORN often a target. But by the end of 2005, the investigations ended after finding either no evidence of wrongdoing by ACORN or any pervasive voter fraud. Nationally, only six former ACORN employees were charged with registration fraud or other election-related crimes in the 2004 election, offenses involving fewer than 20 forms. That's out of 1 million new voters registered by ACORN during that cycle. Yet Thor Hearne, among others, took advantage of these assorted investigations and news accounts about fraud to create the fictional appearance of an epidemic, then added some fabrications of his own. Perhaps the wildest ACVR whopper -- seized on by The Wall Street Journal as late as November 2006 -- was the charge that ACORN and an affiliated group were under criminal investigation for "paying crack cocaine for fraudulent registration forms." Actually, the tale originated with the arrest of a Toledo-area man who may have received drugs while working for another volunteer for a now-defunct organization, not ACORN. Without substantiation, ACVR identified Democratic-leaning cities as hotspots for fraud. They were generally the same locations where U.S. attorneys later faced pressure over prosecutions, including Seattle, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. (The one exception to overblown investigations targeting ACORN was the indictment last year by a local Seattle prosecutor, welcomed by ACORN, of seven rogue ex-employees who had fabricated nearly 2,000 registration forms.) The hyped reports, indictments, and hearings had their intended effect after the 2004 elections. Nearly 30 states considered bills to require photo ID or proof of citizenship to register or vote. While most of these measures haven't yet passed, those that have can be severe: An Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register has disenfranchised up to 60 percent of applicants in some counties. Over the past few years, what began as local phony lawsuits and investigations escalated into a concerted drive by the Civil Rights Division to restrict voting. Since 2004, the goal of the state GOP vote-caging initiatives has become official Justice Department policy. The department has also promoted the equivalent of caging by pressuring 16 states and cities to speed up their purging of hundreds of thousands of voters through letters and lawsuits, as first reported by Alternet. Alarmingly, the insubstantiality of the claims of pervasive voter fraud may not deter the U.S. Supreme Court from upholding Indiana's restrictive voter-ID law -- which, according to a new University of Washington study, could disenfranchise the more than 20 percent of the state's African American voters who lack the ID required by Indiana's law. Amazingly, Indiana has admitted that there hasn't been a single alleged case of in-person voter fraud in the state's history. Instead, Indiana's attorneys and legal allies, including the federal government, have submitted virtually nothing but unverified newspaper clippings and right-wing claims about fraud allegations in other states. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in a little-noticed comment in an earlier ruling on Arizona's ID law, has already granted government the leeway to enact laws denying the vote based merely on fears of fraud, regardless of evidence. But outside of the world of voting experts, little attention has been paid to the lack of evidence in the federal court rulings leading up to the Indiana case. As Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center observes, "The way this case has been decided so far [in lower courts] is that a state doesn't have to justify measures to suppress the vote." The Supreme Court is expected to issue its Indiana ruling in the next few months, and it's considered unlikely that the Court will strike down the law. *** These days, weakened by the publicity over the U.S. attorneys scandal, the savvier voter-fraud propagandists are shifting their now-discredited arguments about massive voting by illegal immigrants to yet another "menace": "double voting." Republicans and some newspapers point to lists of the same names in different states to claim there has been large-scale double voting. Yet such sweeping double-voting claims are almost always due to administrative errors and the statistical probability that people with the same name and birth date will show up in large pools of voters. Regardless of the facts, the drive for new voter-ID restrictions will likely be strengthened in the wake of the upcoming Supreme Court decision. There's little sign that progressives or Democrats are going to launch what the Brennan Center's Deborah Goldberg has called the "huge public education effort" needed to raise awareness about the problems with voter-ID laws. Democrats seemingly haven't yet grasped the political importance of fighting these restrictive policies, though they could prove a major impediment to minority voting (and if minorities voted at the same rate as whites, there would be 7.5 million more voters on Election Day). But Johanna Sharrard and other ACORN leaders aren't going to be deterred by Republican obstacles and smears as they gear up for new registration drives this year that could be their most successful yet. Sharrard's campaign in Kentucky last year brought in over 14,000 new voters, a state record. And after seeing all the attacks against ACORN in Missouri and elsewhere, she realizes, "It's a good motivator; it showed us that that things we were doing are important." It's an open question, though, whether progressives will realize that it's worth fighting to make sure that the voters ACORN is trying to reach will actually have their votes count. Research assistance for this article was provided bvy the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute.
Art Levine is a contributing editor of U.S. News and World Report and of The Washington Monthly and has written for The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, and many other publications.

By Liza Porteus Viana
Oct 17th 2008 5:52PM

Barack Obama's campaign fought back hard today against the ongoing accusations that the Illinois senator is connected to voter fraud.

Obama general counsel Robert Bauer wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking that a special prosecutor look into what role, if any, Justice Department and White House officials have had in supporting the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee's "systematic development and dissemination of unsupported, spurious allegations of vote fraud."

The Republican White House ticket has been hammering Obama on his connection to ACORN, a voter-registration group being investigated by the FBI for voter fraud.

The special prosecutor on the case is Nora Dannehy, the same one investigating the removal of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration.

Obama's camp says the same exact type of improper behavior that led to the firing of some of those U.S. attorneys several years ago - removals based on "improper political factors, including to affect the way they handled certain voter fraud or public corruption investigations and prosecutions" in 2006 - is being acted out now by Republican Party officials around the country.

"It has become clear, in these remaining weeks of the Presidential campaign, that 'the fact and law require' the Special Prosecutor's urgent attention to recent partisan Republican activities throughout the country," Bauer writes. "These activities seek both to suppress the vote and to unduly influence investigations and prosecutions through baseless allegations of vote fraud - exactly as in the 2006 election cycle."

Some of those activities cited included GOP claims of "fraud" by John McCain and Sarah Palin surrounding ACORN, and Republican lawmakers calling on the DOJ to launch an investigation into "these manufactured allegations of 'fraud'" involving ACORN. Bauer said those McCain-Pain surrogates who have sent such letters include: Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, John Cornyn of Texas, and Reps. Roy Blunt of Missouri and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

"Of course, the timing of the opening of this investigation and leaking of this information is damning, 19 days before the general election - and less than 24 hours after the Republican Presidential nominee announced the advent of fraud so pervasive that it threatened the very 'fabric of democracy,'" Bauer writes.

But the McCain-Palin attack against ACORN marches on.

Palin today said Obama hasn't been forthcoming about his ties to the Association of Community Activists for Reform Now, even though Obama has said he doesn't have any significant links to the group.

"You deserve to know," Palin told thousands surrounding her stage in a suburban community park in Ohio. "This group needs to learn that you here in Ohio won't let them turn the Buckeye State into the Acorn State."

In a press call today, Bauer said ACORN is not "an agent of this campaign, they did not perform registration services for this campaign."

McCain-Palin campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters Friday that he sent a letter to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, encouraging them to join a group called "The Honest and Open Election Committee" organized by the McCain campaign.

"We've gotten little to no response back from the Obama campaign on this issue," Davis said, adding that you can't just "blow off" these allegations as a "cynical ploy to reduce voter turnout," "like David Plouffe did."

The ACORN allegations are "not anything less than disturbing," Davis added.

To add to the ACORN debacle, AP reports that the group has another nasty issue on its agenda when its board of directors meets in New Orleans this weekend: missing money.

ACORN leaders are locked in a legal dispute stemming from allegations that the brother of the group's founder misappropriated nearly $1 million of the nonprofit's money several years ago. The embezzlement case has spawned a lawsuit and set off a power struggle inside ACORN.

Bertha Lewis, ACORN's interim chief organizer, called the lawsuit "a distraction from us marshaling our forces to deal with the Republican right-wing attacks" over ACORN's voter registration.



This all came on the heels of the High court rejecting the GOP in Ohio voting dispute.
Republicans had won an order that the state do more to check eligibility but were overturned by the USSC.

Iglesias: "I'm Astounded" By DOJ's ACORN Probe

By Zachary Roth - October 16, 2008, 6:50PM

David Iglesias says he's shocked by the news, leaked today to the Associated Press, that the FBI is pursuing a voter-fraud investigation into ACORN just weeks before the election.
"I'm astounded that this issue is being trotted out again," Iglesias told TPMmuckraker. "Based on what I saw in 2004 and 2006, it's a scare tactic." In 2006, Iglesias was fired as U.S. attorney thanks partly to his reluctance to pursue voter-fraud cases as aggressively as DOJ wanted -- one of several U.S. attorneys fired for inappropriate political reasons, according to a recently released report by DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Iglesias, who has been the most outspoken of the fired U.S. attorneys, went on to say that the FBI's investigation seemed designed to inappropriately create a "boogeyman" out of voter fraud.
And he added that it "stands to reason" that the investigation was launched in response to GOP complaints. In recent weeks, national Republican figures -- including John McCain at last night's debate -- have sought to make an issue out of ACORN's voter-registration activities.
As we noted earlier, last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein publicly highlighted changes made to DOJ's election crimes manual, which lowered the bar for voter-fraud prosecutions, and made it easier to bring vote-fraud cases close to the election.
Speaking today to TPMmuckraker, Iglesias called such changes "extremely problematic."
The way in which the news was revealed today -- Associated Press sourced its report to two "senior law enforcement officials" who "spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election" -- is also raising eyebrows.
Both Iglesias and Bud Cummins -- another of the U.S. attorneys who, according to the IG report, was also fired for political reasons -- told TPMmuckraker that DOJ guidelines do allow US attorneys to speak publicly about an investigation, even before bringing an indictment, if it's to allay public concern over an issue.
But that certainly wouldn't cover anonymous leaks. "If you can't say it with your name on it, it's fair to say you should not be saying it," Cummins told TPMmuckraker.
Earlier this afternoon, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI) released a letter he sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI director Robert Mueller, which connected today's news to the U.S. attorney firings, and to recent GOP efforts to stoke fears over voter fraud.

My Priorites for the 2008 Election

I recently read an article by Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine entitled "My Personal 'Faith Priorities' for this Election". I agree with his priorities as listed which are as follows.

"I am in no position to tell anyone what is "non-negotiable," and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the "faith priorities" and values I will be voting on this year:

1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.



2. From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having "their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid," as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.



3. "Choosing life" is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side.



4. God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.



5. Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to "welcome the stranger."



6. Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a "countercultural activity" in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.

That is my list of personal "faith priorities" for the election year of 2008, but they are not "non-negotiables" for anyone else. It’s time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing."

Ron Paul, The Only Candidate My Conscience Would Have Allowed Me To Vote For, On Abortion

Ron Paul on Abortion

Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

Abortion is murder

A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a parasite.but the same argument justifies infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the womb.newborns require even more attention & care.

People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60 Apr 1, 2008

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 Apr 1, 2008

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I'm a real stickler for civil liberties. It's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, 'oh why are you saying that?' and I say, 'well, that's not a political statement -- that's a scientific statement that I'm making!"

I know we're all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn't go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation. Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to reversing prior court decision where activist judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos

Q: Our children were adopted as embryos. They were snowflake babies, which means that for the first part of their lives, they were frozen embryos. Can you look at them now and honestly tell me that it would be OK with you if someone used them in medical experiments and snuffed out their little lives? Is that your position?

• HUCKABEE: No.
• TANCREDO: No.
• COX: No.
• BROWNBACK: No.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: No.
• KEYES: No.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they will neither "perform nor actively promote abortion." Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy to organizations within the US?

HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q: It's the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It's an American law.

BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan' policy that we wouldn't use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: It's actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.

Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:

• Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
• Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
• Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

• Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
• Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
• Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
• Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
• Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy. Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them. Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures. Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt. Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk. Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life.

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC14 on Dec 8, 2000

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Paul scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

Paul scores 56% by the NRLC on abortion issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

• 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
• 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)

About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for policy papers on Abortion. Click here for a profile of Ron Paul. Click here for Ron Paul on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Ron Paul. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Abortion or about Ron Paul in The Forum.
Other candidates on Abortion:	Ron Paul on other issues:
Frontrunners: GOP: Sen.John McCain Democrat: Sen.Hillary Clinton Democrat: Sen.Barack Obama GOP V.P. Possibilities: Gov.Haley Barbour(MS) Gov.Charlie Crist(FL) Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC) Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR) Sen.Joe Lieberman(CT) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Gov.Mark Sanford(SC) Third Parties: Constitution: Chuck Baldwin Libertarian: Rep.Bob Barr Libertarian: Sen.Mike Gravel Constitution: Amb.Alan Keyes Liberation: Gloria La Riva Green: Rep.Cynthia McKinney Socialist: Brian Moore Independent: Ralph Nader Libertarian: Rep.Ron Paul	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

Doers of the Word

Images of Christ

Doers of the Word

August 3

James 1:17–27

Lesson Aims

After participating in this lesson, each student will be able to:

1. Summarize James’s teaching on hearing and doing and on making one’s religion real.

2. Explain how God’s Word should lead to active discipleship.

3. Make a plan to correct one area of life in which he or she needs to move from being a mere hearer to being a doer.

Key Verse: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.—James 1:22

Intro: James, the author of today’s Bible text, undoubtedly thought that Bible study, fellowship, etc., were good things. But his issue was that of ensuring that Bible knowledge was put into practice. His concern was for knowing the Word of God in a way that would enable a Christian to do the will of God. And being a doer goes far beyond pleasant fellowship with other Christians. Sometimes I have heard people say of church on Sunday morning, “I think of church as a filling station. I come here empty, and during the service I get filled so I can make it through he week.” The problem with this approach is that this is passive, receptive, not active. It makes church into a place where we come, sit back and say, “OK preacher, ok songleader and prayer leaders- do it to me, fill me up.”
However, the test for good worship, the mark of a good church is not what we do here, during the hours of worship and Bible class; it’s what we do outside those doors for the rest of the week. Yet here, as elsewhere, after all is said and done, more is said than done.
The world is quite right in judging the truth of the gospel on the basis of the sort of lives the gospel is able to produce. Do we really look like the God whom we praise here on Sunday morning? Have our songs and prayers changed us, made us into that which we profess? That is the test, says James.

Lesson Background

The epistle of James was written by James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19; 2:9). James did not believe Jesus to be the Christ until after Jesus’ resurrection (John 7:5; 1 Corinthians 15:7). James was present with those gathered just before the Day of

Pentecost (Acts 1:14). By the time of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James had emerged as one of the principal leaders of the church. James was noteworthy enough for the historian Josephus to record his murder, which happened in about ad 62.

The epistle of James is his only work in the New Testament. Unlike books from Paul, which often are concerned about the place of Gentiles in the church, James writes primarily to Jewish Christians. They were in a tough situation (James 1:1–3). Some even had fled Jerusalem following the persecution by Herod Agrippa that occurred in the time period of Stephen’s stoning and the execution of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 11:19–12:2).

AMPLIFIED VERSION James 1:17-27

In the verses preceding those for this lesson (James 1:1–16), James challenges believers to have the kind of mature faith that can stand up to life’s disasters and disappointments. He seems worried about their eternal future. He is concerned that many Christians believe—wrongly—that God is tempting them when the opposite is true (1:13). God wants all believers to succeed! In fact, rather than throwing hazards at us, he continually strews our paths with gifts to encourage us as we go.

17 Every good gift and every perfect (^[a]free, large, full) gift is from above; it comes down from the Father of all [that gives] light, in [the shining of] Whom there can be no variation [rising or setting] or shadow cast by His turning [as in an eclipse].
18 And it was of His own [free] will that He gave us birth [as sons] by [His] Word of Truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself].
19 Understand [this], my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear [a ready listener], slow to speak, slow to take offense and to get angry.
20 For man's anger does not promote the righteousness God [wishes and requires].
21 So get rid of all uncleanness and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the Word [obey the message], and not merely listeners to it, betraying yourselves [into deception by reasoning contrary to the Truth].
23 For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;
24 For he thoughtfully observes himself, and then goes off and promptly forgets what he was like.
25 But he who looks carefully into the faultless law, the [law] of liberty, and is faithful to it and perseveres in looking into it, being not a heedless listener who forgets but an active doer [who obeys], he shall be blessed in his doing (his life of obedience).
26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren).
27 External ^[b]religious worship [^[c]religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

I. Gifts from God (James 1:17, 18)

A. The Best Gifts (v. 17)

17 Every good gift and every perfect (^[a]free, large, full) gift is from above; it comes down from the Father of all [that gives] light, in [the shining of ] Whom there can be no variation [rising or setting] or shadow cast by His turning [as in an eclipse].

James describes God in three ways: as the one from above, as the Father of the heavenly lights, and as the one who does not change like shifting shadows.

God’s character is like a sun that never sets and that has nothing to block its light. With God, it is always high noon. With this correct understanding of God, it is easy to grasp the idea that he wants only the best for us in life.

What Do You Think? Every good thing is from God! Given this fact, what should you thank him for at this very moment?

James used images of lights and shadows to make his point: with God there is no change. We sinful mortals shift constantly—in our morals, our actions, our priorities, our physical locations, and our attitudes. It is convenient—even vital—to have a point of reference that never changes.

B. The Eternal Gift (v. 18)

18 And it was of His own [free] will that He gave us birth [as sons] by [His] Word of Truth, so that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself].

As in verse 17 above, this verse first draws on creation ideas from Genesis. The creation of humankind by God’s word is implied as the absolute best result of all his creation activities.

This passage uses its language as a stepping-stone to talk about God’s perfect gift: the word of truth. This word gives birth to life of a different order: eternal life.

This birth takes place at the spiritual level and is propelled by a specific word, the message of the gospel. Christians are the firstfruits of humanity. This is apparent because (1) the we and us refer to believers, (2) becoming a Christian is commonly referred to as birth in the New Testament (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3), and (3) word of truth refers to the gospel (see also Ephesians 1:13).

II. Lessons from a Proverb (James 1:19–27)

A. 19 Understand [this], my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear [a ready listener], slow to speak, slow to take offense and to get angry.

Proverbs are carefully crafted, memorable sayings. This one not only provides a keen perception about the relationship between listening and outbursts of anger, it also provides the framework for the immediate verses that follow. Verses 20, 21 expand on the third part of the proverb, verses 22–25 on the first, and verse 26 on the second. Not only that, The three parts of verse 19 introduce the broad concerns of the entire book of James: correctly hearing the word (chapter 2), the difficulty of controlling the tongue (chapter 3), and the damaging effect angry speech has on the church (chapter 4).

The primary observation of this proverb is that careful attention to what someone else is saying is the gateway to disciplining one’s own talk. Then disciplining one’s own talk leads to breaking the bad habit of angry, uncontrolled, emotion-laden outbursts. Though every human being occasionally speaks like this, control of this human weakness is a virtue.

Controlling the tongue or in today’s language “watching your mouth” is rather obviously a major concern in the Bible- (The Word of God)- great admonitions are given throughout the Bible about “watching your mouth” and great blessings are promised for those that are meek, humble and self controlled in speech.

How would you explain this principle to another person- for instance someone you were “witnessing’ to?

The best explanation I can find to this occurs in Luke chapter 6:

A Tree and Its Fruit

43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

So, according to Jesus, it’s very simple really- what is stored in your heart is what tends to come out of your mouth…. If you cannot control your mouth then you are lacking in humility and lacking in real, mature faith in God… we’ll get to more about the connection between humility and faith a little later.

Sometimes the ways that we defy God’s word and are NOT quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to take offense and get angry are easily overlooked. I find this especially true in today’s socio-political milieu. If you don’t think so- go to your place of work tomorrow and start up a conversation about who should be the next president or what should be done about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how to bring about a lasting peace in the Mideast, abortion, gay rights, gas prices, the environment, school prayer, taxes, race or whatever the issue of the day is- and then try to be humble and meek especially when you start drawing fire. The lesson plan has a good example of how insidious and easy it is to defy the teaching to be a good, even tempered listener instead of a brash, self righteous motormouth, listen:

Rash Speech

When I was a freshman in college, I had not yet learned some of the subtleties of interpersonal communication. On one occasion I asked a fellow student a question about a rather controversial situation. When she began to explain her view on the issue, I immediately realized her opinion was different from mine. So I jumped in, arguing with her. She let me rattle on for a couple of minutes, then she softly observed, “I thought you were asking for my opinion; I didn’t realize you just wanted to argue.”

I was abashed, but she was right. It was obvious I really didn’t care for her opinion; I just wanted to present my own and argue against hers. I learned over the process of time that she was a thoughtful person, quite bright about a lot of things. But at the time I was a presumptuous freshman, more interested in arguing than in intelligent discussion.

Does that seem familiar to any of you? Do you ever find yourself really just waiting for your turn to talk rather than really listening? Is this a matter of etiquette or do you actually care what the other person thinks?

When we are listening to others, what should we be listening for?

B. Controlling Anger (vv. 20, 21)

20 For man's anger does not promote the righteousness God [wishes and requires].

The word anger in other contexts can refer to the emotional feelings people have when they are upset. But here it represents the unregulated, hurtful words people shout at others when they are angry. This type of behavior is unacceptable to God. Angry words that aim to do harm are always wrong. They are vindictive. However, the emotion of anger itself is in many ways a natural, human way of coping with stressful, unfair things that happen to us in our lives. God himself gets angry (see Zechariah 10:3; Mark 3:5).

The human virtue that is crucial to pleasing God is control. How a person deals with his or her anger is the difference between righteous and unrighteous character. A person can use anger as the impetus to solving problems in productive ways. Mean-spirited, emotional outbursts are not helpful to these ends and are therefore displeasing to God.

What Do You Think?

What situations present the greatest danger for you to speak out inappropriately? What tips have you found helpful for keeping your tongue in check?

21 So get rid of all uncleanness ( filth) and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.

An uncontrolled display of angry words is only one of many unrighteous—and therefore unacceptable—things that people do Rather than continue to allow unrighteous behavior (such as angry speech) to dominate our behavior, we are to cultivate the word we were given when we believed. That precious gift is the word of truth (1:18, above), the gospel.

To be humble or meek means to accept what God ordains or commands and to seek help and or guidance from Him rather than trusting in one’s own intelligence or abilities. This does not mean a passive tolerance of injustice (especially towards others), but a reliance on God for vindication and a refusal to retaliate when insulted. The humble and/or meek person is convinced that God’s ways are good, so he neither disputes nor resists what God sends. The humble person does not have a low opinion of themselves- they are not occupied with self at all. Because they trust God’s goodness and control over situations, the meek person does not have to worry about their self interests or about self preservation or self improvement. Jesus’ meekness did not conflict with his courage, his concern for justice or his confidence that through his unity with God that he was competent to do his job.

What Do You Think?

How can an attitude of humility help keep our tempers in check?

Humility, easily overlooked in verse 21, is a key component for generating the kind of Christian lives that James demands. Certainly, its opposite (namely, arrogance) cannot be present when a person first accepts the gospel, repents of sin, and fully relies on the graciousness of God. Arrogance also impedes the growth of that gospel seed implanted in our lives. Full reliance on God for strength to overcome our unrighteous character is the only way we can become the excellent kind of people God desires. Clearly, the believers James writes to have accepted the implanted word, but they have dampened its growth by their pride. This stands as a warning to us not to do the same.

Matthew 11:29, 30 says “29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”-…

…but, it sure doesn’t seem so easy to control our emotions our tongue does it? Why do you think that is/? I have an answer for that…

A lot of it is cultural… we live in a culture that glorifies individualism, tough, brutal pragmatism… our heroes are not the meek and/or humble … they are people like Rambo, Batman, Clint Eastwood in his tough guy roles, the celebrities with the most bling, the slickest politicians, the “tell it like it is” news commentators that will let people have it and tell them to shut their mouths when they feel its necessary, The gladiators, the guys with the biggest guns and/or the hardest boiled attitudes… all this is the culture of the World, not the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about… the World’s value system is based on domination… Look, all this is something that is not just sort of spiritually problematic… The teachings of Christ and the new Testament authors show clearly that this Worldly value system is a SOUL CRUSHING DISEASE.

C. Hearing God’s Word (vv. 22–25)

22 But be doers of the Word [obey the message], and not merely listeners to it, betraying yourselves [into deception by reasoning contrary to the Truth].

The interest now turns to spiritual matters. The word mentioned here is still the “word of truth,” the gospel planted by God as the eternal gift taking root in the lives of believers.

As most evident in children, there is a big difference between merely hearing and really listening. Poor listening (in terms of “in one ear and out the other”) decreases our ability to perform well. Yet we are to be excellent listeners, focusing intently on what God is saying to us through his gospel, which is now a permanent part of our lives. If we listen well, we will perform well. Our lives will demonstrate the righteous character that pleases God. We will do what the word says (compare Matthew 7:26).

What Do You Think?

Have you ever listened to a sermon and thought to yourself, “This is exactly what so-and-so needs to hear”? How can we focus on letting God’s Word affect us personally rather than worrying about others?

23 For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;
24 For he thoughtfully observes himself, and then goes off and promptly forgets what he was like.

What will happen if we refuse to listen attentively to the word? Suppose that one morning we look at the face in the mirror and we don’t recognize ourselves. We ask, “Is that really me?” What a frightening thought! Something would be terribly wrong if this were to happen. After all, this is our very own face.

Someone who uses a mirror then immediately forgets what he looks like won’t recognize himself the next time he uses a mirror. In this case, previously known flaws would go ungroomed.

Luke chapter 6 drives the same point home in another way with a different analogy

The Wise and Foolish Builders

46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete

Q: How can you avoid forgetting what God’s Word tells you about yourself and what you should do?

25 But he who looks carefully into the faultless law, the [law] of liberty, and is faithful to it and perseveres in looking into it, being not a heedless listener who forgets but an active doer [who obeys], he shall be blessed in his doing (his life of obedience).

Laws are supposed to be enforceable rules intended to curtail criminal behavior so law-abiding citizens are free from the fear of criminals. Good idea, but whose law is perfect? Not any in human society.

The law at issue here is described as perfect and as giving freedom. It is that part of the word of truth that God has planted in believers. It is perfect because it is the eternal gift of God (1:17). It provides freedom because it is not like any normal human law. Rather than an external rule to enforce behavior by punishment, this law (or word) changes people at their core, releasing them to live out God’s desires because enacting his word comes naturally. It is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” This law is best represented by “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19). This is a positive principle for determining what God’s desire is from one situation to the next. James probably has this in mind because he refers to it in James 2:8 as the royal law. It is the key law instituted by Jesus for the kingdom of God.

D. Controlling Speech (v. 26)

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren).

This verse deepens the importance of the second part of the proverb of James 1:19. The matter of the control of the tongue is underlined in dire, spiritual terms. James draws a straight line that connects this virtue of speech control to the genuineness of one’s religious experience, and then to the validity of the religion one claims to be true.

James believes at the very least that any religion worth anything should make its devotees better people in ways that others can observe. As applied to Christianity, the communication of its truth to others is utterly dependent on the way Christians behave. The way we talk is one of the best and easiest ways for people to experience the value of Christianity, not only to them as individuals but also to society at large.

Surprisingly, verse 26 uses the word religious like we would today. For the sake of his argument, James views Christianity as one of many religions that people follow. Of course, Christianity is the only completely true religion, since only it incorporates the full, direct revelation from God in Jesus Christ. However, the concern here is not with defending Christianity in terms of its truth claims. Rather, the issue is helping us know that when we fail to control our speech, we exhibit to the world that Christianity has no power to change people for the better. This is devastating to Christianity. We are to let the implanted word blossom into things like honest, uplifting, and genuine words. Compare Psalm 34:13; 39:1; and 141:3.

E. Practical Application (v. 27)

27 External ^[e]religious worship [^[f]religion as it is expressed in outward acts] that is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father is this: to visit and help and care for the orphans and widows in their affliction and need, and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.

James explicitly extends the observations about the importance of a believer’s controlled speech to general behavior. Not only should a valid religion affect our speech, it should bring about observable improvements in the way we live our lives.

It is probably shocking to the first readers of James that a connection is made to widows and orphans, since they are at the very bottom of life economically and socially.

This verse emphasizes that believers should look after those widows and orphans. This does not imply that merely writing out a check exhibits the behavior that pleases God. Rather, what is at issue is caring enough to be involved personally. This is intended to be an example of many observable behaviors in believers that are the result of the word of truth becoming fruitful in our lives.

What Do You Think?

What keeps us from assisting needy people today? How do we overcome this?

A second example lies in how believers behave generally. Having cleaned up our lives to allow the implanted word to grow, we no longer want to exhibit behavior that looks like our old lives. To keep oneself from being polluted by the world does not imply that we are to retreat somehow from the world, keeping ourselves apart from unbelievers. Rather, it implies that believers are no longer to be influenced by the ideas and priorities that motivate unbelievers. We are to show them what Christianity looks like “in the flesh.” We can’t do that if we don’t associate with them.

Q: What is one aspect of God’s Word you’d like to concentrate on this week?

The gifts we have as Christians of salvation and transformed lives are intended to be used. Their involves allowing Christ’s principle of loving others to transform every thought, every desire, habit, every word, every deed and every attitude of our lives into living examples of God’s love for men and women everywhere.

The issue is now before us, now for the final question: what will we do with that which we have said, sung, and heard?

“Preacher or teacher that was a wonderful sermon,” it is often said by the churchmemeber at the door after the service or after class.
“That remains to be seen,” says the Word.

Thought to Remember- Live out the gift of the gospel in word and deed.