Praising Margaret Sanger?

This is a strange case. On one hand, maybe some professing Christians at Christianity Today didn't do their homework. But on the other hand, since that magazine has been getting a reputation of becoming liberal, mayhaps there's an agenda at work. The magazine gave praise for Margaret Sanger, founder of the infamous for-mucho-dinero abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. Praise for Sanger is expected from leftists, but not from formerly conservative Christian sources.

The part about not doing their homework comes in because Christianity Today praised her for compassion and wanting to help the poor. Did they bother to find out that she was a proponent of eugenics (gotta keep the unfit from breeding, don'tcha know), supported forced sterilizations, that she was a racist (those clinics are found mostly in black neighborhoods)? For that matter, do leftists know that Sanger was opposed to abortion and infanticide? The "clinics" did not perform abortions until several years after her death, when abortion was becoming legal.

Much of this stems from evolutionary thinking. Racism has always been around, but took a quantum leap forward with "scientific racism" based on Darwinian thinking. Indeed, social Darwinism has been at the root of increased racism, eugenics, and many other evils. (It's interesting that many of those evils are espoused by owlhoots on the left of the political spectrum, but never mind about that now.) Evolutionary thinking is a way of trying to ignore God and deny that he is our creator. (There's a strange dichotomy in the thinking, either we evolved up by ourselves, or that Evolution is a kind of deity that cause evolution to occur.) But God does exist, and he did create everything, including mankind in his image.

Eugenics is a form of playing God. Someone decides that only certain people are fit to live, and others are not allowed to breed. (Hitler the Darwinist took a more direct approach, exterminating people that he thought were unfit.) What human is qualified to make such decisions, and why? Suppose there was a law that said, "All atheists are unfit to breed, because atheists are a blight on humanity because they have inferior reasoning skills, a faulty moral compass, are exceptionally obstreperous on the Web, and have lousy table manners." Would that kind of law be right? No, because God is the creator, and he makes the rules. Eugenics is a philosophy of fools who say in their hearts, "There is no God".

But I digress. Back to Margaret Sanger:

Christianity Today was founded by world-famous evangelist Billy Graham; Planned Parenthood was founded by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. And Christianity Today’s article about Margaret Sanger shows that one of them has departed a long way from the principles of its founder.

Rachel Marie Stone wrote that Margaret Sanger’s promotion of contraceptives stemmed from her compassion for poor women, often forced to bear more children than they could support, wrecking their health and possibly dying through botched abortion.

This image of a compassionate women’s advocate is what is advanced by her ideological heirs, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.

To read the rest, click on "Margaret Sanger and the minority holocaust".