The lone abortion center in South Dakota appears as if it is still not doing abortions following the implementation of a new law a week and a half ago. Rather than tell women abortion kills children and has numerous risks, Planned Parenthood closed its doors to women wanting abortions.
-- From "Women Seeking Abortion Must Be Told About 'Unique Living Human Being'" by Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer 7/20/08
In a victory for antiabortion forces, doctors in South Dakota are now required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit last week lifted a preliminary injunction that prevented the language from taking effect. A spokesman for Planned Parenthood, which runs the state's only abortion clinic, said doctors will begin reciting the script to patients as early as this week.
Antiabortion forces in South Dakota have been trying for years to halt the procedure and to build a winnable challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.
"The law is one more terrible, terrible barrier," said Sarah Stoesz, president of the regional Planned Parenthood office. She described the rules as "unprecedented interference in the doctor-patient relationship and unprecedented interference in a woman's life."
Mailee Smith, staff counsel at Chicago-based Americans United for Life, praised the regulations. "We do think it's a good law, because it does provide a woman with the broadest spectrum of information," she said.
-- From "South Dakota Abortion Center Apparently Still Not Doing Abortions With New Law" by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor 7/29/08
Normally Planned Parenthood flies in an abortion practitioner from Minnesota because no one locally in South Dakota will do abortions.
[Dr. Allen Unruh, a leading pro-life advocate who works with Alpha Pregnancy Center,] told the Catholic News Agency yesterday that it appears the abortion practitioner has not yet come and that no abortions have been done at the center, though it has seen non-abortion customers.
"We were the first state that ever made Planned Parenthood put up a closed sign," he said.
Minnesota-based Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kathi Di Nicola said last week that abortions never stopped at the center, but Unruh told CNA he thinks they have, at least temporarily.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
San Diego Cross Can Stay on Public Land
Federal judge says cross is constitutional, as is, because "the primary effect is patriotic and nationalistic, not religious."
-- From "Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego's Mt. Soledad" by by Jia-Rui Chong, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, 7/31/08
The cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego has been the subject of controversy for years. Groups advocating a separation of church and state have sought the removal of the cross, saying it's unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land. A federal judge has ruled that the cross can remain.
ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision. The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial
"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."
"If you want to put a cross on your front lawn . . . we will be the first to defend you," said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "When the government is sponsoring and endorsing the preeminent symbol of one religion, that's when we have a problem."
He said his side is discussing further legal action. An appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is "clearly on the table," Blair-Loy said.
Blair-Loy said, "It is a 43-foot cross on one of the highest points in San Diego. "If the cross is not a religious symbol, I don't know what is."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego's Mt. Soledad" by by Jia-Rui Chong, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, 7/31/08
The cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego has been the subject of controversy for years. Groups advocating a separation of church and state have sought the removal of the cross, saying it's unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land. A federal judge has ruled that the cross can remain.
ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision. The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial
"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."
"If you want to put a cross on your front lawn . . . we will be the first to defend you," said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "When the government is sponsoring and endorsing the preeminent symbol of one religion, that's when we have a problem."
He said his side is discussing further legal action. An appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is "clearly on the table," Blair-Loy said.
Blair-Loy said, "It is a 43-foot cross on one of the highest points in San Diego. "If the cross is not a religious symbol, I don't know what is."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Massachusetts One-ups California on Homosexual 'Marriage'
Massachusetts lawmakers cleared the way for out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in the state by voting on Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law that banned marriages not considered valid in the couples' home states.
-- From "Out-of-stage gay marriage closer in Massachusetts" by Kevin McNicholas and Scott Malone, from Reuters 7/29/08
For background on this law, CLICK HERE.
Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat whose daughter has come out as a lesbian, has said he plans to sign the repeal measure.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives approved the repeal by a vote of 118-35. The state Senate approved it earlier this month.
"While we'll never get complacent, we're getting close to the point where the question of marriage equality in Massachusetts is settled," said Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, a statewide group that promotes the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said the vote amounted to an attempt to impose gay marriage on other states.
"Just after California allowed out-of-state same-sex couples to marry, it appears our legislators are suffering from 'gay marriage envy' in pushing to repeal this protective measure," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "Their arrogance and folly are doing terrible harm to marriage laws across the country and eroding the people's right to define marriage."
CLICK HERE and notice how TV4 Boston is in bed with the homosexual agenda in regards to this legislation.
To read how EVERY state in America will be affected by the new situations in California and Massachusetts, CLICK HERE.
In order counter a potential back-lash by the vast majority of Americans who support traditional marriage, a major Gay Agenda strategy was announced; CLICK HERE to read the homosexual advocacy strategy.
-- From "Out-of-stage gay marriage closer in Massachusetts" by Kevin McNicholas and Scott Malone, from Reuters 7/29/08
For background on this law, CLICK HERE.
Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat whose daughter has come out as a lesbian, has said he plans to sign the repeal measure.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives approved the repeal by a vote of 118-35. The state Senate approved it earlier this month.
"While we'll never get complacent, we're getting close to the point where the question of marriage equality in Massachusetts is settled," said Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, a statewide group that promotes the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said the vote amounted to an attempt to impose gay marriage on other states.
"Just after California allowed out-of-state same-sex couples to marry, it appears our legislators are suffering from 'gay marriage envy' in pushing to repeal this protective measure," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "Their arrogance and folly are doing terrible harm to marriage laws across the country and eroding the people's right to define marriage."
CLICK HERE and notice how TV4 Boston is in bed with the homosexual agenda in regards to this legislation.
To read how EVERY state in America will be affected by the new situations in California and Massachusetts, CLICK HERE.
In order counter a potential back-lash by the vast majority of Americans who support traditional marriage, a major Gay Agenda strategy was announced; CLICK HERE to read the homosexual advocacy strategy.
FL Judge Rules Against Morality of Principal and School Board
"[Principal] Davis's conduct, in the capacity of a role model and authority figure," [the judge wrote, in support of the ACLU], "is particularly deplorable in light of studies which confirm the vulnerability of gay and lesbian students."
-- From "Court Orders that Pro-Homosexual Proselytism by Students be Permitted in Schools" by John Jalsevac at LifeSiteNews.com 7/28/08
A judge in Holmes County, Florida, has ruled that the school board cannot forbid students from "wearing or displaying t-shirts, armbands, stickers, or buttons containing messages and symbols which advocate the acceptance of and fair treatment for persons who are homosexual."
The case that led to the ruling surrounded incidents at Ponce de Leon High School in Holmes County. According to court documents, a 12th grade student - called "Jane Doe" by the court - went to school officials last year to complain that she was being taunted by a group of middle schools students because of her homosexuality.
The complaint was passed on to the school's principal, David Davis, who met with the student after school on September 10, 2007. Davis allegedly questioned Doe about her sexual orientation, and in the process told her that it was "wrong" to be a homosexual. Davis also stated his intention to inform Doe's parents that she was a homosexual.
The day after Davis' encounter with the student, a false rumor began to spread that the principal had suspended Doe because of her homosexuality. A number of students began to organize various acts of protest, ranging from initiating a petition drive, to the wearing of various t-shirts and armbands with slogans such as: "Gay? Fine By Me," "I Support My Gay Friends," "God Loves Me Just the Way I Am," "Pro-Gay Marriage," and "Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice. Religion, However, Is."
Davis was supported in his decision by the School Board, which stated in a letter that the "phrases, symbols or images" displayed by the students were forbidden, due to the fact that "the expressions indicated membership in an 'illegal organization' prohibited by School Board policy and were disruptive to the educational process."
Justice [Richard] Smoak ordered that the school board "shall take such affirmative steps as are necessary to remedy the past restraints of expression of support for the respect, equal treatment, and acceptance of homosexuals."
According to a report from the ACLU, Principal Davis has since been replaced at Ponce de Leon High School.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court Orders that Pro-Homosexual Proselytism by Students be Permitted in Schools" by John Jalsevac at LifeSiteNews.com 7/28/08
A judge in Holmes County, Florida, has ruled that the school board cannot forbid students from "wearing or displaying t-shirts, armbands, stickers, or buttons containing messages and symbols which advocate the acceptance of and fair treatment for persons who are homosexual."
The case that led to the ruling surrounded incidents at Ponce de Leon High School in Holmes County. According to court documents, a 12th grade student - called "Jane Doe" by the court - went to school officials last year to complain that she was being taunted by a group of middle schools students because of her homosexuality.
The complaint was passed on to the school's principal, David Davis, who met with the student after school on September 10, 2007. Davis allegedly questioned Doe about her sexual orientation, and in the process told her that it was "wrong" to be a homosexual. Davis also stated his intention to inform Doe's parents that she was a homosexual.
The day after Davis' encounter with the student, a false rumor began to spread that the principal had suspended Doe because of her homosexuality. A number of students began to organize various acts of protest, ranging from initiating a petition drive, to the wearing of various t-shirts and armbands with slogans such as: "Gay? Fine By Me," "I Support My Gay Friends," "God Loves Me Just the Way I Am," "Pro-Gay Marriage," and "Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice. Religion, However, Is."
Davis was supported in his decision by the School Board, which stated in a letter that the "phrases, symbols or images" displayed by the students were forbidden, due to the fact that "the expressions indicated membership in an 'illegal organization' prohibited by School Board policy and were disruptive to the educational process."
Justice [Richard] Smoak ordered that the school board "shall take such affirmative steps as are necessary to remedy the past restraints of expression of support for the respect, equal treatment, and acceptance of homosexuals."
According to a report from the ACLU, Principal Davis has since been replaced at Ponce de Leon High School.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Religious Killing OK Says One-third of Muslim Students in UK
"[A] startlingly large proportion of young British Muslims hold what to most of us are outrageous and unacceptable views – views that they consider to be Muslim truths."
-- From "To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups" by Minette Marrin posted at TimesOnLine 7/27/08
Four out of 10 Muslim students in Britain support the introduction of sharia into UK law for Muslims, according to a YouGov poll. Almost a third of them said that killing in the name of religion was justified; 40% said they felt it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely; and nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.
A quarter of Muslim students said they had little or no respect for homosexuals. As for whether British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of hostilities with Muslim countries, 57% said they should and a further 25% said they were not sure.
More than half of the Muslim students were in favour of an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament. A third don’t think or don’t know whether Islam is compatible with the western notion of democracy, and a third said they were in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
. . . these are large minorities indeed of Muslim students holding opinions that are against this country’s laws and its traditions of liberal democracy. And these are students from a sample of some of the best universities and higher education colleges.
If the brightest and best think like this, what of the rest? It is frightening to imagine the views of their less well educated contemporaries. All this seems to undermine yet another piece of conventional wisdom: that education is the solution to Muslim alienation in Britain.
CLICK HERE to download the entire (.PDF) study from the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) "Islam on Campus."
In the mind of this British columnist, the solution is to effectively ban religion. Read on:
What follows inescapably from this [study data] is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.
The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.
So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored. Publicly they must not teach or promote illegal prejudices. Forced into the private sphere, denied the oxygen of publicity, power and influence, highly politicised religious groups will wither on the vine. Perhaps, in that wonderful phrase of Yeats, they might even wither into truth.
To read the entire commentary, CLICK HERE.
For coverage by CNSNews.com, CLICK HERE.
-- From "To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups" by Minette Marrin posted at TimesOnLine 7/27/08
Four out of 10 Muslim students in Britain support the introduction of sharia into UK law for Muslims, according to a YouGov poll. Almost a third of them said that killing in the name of religion was justified; 40% said they felt it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely; and nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.
A quarter of Muslim students said they had little or no respect for homosexuals. As for whether British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of hostilities with Muslim countries, 57% said they should and a further 25% said they were not sure.
More than half of the Muslim students were in favour of an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament. A third don’t think or don’t know whether Islam is compatible with the western notion of democracy, and a third said they were in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
. . . these are large minorities indeed of Muslim students holding opinions that are against this country’s laws and its traditions of liberal democracy. And these are students from a sample of some of the best universities and higher education colleges.
If the brightest and best think like this, what of the rest? It is frightening to imagine the views of their less well educated contemporaries. All this seems to undermine yet another piece of conventional wisdom: that education is the solution to Muslim alienation in Britain.
CLICK HERE to download the entire (.PDF) study from the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) "Islam on Campus."
In the mind of this British columnist, the solution is to effectively ban religion. Read on:
What follows inescapably from this [study data] is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.
The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.
So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored. Publicly they must not teach or promote illegal prejudices. Forced into the private sphere, denied the oxygen of publicity, power and influence, highly politicised religious groups will wither on the vine. Perhaps, in that wonderful phrase of Yeats, they might even wither into truth.
To read the entire commentary, CLICK HERE.
For coverage by CNSNews.com, CLICK HERE.
Colorado Christian College Financial Aid Ban Unconstitutional
Federal court rules that "wholesale exclusion of religious institutions and their students" from government support is unconstitutional.
-- From "Court: Colorado Financial Aid Ban Unconstitutional" by Joey Bunch, denverpost.com 7/24/08
Colorado violated the U.S. Constitution when it blocked taxpayer-funded financial aid to students at religious schools that the state calls "pervasively sectarian," a federal appellate court in Denver ruled Wednesday.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stood with Colorado Christian University in Lakewood. The school had appealed a ruling last year by federal Judge Marcia Krieger, who had sided with the state.
The appeals court said the ban is unconstitutional on two fronts.
"The program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification," the ruling states, "and its criteria for doing so involve unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice."
Colorado Christian president William Armstrong said he was thankful for the outcome.
"We think that it's a great victory for our students but also for the First and 14th amendments," he said.
He noted that the ruling said students should not have to "choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a governmental benefit."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Court: Colorado Financial Aid Ban Unconstitutional" by Joey Bunch, denverpost.com 7/24/08
Colorado violated the U.S. Constitution when it blocked taxpayer-funded financial aid to students at religious schools that the state calls "pervasively sectarian," a federal appellate court in Denver ruled Wednesday.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stood with Colorado Christian University in Lakewood. The school had appealed a ruling last year by federal Judge Marcia Krieger, who had sided with the state.
The appeals court said the ban is unconstitutional on two fronts.
"The program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification," the ruling states, "and its criteria for doing so involve unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice."
Colorado Christian president William Armstrong said he was thankful for the outcome.
"We think that it's a great victory for our students but also for the First and 14th amendments," he said.
He noted that the ruling said students should not have to "choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a governmental benefit."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Christian Grassroots Impact Batavia, Illinois
Average moms and dads gather neighbors to challenge the library's sexualization of children, yet their impact went well beyond the library
How can ONE Christian bring "salt & light" to a lost culture? Read on . . .
Batavia mom Kerry Knott was looking at the local library's website. On the children's webpage she found a prominent link to Planned Parenthood's TeenWire.com, and when she clicked on the link, she was appalled at the crude, graphic sexualization aimed at children. Kerry passed the word around town, and a couple of other residents joined to support her; then there were more residents.
Kerry and several residents attended the Library Board meeting in June and were allowed to speak. The Board deferred the matter to the July Board meeting. In the meantime, the media and Planned Parenthood began spewing their usual rhetoric to rally the public behind the library's typical "non-censorship" mantra.
Reading the brief media excerpts below (links to full articles included), Christians will be encouraged. Not only did the Library Board vote to move the TeenWire.com link off the children's webpage to an obscure spot where children don't browse, take note that the Daily Herald editorial (final excerpt below) actually criticizes Planned Parenthood! (The aim was at the Library, but the media "got the message" also.)
Kerry Knott and a small number of average citizens have demonstrated how God works through His people. Remember, with the strength of the Lord, all David needed was a few stones, and down came the giant!
CLICK HERE to read media reports after the June Library Board meeting.
From "Batavia library to keep sex ed link - It'll just be moved, library says" by Susan Sarkauskas, Daily Herald Staff 7/16/2008 [after the July Library Board meeting]
A link to Planned Parenthood's Teenwire sex education site will remain on the Batavia Public Library's Web site, despite a resident's request that it be removed.
However, it will be moved from the "Young Adult" page to the general "Web Reference" page, at the direction of the library board in a 4-2 vote Tuesday night.
The two trustees who voted against the measure did so because they felt the site should stay on the "Young Adult" portion.
Kerry Knott, the woman who had protested the link, said she was disappointed by the board's decision, but pleased with the process. The request was first considered by a staff committee, which recommended keeping the link. Knott then filed an appeal with the board.
At a hearing continued from the board's June meeting, attended by more than 120 people, more than 30 spoke to the board about the link. More of the speakers favored removing it than keeping it.
"This isn't about censoring books," said Geri Fuehring. "There is so much on the Internet that is just not good. It doesn't reflect what Batavia is about or what the Batavia library is about." She also called the Web site "tasteless and crass." It features an animation section, including a video that features a cartoon penis and vagina discussing how a woman becomes pregnant.
Here are excerpts from the Daily Herald editorial:
From "Right choice on teen site, with caveats" 7/19/2008
With some qualifications, we believe the Batavia Public Library Board made the correct decision last week in voting to keep a Planned Parenthood sponsored Web site link on the library's Web site.
But it was only the correct decision because the board also decided to move the link titled Teenwire out of the young adult health section and onto a general Web reference category more commonly used by adults. Mostly, Batavia parents were correct in questioning this site link in a public manner, showing that residents are keeping an eye on what its library offers and bringing to light the side issue that is critically important - that parents and teens communicate on the topic of sex. [emphasis added]
Because removing the link would mean the library caved in to censorship, we support the board's decision to keep the link. But we also know that anyone can find Teenwire through a regular search-engine, though the easy link on the library site welcomed those who might be too young for the graphic information and what we would agree is an unusual use of animated characters to deliver messages about how a female gets pregnant.
Though we're not certain it was the key point on the minds of detractors amongst the more than 100 residents at the public meeting, we do have some reservations about the Planned Parenthood site. It would provide a more balanced view of teen pregnancy if it provided a direct link to information on abstinence, highlighting its importance. We understand that the abstinence message in and of itself won't work to end teen pregnancy. But it remains an option that we support without hesitation. From that standpoint, we are pleased that the young adult links under the health category includes familydoctor.org, which explains the sex questions clearly and fully, and includes abstinence and how two teens should support each other if they have chosen this wise option. With that, we can see that the library Web site is providing balanced information and choices - the major role a library plays in a community.
And Batavians can say they were not afraid to debate it in public. [emphasis added]
To read the entire editorial, CLICK HERE.
How can ONE Christian bring "salt & light" to a lost culture? Read on . . .
Batavia mom Kerry Knott was looking at the local library's website. On the children's webpage she found a prominent link to Planned Parenthood's TeenWire.com, and when she clicked on the link, she was appalled at the crude, graphic sexualization aimed at children. Kerry passed the word around town, and a couple of other residents joined to support her; then there were more residents.
Kerry and several residents attended the Library Board meeting in June and were allowed to speak. The Board deferred the matter to the July Board meeting. In the meantime, the media and Planned Parenthood began spewing their usual rhetoric to rally the public behind the library's typical "non-censorship" mantra.
Reading the brief media excerpts below (links to full articles included), Christians will be encouraged. Not only did the Library Board vote to move the TeenWire.com link off the children's webpage to an obscure spot where children don't browse, take note that the Daily Herald editorial (final excerpt below) actually criticizes Planned Parenthood! (The aim was at the Library, but the media "got the message" also.)
Kerry Knott and a small number of average citizens have demonstrated how God works through His people. Remember, with the strength of the Lord, all David needed was a few stones, and down came the giant!
CLICK HERE to read media reports after the June Library Board meeting.
From "Batavia library to keep sex ed link - It'll just be moved, library says" by Susan Sarkauskas, Daily Herald Staff 7/16/2008 [after the July Library Board meeting]
A link to Planned Parenthood's Teenwire sex education site will remain on the Batavia Public Library's Web site, despite a resident's request that it be removed.
However, it will be moved from the "Young Adult" page to the general "Web Reference" page, at the direction of the library board in a 4-2 vote Tuesday night.
The two trustees who voted against the measure did so because they felt the site should stay on the "Young Adult" portion.
Kerry Knott, the woman who had protested the link, said she was disappointed by the board's decision, but pleased with the process. The request was first considered by a staff committee, which recommended keeping the link. Knott then filed an appeal with the board.
At a hearing continued from the board's June meeting, attended by more than 120 people, more than 30 spoke to the board about the link. More of the speakers favored removing it than keeping it.
"This isn't about censoring books," said Geri Fuehring. "There is so much on the Internet that is just not good. It doesn't reflect what Batavia is about or what the Batavia library is about." She also called the Web site "tasteless and crass." It features an animation section, including a video that features a cartoon penis and vagina discussing how a woman becomes pregnant.
Here are excerpts from the Daily Herald editorial:
From "Right choice on teen site, with caveats" 7/19/2008
With some qualifications, we believe the Batavia Public Library Board made the correct decision last week in voting to keep a Planned Parenthood sponsored Web site link on the library's Web site.
But it was only the correct decision because the board also decided to move the link titled Teenwire out of the young adult health section and onto a general Web reference category more commonly used by adults. Mostly, Batavia parents were correct in questioning this site link in a public manner, showing that residents are keeping an eye on what its library offers and bringing to light the side issue that is critically important - that parents and teens communicate on the topic of sex. [emphasis added]
Because removing the link would mean the library caved in to censorship, we support the board's decision to keep the link. But we also know that anyone can find Teenwire through a regular search-engine, though the easy link on the library site welcomed those who might be too young for the graphic information and what we would agree is an unusual use of animated characters to deliver messages about how a female gets pregnant.
Though we're not certain it was the key point on the minds of detractors amongst the more than 100 residents at the public meeting, we do have some reservations about the Planned Parenthood site. It would provide a more balanced view of teen pregnancy if it provided a direct link to information on abstinence, highlighting its importance. We understand that the abstinence message in and of itself won't work to end teen pregnancy. But it remains an option that we support without hesitation. From that standpoint, we are pleased that the young adult links under the health category includes familydoctor.org, which explains the sex questions clearly and fully, and includes abstinence and how two teens should support each other if they have chosen this wise option. With that, we can see that the library Web site is providing balanced information and choices - the major role a library plays in a community.
And Batavians can say they were not afraid to debate it in public. [emphasis added]
To read the entire editorial, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
CA Ramifications of Same-sex 'Marriage'
"The California Education Code clearly states that schools would be required to provide instruction to children as young as kindergartners that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage."
-- From "'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/26/08
A pamphlet set to be distributed by the California secretary of state warns voters that if they do not pass Proposition 8 in November to constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman, they will face an unexpected consequence: children as young as kindergarten will be subject to mandatory teaching on the virtues of homosexual marriage.
"The California Education Code clearly states that schools would be required to provide instruction to children as young as kindergartners that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage," [said Jennifer Kerns, a spokesperson for a Proposition 8 support coalition called ProtectMarriage.com]. "The code specifically states that the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage must be taught."
The voter guide, written by supporters and opponents of Proposition 8, citing arguments both for and against, will be printed and delivered to California residents' homes, barring any court ordered changes to the final wording, but is posted currently for public inspection before mailing.
The official rebuttal, published in the same voter guide, calls the education argument "scare tactics" and "a smokescreen," arguing that Proposition 8 doesn't have anything to do with education.
Proposition 8, if passed, would effectively overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage by adding the words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state's constitution.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This is no surprise to residents of Massachusetts, who have experienced that when same-sex 'marriage' is the law of the land, the public schools are free to indoctrinate the kids from Day One, according to the courts. CLICK HERE for documentation.
-- From "'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/26/08
A pamphlet set to be distributed by the California secretary of state warns voters that if they do not pass Proposition 8 in November to constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman, they will face an unexpected consequence: children as young as kindergarten will be subject to mandatory teaching on the virtues of homosexual marriage.
"The California Education Code clearly states that schools would be required to provide instruction to children as young as kindergartners that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage," [said Jennifer Kerns, a spokesperson for a Proposition 8 support coalition called ProtectMarriage.com]. "The code specifically states that the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage must be taught."
The voter guide, written by supporters and opponents of Proposition 8, citing arguments both for and against, will be printed and delivered to California residents' homes, barring any court ordered changes to the final wording, but is posted currently for public inspection before mailing.
The official rebuttal, published in the same voter guide, calls the education argument "scare tactics" and "a smokescreen," arguing that Proposition 8 doesn't have anything to do with education.
Proposition 8, if passed, would effectively overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage by adding the words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state's constitution.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This is no surprise to residents of Massachusetts, who have experienced that when same-sex 'marriage' is the law of the land, the public schools are free to indoctrinate the kids from Day One, according to the courts. CLICK HERE for documentation.
PA Supreme Court Strikes Down 'Hate Crimes' Statute
-- From "Supremes strike 'hate crime' statute" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/25/08
"We are very happy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in our favor to stop the governor and a group of corrupt politicians from sneaking a 'hate crimes' bill through the Pennsylvania legislature," said Judge Roy Moore, of the Foundation for Moral Law.
"Preaching to homosexuals about the sin of sodomy should not be made a 'thought crime' in Pennsylvania or any other state," he said.
Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and a petitioner in the case, said, "Having been arrested, jailed and charged with a 'hate crime' for preaching the Gospel, I am elated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in striking down Pennsylvania's expanded 'hate crimes' law."
He said the methods used in the legislature to implement the law were "extremely devious."
Marcavage called it "yet another chilling example as to how far politicians are willing to go to silence Christian speech that they would violate our own state constitution to do it."
"In a nation that is becoming increasingly hostile toward biblical Christianity, we remain vigilant as the Pennsylvania legislature will most likely attempt to pass another 'hate crimes' bill and are continuing to educate the American people on the significant dangers of such laws," he said.
The petitioners said the passage of the bill, which originally criminalized agricultural crop destruction but was altered to become the first proposal in Pennsylvania to recognize "sexual orientation" as a protected class, failed to follow Article III of the state constitution. That provision prohibits the complete overhaul of a bill in the course of its passage.
The provisions adopted under the failed procedure increased penalties for crimes based on what the criminal was thinking, specifying the additional penalties for "actual or perceived … ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
"We are very happy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in our favor to stop the governor and a group of corrupt politicians from sneaking a 'hate crimes' bill through the Pennsylvania legislature," said Judge Roy Moore, of the Foundation for Moral Law.
"Preaching to homosexuals about the sin of sodomy should not be made a 'thought crime' in Pennsylvania or any other state," he said.
Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and a petitioner in the case, said, "Having been arrested, jailed and charged with a 'hate crime' for preaching the Gospel, I am elated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in striking down Pennsylvania's expanded 'hate crimes' law."
He said the methods used in the legislature to implement the law were "extremely devious."
Marcavage called it "yet another chilling example as to how far politicians are willing to go to silence Christian speech that they would violate our own state constitution to do it."
"In a nation that is becoming increasingly hostile toward biblical Christianity, we remain vigilant as the Pennsylvania legislature will most likely attempt to pass another 'hate crimes' bill and are continuing to educate the American people on the significant dangers of such laws," he said.
The petitioners said the passage of the bill, which originally criminalized agricultural crop destruction but was altered to become the first proposal in Pennsylvania to recognize "sexual orientation" as a protected class, failed to follow Article III of the state constitution. That provision prohibits the complete overhaul of a bill in the course of its passage.
The provisions adopted under the failed procedure increased penalties for crimes based on what the criminal was thinking, specifying the additional penalties for "actual or perceived … ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Congress Majority Plans to Rollback Abstinence Education
A bill that would overturn the abstinence-only sex education policy of the Bush administration may get the push it needs to get out of Congress . . .
-- From "REAL Act Would End Federal ‘Abstinence-Only’ Policy" by Michael Gryboski, Correspondent, CNSNews.com 7/17/08
Urge your congressman from Illinois to defeat this bill -- CLICK HERE
The federal government currently allots funding for state sex-education curricula provided that states teach sexual abstinence until marriage. Millions of dollars have gone to states whose curricula take that approach.
The Responsible Education About Life, or REAL Act (H.R. 1653), which is currently parked at the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Health, would make “comprehensive sex education” eligible for federal funding and would allow schools to teach students about condoms and contraceptives alongside abstinence-only curricula.
Though the bill defines abstinence as “the only sure way to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases,” it would specifically mandate “information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.”
The bill is an attempt to stop real abstinence from being taught in schools, [according to Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.]
“Common sense tells us that if you encourage people to do the right thing, they’re more likely to do the right thing, and the same kinds of messages we use for different issues such as smoking – we tell people not to smoke – we expect that that’s going to have positive outcomes, and in fact it does have positive outcomes,” Wright said.
“So it makes sense to use the same kind of messages that have worked on other topics and apply them to this area,” she said.
Wright also questioned the validity of the studies often cited by congressmen who support comprehensive sex education.
“You have to look at who is behind those studies – who actually did the studies – and oftentimes you’ll find that they are people who somehow profit from comprehensive sex education,” she told Cybercast News Service.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "REAL Act Would End Federal ‘Abstinence-Only’ Policy" by Michael Gryboski, Correspondent, CNSNews.com 7/17/08
Urge your congressman from Illinois to defeat this bill -- CLICK HERE
The federal government currently allots funding for state sex-education curricula provided that states teach sexual abstinence until marriage. Millions of dollars have gone to states whose curricula take that approach.
The Responsible Education About Life, or REAL Act (H.R. 1653), which is currently parked at the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Health, would make “comprehensive sex education” eligible for federal funding and would allow schools to teach students about condoms and contraceptives alongside abstinence-only curricula.
Though the bill defines abstinence as “the only sure way to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases,” it would specifically mandate “information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.”
The bill is an attempt to stop real abstinence from being taught in schools, [according to Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.]
“Common sense tells us that if you encourage people to do the right thing, they’re more likely to do the right thing, and the same kinds of messages we use for different issues such as smoking – we tell people not to smoke – we expect that that’s going to have positive outcomes, and in fact it does have positive outcomes,” Wright said.
“So it makes sense to use the same kind of messages that have worked on other topics and apply them to this area,” she said.
Wright also questioned the validity of the studies often cited by congressmen who support comprehensive sex education.
“You have to look at who is behind those studies – who actually did the studies – and oftentimes you’ll find that they are people who somehow profit from comprehensive sex education,” she told Cybercast News Service.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sex Used to Sell TV, Abstinence Ridiculed
-- From "Abstinence ridiculed on 'American Idol'" by Erin Roach, Baptist Press 2/1/08
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A teenage contestant in a preliminary round of this season's "American Idol" was mocked for his abstinence stance, sending a message to thousands of viewers about how the culture treats the issue.
Bruce Dickson, a 19-year-old from Bastrop, Texas, was asked to tell something about himself during the Dallas auditions for the reality show, and he said he had never kissed a girl.
"What?" Randy Jackson, one of the show's judges, asked. "On purpose?"
"On purpose," Dickson said. "On my wedding day, that will be my first kiss."
The home-schooled, Christian teenager went on to explain that he has made a commitment to abstain from sexual activity until marriage, and his father holds him accountable in his decision.
"Maybe next year he'll come back less a boy and more a man," host Ryan Seacrest quipped as Dickson's segment ended.
In related news, a Boston University School of Medicine study said teens with positive attitudes about delaying sexual activity are more likely to practice abstinence. Influences like parental opinions on sex, personal beliefs and their friends' sexual behavior help determine whether a teen will have sex, the study said, while fears of pregnancy and STDs did not make teens more likely to abstain.
"This study proves that when teens are given the skill sets needed to make the best health choice about sex, it is clear they are capable of choosing to abstain," Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said Jan. 16. "The core teachings of abstinence education include character building, goal-setting and exploring the emotional risks of casual sex. Abstinence education is the only curriculum that offers such a clear, risk-avoidance approach to sexual health."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A teenage contestant in a preliminary round of this season's "American Idol" was mocked for his abstinence stance, sending a message to thousands of viewers about how the culture treats the issue.
Bruce Dickson, a 19-year-old from Bastrop, Texas, was asked to tell something about himself during the Dallas auditions for the reality show, and he said he had never kissed a girl.
"What?" Randy Jackson, one of the show's judges, asked. "On purpose?"
"On purpose," Dickson said. "On my wedding day, that will be my first kiss."
The home-schooled, Christian teenager went on to explain that he has made a commitment to abstain from sexual activity until marriage, and his father holds him accountable in his decision.
"Maybe next year he'll come back less a boy and more a man," host Ryan Seacrest quipped as Dickson's segment ended.
In related news, a Boston University School of Medicine study said teens with positive attitudes about delaying sexual activity are more likely to practice abstinence. Influences like parental opinions on sex, personal beliefs and their friends' sexual behavior help determine whether a teen will have sex, the study said, while fears of pregnancy and STDs did not make teens more likely to abstain.
"This study proves that when teens are given the skill sets needed to make the best health choice about sex, it is clear they are capable of choosing to abstain," Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said Jan. 16. "The core teachings of abstinence education include character building, goal-setting and exploring the emotional risks of casual sex. Abstinence education is the only curriculum that offers such a clear, risk-avoidance approach to sexual health."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Abstinence Education Varies Widely Across American Public Schools
-- From "Texas keeps a tight lid on sex ed" by Melissa Mixon, American-Statesman Staff 7/14/08
When it comes to sex, what kids are taught in school varies widely from state to state and often from school district to school district.
In Texas, the education code treats human sexuality differently from the rest of the public school curriculum. Unlike subjects such as English or history, course materials dealing with sexual issues are reviewed by local advisory councils of parents and community representatives, with the specific content of what's taught to be decided by each school board.
But local latitude goes only so far, thanks to Texas' appetite for federally funded abstinence programs — it leads the nation in spending for abstinence instruction — and the state's restrictions on what teachers may tell their students about sex and contraceptives.
As in all public schools in Texas, Austin district teachers are forbidden to hand out condoms, and the district does not allow instruction on proper use. The state requires that information about condoms be given "in terms of human use reality rates" — an estimate that condoms are effective, on average, only 85 percent of the time, with failures usually due to improper handling or inconsistent use.
That's in contrast to some schools in California, where teachers can demonstrate how to wear condoms by rolling them onto bananas. And in Portland, Maine, school board members approved a measure last year that allows middle school students, who range from 11 to 15 years old, to get birth control prescriptions from the school's health center.
Twenty years ago, Texas teachers had more freedom to talk about condoms and birth control methods as part of health courses that covered a broad range of sexual, reproductive and family issues. That is now considered "comprehensive" sex education. With few exceptions, it is a thing of the past in Texas public schools.
A 2006 national survey reported that 82 percent of parents want sex education that teaches students about not only abstinence but other methods of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, such as condoms and birth control methods. The survey, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, showed that 68.5 percent of parents want schools to teach proper use of condoms. Years before, another survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation [a pro-abortion organization] found similar results.
Abstinence proponents hail their own study, done by Zogby International in 2003, which found that the majority of parents support values taught in abstinence-only programs, teaching, for instance, that sex should be linked to love and intimacy, which are most likely to occur in the context of marriage.
The abstinence message is not only about sex. It also emphasizes self-empowerment, self-respect and being comfortable with setting physical boundaries. The idea is that choosing to refrain from sex will not only prevent a pregnancy or an STD, but lead to a healthy lifestyle, with fewer distractions from school and a better relationship with parents.
This is a very lengthy article intended to form public opinion on this subject -- it's worth the read [CLICK HERE].
When it comes to sex, what kids are taught in school varies widely from state to state and often from school district to school district.
In Texas, the education code treats human sexuality differently from the rest of the public school curriculum. Unlike subjects such as English or history, course materials dealing with sexual issues are reviewed by local advisory councils of parents and community representatives, with the specific content of what's taught to be decided by each school board.
But local latitude goes only so far, thanks to Texas' appetite for federally funded abstinence programs — it leads the nation in spending for abstinence instruction — and the state's restrictions on what teachers may tell their students about sex and contraceptives.
As in all public schools in Texas, Austin district teachers are forbidden to hand out condoms, and the district does not allow instruction on proper use. The state requires that information about condoms be given "in terms of human use reality rates" — an estimate that condoms are effective, on average, only 85 percent of the time, with failures usually due to improper handling or inconsistent use.
That's in contrast to some schools in California, where teachers can demonstrate how to wear condoms by rolling them onto bananas. And in Portland, Maine, school board members approved a measure last year that allows middle school students, who range from 11 to 15 years old, to get birth control prescriptions from the school's health center.
Twenty years ago, Texas teachers had more freedom to talk about condoms and birth control methods as part of health courses that covered a broad range of sexual, reproductive and family issues. That is now considered "comprehensive" sex education. With few exceptions, it is a thing of the past in Texas public schools.
A 2006 national survey reported that 82 percent of parents want sex education that teaches students about not only abstinence but other methods of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, such as condoms and birth control methods. The survey, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, showed that 68.5 percent of parents want schools to teach proper use of condoms. Years before, another survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation [a pro-abortion organization] found similar results.
Abstinence proponents hail their own study, done by Zogby International in 2003, which found that the majority of parents support values taught in abstinence-only programs, teaching, for instance, that sex should be linked to love and intimacy, which are most likely to occur in the context of marriage.
The abstinence message is not only about sex. It also emphasizes self-empowerment, self-respect and being comfortable with setting physical boundaries. The idea is that choosing to refrain from sex will not only prevent a pregnancy or an STD, but lead to a healthy lifestyle, with fewer distractions from school and a better relationship with parents.
This is a very lengthy article intended to form public opinion on this subject -- it's worth the read [CLICK HERE].
Hamas Satellite TV Brings Violence to Children
An Islamic television station is using a Bugs Bunny lookalike in a programme for children, who vote whether to chop off his hands when he breaches Sharia law.
-- From "Islamic 'Bugs Bunny' programme 'spreads extremism'" posted at the UK Telegraph 7/23/08
Assud the rabbit vows to "kill and eat Jews" and glorifies the maiming of "infidels" on the Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's Pioneers.
In one episode, Assud admits stealing money and is seen begging for mercy after young viewers and parents phone in demanding to cut off his hands as punishment.
At that point, Saraa, the 11-year-old presenter, intervenes and rules that the bunny should only have his ears severed because he has repented.
The rabbit, played by a costumed actor, is one of the main characters on the show broadcast in Gaza by the al-Aqsa channel, which is otherwise known as Hamas TV.
Religious leaders in Britain, where the channel can be viewed via satellite, criticised the programme, amid fears British children could be affected by the radical Islamic message.
Set up as a regional station prior to the Palestinian elections in January 2006, the al-Aqsa channel now airs on a satellite slot and has a substantial following across the Arab world.
The show is regularly translated and posted online by The Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent media monitoring group based in the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Islamic 'Bugs Bunny' programme 'spreads extremism'" posted at the UK Telegraph 7/23/08
Assud the rabbit vows to "kill and eat Jews" and glorifies the maiming of "infidels" on the Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's Pioneers.
In one episode, Assud admits stealing money and is seen begging for mercy after young viewers and parents phone in demanding to cut off his hands as punishment.
At that point, Saraa, the 11-year-old presenter, intervenes and rules that the bunny should only have his ears severed because he has repented.
The rabbit, played by a costumed actor, is one of the main characters on the show broadcast in Gaza by the al-Aqsa channel, which is otherwise known as Hamas TV.
Religious leaders in Britain, where the channel can be viewed via satellite, criticised the programme, amid fears British children could be affected by the radical Islamic message.
Set up as a regional station prior to the Palestinian elections in January 2006, the al-Aqsa channel now airs on a satellite slot and has a substantial following across the Arab world.
The show is regularly translated and posted online by The Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent media monitoring group based in the United States.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sandra Day O'Connor, Federal Judges Bar Praying "in Jesus's Name"
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that a Fredericksburg City [Virginia] Council member may not pray "in Jesus's name" during council meetings because the opening invocation is government speech.
UPDATE 1/16/09: Supreme Court Won't Restore Christian Prayer
-- From "Court Rules in Prayer Case" in the Washington Post 7/24/08
The Rev. Hashmel Turner, a Baptist minister, sued the city in 2006 after it passed a policy requiring invocations to be nondenominational. His attorneys argued that the government was effectively writing prayer if it told Turner how to pray.
Turner lost in trial court, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld that verdict unanimously.
The opinion, written by retired U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said courts have found legislative prayers constitutional when they are "designed to include members of the community, rather than to proselytize."
Judith E. Schaeffer, legal director for the People for the American Way Foundation, one of the groups representing the city, said, "Today's ruling is a vindication of the constitutional principle that the government must not take sides when it comes to religion."
-- Continuing from "O'Connor: City properly excluded Christian prayer" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/24/08
The dispute arose when Turner, a resident of Fredericksburg, Va., and a member of the town council, was part of a rotation of council members who took turns bringing a prayer at the council meetings. He ended his prayers "in Jesus name."
That, however, offended a listener, who prompted the involvement of several activist groups that threatened a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member continued to be given the same rights to choose how to pray as other council members.
The city then adopted a non-sectarian prayer requirement, imposing a ban on any reference to "Jesus."
"Turner was not forced to offer a prayer that violated his deeply-held religious beliefs. Instead he was given a chance to pray on behalf of the government," O'Connor wrote.
UPDATE 1/16/09: Supreme Court Won't Restore Christian Prayer
-- From "Court Rules in Prayer Case" in the Washington Post 7/24/08
The Rev. Hashmel Turner, a Baptist minister, sued the city in 2006 after it passed a policy requiring invocations to be nondenominational. His attorneys argued that the government was effectively writing prayer if it told Turner how to pray.
Turner lost in trial court, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld that verdict unanimously.
The opinion, written by retired U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said courts have found legislative prayers constitutional when they are "designed to include members of the community, rather than to proselytize."
Judith E. Schaeffer, legal director for the People for the American Way Foundation, one of the groups representing the city, said, "Today's ruling is a vindication of the constitutional principle that the government must not take sides when it comes to religion."
-- Continuing from "O'Connor: City properly excluded Christian prayer" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/24/08
The dispute arose when Turner, a resident of Fredericksburg, Va., and a member of the town council, was part of a rotation of council members who took turns bringing a prayer at the council meetings. He ended his prayers "in Jesus name."
That, however, offended a listener, who prompted the involvement of several activist groups that threatened a lawsuit if the elected Christian council member continued to be given the same rights to choose how to pray as other council members.
The city then adopted a non-sectarian prayer requirement, imposing a ban on any reference to "Jesus."
"Turner was not forced to offer a prayer that violated his deeply-held religious beliefs. Instead he was given a chance to pray on behalf of the government," O'Connor wrote.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Boycotting Christians Stand at McDonald's, Restaurant Gives In
The corporate headquarters for McDonald's is hearing from store managers in California that customers are upset over the company's pro-homosexual advocacy and they aren't going to take it any longer.
-- From "McDonald's hears: 'I'm NOT lovin' it!'" by Bob Unruh © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/22/08
For background on this story, CLICK HERE.
Yuriy Popko, one of several Christians who staged a sign-waving protest at the Golden Arches in Citrus Heights today, said the protest at that location was suspended when store officials agreed to convey protesters' objections to the corporate office.
"They came out and talked with us. Basically we had two requests: a notice to the public and that they e-mail our concerns to the corporate office," Popko told WND.
"If McDonald's restaurants and franchises … follow the small business advice of the company's new homosexual partner – the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), which received a $20,000 grant from McDonald's – there would be chaos," said Peter LaBarbera, chief of Americans for Truth.
Popko said there are Christians from several organizations in the area working on the McDonald's boycott.
"From customers, we've actually gotten a pretty good response. They see the signs and come up to us. When they ask, we just explain about the $20,000 donated to the NGLCC."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Neighborhood Families Sue City over Planned Parenthood Building
Planned Parenthood's subsidiary, Gemini Office Development, falsified permit applications, obtained an invalid building permit, had invalid building inspections, and violated other city laws.
For background on this story, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion mega-clinic targeted by more complaints" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/23/08
City officials in Aurora, Ill., who in 2007 allowed construction of a massive Planned Parenthood abortion mega-clinic in apparent violation of their own zoning codes, now are being challenged by pro-life activists who previously filed a lawsuit on another front.
Thomas More Society, which has been battling the abortion business and is pursuing a lawsuit over the issue, says it now has filed formal appeals to both the Aurora Building Code Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of Fox Valley Families against Planned Parenthood.
"On July 1, the city of Aurora quietly issued a Final Certificate of occupancy to the 22,000-square-foot Planned Parenthood facility," officials with the law firm said. "Unlike the now-expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy under which the facility had been operating, the Final Certificate would grant permanent legal status to the facility."
"The appellants claim that the city continues to refuse to apply the correct ordinance to Planned Parenthood, even after the city conceded that its outside attorneys applied the wrong ordinance to the facility during their legal review in September of last year," the law firm announcement said.
"Planned Parenthood has made a mockery of Aurora's development process," said Peter Breen, attorney for the Thomas More Society. "They have brazenly committed fraud against the city and have strong-armed their illegal non-profit 'business' into the backyards of citizens who were given no voice to oppose the building of this Wal-Mart sized abortion facility. It is time for the 'City of Lights' to shine a harsh light on Planned Parenthood's dirty tactics."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
For background on this story, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion mega-clinic targeted by more complaints" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/23/08
City officials in Aurora, Ill., who in 2007 allowed construction of a massive Planned Parenthood abortion mega-clinic in apparent violation of their own zoning codes, now are being challenged by pro-life activists who previously filed a lawsuit on another front.
Thomas More Society, which has been battling the abortion business and is pursuing a lawsuit over the issue, says it now has filed formal appeals to both the Aurora Building Code Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of Fox Valley Families against Planned Parenthood.
"On July 1, the city of Aurora quietly issued a Final Certificate of occupancy to the 22,000-square-foot Planned Parenthood facility," officials with the law firm said. "Unlike the now-expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy under which the facility had been operating, the Final Certificate would grant permanent legal status to the facility."
"The appellants claim that the city continues to refuse to apply the correct ordinance to Planned Parenthood, even after the city conceded that its outside attorneys applied the wrong ordinance to the facility during their legal review in September of last year," the law firm announcement said.
"Planned Parenthood has made a mockery of Aurora's development process," said Peter Breen, attorney for the Thomas More Society. "They have brazenly committed fraud against the city and have strong-armed their illegal non-profit 'business' into the backyards of citizens who were given no voice to oppose the building of this Wal-Mart sized abortion facility. It is time for the 'City of Lights' to shine a harsh light on Planned Parenthood's dirty tactics."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Philadelphia Judges Rule Homosexual Rights Trump Christian Message
Judges say Gospel not permitted to be heard when homosexuals proclaim "that we're out and proud of who we are"
Read the liberal media report excerpts, then read the facts as presented by the Christians (backed up by their video)
-- From "Antigay group couldn't disrupt Phila. event, court rules" by Emilie Lounsberry, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer 7/16/08
Anti-homosexual activists arrested during Philadelphia's 2004 OutFest celebration had a First Amendment right to demonstrate but not to disrupt the coming-out festival, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit came in a lawsuit brought by 11 protesters affiliated with Repent America, a Lansdowne group whose members preach that homosexuality is sinful.
. . . the Third Circuit said Philadelphia police "had ample justification" in directing the protesters to move when they "interfered" with event activities.
"The police action was not based on the content of [the activists'] message but on their conduct," wrote Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, who said a video showed the Repent America group had tried to "drown out" platform speakers and congregated in the middle of the walkway.
Philly Pride had a permit for the event, and contended that it had a right to exclude the antigay activists.
And now, a look at some facts . . .
-- From "Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/18/08
Ted Hoppe, a lawyer allied with the Alliance Defense Fund, had argued in the appeal that, "Speech cannot be silenced simply because another person or group does not agree with it. City officials must be held accountable for their decision to violate the First Amendment rights of Christians who wanted nothing more than to engage in peaceful assembly on a public street."
Members of the "Philadelphia 11" as the group is known, were arrested Oct. 10, 2004, after quoting the Bible and expressing their views against homosexual behavior on a public street during "OutFest," a publicly funded celebration of homosexual choices.
They were jailed overnight in the case, but a judge later dismissed any criminal counts as having no basis in fact. The individuals then filed the damage lawsuit against the city.
"It is without question that Judge Stengel's decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a 'permitting scheme' can be used by police and event organizers to 'exclude persons expressing contrary messages' in public areas and at public events," Marcavage said earlier.
The video of the actual arrest has been posted on YouTube [CLICK HERE]
According to Repent America, the Christians on that day "were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the 'Pink Angels' who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities."
"The Philadelphia police, under the direction of Chief Inspector James Tiano, the city's 'police liaison to the gay and lesbian community,' refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed, even though they respectfully cooperated with police, obeying orders to move, short of being directed out of the event."
"We believe that a review of the video footage of the event clearly shows that the Philly 11 went out of their way to be cooperative and not be disruptive themselves. The only disruption that occurred, if any, was due to the crowd's reaction to the message that the Philly 11 was conveying," Hoppe said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Read the liberal media report excerpts, then read the facts as presented by the Christians (backed up by their video)
-- From "Antigay group couldn't disrupt Phila. event, court rules" by Emilie Lounsberry, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer 7/16/08
Anti-homosexual activists arrested during Philadelphia's 2004 OutFest celebration had a First Amendment right to demonstrate but not to disrupt the coming-out festival, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit came in a lawsuit brought by 11 protesters affiliated with Repent America, a Lansdowne group whose members preach that homosexuality is sinful.
. . . the Third Circuit said Philadelphia police "had ample justification" in directing the protesters to move when they "interfered" with event activities.
"The police action was not based on the content of [the activists'] message but on their conduct," wrote Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, who said a video showed the Repent America group had tried to "drown out" platform speakers and congregated in the middle of the walkway.
Philly Pride had a permit for the event, and contended that it had a right to exclude the antigay activists.
And now, a look at some facts . . .
-- From "Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/18/08
Ted Hoppe, a lawyer allied with the Alliance Defense Fund, had argued in the appeal that, "Speech cannot be silenced simply because another person or group does not agree with it. City officials must be held accountable for their decision to violate the First Amendment rights of Christians who wanted nothing more than to engage in peaceful assembly on a public street."
Members of the "Philadelphia 11" as the group is known, were arrested Oct. 10, 2004, after quoting the Bible and expressing their views against homosexual behavior on a public street during "OutFest," a publicly funded celebration of homosexual choices.
They were jailed overnight in the case, but a judge later dismissed any criminal counts as having no basis in fact. The individuals then filed the damage lawsuit against the city.
"It is without question that Judge Stengel's decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a 'permitting scheme' can be used by police and event organizers to 'exclude persons expressing contrary messages' in public areas and at public events," Marcavage said earlier.
The video of the actual arrest has been posted on YouTube [CLICK HERE]
According to Repent America, the Christians on that day "were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the 'Pink Angels' who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities."
"The Philadelphia police, under the direction of Chief Inspector James Tiano, the city's 'police liaison to the gay and lesbian community,' refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed, even though they respectfully cooperated with police, obeying orders to move, short of being directed out of the event."
"We believe that a review of the video footage of the event clearly shows that the Philly 11 went out of their way to be cooperative and not be disruptive themselves. The only disruption that occurred, if any, was due to the crowd's reaction to the message that the Philly 11 was conveying," Hoppe said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Christians to Candidates: International Religious Freedom a Priority
“Freedom of religion and the freedom to speak openly about ideas and beliefs here and abroad should be a high priority for the next president of the United States.”
-- From "McCain, Obama Urged to Make Int’l Religious Freedom a Priority" by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor, CNSNews 7/18/08
In a recent poll of American Christians commissioned by Open Doors USA and released this week, 54 percent of respondents said religious freedom should be a high priority in making U.S. foreign policy.
The organization, which estimates that 100 million Christians around the world are facing repression for their faith, said the poll result presented a challenge for presidential aspirants Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.
Ninety-six percent of respondents in the poll believed strongly that religious freedom was a basic human right, and more than eight in 10 believed it was a very important basic right.
Respondents favored the U.S. using “indirect” methods, such as economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, to apply pressure on regimes that abuse religious freedom.
At a White House ceremony this week marking the IRFA’s 10th anniversary, President Bush cited continuing problems in a number of countries, including China and Saudi Arabia. “We urge these leaders to respect the rights of those who seek only to worship their God as they see fit,” he said.
McCain has pledged to make religious freedom “a subject of great importance” in America’s relations with other nations.
“As president … I will work in close concert with democratic allies to raise the prominence of religious freedom in every available forum,” McCain said.
Obama in a speech on Latin America delivered in Florida in May, said U.S. backing for democracy abroad must go beyond the ballot box and include support for religious freedom, among other things. Among the presumptive Democratic nominee’s policy advisors is Preeta Bansal, a commissioner and former chairperson of the [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom].
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "McCain, Obama Urged to Make Int’l Religious Freedom a Priority" by Patrick Goodenough, International Editor, CNSNews 7/18/08
In a recent poll of American Christians commissioned by Open Doors USA and released this week, 54 percent of respondents said religious freedom should be a high priority in making U.S. foreign policy.
The organization, which estimates that 100 million Christians around the world are facing repression for their faith, said the poll result presented a challenge for presidential aspirants Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.
Ninety-six percent of respondents in the poll believed strongly that religious freedom was a basic human right, and more than eight in 10 believed it was a very important basic right.
Respondents favored the U.S. using “indirect” methods, such as economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, to apply pressure on regimes that abuse religious freedom.
At a White House ceremony this week marking the IRFA’s 10th anniversary, President Bush cited continuing problems in a number of countries, including China and Saudi Arabia. “We urge these leaders to respect the rights of those who seek only to worship their God as they see fit,” he said.
McCain has pledged to make religious freedom “a subject of great importance” in America’s relations with other nations.
“As president … I will work in close concert with democratic allies to raise the prominence of religious freedom in every available forum,” McCain said.
Obama in a speech on Latin America delivered in Florida in May, said U.S. backing for democracy abroad must go beyond the ballot box and include support for religious freedom, among other things. Among the presumptive Democratic nominee’s policy advisors is Preeta Bansal, a commissioner and former chairperson of the [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom].
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Pro-life NAACP Members Urge De-Funding of Planned Parenthood
Dozens of pastors and pro-life activists attending the 99th annual NAACP conference in Cincinnati this week are calling on that organization to help de-fund the nation’s largest abortion provider.
-- From "NAACP Urged to Help De-Fund Planned Parenthood" by Randy Hall, Staff Writer/Editor 7/17/08
CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman: de-fund Planned Parenthood
“Racism lives at Planned Parenthood,” said Dr. Alveda King, pastoral associate of the group Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., during a rally on Monday.
“I say to my fellow NAACP members: It's time we tell the government to stop funding racism.
“Planned Parenthood will gladly accept donations for the specific purpose of aborting only black babies,” King said. “It locates its clinics in or near minority neighborhoods. It has led the way in eliminating African-Americans to the point where one-quarter of the black population is now missing because of abortion.”
King, who had two abortions before adopting a pro-life position, called on the nation's oldest civil rights organization to remember its mission statement: “To ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.”
“Planned Parenthood is anti-life,” she said, “and we are here to say enough is enough!"
Another speaker at the rally was Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union. She said that, “as a child, I thought the NAACP to be a super-hero organization; an organization that would fight racism right down to its very core.”
However, she stressed that NAACP leaders need to have their eyes opened to the racist agenda of Planned Parenthood – which results in black women being 4.8 times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman.
"We are here to rally the NAACP – to make our voices heard as we shout in unison – all across this great nation that the struggle is not yet over," she said. "The evil hand of racism is still at work in this country and living in the bowels of Planned Parenthood.”
Gardner also spoke about the federal tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood and said it was time for Congress to end the funding.
To read the enitre article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "NAACP Urged to Help De-Fund Planned Parenthood" by Randy Hall, Staff Writer/Editor 7/17/08
CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman: de-fund Planned Parenthood
“Racism lives at Planned Parenthood,” said Dr. Alveda King, pastoral associate of the group Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., during a rally on Monday.
“I say to my fellow NAACP members: It's time we tell the government to stop funding racism.
“Planned Parenthood will gladly accept donations for the specific purpose of aborting only black babies,” King said. “It locates its clinics in or near minority neighborhoods. It has led the way in eliminating African-Americans to the point where one-quarter of the black population is now missing because of abortion.”
King, who had two abortions before adopting a pro-life position, called on the nation's oldest civil rights organization to remember its mission statement: “To ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.”
“Planned Parenthood is anti-life,” she said, “and we are here to say enough is enough!"
Another speaker at the rally was Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union. She said that, “as a child, I thought the NAACP to be a super-hero organization; an organization that would fight racism right down to its very core.”
However, she stressed that NAACP leaders need to have their eyes opened to the racist agenda of Planned Parenthood – which results in black women being 4.8 times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman.
"We are here to rally the NAACP – to make our voices heard as we shout in unison – all across this great nation that the struggle is not yet over," she said. "The evil hand of racism is still at work in this country and living in the bowels of Planned Parenthood.”
Gardner also spoke about the federal tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood and said it was time for Congress to end the funding.
To read the enitre article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Univ. of CA Seeks to Require Christian High Schools to Use Secular Curriculum
Disqualifies textbooks written from Christian perspective for college admission...
From "Academia to high schools: No God Allowed" posted 7/19/08 at WorldNetDaily.com
Arguments were heard today in a federal district court case to determine whether a state university system can dictate that private Christian schools in the state teach their college prep courses from exclusively secular, Bible- and God-free textbooks.
As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.
Robert Tyler, who is representing Calvary Chapel Christian School and five students in the case against the University of California, told WND that the university's discriminatory policy creates an ultimatum for Christian schools. "If you want courses to be approved in private education, so your students are qualified to attend (UC) institutions, you must teach from a secular point of view," he said.
...In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …"
From "Academia to high schools: No God Allowed" posted 7/19/08 at WorldNetDaily.com
Arguments were heard today in a federal district court case to determine whether a state university system can dictate that private Christian schools in the state teach their college prep courses from exclusively secular, Bible- and God-free textbooks.
As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.
Robert Tyler, who is representing Calvary Chapel Christian School and five students in the case against the University of California, told WND that the university's discriminatory policy creates an ultimatum for Christian schools. "If you want courses to be approved in private education, so your students are qualified to attend (UC) institutions, you must teach from a secular point of view," he said.
...In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …"
"Here's the very university that talks about academic freedom," Carney said. "It's very discriminating. They don't rule against Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (themes) or so forth, only those with a definite Christian theme."
According to the lawsuit, a variety of textbooks with supplemental perspectives were accepted – just not those with a Christian perspective.
Read the rest of this article HERE.
San Francisco Expansion of "Sex-worker Industry" on Ballot
In November, voters can choose to decriminalize prostitution; sex workers union herald measure, demand police protection
-- From "San Fran's next step: Legalized prostitution?" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/19/08
Petitioners have succeeded in moving a measure that would effectively decriminalize prostitution in the city of San Francisco to the Nov. 4 ballot.
While prostitution is unlawful under the California Penal Code, the measure – if passed by voters – would ban the San Francisco Police Department from allocating any financial resources for the investigation and prosecution of sex workers on prostitution charges.
Section four of the ballot measure – under the heading "Prostitution Shall Be Decriminalized" – further states that the city, county, and district attorney "shall not subject sex-workers to life long economic discrimination associated with having a criminal record."
Proponents of the measure are claiming it is needed to give sex-industry workers equal protection under the law and to counter an alleged long-standing cronyism between dance club owners and key decision makers that has resulted in police cracking down on some prostitution outlets but looking the other way from popular nightclubs, even when the clubs were accused of sexual abuses by workers.
Maxine Doogan, founder of the Erotic Service Provider's Union, wrote in an email reported by the Chronicle, "Workers would like it if crimes like rape, robbery, theft and coercion were vigorously investigated and prosecuted. We want the right to make reports of crimes against us without being retaliated against by the police department."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "San Fran's next step: Legalized prostitution?" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/19/08
Petitioners have succeeded in moving a measure that would effectively decriminalize prostitution in the city of San Francisco to the Nov. 4 ballot.
While prostitution is unlawful under the California Penal Code, the measure – if passed by voters – would ban the San Francisco Police Department from allocating any financial resources for the investigation and prosecution of sex workers on prostitution charges.
Section four of the ballot measure – under the heading "Prostitution Shall Be Decriminalized" – further states that the city, county, and district attorney "shall not subject sex-workers to life long economic discrimination associated with having a criminal record."
Proponents of the measure are claiming it is needed to give sex-industry workers equal protection under the law and to counter an alleged long-standing cronyism between dance club owners and key decision makers that has resulted in police cracking down on some prostitution outlets but looking the other way from popular nightclubs, even when the clubs were accused of sexual abuses by workers.
Maxine Doogan, founder of the Erotic Service Provider's Union, wrote in an email reported by the Chronicle, "Workers would like it if crimes like rape, robbery, theft and coercion were vigorously investigated and prosecuted. We want the right to make reports of crimes against us without being retaliated against by the police department."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Religious Liberty of Psychologists Threatened
From "Counselor Fired after Referring Homosexual to Colleague Because of Religious Objections" posted 7/17/08 at LifesiteNews.com
ATLANTA, GA, July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of a licensed counselor who was fired after referring a person seeking counsel with a same-sex relationship to a colleague. Rather than attempt to provide a service that would conflict with her sincerely-held religious beliefs on homosexual behavior, Marcia Walden referred her to another counselor; however, the counselee later filed a complaint that ultimately cost Walden her job.
...On Aug. 21, 2007, a woman employed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sought counsel from Walden, a counselor at Computer Sciences Corporation, regarding a same-sex relationship. Walden explained that the client's needs would conflict with her religious beliefs and that, therefore, it would be unfair for her to serve as the woman's counselor. As a result, Walden referred the individual to a colleague.
People are evidently unwilling to put together all the pieces to see the puzzle.They hear about a pastor being jailed, and another pastor being fined, and a business being sued, and a college administrator or psychologist being fired, and a pro-homosexual text being taught in high school, and conservative scholarship being censored, and laws being passed that require elementary students to be taught about homosexuality and "transgenderism" favorably, and marriage laws being violated, and municipalities legislating that cross-dressers be allowed to use the bathroom of choice--and still people go about their business as if everything is hunky dory.
What unconscionable complacency; what ignoble selfishness; what sorry role models. When my future grandchildren become elementary school age and public schools permit cross-dressing teachers, or openly homosexual teachers, or require the reading of picture books that portray positively homosexual families, and prohibit opting-out, I hope to be able to tell my children that I did everything I could to prevent this offense against truth, innocence, and decency.
-Laurie Higgins
Laurie is a freelance writer based in Deerfield, Illinois. She can be reached through Culture Campaign by writing feedback@culturecampaign.com.
ATLANTA, GA, July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of a licensed counselor who was fired after referring a person seeking counsel with a same-sex relationship to a colleague. Rather than attempt to provide a service that would conflict with her sincerely-held religious beliefs on homosexual behavior, Marcia Walden referred her to another counselor; however, the counselee later filed a complaint that ultimately cost Walden her job.
...On Aug. 21, 2007, a woman employed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sought counsel from Walden, a counselor at Computer Sciences Corporation, regarding a same-sex relationship. Walden explained that the client's needs would conflict with her religious beliefs and that, therefore, it would be unfair for her to serve as the woman's counselor. As a result, Walden referred the individual to a colleague.
After meeting with the client, Walden's colleague told her that she had done "the right thing" by referring the woman to him. However, the client later filed a complaint against Walden which led to an investigation and religiously-based questioning from Walden's supervisors, including pressure to hide her religious beliefs from future clients. She was later terminated as an employee.
Read the rest of this article.
When will people comprehend the fact that the social and political goals of homosexualists (i.e. homosexuals and those who support their beliefs and goals) poses one of the greatest domestic threats to fundamental First Amendment speech and religious rights that we face today?People are evidently unwilling to put together all the pieces to see the puzzle.They hear about a pastor being jailed, and another pastor being fined, and a business being sued, and a college administrator or psychologist being fired, and a pro-homosexual text being taught in high school, and conservative scholarship being censored, and laws being passed that require elementary students to be taught about homosexuality and "transgenderism" favorably, and marriage laws being violated, and municipalities legislating that cross-dressers be allowed to use the bathroom of choice--and still people go about their business as if everything is hunky dory.
What unconscionable complacency; what ignoble selfishness; what sorry role models. When my future grandchildren become elementary school age and public schools permit cross-dressing teachers, or openly homosexual teachers, or require the reading of picture books that portray positively homosexual families, and prohibit opting-out, I hope to be able to tell my children that I did everything I could to prevent this offense against truth, innocence, and decency.
-Laurie Higgins
Laurie is a freelance writer based in Deerfield, Illinois. She can be reached through Culture Campaign by writing feedback@culturecampaign.com.
McDonald's, Media Give Christians the Silent Treatment
Chicago media team up with McDonald's to shield the public from what McDonald's spokesman terms the 'hate' of Christians who oppose the Gay AgendaPhoto from Illinois Review (CLICK HERE to read article)
Read Sandy Rios' address to McDonald's at the press conference (CLICK HERE)
-- From "Very Sad But Not Surprising" by Dave Diersen of GOPUSA Illinois 7/17/08
It is very sad, but not surprising, that the Combine [Chicago politicians of both parties] got its news media members to keep the boycott off their websites.
The boycott was announced at an outstanding 10:00 AM press conference yesterday at the McDonald's restaurant across from McDonald's world headquarters in Oak Brook.
Because the Illinois Democrat Party Platform promotes homosexual activity and the Illinois Republican Party Platform discourages homosexual activity, the boycott is a political story. I was hoping to see Mary Ann Ahern, David Beery, Mike Flannery, Rick Preason, Andy Shaw, and other political reporters at the press conference, but I did not.
Speakers at the outstanding press conference included Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, Sandy Rios, and David E. Smith.
Sadly, McDonald's is a member of the Combine. Hopefully, Illinois Republican Party (IRP) Chairman Andy McKenna Jr. will get his father, Andy McKenna Sr., the President of McDonald's, to get McDonald's to stop promoting homosexual activity.
Also, read the WorldNetDaily article of 7/19/08 (CLICK HERE).
Contact McDonald's:
Andrew J. McKenna, President
McDonald's Corporation USA
McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: 1-800-244-6227
or: 630-623-3000
Fax: 630-623-5004
CLICK HERE for commenting via McDonald's website
South Carolina Tourism Bureaucrats Advertise State as 'So Gay'
Taxpayers are fuming: "South Carolina is a wonderful, family friendly destination not a Southern version of San Francisco. This campaign goes against our core values."
-- From "'South Carolina is so gay' travel agency to get refund" posted at the Guardian (UK) 7/18/08
A Columbia group said yesterday it will reimburse a European travel agency the roughly $5,000 lost when a state tourism agency refused to pay for an ad campaign to draw more gay travellers to South Carolina.
South Carolina Pride said it will seek private donations to pay the cost of the campaign, which included posters in London subway stations proclaiming "South Carolina is so gay".
After learning of the campaign, lawmakers and activists protested and the South Carolina department of parks, recreation and tourism refused to pay the bill. A spokesman for governor Mark Sanford said use of public advertising money to promote a social agenda was inappropriate.
The [South Carolina] employee who approved the campaign has resigned.
The fundraising campaign will be linked to South Carolina [homosexual] Pride's September 20 Columbia parade and festival, featuring entertainer RuPaul.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "'South Carolina is so gay' travel agency to get refund" posted at the Guardian (UK) 7/18/08
A Columbia group said yesterday it will reimburse a European travel agency the roughly $5,000 lost when a state tourism agency refused to pay for an ad campaign to draw more gay travellers to South Carolina.
South Carolina Pride said it will seek private donations to pay the cost of the campaign, which included posters in London subway stations proclaiming "South Carolina is so gay".
After learning of the campaign, lawmakers and activists protested and the South Carolina department of parks, recreation and tourism refused to pay the bill. A spokesman for governor Mark Sanford said use of public advertising money to promote a social agenda was inappropriate.
The [South Carolina] employee who approved the campaign has resigned.
The fundraising campaign will be linked to South Carolina [homosexual] Pride's September 20 Columbia parade and festival, featuring entertainer RuPaul.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
New Brazilian Law: Christians Face 5-year Prison Sentences
Speaking of the Biblical teaching on homosexuality "in public places or private places open to the public" will land you in jail.
-- From "Brazilian law would prohibit Christian teaching on homosexuality" posted at Catholic News Agency 7/15/08
The Brazilian Senate is considering a bill approved unanimously and without debate by the country’s House of Representatives that aims to promote homosexuality and prohibit Christian teaching on the issue, under the guise of combating discrimination.
According to the Association of the Defense of Life, the bill would make it [a] crime punishable by five years in prison to impede expressions of “homosexual affection” in public places or private places open to the public.
It would also punish those who deny employment [of] openly homosexual teachers in schools with up to three years imprisonment, making it impossible for Catholic or Christian schools to prevent homosexuals from joining their faculties.
The bill would also impose prison sentences on any kind of moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices. In this way, “a priest, a pastor, a teacher or even an average citizen who says in a sermon, a classroom or public conversation that homosexual acts are sinful, disordered or an illness could be denounced and detained,” the association said.
Questions to Christians: So, who's going to step up to the plate and act boldly in the name of Christ to preserve religious liberty in this fallen world? Is not the Great Commission given to every Christian? The loss of religious liberty obviously translates to a loss of effectiveness in spreading the Gospel. Therefore, Christians must exercise their power as citizens (in the world's free countries) to maintain freedom of religion. To sit idly by and lament is not modeling Christ! Pray to God for His wisdom and guidance -- pray unceasingly, while going out into the world. God doesn't call His people to pray while cowering inside the walls of the local church, never to boldly go out and proclaim His Name.
Take the first step; we'll help you, just ask: feedback@culturecampaign.com
-- From "Brazilian law would prohibit Christian teaching on homosexuality" posted at Catholic News Agency 7/15/08
The Brazilian Senate is considering a bill approved unanimously and without debate by the country’s House of Representatives that aims to promote homosexuality and prohibit Christian teaching on the issue, under the guise of combating discrimination.
According to the Association of the Defense of Life, the bill would make it [a] crime punishable by five years in prison to impede expressions of “homosexual affection” in public places or private places open to the public.
It would also punish those who deny employment [of] openly homosexual teachers in schools with up to three years imprisonment, making it impossible for Catholic or Christian schools to prevent homosexuals from joining their faculties.
The bill would also impose prison sentences on any kind of moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices. In this way, “a priest, a pastor, a teacher or even an average citizen who says in a sermon, a classroom or public conversation that homosexual acts are sinful, disordered or an illness could be denounced and detained,” the association said.
Questions to Christians: So, who's going to step up to the plate and act boldly in the name of Christ to preserve religious liberty in this fallen world? Is not the Great Commission given to every Christian? The loss of religious liberty obviously translates to a loss of effectiveness in spreading the Gospel. Therefore, Christians must exercise their power as citizens (in the world's free countries) to maintain freedom of religion. To sit idly by and lament is not modeling Christ! Pray to God for His wisdom and guidance -- pray unceasingly, while going out into the world. God doesn't call His people to pray while cowering inside the walls of the local church, never to boldly go out and proclaim His Name.
Take the first step; we'll help you, just ask: feedback@culturecampaign.com
McDonald’s Supports Same-sex 'Marriage' and other Radical Homosexual Causes
Press Conference at McDonald's worldwide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois
July 16, 2008
by Sandy Rios
Good morning! My name is Sandy Rios. I am the President of Culture Campaign, and the host of the Sandy Rios Show on AM 1160, WYLL [Chicago].
I am also the mother of two grown children who like millions of American kids, grew up loving Happy Meals and Ronald McDonald. McDonald's has become a uniquely American institution, recognized worldwide by its golden arches and family-friendly atmosphere. We have loved its food and trusted its message….until now.
The fact is that children come from two parents…mom and dad… and are best served when that Mom and Dad form a family to secure their environment and nurture them into adulthood. We used to all agree about that, but somewhere we lost our moorings.
Television and movies would tell us there are “other families” of equal value, that men should be able to marry men and women marry women. Interestingly enough, a great majority of our American family still do not hold that view. And the reason is that no matter how loud the voices or how convincing the sitcoms, we know deep down marriage between a man and a woman is the only real, healthy marriage, forming the very best family.
But now in a deeply disappointing move, McDonald’s has decided to use the money we give them to support homosexual marriage and other radical homosexual causes. One franchise in San Francisco proudly supported the Gay Pride Parade where men simulate copulation publicly, and both lesbians and gay men present a bawdy display of nudity and sex.
And when concerns have been raised by their loyal, family customers about the unacceptable duality of appealing to children while undermining their innocence and future, we have been accused of “hate.”
So “good-bye” to Ronald McDonald, Happy Meals and the family tradition of the Golden Arches. I cannot and will not spend one more dime there and am encouraging all those who are part of the Culture Campaign family and my radio audience to do the same. It is a matter of personal conscience.
And by the way, I have discovered lots of great fast foods in the interim! McDonald’s has the brand, but not necessarily the best food. That’s why this boycott may be less painful than you think!
July 16, 2008
by Sandy Rios
Good morning! My name is Sandy Rios. I am the President of Culture Campaign, and the host of the Sandy Rios Show on AM 1160, WYLL [Chicago].
I am also the mother of two grown children who like millions of American kids, grew up loving Happy Meals and Ronald McDonald. McDonald's has become a uniquely American institution, recognized worldwide by its golden arches and family-friendly atmosphere. We have loved its food and trusted its message….until now.
The fact is that children come from two parents…mom and dad… and are best served when that Mom and Dad form a family to secure their environment and nurture them into adulthood. We used to all agree about that, but somewhere we lost our moorings.
Television and movies would tell us there are “other families” of equal value, that men should be able to marry men and women marry women. Interestingly enough, a great majority of our American family still do not hold that view. And the reason is that no matter how loud the voices or how convincing the sitcoms, we know deep down marriage between a man and a woman is the only real, healthy marriage, forming the very best family.
But now in a deeply disappointing move, McDonald’s has decided to use the money we give them to support homosexual marriage and other radical homosexual causes. One franchise in San Francisco proudly supported the Gay Pride Parade where men simulate copulation publicly, and both lesbians and gay men present a bawdy display of nudity and sex.
And when concerns have been raised by their loyal, family customers about the unacceptable duality of appealing to children while undermining their innocence and future, we have been accused of “hate.”
So “good-bye” to Ronald McDonald, Happy Meals and the family tradition of the Golden Arches. I cannot and will not spend one more dime there and am encouraging all those who are part of the Culture Campaign family and my radio audience to do the same. It is a matter of personal conscience.
And by the way, I have discovered lots of great fast foods in the interim! McDonald’s has the brand, but not necessarily the best food. That’s why this boycott may be less painful than you think!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
San Francisco Officially Condemns Catholic Church
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
UPDATE 11/8/09: Full 9th Circuit to Hear Appeal
-- From "Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/15/08
A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church," Muise said.
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/8/09: Full 9th Circuit to Hear Appeal
-- From "Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/15/08
A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church," Muise said.
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Archbishop of Canterbury Calls for Alliance with Islam
-- From "Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'" by Steve Doughty at The Daily Mail 7/15/08
Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.
Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.
His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.
But it risked fresh controversy for the Archbishop in the wake of his pronouncement earlier this year that a place should be found for Islamic sharia law in the British legal system.
He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'.
Dr Williams added: 'It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit.'
[Williams called for 'religious plurality' saying,] 'We can together speak for those who have no voice or leverage in society - for the poorest, the most despised, the least powerful, for women and children, for migrants and minorities; and even to speak together for the great encompassing reality that has no voice of its own, our injured and abused material environment.'
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.
Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.
His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.
But it risked fresh controversy for the Archbishop in the wake of his pronouncement earlier this year that a place should be found for Islamic sharia law in the British legal system.
He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'.
Dr Williams added: 'It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit.'
[Williams called for 'religious plurality' saying,] 'We can together speak for those who have no voice or leverage in society - for the poorest, the most despised, the least powerful, for women and children, for migrants and minorities; and even to speak together for the great encompassing reality that has no voice of its own, our injured and abused material environment.'
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
UK: Religious Liberty in Employment Upheld, Journalists in Uproar
The vitriol spewing from the British media is astounding in response to a ruling in favor of right of conscience.
-- From "Registrar wins gay ceremony case" by Bob Sherwood at the Financial Times 7/11/08
A Christian registrar who refused to officiate over same-sex civil partnerships has won a discrimination case that could redraw the boundaries of anti-discrimination laws.
Lillian Ladele is set to receive thousands of pounds in compensation after an industrial tribunal on Thursday ruled that Islington council unlawfully discriminated against her because she refused to carry out the ceremonies “as a matter of religious conscience.”
Ms Ladele, 47, claimed that marrying gay couples was “sinful” and violated her “orthodox Christian beliefs.” She asked to be excused from performing same-sex unions because other registrars could do so.
The central London tribunal found that Ms Ladele was subjected to acts of direct discrimination by the north London council on the grounds of her religious beliefs, including disciplining her and threatening dismissal, concluding she had committed gross misconduct and treating her as homophobic.
The tribunal ruled: “It is an important case which may have a wider impact than the dispute between the parties. The tribunal accepts that it would be wrong for one set of rights to trump another.”
To read all about Lillian's persecution, CLICK HERE.
. . . here is just one example of the vehement opposition to the ruling in the UK media:
-- From "Lillian, the marriage registrar who’s wedded to bigotry" by Rod Liddle at the Times OnLine 7/13/08
Ladele, a bigot, aged 47, does not much like the idea of homosexuals doing anything with each other, let alone getting married. Officiating at such a ceremony was in direct contravention of her beliefs, the tribunal decided.
. . . the fact that she can append her bigotry to a minority view within a church attended by a vanishingly small section of the British population apparently swung the day.
There is a double irony here: civil ceremonies, for both gays and straights, are supposedly the secular alternative to a church service, so it is a bit iniquitous to find God – or at least Ladele’s own, personal, vengeful vision of God – poking his big nose in by proxy.
Members of the right-wing press have seen Ladele’s case as a “victory for common sense” against the political correctness of Islington council, which employed this woman.
. . . out of a desire to pay obeisance to any and all forms of religious bigotry, rather than insist to individuals that their views are stupid and medieval, the tribunal has opened the doors to a whole array of nutters with terrible sensibilities to plead their cases.
-- From "Registrar wins gay ceremony case" by Bob Sherwood at the Financial Times 7/11/08
A Christian registrar who refused to officiate over same-sex civil partnerships has won a discrimination case that could redraw the boundaries of anti-discrimination laws.
Lillian Ladele is set to receive thousands of pounds in compensation after an industrial tribunal on Thursday ruled that Islington council unlawfully discriminated against her because she refused to carry out the ceremonies “as a matter of religious conscience.”
Ms Ladele, 47, claimed that marrying gay couples was “sinful” and violated her “orthodox Christian beliefs.” She asked to be excused from performing same-sex unions because other registrars could do so.
The central London tribunal found that Ms Ladele was subjected to acts of direct discrimination by the north London council on the grounds of her religious beliefs, including disciplining her and threatening dismissal, concluding she had committed gross misconduct and treating her as homophobic.
The tribunal ruled: “It is an important case which may have a wider impact than the dispute between the parties. The tribunal accepts that it would be wrong for one set of rights to trump another.”
To read all about Lillian's persecution, CLICK HERE.
. . . here is just one example of the vehement opposition to the ruling in the UK media:
-- From "Lillian, the marriage registrar who’s wedded to bigotry" by Rod Liddle at the Times OnLine 7/13/08
Ladele, a bigot, aged 47, does not much like the idea of homosexuals doing anything with each other, let alone getting married. Officiating at such a ceremony was in direct contravention of her beliefs, the tribunal decided.
. . . the fact that she can append her bigotry to a minority view within a church attended by a vanishingly small section of the British population apparently swung the day.
There is a double irony here: civil ceremonies, for both gays and straights, are supposedly the secular alternative to a church service, so it is a bit iniquitous to find God – or at least Ladele’s own, personal, vengeful vision of God – poking his big nose in by proxy.
Members of the right-wing press have seen Ladele’s case as a “victory for common sense” against the political correctness of Islington council, which employed this woman.
. . . out of a desire to pay obeisance to any and all forms of religious bigotry, rather than insist to individuals that their views are stupid and medieval, the tribunal has opened the doors to a whole array of nutters with terrible sensibilities to plead their cases.
After Public Exposure, Kansas Doctors Stop Abortion Services
-- From "Clinic: Doctors have stopped abortion work" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/14/08
Kansas' resident late-term abortion specialist, George Tiller, has lost the services of two of the physicians who provided the "second opinion" that the late-term abortions Tiller provides are necessary.
It happened suddenly today when officials at Operation Rescue announced to the public the name of one of the doctors, Burt Odenheimer.
Only hours later, officials with the Wichita Clinic, where Odenheimer works, confirmed in a news statement that Odenheimer and another physician agreed to no longer provide the second opinion for Tiller's late-term abortion patients "starting immediately."
Under Kansas law, a physician who is not affiliated with Tiller or his abortion clinic or linked in any way financially must verify that a late-term abortion is needed in order for the procedure to proceed.
Now Operation Rescue has begun revealing the names of other physicians apparently used by Tiller in his abortion business.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Kansas' resident late-term abortion specialist, George Tiller, has lost the services of two of the physicians who provided the "second opinion" that the late-term abortions Tiller provides are necessary.
It happened suddenly today when officials at Operation Rescue announced to the public the name of one of the doctors, Burt Odenheimer.
Only hours later, officials with the Wichita Clinic, where Odenheimer works, confirmed in a news statement that Odenheimer and another physician agreed to no longer provide the second opinion for Tiller's late-term abortion patients "starting immediately."
Under Kansas law, a physician who is not affiliated with Tiller or his abortion clinic or linked in any way financially must verify that a late-term abortion is needed in order for the procedure to proceed.
Now Operation Rescue has begun revealing the names of other physicians apparently used by Tiller in his abortion business.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Catholic Head in Ontario Supports Honoring Abortionist
"I know it's divisive, but I think it's important," he says.
-- From "Catholic Ontario Premier Supports Abortionist Morgentaler's Order of Canada" by Tim Waggoner at LifeSiteNews.com 7/10/08
Ontario's Catholic premier has come out in support of the decision to grant Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada [Canada's highest civilian honour for lifetime achievement].
The National Post reports that [Catholic Premier Dalton] McGuinty is aware that Morgentaler's actions are "controversial" among Canadians [many elected officials have voiced disgust at the appointment], but maintained that the appointment recognizes the abortionist's fight to give women the right to make hard choices.
"I know that Dr. Morgentaler's been seen as a controversial figure, but I believe in a woman's right to make a very difficult decision," McGuinty said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Background from the Guardian: Dr. Morgentaler, is a Polish-born Holocaust survivor, who was trained as a family physician before opening his first abortion clinic in Montreal in 1969 -- offering a procedure still illegal at the time. After decades of arrests and court cases, he risked both his career and his life for the sake of establishing legal abortion.
-- From "Catholic Ontario Premier Supports Abortionist Morgentaler's Order of Canada" by Tim Waggoner at LifeSiteNews.com 7/10/08
Ontario's Catholic premier has come out in support of the decision to grant Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada [Canada's highest civilian honour for lifetime achievement].
The National Post reports that [Catholic Premier Dalton] McGuinty is aware that Morgentaler's actions are "controversial" among Canadians [many elected officials have voiced disgust at the appointment], but maintained that the appointment recognizes the abortionist's fight to give women the right to make hard choices.
"I know that Dr. Morgentaler's been seen as a controversial figure, but I believe in a woman's right to make a very difficult decision," McGuinty said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Background from the Guardian: Dr. Morgentaler, is a Polish-born Holocaust survivor, who was trained as a family physician before opening his first abortion clinic in Montreal in 1969 -- offering a procedure still illegal at the time. After decades of arrests and court cases, he risked both his career and his life for the sake of establishing legal abortion.
Batavia, IL Library Promotes Planned Parenthood to Kids
"The premise is that everyone is sexually active, regardless of what their values are, regardless of what their parents believe."
Update: Library Board Unanimous - Keep Teenwire Link on Website
-- From "Parents Outraged by Library Link to Planned Parenthood Web Site" Family News in Focus 6/27/08
Parents were outraged when they learned their library in Batavia, Ill., links its computers to Planned Parenthood's teen Web site. They have formed a coalition and are calling for the link to be removed.
Parent Kerry Knott complained to the library director after discovering the link.
"This is horrible stuff," she said. "It promotes birth control, sexual activity (and) makes a joke of abstinence. It mocks parents and makes us out to be idiots."
She and about 60 other parents took their case to the library board recently. Knott claims they were cut off early by the board.
"We the people, the taxpayers who fund the libraries, are no longer in control of the libraries," Knott said.
LeAnna Benn, an abstinence instructor and executive director of Teen Aid, said: "When I read about the case, I was not surprised because the American Library Association has teamed up with Planned Parenthood on a regular basis to promote 'comprehensive' sex education."
She said "comprehensive" sex education really should be called "condom-promotion education."
WARNING: This Planned Parenthood website (for teens) should ONLY be viewed by mature adults!
CLICK HERE to see stuff that is so crude that it certainly wouldn't be shown on broadcast TV. This is what the "educators" of America think children should be viewing. Look at the lower-right corner of the webpage for the graphic "How Pregnancy Happens" to see a cartoon for kids -- the characters are talking sex organs.
Not surprisingly, a Chicago Sun Times journalist is very much in favor of children being sexualized at an early age.
-- From "Another misguided attack - Batavia critics complain about TeenWire" by Laura Berman, Chicago Sun Times 7/7/08
The Batavia Library has listed Planned Parenthood's teen Web site under the health and fitness Web site links in its Young Adult section.
This Web site offers teens information on everything from menstrual cycles, body image concerns, STDs and, yes, birth control options. However, some parents and library board members are decrying the Web site's existence on the library computers, stating that the information offered by Planned Parenthood is "inaccurate" and "extremely misleading."
. . . sites like TeenWire make sex education that much more relevant to teens by offering stories from actual teen mothers, along with information on peer pressure, cliques and dating advice. Parents, teachers and lawmakers need to realize that waving the proverbial finger in teens' faces does nothing to protect them, inform them or empower them to make safe, smart decisions about their sexuality and their lives.
To read this entire Sun Times article, CLICK HERE.
Want to know more about the effort in Batavia? Click on the topics listed below.
Standing room only at Batavia Library Board Meeting of June 17th [blog]
Parents protest Batavia library's Web link [Daily Herald]
Family group fuming over library's sex ed Web link [Batavia Sun]
Update: Library Board Unanimous - Keep Teenwire Link on Website
-- From "Parents Outraged by Library Link to Planned Parenthood Web Site" Family News in Focus 6/27/08
Parents were outraged when they learned their library in Batavia, Ill., links its computers to Planned Parenthood's teen Web site. They have formed a coalition and are calling for the link to be removed.
Parent Kerry Knott complained to the library director after discovering the link.
"This is horrible stuff," she said. "It promotes birth control, sexual activity (and) makes a joke of abstinence. It mocks parents and makes us out to be idiots."
She and about 60 other parents took their case to the library board recently. Knott claims they were cut off early by the board.
"We the people, the taxpayers who fund the libraries, are no longer in control of the libraries," Knott said.
LeAnna Benn, an abstinence instructor and executive director of Teen Aid, said: "When I read about the case, I was not surprised because the American Library Association has teamed up with Planned Parenthood on a regular basis to promote 'comprehensive' sex education."
She said "comprehensive" sex education really should be called "condom-promotion education."
WARNING: This Planned Parenthood website (for teens) should ONLY be viewed by mature adults!
CLICK HERE to see stuff that is so crude that it certainly wouldn't be shown on broadcast TV. This is what the "educators" of America think children should be viewing. Look at the lower-right corner of the webpage for the graphic "How Pregnancy Happens" to see a cartoon for kids -- the characters are talking sex organs.
Not surprisingly, a Chicago Sun Times journalist is very much in favor of children being sexualized at an early age.
-- From "Another misguided attack - Batavia critics complain about TeenWire" by Laura Berman, Chicago Sun Times 7/7/08
The Batavia Library has listed Planned Parenthood's teen Web site under the health and fitness Web site links in its Young Adult section.
This Web site offers teens information on everything from menstrual cycles, body image concerns, STDs and, yes, birth control options. However, some parents and library board members are decrying the Web site's existence on the library computers, stating that the information offered by Planned Parenthood is "inaccurate" and "extremely misleading."
. . . sites like TeenWire make sex education that much more relevant to teens by offering stories from actual teen mothers, along with information on peer pressure, cliques and dating advice. Parents, teachers and lawmakers need to realize that waving the proverbial finger in teens' faces does nothing to protect them, inform them or empower them to make safe, smart decisions about their sexuality and their lives.
To read this entire Sun Times article, CLICK HERE.
Want to know more about the effort in Batavia? Click on the topics listed below.
Standing room only at Batavia Library Board Meeting of June 17th [blog]
Parents protest Batavia library's Web link [Daily Herald]
Family group fuming over library's sex ed Web link [Batavia Sun]
New Mexico Accused of Violating 'Free Exercise' of Religion
UPDATE 12/17/09: Judge requires Christians, found guilty, to pay $6,600
UPDATE 6/6/12: New Mexico Court of Appeals upholds Civil Rights Commission's pro-homosexual ruling/fine against Christian
-- From "New Mexico accused of violating 'free exercise' of religion" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/3/08
The state of New Mexico is being accused of violating the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion because of a ruling that a Christian husband-and-wife photography team must pay a $6,600 penalty for refusing to shoot pictures at a same-sex "commitment" ceremony.
"Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs any more than anyone else should," Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel for the [Alliance Defense Fund], said. "The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. The commission's decision demonstrates stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights."
The "commission" to which he was referring was the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission, which targeted Elane Photography with its state authority and ordered the penalty of $6,600 after a one-day "trial" over the beliefs of the Christian-owned business.
"The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood," said Lorence. "Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/6/12: New Mexico Court of Appeals upholds Civil Rights Commission's pro-homosexual ruling/fine against Christian
-- From "New Mexico accused of violating 'free exercise' of religion" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/3/08
The state of New Mexico is being accused of violating the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion because of a ruling that a Christian husband-and-wife photography team must pay a $6,600 penalty for refusing to shoot pictures at a same-sex "commitment" ceremony.
"Christians in the marketplace should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs any more than anyone else should," Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel for the [Alliance Defense Fund], said. "The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience. The commission's decision demonstrates stunning disregard for our client's First Amendment rights."
The "commission" to which he was referring was the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission, which targeted Elane Photography with its state authority and ordered the penalty of $6,600 after a one-day "trial" over the beliefs of the Christian-owned business.
"The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood," said Lorence. "Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Mass. Legislation to Threaten Every State with Same-sex 'Marriage'
The Gay Agenda 'safety valve' is this Massachusetts move: In case the California voters in November overturn their Court-ordered same-sex 'marriage' (which allows out-of-state couples marry in California), this new Massachusetts legislation will allow out-of-state couples marry in Massachusetts.
Update: Senate votes in favor of Gay Agenda, unopposed; expected to be signed into law in days.
-- From "Gay-marriage advocates hope to repeal old law - Nonresidents now barred" by Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff 7/10/08
State lawmakers are expected to vote next week on repealing a 1913 law that prevents out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Massachusetts, reigniting a divisive debate on an issue that has stirred passions and put the state in the national spotlight.
Advocates of same-sex marriage rights said they are hopeful the repeal will pass . . . "This is extraordinarily significant," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "If we get the 1913 law repealed, it brings us one very important step closer to full equality."
Proponents expect their effort to repeal the law to be divisive, but not as much as a constitutional amendment last year that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That measure, which needed a two-thirds majority, was rejected, 151 to 45.
Repeal of the 1913 law requires just a simple majority to pass, but legislative leaders would not make any predictions yesterday, adding that they were just starting to poll members to see if they have enough votes.
The 1913 statute prevents Massachusetts from sanctioning marriages that are not legal in the state where the couple lives. The law was enacted in part to prevent interracial couples from evading their own state's ban by traveling to Massachusetts to marry. It was a little-used and rarely enforced law until opponents used it to prevent out-of-state gay couples from getting married in Massachusetts after the state legalized same-sex marriage in 2004.
Removing the law would put Massachusetts on par with California, where a court ruled in May that gay marriage was legal for all couples, including those who live out of state. In May, Governor David Paterson of New York directed all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages in other states, including Massachusetts and California.
"We certainly don't want to see Massachusetts exporting this radical social experiment to the other 49 states, and that's what this would do," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which plans to mobilize and oppose the repeal effort.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Update: Senate votes in favor of Gay Agenda, unopposed; expected to be signed into law in days.
-- From "Gay-marriage advocates hope to repeal old law - Nonresidents now barred" by Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff 7/10/08
State lawmakers are expected to vote next week on repealing a 1913 law that prevents out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Massachusetts, reigniting a divisive debate on an issue that has stirred passions and put the state in the national spotlight.
Advocates of same-sex marriage rights said they are hopeful the repeal will pass . . . "This is extraordinarily significant," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "If we get the 1913 law repealed, it brings us one very important step closer to full equality."
Proponents expect their effort to repeal the law to be divisive, but not as much as a constitutional amendment last year that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That measure, which needed a two-thirds majority, was rejected, 151 to 45.
Repeal of the 1913 law requires just a simple majority to pass, but legislative leaders would not make any predictions yesterday, adding that they were just starting to poll members to see if they have enough votes.
The 1913 statute prevents Massachusetts from sanctioning marriages that are not legal in the state where the couple lives. The law was enacted in part to prevent interracial couples from evading their own state's ban by traveling to Massachusetts to marry. It was a little-used and rarely enforced law until opponents used it to prevent out-of-state gay couples from getting married in Massachusetts after the state legalized same-sex marriage in 2004.
Removing the law would put Massachusetts on par with California, where a court ruled in May that gay marriage was legal for all couples, including those who live out of state. In May, Governor David Paterson of New York directed all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages in other states, including Massachusetts and California.
"We certainly don't want to see Massachusetts exporting this radical social experiment to the other 49 states, and that's what this would do," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which plans to mobilize and oppose the repeal effort.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Divorce Still Damaging to Children Despite Being More Acceptable
"Divorce remains equally damaging to a child's prospects in life despite having become more common and more socially acceptable, researchers say."
-- From "Divorce Still Damaging to Children Despite Being More Acceptable" by James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, The Telegraph 7/9/08
A study run over several decades has shown that children whose parents split up are more likely to end up without qualifications, claiming benefits and suffering depression.
The National Child Development Study has tracked around 17,000 people born in Britain during one week in 1958 over the course of their lives.
As those people approach their 50th birthdays, researchers have compared their lives with those of other sample groups born in earlier and later years.
The lengthy study has confirmed that children born in 1958 were much less likely to experience parental divorce than children today.
Family break-up was subject to much greater social stigma at the time, something that was sometimes thought to contribute to the problems experienced by the children of divorced parents.
Yet the study's data suggest that greater social acceptance of divorce has not reduced its impact on children.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Divorce Still Damaging to Children Despite Being More Acceptable" by James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, The Telegraph 7/9/08
A study run over several decades has shown that children whose parents split up are more likely to end up without qualifications, claiming benefits and suffering depression.
The National Child Development Study has tracked around 17,000 people born in Britain during one week in 1958 over the course of their lives.
As those people approach their 50th birthdays, researchers have compared their lives with those of other sample groups born in earlier and later years.
The lengthy study has confirmed that children born in 1958 were much less likely to experience parental divorce than children today.
Family break-up was subject to much greater social stigma at the time, something that was sometimes thought to contribute to the problems experienced by the children of divorced parents.
Yet the study's data suggest that greater social acceptance of divorce has not reduced its impact on children.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
[Liberal] Black Churches Meet to Advance Gay Agenda, 'Safe Sex' and Abortion
-- From “Black Churches Gather to Promote ‘Reproductive Choice’” by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 7/10/08
(CNSNews.com) – Members and leaders from black churches gathered at Howard University School of Divinity this week to discuss sexuality, including how to make churches inclusive for homosexuals and what they say is the failure of federally funded abstinence-only education programs.
A program of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), a nationwide coalition of religious groups trying to advance abortion rights, the 12th annual National Black Church Summit on Sexuality featured speeches by the majority whip of the U.S. House, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), and former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders.
Workshops at the three-day event included “Pastoral Care and Reproductive Health Counseling,” which focused on “engaging women and families confronted with issues related to healthcare and reproductive health choices” – and included an introduction to churches on “how to provide a pregnant woman with all available information about their options – parenthood, adoption and pregnancy termination.”
In the “Speaking Truth to Power” workshop, attendees were taught how to lobby Congress to end funding of abstinence-only programs in favor of funding for “comprehensive sex education.”
The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, president and CEO of RCRC, told Cybercast News Service that teaching abstinence isn’t enough to help stop the rise of teenage pregnancies in the black community.
“We can teach our young people, ‘Yes, I believe in abstinence only,” but I also believe I have to be realistic enough to tell my young people how to protect themselves and to keep from becoming pregnant,” Veazey said. “Now the critics say you’re encouraging them to have sex, and I say no such thing. I’m trying to save their life, number one, and I’m trying to break this cycle of teen pregnancy, number two. It’s a matter of education.”
You really should read this entire article -- there are even MORE comments like these, so CLICK HERE.
(CNSNews.com) – Members and leaders from black churches gathered at Howard University School of Divinity this week to discuss sexuality, including how to make churches inclusive for homosexuals and what they say is the failure of federally funded abstinence-only education programs.
A program of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), a nationwide coalition of religious groups trying to advance abortion rights, the 12th annual National Black Church Summit on Sexuality featured speeches by the majority whip of the U.S. House, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), and former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders.
Workshops at the three-day event included “Pastoral Care and Reproductive Health Counseling,” which focused on “engaging women and families confronted with issues related to healthcare and reproductive health choices” – and included an introduction to churches on “how to provide a pregnant woman with all available information about their options – parenthood, adoption and pregnancy termination.”
In the “Speaking Truth to Power” workshop, attendees were taught how to lobby Congress to end funding of abstinence-only programs in favor of funding for “comprehensive sex education.”
The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, president and CEO of RCRC, told Cybercast News Service that teaching abstinence isn’t enough to help stop the rise of teenage pregnancies in the black community.
“We can teach our young people, ‘Yes, I believe in abstinence only,” but I also believe I have to be realistic enough to tell my young people how to protect themselves and to keep from becoming pregnant,” Veazey said. “Now the critics say you’re encouraging them to have sex, and I say no such thing. I’m trying to save their life, number one, and I’m trying to break this cycle of teen pregnancy, number two. It’s a matter of education.”
You really should read this entire article -- there are even MORE comments like these, so CLICK HERE.
Homosexual Sues Bible Publishers for Printing God's Condemnation
Man claims Bible made him "an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of 'demoralization, chaos and bewilderment.'"
-- From "'Gay' Man Sues Bible Publishers" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/9/08
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE, and for another news source, CLICK HERE.
This lawsuit may go nowhere today in America; however, if free speech rights continue to erode, a case like this will soon be taken seriously in the states, just as it already has in Canada and Europe.
-- From "'Gay' Man Sues Bible Publishers" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/9/08
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE, and for another news source, CLICK HERE.
This lawsuit may go nowhere today in America; however, if free speech rights continue to erode, a case like this will soon be taken seriously in the states, just as it already has in Canada and Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
