Wednesday, November 29, 2006

New Evidence Found for Childhood Family Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation

A major study is about to be published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, which provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development.

The following are findings from this new data:
  1. Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships -- particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.
  2. Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."
  3. Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.
  4. Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."
  5. "The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."
  6. "Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."
  7. "Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."
  8. The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual.
  9. Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner -- suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

"Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices," conclude the study's authors, "our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important."

By Linda Ames Nicolosi
Read the rest of this article at the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

Talking Points on World AIDS Day for Christian Parents

This week you and your kids are going to hear a lot about “World AIDS Day,” observed on December 1.

But most of the official coverage will avoid key facts about AIDS. It’s particularly troubling when our children miss the most important news about AIDS, and how this epidemic could be effectively fought.

We know how to do this. It’s just that the secular gatekeepers of information are much more interested in acceptance of homosexuality and promiscuous “safe sex” ideas.

Do we really want to reduce the suffering of millions of people? Or do we just want to pose for the cameras? We now have famous preachers like the sadly compromised Rick Warren, who seems to have fallen in love with non-Christian “christians.” Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politician Barack Obama is now one of his chosen companions, invited to speak at Warren’s Saddleback Church.

How sad that Scripture must now be kept in the closet, while deviant sin comes out.

Every parent, therefore, in order to counter the PC school lessons, the false church teachings, and the contrived compassion of youth media like MTV and others, needs to share a few simple facts with any student in their household under the age of 18:

1. The major cause of HIV and AIDS in the U.S. has been and remains male homosexual behavior. The next largest transmission category is intravenous drug use, followed by high-risk heterosexual contact. This last group consists of people who have had sex with anyone who falls into the first two groups. If we eliminated homosexual male sex and intravenous drug use, HIV would be reduced by at least three fourths in this country. Both are unnecessary, chosen behaviors. Schools need to make sure this point is absolutely clear in the minds of every student in health education. Click HERE for CDC statistics.

2. Homosexual sex is absolutely forbidden in the strongest terms in the Bible. The only type of marriage endorsed is the union of one man and one woman. Here are the relevant passages:

  • Genesis, chapters 18 and 19 (chapter 18 is helpful for a broader context)
  • Leviticus 18: 22 and 20: 13
  • Deuteronomy 23: 17
  • 1 Kings 15:12
  • Matthew 19:3-9
  • Romans 1: 18-32
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
  • 1 Thessalonians 4: 3-8
  • 2 Peter 2 (whole chapter)
  • Jude 7-8
  • Revelation 22:15

Pastors and churches who say accepting “gays and lesbians” is part of “loving your neighbor” or that one can be a proud open homosexual and still be Christian, have seriously distorted the teachings of Christianity. This is deliberate rebellion against God’s word and His created order of male/female genders and marriage. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is an affront to God, and that anyone — I don’t care how famous — who is teaching this, is broadcasting his/her rebellion. Can such a person be a genuine believer, while spreading false teachings and encouraging rebellion in others?

And then, to lead people into a behavior that may infect them for life with an often fatal disease — it’s heartless, not compassionate.

3. In Africa, one of the leading causes of AIDS is high risk heterosexual sex. Several countries, Uganda and Kenya, have seen considerable success in reducing HIV by teaching their youth to practice abstinence until marriage. Uganda’s program reduced HIV rates from 15 % to under 7%. However, many of the global AIDS programs are highly critical of Uganda’s success. Why?

This is a good question. Why are the U.N. and other AIDS programs not following the Uganda model? The reason goes to the heart of many global philosophies that are blatantly anti-Christian. One pillar of international AIDS efforts is that non-married sexual practices, including homosexuality, must be accepted, and made somehow “safer” using condoms. Not only has this method failed to reduce AIDS, it’s totally an affront to Christians, and no Christian, especially no pastor, should sign on to such programs.

Attacking AIDS through wide distribution of condoms is a complete failure. Do we want to keep promoting sex, or do we want to save lives? Or do some influential people have financial ties to the condom and contraceptivemanufacturers? Is this an example of corruption and big business at work in exploiting poor Third World people?

These are great questions to ask in a classroom setting. Do a report on Uganda, and make sure you get all the facts by consulting sources other than the U.N. and its agencies.

4. If homosexual sex is a leading cause of HIV in the U.S., doesn’t it make sense to teach people to not engage in these acts? Perhaps “gay” social establishments should close until the HIV rates are severely reduced. And no students should be encouraged to enter homosexuality through “gay” clubs or tolerance lessons.

If we are serious about reducing AIDS — if we really care about people more than certain special viewpoints — we will do the right thing. And as Christians, if we really want to be faithful to our Lord, we must reject these corrupt ideas and try where we can to do something that will really
save lives and bring people to know Him.

by Linda Harvey at Mission America

Catholic Church to Drop Schools, Charities, and Adoption Agencies if Forced to Accept Homosexuality

By Gudrun Schultz

ENGLAND, United Kingdom, November 28, 2006 - Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols has issued a strong warning to the Government over new pro-homosexual legislation, saying the Catholic Church will no longer cooperate with the government on schools, charity programs and adoption agencies if the government attempts to force the Church to accept homosexuality.

Archbishop Nichols said the government was "engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework", taking on a role it has “no mandate or competence” to carry out, The Evening Standard reported earlier today.

“[T]hose who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors,” Archbishop Nichols said.

“Take the notion of the family and the moral equivalence being forced upon us between marriage of a man and a woman, on the one hand, and on the other, a legally recognised partnership of two people of the same sex.”

Speaking in a sermon in St. Chad’s Cathedral, Archbishop Nichols said, "The Government must realise that it is not possible to seek co-operation with us while at the same time trying to impose upon us conditions which contradict our moral values.”


If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." -Daniel 3:16-17

NY Times Caught in Another Whopper...

November 27, 2006 By John-Henry Westen

On April 9, New York Times reporter Jack Hitt produced what may be called a 'hit piece' against the pro-life movement in El Salvador. The piece, laden with scare tactics, culminates in his tale of woe of a woman who he says had an illegal abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The only problem with the story is that the woman was found guilty of strangling her full-term baby shortly after her birth.

Writing in an editorial in one of the largest papers in El Salvador, Julia Cardenal, who was interviewed for the New York Times Hitt piece, excoriates the Times for false reporting. Referring to Hitt, Cardenal asks what the intention was of the NYT piece. "To cause indignation in the United States so that they will pressure us to legalize abortion?," she asks rhetorically.


You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. John 8:44

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Nativity Booted from Christmas Festival

CHICAGO (AP) - A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says. Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

New Line Cinema, which said it was dropped, had planned to play a loop of the new film on televisions at the event. The decision had both the studio and a prominent Christian group shaking their heads.

"The last time I checked, the first six letters of Christmas still spell out Christ," said Paul Braoudakis, spokesman for the Barrington, Ill.-based Willow Creek Association, a group of more than 11,000 churches of various denominations. "It's tantamount to celebrating Lincoln's birthday without talking about Abraham Lincoln."

Read more at My Way News

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Sponsors Gay Movie Featuring Homosexual 11 Year-Old

Homosexual behavior for children gets an endorsement from the Toronto Maple Leafs. Leafs general manager John Ferguson says “we're comfortable with it.”

TORONTO, November 24, 2006 ( - The Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team announced today that they have lent the team's name and logo to a film depicting a homosexual Leafs player. The film portrays a Leafs player who wants to "come out" as a public homosexual, his live-in partnership with the team's lawyer and their adopted "son," described as "a budding queen of an 11-year-old boy."

The film is based on the book of the same title about an 11 year-old boy who is described in an book review as "mincing" and "swishy," and who has to be prevented from wearing pantyhose, eyeliner and perfume to school.

"Breakfast with Scott", now being shot on location in Toronto and Hamilton, will go ahead with the willing cooperation of the team's management. The Toronto Star reports that actor Tom Cavanaugh who depicts the fictional player, Eric McNally, was "shocked" that the Leafs management agreed to allow the team to be depicted in a homosexual propaganda film.

Cavanaugh remarked to the Star on the significance of using the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team, one of the icons of Canadian culture as the background for a story about open homosexuals and endorsing child homosexuality. "There's something instant to the viewer when you put on a Leafs jersey or any Original Six jersey."

Olympic swim champion Mark Tewksbury, a board member of the Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation, said, "I think it's really great that (the team management) are supporting it. I know it's an iconic team, but I think it makes sense this is happening in Canada because we've been far ahead on these issues."

As a work of homosexual propaganda, the film is clearly meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians. In the book, the homosexual couple live in Cambridge, Massachusetts and are a chiropractor and magazine editor; hockey does not figure at all.

Publishers Weekly praises the book's value as a pro-homosexual propaganda tool calling it a "heartwarming" and "noble" depiction of a "new configuration of contemporary American family values."

Publisher's Weekly review said, "Scot's flamboyant, androgynous flair makes for some school yard and neighborhood crises, but the boy's innate sweetness and open-mindedness endear him to several youngsters and most adults."

The homosexualist ideology asserts that the condition is natural and unchangeable and therefore that children can be born with it and have it be part of their normal sexual development. The depiction of an eleven year-old boy as a homosexual might be more than audiences are willing to accept.

Leafs management, however, seemed sanguine. General manager John Ferguson told the Star, "On our end, we're certainly not trying to make a statement. ... We agreed to host them and we're comfortable with it."

To respectfully contact the Leafs with concerns:
Richard Peddie,
President of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment

Whether this is ignorance or indifference to the incredible spiritual and physical destructiveness of anal intercourse, it is despicable to normalize it to children...
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Matt 18:6

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow "Anal Intercourse" with 14-Year-Olds

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, November 22, 2006 ( - In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for "anal intercourse" in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.

On Monday, the Liberal Party of Canada made available the text of the policy resolutions put forth by the Party's Provincial and Territorial Associations, commissions, and National Caucus. The policy resolutions are to be debated and voted upon at the Liberal Leadership and Biennial Convention to be held from November 28 to December 2, 2006, in Montréal.

While still resolutions, the policies which have made it into the book have already been carefully considered by party faithful. "The policy resolutions represent the culmination of a nine-month grassroots policy process that began at the riding level and has worked its way up to the national Convention," says a release on the resolutions.

Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the "riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS" (see coverage: )

Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity." The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.

Resolution no. 46 calls for a review of the criminal code on prostitution with a view to legalizing the exploitive practice.

Another resolution seeks to make permanent 'safe houses' in major citiies where heroin addicts can without fear of arrest inject themselves with the deadly drugs. Resolution no. 43 states: "BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada take all steps necessary to establish a National Safe Injection Site program for large cities."

A proposal by the Young Liberals of Canada seeks not only to legalize marijuana, but also to have the criminal records of those convicted of illegal possession since 1923 expunged. Resolution no. 44 reads: BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to legalise and regulate Canada's marijuana industry and trade; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to examine the social consequences of granting amnesty to Canadians convicted of simple marijuana possession since 1923, and destruction of all criminal records related thereto."

See the Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolutions online here:

See related LifeSiteNews reports:
Gay Activists Ask Canada to Lower Age of Consent for Anal Sex, National Post Agrees

Conservative Government Will Raise Age of Sexual Consent

Bill to Raise Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16 Introduced, Gay Activists Opposed

Edinburgh University Bans Christian Club from giving Abstinence Course

EDINBURGH, Scotland, November 22, 2006 ( - University of Edinburgh officials have banned students with the Christian Union from holding a six-week course teaching abstinence on campus grounds.

The University made the decision to ban the program, entitled ‘PURE‘, after some students objected to literature promoting the course, which apparently included stories from people who had been “cured” of homosexuality, the Scotsman reported Sunday.

The course promotes marriage as the best setting for a sexual relationship, encouraging students to abstain from sexual activity until they are ready to get married. Officials said the course promotional material broke the “equality” and “diversity” rules of the University.

According to a university spokeswoman the course was “contradictory to our equality and diversity values” and not appropriate to run on university or Students Association premises.

The Christian Union is considering taking legal action against the university, on the grounds of human rights violations. Laura Stirrat, vice-president of Edinburgh University’s Christian Union, said, “The university is effectively closing down free speech.”

The Union has been forced to teach the course off-campus in a student’s apartment.

Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the decision was “nothing more than blind and unthinking political correctness” on the part of the University.

The director of Share Jesus International, the Rev. Dr. Rob Frost, told Christian Today the University’s ban was not an isolated incident--he said Christian Unions in the UK have been enduring increasing oppression over the past five years.

“If we cannot have Christian organizations run by Christians, and traditional bible believing teaching given on student property, one must ask, ‘What kind of world are we entering?’”

“I commend those who will say political correctness has its place but there are even more vital things at stake here.”

By Gudrun Schultz

To respectfully contact Principal and Vice Chancellor Professor Timothy O‘Shea:

The University of Edinburgh
Old College, South Bridge,
Edinburgh, EH8 9YL

Thoughts from a front row seat…

These are strange times in which we live. What once seemed impossibility in America is becoming altogether likely. We are about to lose our freedom. After all, as a so friend wisely pointed out, true freedom is the freedom to do what is right...

As I read and post the headlines detailing the evidence of true freedom's demise, I often wonder how it must have felt to be one of the few Christians in Germany to recognize the inherent evil and potential for destruction in the rising Nazi Movement. Were these concerned Christians also told, “It’s not polite to talk about religion and politics?”

Did friends gently remark “It’s too depressing and there's nothing I can do about it anyway.”

Did fellow Christians point out that Jesus did not speak out against the government and quote the famous maxim “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church?”

Or perhaps “Evangelism, not activism, is the answer.”

How about “I’ve read the book. We win in the end.” and “It’s in God’s hands.”

I wonder if they don’t realize that the hands that God uses most often are human hands…

With a few notable exceptions, the Church in Germany chose to accommodate evil rather than fight it. Nine to eleven million people were murdered by the Nazis and tens of millions were killed in the bloodiest war in human history. Germany has yet to recover. Germany is a post-Christian society where child porn is mainstream, unemployed women are encouraged to become prostitutes, and home schooling is illegal. Germany is leading the rest of Europe in a race to becoming the first European Muslim nation…

The “blood of the martyrs” planted no church in Germany. 'Martyrdom' requires standing - something the vast majority of German Christians were unwilling to do.

Are we?

Indifference is not a virtue.

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.' Ezekiel 33:6

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Freedom of Doctors to Save Lives Limited in U.K.

The Hippocratic Oath, known by the name of the father of modern medicine who lived from 460 to 380 BC, is regarded as the gold standard of medical ethics.

The original oath said: 'I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing.'

Question: What does it mean when a government law forces a doctor to kill a patient even when the doctor desires and is fully capable of saving the patient's life?

Answer: It means the freedom to practice medicine has been denied the doctor, and the right of citizens to live free from coersion to die has been lost.

Below are excerpts from London's Evening Standard:

Dire warning: Lord Falconer says doctors could face jail for denying right to die
November 17, 2006

The Lord Chancellor has warned doctors they risk going on trial for assault if they refuse to allow patients who have made 'living wills' to die.

Lord Falconer's message to the medical profession told doctors and nurses that new laws will require them to end lives rather than save them.

Those who decline to do so will face jail or, alternatively, big compensation claims in the courts.
Critics say that for this reason the new law amounts to the introduction of euthanasia through the back door.

The warning over damages claims raises the prospect that family or friends of a patient who have a financial interest in their death could sue a doctor who fails to kill them. It also opens the bizarre possibility that a patient who recovers could sue a doctor for not letting them die.

The ministerial guidance on the Mental Capacity Act comes in a week when the influential Nuffield Council on Bioethics recommended that premature babies born at 22 weeks or earlier should not be resuscitated, a suggestion that led to fears that the life-saving efforts of doctors will be bound by inflexible rules.

Now the guidelines on living wills has led, critics said, to the shadow of euthanasia over both ends of life.

The Health Department also made clear in a court case last year that decisions on whether to provide a patient with life-saving treatment - such as provision of artificial nutrition and hydration - can be influenced by the cost of providing treatment.

Academic lawyer Dr Jacqueline Laing of London Metropolitan University said: 'Many people will have filled in advance decision forms in ignorance of their lethal implications and of alternative courses of action. 'The Act inverts good medical practice by criminalizing medical staff who intervene to save the lives of their patients with simple cures and, in certain cases, even food and fluids. Any conscientious opt-out is nullified by the threat of prosecution.'

She added: 'The lethal direction of the Act and the cost-saving implications for the NHS should be obvious.'

Sunday, November 19, 2006

America's universities are "a haven largely freed from religious perspectives"

Liberal elites have proved that liberal elites tend to be void of religion. One study shows that only about 1/3 of U.S. college professors know God exists and have no doubt about it.

Gee, I wonder if liberals will trust the results of the study by the liberal elites.

Below are excerpts from The Dallas Morning News, by Jeffrey Weiss.

The study was done by two sociologists, Neil Gross of Harvard University and Solon Simmons of George Mason University. They contacted 1,471 professors at religious and secular colleges and asked about politics and faith.

The purpose of their report, released on the Internet, was to assess the observation by many religious conservatives that America's universities are "a haven largely freed from religious perspectives."

Among the notable results:

• Almost a third answered "none" when asked their religion -- more than twice the percentage found in the general population.

• Science professors were the least religious. Accounting professors were the most religious.

• More than half the professors at places other than so-called "elite" universities said they absolutely believed in God. About a third of the professors at elite schools took that position. (The study used the U.S. News and World Report rankings to define elite institutions.)

• About 30 percent of community college professors considered intelligent design as a serious scientific alternative. Fewer than 6 percent of professors at elite universities took that position.

Saturday, November 18, 2006


Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Thomas just won a seven million dollar libel suit against the Kane County Chronicle. One of its columnists, Bill Page, alleged Thomas was “out for blood” in a case before the court but that Thomas backed off for political payback.

Juror Ken Sotera said it well: “To have your integrity questioned in front of your family and the world, that was the most important part.” The jury found columns written by Page were false and published with malice. A threatening e-mail from him to the Supreme Court warning of a “nightmare of bad publicity,” added fuel to the fire. You have to know this. Bob Thomas is a committed Christian, admired by those who know him, hated by those who oppose his moral views. And the ability of the press right now to destroy such people is practically unbridled.

This story reminded me of a reporter from a suburban paper who last year threatened Culture Campaign. He began with e-mail, then confronted me personally at a school board meeting over whether using pornographic texts should be required reading. During a break in the meeting, he came up from behind and kicked the empty chair next to me with a glare not usually found on the face of an objective reporter. Apart from a few mild hits in subsequent articles, he failed to deliver, but don’t think lack of evidence will stop some of these people.

After speaking at a Christian celebration of the National Day of Prayer,
Another suburban paper accused me of hate speech, and tried to link my remarks comparing our God to Allah with Senator Peter Roskam. Because of a memo inadvertently published on their web-site in the wee-morning hours, we knew they weren’t happy with the reporter’s original account and instructed him to spice it up. The revised version did more damage to me and to Peter. The paper later endorsed his opponent, Tammy Duckworth.

I wrote a letter to the editor in defense of my remarks but they refused to print it. See how the game is played? Newspapers play loose with the facts, destroying people’s reputations at will, generally without consequence to them.

About two years ago, I was dismissed after three days from an organization purportedly representing Christians and Jews as the result of an interview with a New York Times Magazine reporter. The leaders of this organization were eager to convince this reporter that Christians really don’t want to evangelize Jews. I countered them by saying that indeed they did. The reporter asked why Christians care so much about Jews since Jews are so rude and unkind to Christians. Later writing his article, he attributed that remark to me as a statement that Jews were rude and unkind. Before the article was published, I pointed out this mistake, but they printed it anyway and the damage continues.

For those of us who love him, Jesus is our example. He made himself of “no reputation.” When falsely accused, he never opened his mouth. God is in charge of our reputation and it is His opinion that ultimately matters. Still…it hurts to be falsely accused. Bob Thomas, former tough-guy kicker for the Chicago Bears wept after that decision in Kane County.

I’ve shed my share tears over cruel words spoken, but I know this truth: “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my name’s sake.” I know that Bob Thomas, like me wouldn’t trade all the acclaim of men for the approval of the giver of life.

Still…I’m glad he won. And maybe the Father of Lies has had his knuckles least for a moment.

Friday, November 17, 2006

MSU Prof Required Students to Sign Petition Supporting 'Gay' Adoptions

A Missouri State University professor has been placed on leave as part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a student who reported that Frank G. Kauffman had tried to force her to sign a petition supporting "gay" adoptions.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund, which brought the case on behalf of student Emily Brooker, officials at the school reacted quickly to the lawsuit, agreeing to a settlement that repaired damage inflicted when she was punished for expressing her Christian views on the subject.

"Being a Christian shouldn't make you a second-class citizen on a college campus," said David French, the senior legal counsel for the ADF. "Instead of being a marketplace of ideas, some professors try to silence or even punish students whose beliefs do not conform to their personal worldview.

"To its credit, the university launched an investigation immediately after Emily's case was filed and has taken appropriate action against the professor and appropriate action to repair Emily's reputation and record. I only wish other administrations would respond as quickly to violations of students' rights," French said.

The university confirmed the settlement, announcing that it would "clear Brooker's official record," and pay damages of $9,000. It also agreed to "waive academic fees at Missouri State University, or in lieu thereof, reimburse an amount equal to two years of degree work toward a Master of Social Work degree" at costs estimated at $12,000, "plus Brooker will receive $3,000 per year in living expense for two years of graduate education."

"We acted on these allegations as soon as we became aware of them," said school President Michael Nietzel. He said there also will be a comprehensive evaluation of the Social Work Program, and the school will work on implementing policies regarding freedom of speech and expression.

Read more at WorldNetDaily

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Ten Commandments Stunner: Tour Guides Lying at Supreme Court

Every argument before the U.S. Supreme Court and every opinion the justices deliver comes in the presence of the Ten Commandments, God's law given to Moses on a fire-scorched mountain, and now represented for the United States in the very artwork carved into the high court structure.

In today's world of revisionist history, the proof comes through the work of a California pastor who visited the Supreme Court building recently when he was in Washington and was surprised that what the tour guides were telling him wasn't the same thing as what he was seeing.

Todd DuBord, pastor of the Lake Almanor Community Church in California, said he was traveling with his wife, Tracy, and was more than startled during recent visits to the courthouse and two other historic locations to discover the stories of the nation's heritage had been sterilized of Christian references.

His entire research compilation is available online. "Having done some research (before the trip), I absolutely was not expecting to hear those remarks," which, he told WND, simply "denied history."

So he's written to the Supreme Court, and several other groups, asking them to restore the historic Christian influences to their information, and he's documented his research to explain to those interested what the history is and how it's been subverted.


Monday, November 13, 2006

Elton John Wants Religion Banned

LONDON (Reuters) - Elton John has said organised religion should be banned because it promotes homophobia and turns some people into "hateful lemmings".
"I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it," the singer said in an interview with the Observer newspaper on Sunday.

"Religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it is not really compassionate."

The singer, who tied the knot with long-term partner David Furnish in a civil ceremony last year, said he admired the teachings of Jesus Christ, but disliked religious bodies.

"The reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work," he added.

The 59-year-old singer, who h
as sold an estimated 200 million records, is no stranger to controversy.

In 2000, he hit out at the "ignorance" of the Roman Catholic church after a priest said homosexuals were engaged in "a lifestyle that can never respond to the deepest longings of the human heart".


Supreme Court Debates Best Method to Execute a Baby

Can lawyers debate the butchering of innocent children while keeping a straight face, and a settled stomach? The answer, apparently, is "almost." At least that's what I saw from my center seat at the Supreme Court arguments Wednesday on partial birth abortion.

The most poignant moment, however, occurred when the Planned Parenthood attorney mentioned that women often prefer an "intact" abortion instead of dismemberment. Roberts asked why they would prefer it, and the attorney stumbled over the answer and talked about how personal the choice was. But many in the room suddenly realized that we were talking about a mother preferring one method of executing her child over another. Regrettably, no one mentioned the oh-so-personal practice of late-term abortionists such as George Tiller, who dress up their victims after the murder and baptize their lifeless bodies in the mother's presence, to help them say "good bye."

Another obvious but unmentioned reason for preferring partial birth abortion could be to preserve the child's organs for fresh, live harvesting and experimentation, rather than to get the mess that results from tearing off arms and legs one at a time ("disarticulation of extremities," as they say). Very fresh harvesting occurs, for example, in fetal pancreas research published by University of Wisconsin-Madison) scientists, though it is not clear what abortion method is used.

Along these lines Justice Antonin Scalia limited himself to comments that illustrated the absurdity of the situation, wherein the Court had to struggle over whether a state may outlaw these atrocities. When Justice Stevens awkwardly insisted that Clement talk of a fetus rather than a child, Scalia remarked that "when it's halfway out, I guess you can call it either a child or a fetus." Or when the Planned Parenthood attorney discussed whether the fetus dies before or after delivery of its ripped-off parts, Scalia resolved the dilemma by pointing out that we generally don't speak of a "leg" dying. And Scalia asked whether it would be criminal to deliver the baby all the way and just let him die. This contextualized the argument that partial birth abortion is the “safest option,” by implying that it is only the safest abortion option. Delivering the baby all the way without puncturing his head would often be the safest "option" at this moment, so as to avoid committing that violent, piercing act so near the woman’s body (sometimes the abortionist even has to hold the head in to prevent the magical occurrence of personhood). But pro-aborts want a healthy execution, not women's health in general. And they are not yet public members of the Peter Singer fan club.

So perhaps only one thing is certain. We should expect another concurrence from Scalia, probably a short one this time, but one that again asks the court to acknowledge what everyone who has eyes to see already knows: the moral absurdity that is Casey and Roe.

Read the rest of this commentary at Human Events Online

Friday, November 10, 2006

Truth Takes a Beating: NY Approves Rewriting Medical History for 'Transsexuals'

In what can only be described as a flagrant disregard for both truth and common sense, NY is moving forward with a plan to allow transsexuals to rewrite their birth certificates.

The proposal also reflects how the transgender movement has become politically potent, having roots in the muscular politics of the city's gay rights movement.

Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one's physical parts. However, some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.

"They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record," said Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown Manhattan psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. "If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they've given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk."

The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)

The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.

At the final public hearing for the proposal last week, a string of advocates and transsexuals suggested that common definitions of gender, especially its reliance on medical assessments, should be abandoned.

The fact that our sex is written in the DNA in every cell in our body, seems to be no obstacle for these wise men of compassion.

Is there is no respect for truth? There seems to be no end to foolishness...


The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom...Psalm 111:10

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

N.Y. Debates Making Sex Matter of Choice

In a move some see as an end-run toward same-sex marriages, the New York City Board of Health, with the support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is considering a policy that would permit people born in the city to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates.

The idea, as described by advocates, is to separate sexual identification from anatomy. There would be no need to have a sex-change operation. All that would be needed would be an affidavit from a doctor or mental health professional making the case for the change.
Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years. But there would be no medical requirements.

"Surgery versus non-surgery can be arbitrary," explained Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city's health commissioner, to the New York Times. "Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most."
The move, which appears likely to take place soon, is the result of a major push by the so-called "transgender" lobby – an outgrowth of the homosexual activist agenda.

If this passes, we assume it would no longer be necessary for same-sex marriage to be legalized. One only has to get a 'doctor' to 'declare' them to be of the opposite sex to marry someone who is actually of the same sex.

Truth has apparently become meaningless to the LGBT lobby and their supporters.

Irrationality is reaching new heights (depths?) in America...


Monday, November 06, 2006

Doing What is Right

For our American readers ...

Unless you have been in a Rip-Van-Winkle nap, it has to have been abundantly obvious that, leading up to this election, the mainstream media has been on a desperate mission to persuade the populace towards its worldview. The deep bias in reporting has been breathtaking, to say the least. It used to be just a sly wink or the well-timed smirk. Now it is blatant.

None of this, of course, should be surprising to any of us. The Pew Research Poll of 2004 showed what anyone with a half-discerning eye and ear already knew: "liberals" outnumber "conservatives" by a whopping 5 to 1 ratio in the old mainline media outlets. And, it clearly shows.


Because our worldview shapes everything we do, both professionally and personally, and it is especially evident in the creative works of man. The painter seldom paints that which does not come from his own passions. The filmmaker rarely produces a movie that does not send an underlying message about which he deeply believes.

So, the lofty notion that a journalist or a newscaster can be totally "unbiased" in their work is virtually impossible to achieve--on either side. The selection of stories, their order and timing, the wording of a headline, the data reported versus the data left on the floor, page one versus buried in Section D--all of it is going to be crafted, consciously or subconsciously, according to one's worldview.

Now, this is not meant to be partisan, but it is meant to make us aware that we have all been affected by this. We live in a culture in which much of the media that bombards us is heavily slanted and often represents a worldview standing diametrically opposed to God's truth.

So, on this election eve, I want to remind you how deeply possible it is that you and I have been swayed by this onslaught. In many cases it has been carefully orchestrated, not so much to get you to change your position, but to get you to remain at home on Election Day. In today's world, the way to win at the ballot box is not so much to change minds, but to get more of your people to the polls and discourage more of the opponent's people so that they stay home. The people who stay home lose.

This is not an option for us.

In God's design for the state, He has placed the civil magistrate in a position of authority and holds him accountable for how he wields that authority. He is to punish evil and not allow it to reign. He is to condone what is good. In our constitutional republic, part of that authority has been delegated to us and placed into our hands. We bear the authority of appointment, the selection of those who will provide leadership within the civil government. This is a high responsibility and we are bound by duty and obligation to act righteously with that authority.

I know that this is sometimes very frustrating, especially when we are faced with having to make a selection between two imperfect alternatives. But, my friends, that is always the case. No one is perfect. So, spend the time and effort to determine which appointee will do the best job at diminishing evil and condoning good. Do not stay at home as the media has been persuading you to do. To do so is to let the greater evil reign.

See you at the polls.


"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."
-James 4:17

P.S. Information regarding the moral failure of a leader is often held until the closing days of an election. This has happened again. Though we find ourselves disappointed, discouraged, or even disgusted by these revelations, they should not be allowed to dissuade us from setting our minds to persevere and act righteously. Resolve to do just that. Pray fervently and then do what is right.

by, Dr. Dell Tacket
The Truth Project
, Focus on the Family

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Human Liver Grown from Cord Blood Stem Cells--Media Ignores UK Breakthrough

Wesley Smith charges media deliberately ignore advancements using adult stem cells

By Gudrun Schultz

NEWCASTLE, United Kingdom, November 1, 2006 ( - A group of British scientists has achieved a major breakthrough in stem cell technology, growing the world’s first artificial human liver in a laboratory, using stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood. The achievement has been largely ignored, however, by North American mainstream media.

The UK Daily Mail reported yesterday on the work of Newcastle University researchers Nico Forraz and Colin McGuckin, who have successfully grown ‘mini-livers’ capable of being used to test new drugs and, in future years, of providing life-saving treatment to patients in need of liver transplants.

Researchers predict the science, with none of the ethical concerns associated with the use of embryonic stem cells, will be used to repair damaged livers within the next five years, and within 15 years whole artificial livers will be grown to be used in transplants.

No mainstream media source in either the United States or Canada, however, has reported on the achievement thus far. Leading bioethics critic Wesley J. Smith, writing for the Weekly Standard, said the absence of press coverage indicates just how strong the media bias is for stem cell research using human embryos.