A [UK] vicar has been warned by council officials about flying a flag depicting Jesus Christ outside his church because it was deemed to be “religious advertising.”
-- From "Church warned that flag of Jesus is 'religious advertising'" by Richard Savill, London Telegraph 4/29/10
Rev Mark Binney, vicar of St Andrew’s Church, Hampton, Worcs, said he had been told he needed planning permission if he wanted to fly a flag “advertising Christianity” in future.
The flag was put up outside the church in the week preceding Easter Sunday displaying the words 'This is Holy Week' and an image of Jesus on the cross.
Mr Binney said the warning was “appalling”, and he felt it was part of a gradual erosion of Christianity in Britain.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Hawaii Passed Homosexual Civil Unions Bill
The Hawaii House passed the legislation by a 31-20 margin, following the Senate's passage in January.
-- From "Hawaii Lawmakers OK Civil Unions, Send Bill to Governor" by Mark Niesse, Associated Press 4/30/10
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle hasn't said whether she'll reject it or sign it into law, but her office said later that she will carefully review the bill.
The measure would grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits that the state provides to married couples. If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states -- along with California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington -- to grant essentially all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.
Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
The issue has proved divisive in Hawaii with religious groups arguing that civil unions are a step toward legalizing same-sex marriage. During one of the biggest ever state rallies, several thousand people protesting the measure rode buses to the Hawaii Capitol last year following Sunday church services.
Hawaii's civil union legislation appeared to be dead in January, when the House didn't take a vote on the measure and postponed it indefinitely out of fears that Lingle would veto.
The issue was revived Thursday after every other bill introduced this year had been acted on. Democratic House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro made the motion to reconsider the bill, although the House fell three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the governor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hawaii Lawmakers OK Civil Unions, Send Bill to Governor" by Mark Niesse, Associated Press 4/30/10
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle hasn't said whether she'll reject it or sign it into law, but her office said later that she will carefully review the bill.
The measure would grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits that the state provides to married couples. If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states -- along with California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington -- to grant essentially all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.
Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
The issue has proved divisive in Hawaii with religious groups arguing that civil unions are a step toward legalizing same-sex marriage. During one of the biggest ever state rallies, several thousand people protesting the measure rode buses to the Hawaii Capitol last year following Sunday church services.
Hawaii's civil union legislation appeared to be dead in January, when the House didn't take a vote on the measure and postponed it indefinitely out of fears that Lingle would veto.
The issue was revived Thursday after every other bill introduced this year had been acted on. Democratic House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro made the motion to reconsider the bill, although the House fell three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the governor.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Virginia Gov. Permits Chaplains to Pray to Jesus
State trooper chaplains in Virginia are being told they can pray "in Jesus name" again just two years after then-Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine affirmed a measure ordering them use only "nonsectarian" prayers or quit.
-- From "Cuccinelli: McDonnell policy allowing 'Jesus' prayer is constitutional" by Rosalind Helderman, Washington Post 4/29/10
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to allow volunteer state police chaplains to offer sectarian prayers at public events is "constitutionally defensible," and he will "defend it accordingly" against threatened litigation.
McDonnell yesterday told Col. W. Steven Flaherty, the state police superintendent, that he was reversing a 2008 policy that required chaplains to offer non-denominational prayers at officially-sanctioned police events. The policy change means the chaplains may now pray in Jesus's name. Flaherty had made the 2008 change in response to a federal court ruling prohibiting prayer that mentioned Jesus at Fredericksburg City Council meetings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Troopers allowed to pray 'in Jesus name'" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 4/28/10
According to Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of the "Pray in Jesus Name" organization, the new governor, Republican Bob McDonnell, has restored the rights of six state police chaplains "to pray publicly 'in Jesus name.'"
"This victory comes after our two-year campaign for Jesus name," Klingenschmitt said.
He led a 1,000-person rally outside the governor's mansion in 2008, then submitted some 15,000 petitions to reinstate the chaplains' jobs and free speech.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Read this past related article.
-- From "Cuccinelli: McDonnell policy allowing 'Jesus' prayer is constitutional" by Rosalind Helderman, Washington Post 4/29/10
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to allow volunteer state police chaplains to offer sectarian prayers at public events is "constitutionally defensible," and he will "defend it accordingly" against threatened litigation.
McDonnell yesterday told Col. W. Steven Flaherty, the state police superintendent, that he was reversing a 2008 policy that required chaplains to offer non-denominational prayers at officially-sanctioned police events. The policy change means the chaplains may now pray in Jesus's name. Flaherty had made the 2008 change in response to a federal court ruling prohibiting prayer that mentioned Jesus at Fredericksburg City Council meetings.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Troopers allowed to pray 'in Jesus name'" © 2010 WorldNetDaily 4/28/10
According to Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of the "Pray in Jesus Name" organization, the new governor, Republican Bob McDonnell, has restored the rights of six state police chaplains "to pray publicly 'in Jesus name.'"
"This victory comes after our two-year campaign for Jesus name," Klingenschmitt said.
He led a 1,000-person rally outside the governor's mansion in 2008, then submitted some 15,000 petitions to reinstate the chaplains' jobs and free speech.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Read this past related article.
Chaplains Challenge Obama's Muzzle on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
A group of retired military chaplains and lawyers gathered at the conservative Family Research Council on Wednesday to speak out against repealing the military policy on homosexuality, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), and suggested that current chaplains were being kept from doing the same.
-- From "Chaplains fight 'Don't Ask' repeal" by Jen Dimascio, Politico 4/27/10
Forty retired military chaplains are appealing to President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to retain the Pentagon’s "don’t ask don’t tell" ban on gays in the military.
The chaplains argue in a letter to the commander in chief and defense secretary, due to go out Wednesday, that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would discriminate against some Christian chaplains.
“We are deeply concerned that these changes would threaten the religious liberty of chaplains and service members,” the chaplains said in their letter, circulated Tuesday by the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.
A change in the military policy would force chaplains into a moral conundrum, they said, “whether they are to obey God or to obey men.”
They also cite the recent dis-invitation of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins from an Air Force prayer meeting as evidence that a crackdown on those who oppose repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” is already under way.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Military is Muzzling Chaplains and Others Who Support ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy on Homosexuality, Former Chaplains Say" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 4/29/10
Arthur Schultz, a former Army chaplain who now is legal counsel to the National Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, told reporters that servicemen overseas have been told not to speak in support of DADT.
“One of the chaplains . . . spoke to me, who recently came back from overseas from a major command, and he said that the word is out to chaplains: don’t speak about this and particularly, don’t raise issues about why you can’t support it,” Shultz told reporters. “And so that’s the unofficial, ‘official’ language to say, ‘Keep your mouth shut, or else.’
“(The chaplain) implied or he told me that it was made clear that it would be damaging to anybody who raised his head above the parapet, so to speak.”
Another former Army chaplain, Col. Rich Young, a veteran of both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield, [said] “Compelling chaplains to replace biblical truth with political correctness not only steals from the chaplain their religious freedom, it also directly harms our military,” Young said.
“One of the reasons I feel it is important to make a statement is because those chaplains who are still serving on active duty are not able to do so. Chaplains’ religious freedom is at risk,” said Young
Attorney Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, said that over 40 former military chaplains have sent letters to Defense Secretary Gates and to the president, telling them that the repeal of the military ban on homosexuality would not only mean a crisis of conscience for many of the military’s chaplains – it would create a situation never before encountered in American history.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Chaplains fight 'Don't Ask' repeal" by Jen Dimascio, Politico 4/27/10
Forty retired military chaplains are appealing to President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to retain the Pentagon’s "don’t ask don’t tell" ban on gays in the military.
The chaplains argue in a letter to the commander in chief and defense secretary, due to go out Wednesday, that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would discriminate against some Christian chaplains.
“We are deeply concerned that these changes would threaten the religious liberty of chaplains and service members,” the chaplains said in their letter, circulated Tuesday by the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.
A change in the military policy would force chaplains into a moral conundrum, they said, “whether they are to obey God or to obey men.”
They also cite the recent dis-invitation of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins from an Air Force prayer meeting as evidence that a crackdown on those who oppose repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” is already under way.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Military is Muzzling Chaplains and Others Who Support ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy on Homosexuality, Former Chaplains Say" by Christopher Neefus, CNSNews.com 4/29/10
Arthur Schultz, a former Army chaplain who now is legal counsel to the National Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, told reporters that servicemen overseas have been told not to speak in support of DADT.
“One of the chaplains . . . spoke to me, who recently came back from overseas from a major command, and he said that the word is out to chaplains: don’t speak about this and particularly, don’t raise issues about why you can’t support it,” Shultz told reporters. “And so that’s the unofficial, ‘official’ language to say, ‘Keep your mouth shut, or else.’
“(The chaplain) implied or he told me that it was made clear that it would be damaging to anybody who raised his head above the parapet, so to speak.”
Another former Army chaplain, Col. Rich Young, a veteran of both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield, [said] “Compelling chaplains to replace biblical truth with political correctness not only steals from the chaplain their religious freedom, it also directly harms our military,” Young said.
“One of the reasons I feel it is important to make a statement is because those chaplains who are still serving on active duty are not able to do so. Chaplains’ religious freedom is at risk,” said Young
Attorney Jordan Lorence, a senior counsel with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, said that over 40 former military chaplains have sent letters to Defense Secretary Gates and to the president, telling them that the repeal of the military ban on homosexuality would not only mean a crisis of conscience for many of the military’s chaplains – it would create a situation never before encountered in American history.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
ObamaCare Death Panel Lurks in New Jersey
In a case that could have nationwide implications, Trinitas Regional Medical Center here wants an appeals court to decide whether hospitals can refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient’s family.
-- From "N.J. court to rule whether hospitals may refuse life support despite wishes of families, patients" by Sue Epstein, The Star-Ledger (New Jersey) 4/28/10
The hospital argued it should also be able to decide, in certain cases, whether to end life support even if patients have written directives stipulating they want life-sustaining efforts to continue.
"The hospital is not looking for the courts to overturn the advanced directives law, but to carve out an exception," said Kathleen Boozang, a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law. "I’d say the hospital is looking for a narrow decision that (when) doctors believe the care given is grossly inhumane and medically inappropriate, the hospital has the right to terminate treatment."
Indeed, Gary Riveles, the attorney representing Trinitas, said hospital physicians "have to have the right to say enough is enough. The patient or patient’s surrogate should not have the unfettered right to maintain life when there is no chance left."
In a New Brunswick courtroom today, attorneys for the family at the center of the Trinitas appeal, along with advocates for the disabled and others who filed as friends of the court, asked the appellate judges to allow the final decision on life support to remain with patients and their families.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "N.J. court to rule whether hospitals may refuse life support despite wishes of families, patients" by Sue Epstein, The Star-Ledger (New Jersey) 4/28/10
The hospital argued it should also be able to decide, in certain cases, whether to end life support even if patients have written directives stipulating they want life-sustaining efforts to continue.
"The hospital is not looking for the courts to overturn the advanced directives law, but to carve out an exception," said Kathleen Boozang, a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law. "I’d say the hospital is looking for a narrow decision that (when) doctors believe the care given is grossly inhumane and medically inappropriate, the hospital has the right to terminate treatment."
Indeed, Gary Riveles, the attorney representing Trinitas, said hospital physicians "have to have the right to say enough is enough. The patient or patient’s surrogate should not have the unfettered right to maintain life when there is no chance left."
In a New Brunswick courtroom today, attorneys for the family at the center of the Trinitas appeal, along with advocates for the disabled and others who filed as friends of the court, asked the appellate judges to allow the final decision on life support to remain with patients and their families.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
China's Mass Executions Fuel Human Organ Trafficking
China's hidden policy of executing prisoners of the forbidden quasi-Buddhist group Falun Gong and harvesting their organs for worldwide sale has been expanded to include Tibetans, "house church" Christians and Muslim Uighurs, human rights activists said Monday.
-- From "Chinese accused of vast trade in organs" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 4/27/10
In a news conference on Capitol Hill, several speakers, including attorney David Matas of B'nai Brith Canada and Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said their investigations have unearthed a grisly trade in which an estimated 9,000 members of Falun Gong have been executed for their corneas, lungs, livers, kidneys and skins.
They likened the practice to the Nazi treatment of Jewish prisoners in World War II concentration camps, which included using them for sadistic medical experiments and taking the gold fillings from the teeth of corpses.
Organs from just one person can fetch a total of $100,000 on the worldwide market, he added.
The charges of organ harvesting and its spread to other religious and ethnic groups were made by the researchers and activists based on their extensive interviews with former prisoners and families of prisoners, and based on analysis of statistics, including health numbers, released by the Chinese government.
Although the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners has been documented as early as 1992 by Chinese dissident Harry Wu's Laogai Research Foundation, it was not until 2006 that the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong publication, accused the Chinese government of using its adherents for the practice.
When contacted Monday, Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy, said, "The sheer lies of organ harvesting are nothing but Falun Gong's propaganda tactics.
In 2005, Chinese Vice Minister of Health Huang Jiefu acknowledged that 95 percent of all transplanted organs come from executions . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Chinese accused of vast trade in organs" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 4/27/10
In a news conference on Capitol Hill, several speakers, including attorney David Matas of B'nai Brith Canada and Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said their investigations have unearthed a grisly trade in which an estimated 9,000 members of Falun Gong have been executed for their corneas, lungs, livers, kidneys and skins.
They likened the practice to the Nazi treatment of Jewish prisoners in World War II concentration camps, which included using them for sadistic medical experiments and taking the gold fillings from the teeth of corpses.
Organs from just one person can fetch a total of $100,000 on the worldwide market, he added.
The charges of organ harvesting and its spread to other religious and ethnic groups were made by the researchers and activists based on their extensive interviews with former prisoners and families of prisoners, and based on analysis of statistics, including health numbers, released by the Chinese government.
Although the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners has been documented as early as 1992 by Chinese dissident Harry Wu's Laogai Research Foundation, it was not until 2006 that the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong publication, accused the Chinese government of using its adherents for the practice.
When contacted Monday, Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy, said, "The sheer lies of organ harvesting are nothing but Falun Gong's propaganda tactics.
In 2005, Chinese Vice Minister of Health Huang Jiefu acknowledged that 95 percent of all transplanted organs come from executions . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Obamanation: Secularized Like Europe, Spiritualized Like Oprah
If the trends continue, "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships."-- From "Survey: 72% of Millennials 'more spiritual than religious'" by Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY 4/27/10
Among the 65% [of 18- to 29-year-olds] who call themselves Christian, "many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only," [says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources]. "Most are just indifferent. The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith."
Key findings in the phone survey, conducted in August and released today:
• 65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.
• 65% rarely or never attend worship services.
• 67% don't read the Bible or sacred texts.
The findings, which document a steady drift away from church life, dovetail with a LifeWay survey of teenagers in 2007 who drop out of church and a study in February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which compared the beliefs of Millennials with those of earlier generations of young people.
Even among those in the survey who "believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior":
• 68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was "really important in life."The Pew survey found young people today were significantly more likely than those in earlier generations to say they didn't identify with any religious group. Neither are Millennials any more likely than earlier generations to turn toward a faith affiliation as they grow older.
• 50% do not attend church at least weekly.
• 36% rarely or never read the Bible.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Click on the headlines below for documentation of the new America. It's inevitable lest sleeping Christians respond to God's Call to The Church.
Hallelujah, Obama Almighty! Media Proclaim
Obama Thankful for Freedom to Not Worship
Fed. Judge: National Day Of Prayer Unconstitutional
Boston Globe Explores Obama as Fake Christian
Czech President: Obama Wrong to Lead U.N. 'Church of Global Warming'
Belgium, a Glimpse of America's Future?
Observer Fears Islamic Takeover of France Imminent
Cardinal Says Secularization of Europe has Doomed it to Islamization
Pope: Societies drifting into a "desert of godlessness"
Methodists Team Up with Atheists for Bible Study
State-controlled BBC Reduces Christian Broadcast Time
Christian Programing Banned from National Public Radio
Today's Latino Immigrants Less Christian
Environmentalist 'Christians' Say Man Controls Nature, Not God
Socialist Government Schools Teach Bestiality
Countering Secularists' Stripping Jesus from History
Oprah Gives Limelight to Pro-homosexual 'Pastors'
Oprah Winfrey: Agent of Moral Insanity
Oprah Winfrey: Leading Many Down the 'Wide Road'
Obama Rocks Cradle of Community Organizers
Monday, April 26, 2010
Billy Graham Prays to Living God; Obama Prays to . . . ?
President Obama paid a visit to Billy Graham's house -- his first meeting with him -- where they privately talked and prayed. Graham gave Obama two Bibles.
UPDATE 5/2/13: President Obama Prays to an Unknown God
-- From "Obama and evangelist Billy Graham share a prayer" by Philip Elliott And Mike Baker, Associated Press Writers 4/25/10
Franklin Graham said his father and Obama did most of the talking. They reminisced about their roots in Chicago—Graham went to Wheaton College and began some of his ministry in the region; Obama moved to Chicago after college and began his political career there. And they talked about golf.
Graham said his father prayed for the nation and that God would give Obama wisdom in his decisions. The president prayed to thank God for Billy Graham's life, Franklin Graham said.
When Obama last spoke with Billy Graham, in a telephone call in November on Graham's birthday, they said they would try to get together as soon as possible, Burton said.
Franklin Graham has been in the news recently, with the Army rescinding an invitation for him to speak at a Pentagon prayer service, citing what it said were his inappropriate comments about Islam.
Franklin Graham said he and Obama spoke briefly about the Pentagon spat, with the younger Graham saying that activists with an agenda were trying to pull all religion out of the military.
"I wanted to make him aware of that," Franklin Graham said. "He said he would look into it."
To read entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/2/13: President Obama Prays to an Unknown God
-- From "Obama and evangelist Billy Graham share a prayer" by Philip Elliott And Mike Baker, Associated Press Writers 4/25/10
Franklin Graham said his father and Obama did most of the talking. They reminisced about their roots in Chicago—Graham went to Wheaton College and began some of his ministry in the region; Obama moved to Chicago after college and began his political career there. And they talked about golf.
Graham said his father prayed for the nation and that God would give Obama wisdom in his decisions. The president prayed to thank God for Billy Graham's life, Franklin Graham said.
When Obama last spoke with Billy Graham, in a telephone call in November on Graham's birthday, they said they would try to get together as soon as possible, Burton said.
Franklin Graham has been in the news recently, with the Army rescinding an invitation for him to speak at a Pentagon prayer service, citing what it said were his inappropriate comments about Islam.
Franklin Graham said he and Obama spoke briefly about the Pentagon spat, with the younger Graham saying that activists with an agenda were trying to pull all religion out of the military.
"I wanted to make him aware of that," Franklin Graham said. "He said he would look into it."
To read entire article, CLICK HERE.
ObamaCare Leads States to Restrict Abortion
As reported days ago . . .
Dozens of states are passing or debating new restrictions on abortion, a trend fueled in part by passage of the nation's new health care law.
-- From "States seek new ways to restrict abortions" by Alison Young, USA TODAY 4/26/10
"This year, particularly in the past couple of weeks, it's really turned into a free-for-all on trying to restrict abortions," said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research group focused on reproductive health and rights.
So far, 2010 has been "very successful," said Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee.
At least 22 states have bills to increase counseling or waiting periods; 18 states have bills to expand the use of ultrasound, Nash said.
Other legislation includes:
• Kansas. Doctors must give a medical diagnosis justifying late-term abortions under a new bill, which was vetoed by the governor April 15. An override attempt is expected.
• Utah. A new law makes self-induced abortion a homicide. It was prompted by a girl who paid a man $150 to beat her to try to induce a miscarriage.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Dozens of states are passing or debating new restrictions on abortion, a trend fueled in part by passage of the nation's new health care law.
-- From "States seek new ways to restrict abortions" by Alison Young, USA TODAY 4/26/10
"This year, particularly in the past couple of weeks, it's really turned into a free-for-all on trying to restrict abortions," said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research group focused on reproductive health and rights.
So far, 2010 has been "very successful," said Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee.
At least 22 states have bills to increase counseling or waiting periods; 18 states have bills to expand the use of ultrasound, Nash said.
Other legislation includes:
• Kansas. Doctors must give a medical diagnosis justifying late-term abortions under a new bill, which was vetoed by the governor April 15. An override attempt is expected.
• Utah. A new law makes self-induced abortion a homicide. It was prompted by a girl who paid a man $150 to beat her to try to induce a miscarriage.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Supreme Court Hears Gay Bullying of Traditionalists
To counter public support of traditional marriage, Homosexualists' track record shows reliance on intimidation tactics, threats and violence against citizens on record opposing Gay Agenda, as exhibited in Massachusetts, California, Arkansas, etc.
UPDATE 4/28/10: LA Times claims Justice Scalia shows sarcasm toward traditionalists
-- From "Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures" by Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter 4/25/10
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public.
The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants "everything but marriage" benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed.
Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act.
The Supreme Court, which hears arguments in the case on Wednesday, is expected to decide whether disclosing the names would violate the signers' First Amendment rights.
If the court rules it does, that would likely keep private not only Referendum 71 petitions but all referendum and initiative petitions in this state — and potentially those in two dozen other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.
If the court says petition signers' names are public — especially in cases where there's the potential for harassment — it might chill people's willingness to take part in the referendum and initiative process . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/28/10: LA Times claims Justice Scalia shows sarcasm toward traditionalists
-- From "Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures" by Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter 4/25/10
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public.
The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants "everything but marriage" benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed.
Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act.
The Supreme Court, which hears arguments in the case on Wednesday, is expected to decide whether disclosing the names would violate the signers' First Amendment rights.
If the court rules it does, that would likely keep private not only Referendum 71 petitions but all referendum and initiative petitions in this state — and potentially those in two dozen other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.
If the court says petition signers' names are public — especially in cases where there's the potential for harassment — it might chill people's willingness to take part in the referendum and initiative process . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Lawsuits over Birth Control Pills' Health Risks
"We believe it's a dangerous drug, and the most important thing here is to allow women to make an informed choice and know what the comparable risks are before they put a drug in their body."
-- From "Birth control pill concerns bring lawsuits but few solid answers" by Tammy Worth, Special to the Los Angeles Times 4/19/10
When the oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz came on the market in 2001 and 2006, respectively, they were thought to be safer than other birth control pills because they contained a different kind of synthetic progestin.
But in a flurry of lawsuits against the pills' maker, Bayer HealthCare, attorneys claim that the progestin contained in the pills, drospirenone, is the cause of health problems, including deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in the deep veins), strokes, heart attacks and gallbladder disease.
As of mid-February, about 1,100 lawsuits had been filed in the United States against Bayer, which stands behind the safety of the pills.
Research on the issue is divided. Some studies have found drospirenone to pose no greater health risk than other birth control pills; some studies show a sixfold greater risk of getting blood clots, even in young, healthy women. More research is being performed on the safety of the contraceptives, but for now, women considering taking the pills will need to weigh the contradictory information themselves.
Oral contraceptives control unwanted pregnancies by using hormones that block ovulation. The first of these pills, introduced in the United States in the early 1960s, contained high doses of estrogen. They were quickly found to raise the risk of stroke, blood clots and heart attacks.
Second-generation pills introduced in the 1970s contained lower amounts of estrogen combined with synthetic progestins, including one called levonorgestrel. These reduced the risk of blood clots but caused side effects such as weight gain and acne in many women.
The 1980s brought third-generation pills containing different synthetic progestins, such as one called desogestrel. These were later found to be associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
The fourth-generation pills — Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella, a generic version — contain estrogen and yet another progestin, drospirenone. They were created not just to prevent pregnancy but to also reduce the side effects of previous pills and to treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder (severe cases of depression, anxiety, headaches and other symptoms).
Now the contraceptives are not just the subject of lawsuits, they're also under scrutiny by groups such as Public Citizen over their safety. The FDA is testing the safety of Yaz and other pills in an ongoing study.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Birth control pill concerns bring lawsuits but few solid answers" by Tammy Worth, Special to the Los Angeles Times 4/19/10
When the oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz came on the market in 2001 and 2006, respectively, they were thought to be safer than other birth control pills because they contained a different kind of synthetic progestin.
But in a flurry of lawsuits against the pills' maker, Bayer HealthCare, attorneys claim that the progestin contained in the pills, drospirenone, is the cause of health problems, including deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in the deep veins), strokes, heart attacks and gallbladder disease.
As of mid-February, about 1,100 lawsuits had been filed in the United States against Bayer, which stands behind the safety of the pills.
Research on the issue is divided. Some studies have found drospirenone to pose no greater health risk than other birth control pills; some studies show a sixfold greater risk of getting blood clots, even in young, healthy women. More research is being performed on the safety of the contraceptives, but for now, women considering taking the pills will need to weigh the contradictory information themselves.
Oral contraceptives control unwanted pregnancies by using hormones that block ovulation. The first of these pills, introduced in the United States in the early 1960s, contained high doses of estrogen. They were quickly found to raise the risk of stroke, blood clots and heart attacks.
Second-generation pills introduced in the 1970s contained lower amounts of estrogen combined with synthetic progestins, including one called levonorgestrel. These reduced the risk of blood clots but caused side effects such as weight gain and acne in many women.
The 1980s brought third-generation pills containing different synthetic progestins, such as one called desogestrel. These were later found to be associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
The fourth-generation pills — Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella, a generic version — contain estrogen and yet another progestin, drospirenone. They were created not just to prevent pregnancy but to also reduce the side effects of previous pills and to treat premenstrual dysphoric disorder (severe cases of depression, anxiety, headaches and other symptoms).
Now the contraceptives are not just the subject of lawsuits, they're also under scrutiny by groups such as Public Citizen over their safety. The FDA is testing the safety of Yaz and other pills in an ongoing study.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
States' Abortion Laws Reflect Growing Public Abhorrence
State legislatures across America, reflecting the will of the people, steadily enact additional restrictions on the 'freedom' to kill the unborn.
(See also previous articles)
-- From "Nebraska Law Sets Limits on Abortion" by Monica Davey, New York Times 4/13/10
Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska signed a law [April 13th] banning most abortions 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, by that stage in pregnancy, has the capacity to feel pain. The law, which appears nearly certain to set off legal and scientific debates, is the first in the nation to restrict abortions on the basis of fetal pain.
Abortion opponents praised the law and said it was justified by medical evidence gained since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Abortion rights advocates said that the measure was unconstitutional, and that the motive behind it was to set off a challenge to legalized abortion before the United States Supreme Court.
The law, which is to take effect Oct. 15, restricts abortion in Nebraska on several fronts. It will forbid abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation. The law it replaces, similar to those in many other states, banned abortions after a fetus reaches viability, or can survive outside the womb. This is determined case by case but is generally considered to come around 22 weeks at the earliest.
The new law grants exceptions only in cases of medical emergency, the pregnant woman’s imminent death, or a serious risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” a provision experts interpreted as an effort to exclude an exception based on a woman’s mental health.
What is perhaps most notable about the law is that it takes aim at abortions from an utterly different perspective — the possibility of fetal pain — than states have tried historically, said officials at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on reproductive health and rights.
In some states that mandate counseling for women considering abortions, the women are told of a possibility that fetuses may have the capacity to feel pain. But no other state cites that possibility as part of a law restricting abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Virginia legislature restricts abortion funding" by Rosalind S. Helderman and Anita Kumar, Washington Post Staff Writers 4/22/10
The Virginia General Assembly on Wednesday accepted proposals from Gov. Robert F. McDonnell to restrict state funding for abortions, expand spending on economic development and raise fines for speeders, but lawmakers resisted some cuts he had sought for social services.
On a 20 to 19 vote, the Democratic-led Senate agreed to an amendment proposed by McDonnell (R) that would limit state funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. Nothing in state law previously prohibited Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother was in jeopardy.
The abortion vote was a victory for McDonnell, a Catholic who has long opposed abortion and who had been lobbied by social conservatives to restrict funding for the procedure. McDonnell argued that his proposal would bring Virginia into line with federal law on the issue, recently restated by an executive order signed by President Obama.
Abortion rights supporters said they thought the amendment would have far broader impact, affecting state employees seeking abortions under their state health plans. They said they thought it would restrict all abortions at public hospitals, except a very few performed for Medicaid patients in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
Those arguments were rejected by three conservative Democrats in the Senate, where their party holds a two-vote majority, as well as by all 17 of the chamber's Republicans who were present.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Mississippi, Louisiana, Moving to Ban State-Backed Insurance Abortion Coverage" posted at Ms. Magazine 4/23/10
The Mississippi and Louisiana state legislatures are both moving to pass legislation that would ban abortion coverage in each state's respective health insurance exchange being created as a result of the new federal health care package. Anti-choice legislation in Missouri also includes a provision that would ban abortion coverage in their insurance exchange.
In Mississippi, the state House passed a bill yesterday on an 80 to 33 vote that aims to ban abortion coverage in the state's insurance exchange, reported the Jackson Free Press.
In Louisiana, the state House overwhelmingly passed a bill yesterday on a 76 to 13 vote that would not only prohibit coverage of abortion in the state health insurance exchange, but would also prohibit elective abortion coverage by private insurers. The bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest, but does include an exception if a woman's life is endangered, according to the Associated Press.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Anti-abortion bill holds up action in Miss. Legislature" by Molly Parker, Gannett posted at Clarion Ledger 4/24/10
State lawmakers were set to close down session Friday until a Republican House lawmaker held two agencies' budgets hostage in an attempt to force a vote on anti-abortion legislation championed by a Mississippi senator running for Congress.
Rep. Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, said members "want an opportunity to vote on this bill."
Senate Bill 3214, sponsored by Sen. Alan Nunnelee - a Republican for Mississippi's 1st Congressional District - says no abortion coverage may be provided by a qualified health plan offered through a state health insurance exchange program.
The new federal health care law calls for states to create health exchange programs by 2014 and includes an opt-out provision related to abortion - effectively reiterating existing federal law.
Asked his opinion, Gov. Haley Barbour said in a brief exchange: "They've got to finish their business."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Tenn. legislature passes bill to outlaw taxpayer-funded abortions" posted at WVLT-TV Knoxville, TN 4/21/10
If Governor Bredesen signs the bill, Tennessee will become the first state to opt out of abortion mandates in the federal health care bill. But those who support abortion rights say the bill is much ado about nothing.
. . . Stacy Dunn of Tennessee Right to Life, which strongly supports the bill, says the State Legislature has sent a message and done the right thing.
Both the state house and senate approved the bill overwhelmingly . . .
Language in the bill says quote "No health care plan required to be established in the state through an exchange pursuant to federal health care reform legislation enacted by the 111th Congress shall offer coverage for abortion services."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion bill passes [Missouri] Senate" posted at Daily Dunklin Democrat (Kennet, MO) 4/23/10
Professional counseling, printed materials that show the development of the child, and opportunities to see an ultrasound or hear the baby's heartbeat are provisions in a bill that is one step closer to strengthening abortion requirements in Missouri. Senate Bill 793, sponsored by Sen. Rob Mayer (R-Dexter), received final passage by the Senate today.
In addition to the options presented to the mother, the act would require the woman to be told of the father's liability for child support, and the Alternatives to Abortion program. The bill also encapsulates legislation that bans coverage for abortion in any health care exchanges, such as those located in the federal health care legislation. If enacted, all of these options must be provided within 24 hours of the procedure.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Henry vetoes 2 abortion bills" by Barbara Hoberock, Tulsa World Capitol Bureau 4/24/10
[Oklahoma] Gov. Brad Henry vetoed two controversial abortion bills on Friday, likely setting up an override battle in the Legislature.
Henry rejected House Bill 2780, which would have required women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds within an hour of the procedure and have the findings explained.
The governor said the measure had numerous flaws and would ultimately result in another expensive and possibly futile legal battle for the state.
A court previously declared a similar measure unconstitutional because it contained more than one subject.
Henry said HB 2780 also did not contain an exemption for rape and incest victims, adding that requiring them to have an ultrasound would victimize them again.
In 2008, Henry vetoed similar legislation, but his veto was overridden.
Henry also vetoed House Bill 2656, which would prohibit so-called "wrongful life" lawsuits against doctors who withhold information about a fetus or pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
(See also previous articles)
-- From "Nebraska Law Sets Limits on Abortion" by Monica Davey, New York Times 4/13/10
Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska signed a law [April 13th] banning most abortions 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, by that stage in pregnancy, has the capacity to feel pain. The law, which appears nearly certain to set off legal and scientific debates, is the first in the nation to restrict abortions on the basis of fetal pain.
Abortion opponents praised the law and said it was justified by medical evidence gained since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Abortion rights advocates said that the measure was unconstitutional, and that the motive behind it was to set off a challenge to legalized abortion before the United States Supreme Court.
The law, which is to take effect Oct. 15, restricts abortion in Nebraska on several fronts. It will forbid abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation. The law it replaces, similar to those in many other states, banned abortions after a fetus reaches viability, or can survive outside the womb. This is determined case by case but is generally considered to come around 22 weeks at the earliest.
The new law grants exceptions only in cases of medical emergency, the pregnant woman’s imminent death, or a serious risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” a provision experts interpreted as an effort to exclude an exception based on a woman’s mental health.
What is perhaps most notable about the law is that it takes aim at abortions from an utterly different perspective — the possibility of fetal pain — than states have tried historically, said officials at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on reproductive health and rights.
In some states that mandate counseling for women considering abortions, the women are told of a possibility that fetuses may have the capacity to feel pain. But no other state cites that possibility as part of a law restricting abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Virginia legislature restricts abortion funding" by Rosalind S. Helderman and Anita Kumar, Washington Post Staff Writers 4/22/10
The Virginia General Assembly on Wednesday accepted proposals from Gov. Robert F. McDonnell to restrict state funding for abortions, expand spending on economic development and raise fines for speeders, but lawmakers resisted some cuts he had sought for social services.
On a 20 to 19 vote, the Democratic-led Senate agreed to an amendment proposed by McDonnell (R) that would limit state funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. Nothing in state law previously prohibited Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother was in jeopardy.
The abortion vote was a victory for McDonnell, a Catholic who has long opposed abortion and who had been lobbied by social conservatives to restrict funding for the procedure. McDonnell argued that his proposal would bring Virginia into line with federal law on the issue, recently restated by an executive order signed by President Obama.
Abortion rights supporters said they thought the amendment would have far broader impact, affecting state employees seeking abortions under their state health plans. They said they thought it would restrict all abortions at public hospitals, except a very few performed for Medicaid patients in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
Those arguments were rejected by three conservative Democrats in the Senate, where their party holds a two-vote majority, as well as by all 17 of the chamber's Republicans who were present.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Mississippi, Louisiana, Moving to Ban State-Backed Insurance Abortion Coverage" posted at Ms. Magazine 4/23/10
The Mississippi and Louisiana state legislatures are both moving to pass legislation that would ban abortion coverage in each state's respective health insurance exchange being created as a result of the new federal health care package. Anti-choice legislation in Missouri also includes a provision that would ban abortion coverage in their insurance exchange.
In Mississippi, the state House passed a bill yesterday on an 80 to 33 vote that aims to ban abortion coverage in the state's insurance exchange, reported the Jackson Free Press.
In Louisiana, the state House overwhelmingly passed a bill yesterday on a 76 to 13 vote that would not only prohibit coverage of abortion in the state health insurance exchange, but would also prohibit elective abortion coverage by private insurers. The bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest, but does include an exception if a woman's life is endangered, according to the Associated Press.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Anti-abortion bill holds up action in Miss. Legislature" by Molly Parker, Gannett posted at Clarion Ledger 4/24/10
State lawmakers were set to close down session Friday until a Republican House lawmaker held two agencies' budgets hostage in an attempt to force a vote on anti-abortion legislation championed by a Mississippi senator running for Congress.
Rep. Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, said members "want an opportunity to vote on this bill."
Senate Bill 3214, sponsored by Sen. Alan Nunnelee - a Republican for Mississippi's 1st Congressional District - says no abortion coverage may be provided by a qualified health plan offered through a state health insurance exchange program.
The new federal health care law calls for states to create health exchange programs by 2014 and includes an opt-out provision related to abortion - effectively reiterating existing federal law.
Asked his opinion, Gov. Haley Barbour said in a brief exchange: "They've got to finish their business."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Tenn. legislature passes bill to outlaw taxpayer-funded abortions" posted at WVLT-TV Knoxville, TN 4/21/10
If Governor Bredesen signs the bill, Tennessee will become the first state to opt out of abortion mandates in the federal health care bill. But those who support abortion rights say the bill is much ado about nothing.
. . . Stacy Dunn of Tennessee Right to Life, which strongly supports the bill, says the State Legislature has sent a message and done the right thing.
Both the state house and senate approved the bill overwhelmingly . . .
Language in the bill says quote "No health care plan required to be established in the state through an exchange pursuant to federal health care reform legislation enacted by the 111th Congress shall offer coverage for abortion services."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion bill passes [Missouri] Senate" posted at Daily Dunklin Democrat (Kennet, MO) 4/23/10
Professional counseling, printed materials that show the development of the child, and opportunities to see an ultrasound or hear the baby's heartbeat are provisions in a bill that is one step closer to strengthening abortion requirements in Missouri. Senate Bill 793, sponsored by Sen. Rob Mayer (R-Dexter), received final passage by the Senate today.
In addition to the options presented to the mother, the act would require the woman to be told of the father's liability for child support, and the Alternatives to Abortion program. The bill also encapsulates legislation that bans coverage for abortion in any health care exchanges, such as those located in the federal health care legislation. If enacted, all of these options must be provided within 24 hours of the procedure.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Henry vetoes 2 abortion bills" by Barbara Hoberock, Tulsa World Capitol Bureau 4/24/10
[Oklahoma] Gov. Brad Henry vetoed two controversial abortion bills on Friday, likely setting up an override battle in the Legislature.
Henry rejected House Bill 2780, which would have required women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds within an hour of the procedure and have the findings explained.
The governor said the measure had numerous flaws and would ultimately result in another expensive and possibly futile legal battle for the state.
A court previously declared a similar measure unconstitutional because it contained more than one subject.
Henry said HB 2780 also did not contain an exemption for rape and incest victims, adding that requiring them to have an ultrasound would victimize them again.
In 2008, Henry vetoed similar legislation, but his veto was overridden.
Henry also vetoed House Bill 2656, which would prohibit so-called "wrongful life" lawsuits against doctors who withhold information about a fetus or pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Democrats to Designate Gay-only Committee Seats
Members of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee want to create two seats on the convention committee that may be held only by transgender members, plus two other seats specifically for bisexuals.
-- From "Some Democrats want to add panel seats based on sexual ID" by Jim O’Sullivan, State House News Service posted at Boston Glob 4/23/10
The change, for now the sole issue vote scheduled for the June convention, would add bisexual and transgender people to the list of requisite "add on" seats, giving both categories the same guaranteed number as military veterans and each state Senate district under the charter. The charter and bylaws also call for gay, lesbian, elderly, youth, and ethnic minority delegates.
Some Democratic legislators criticized the proposal to rewrite party rules as divisive.
"I think this is a good issue; I’m not sure this is the year for it," said Representative Ellen Story, an Amherst Democrat. "We need to be focusing on jobs and the economy."
The governor [Deval Patrick] has been an advocate of sexual identity policies, helping to defeat an effort to end gay marriage in Massachusetts and backing the transgender rights bill.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Some Democrats want to add panel seats based on sexual ID" by Jim O’Sullivan, State House News Service posted at Boston Glob 4/23/10
The change, for now the sole issue vote scheduled for the June convention, would add bisexual and transgender people to the list of requisite "add on" seats, giving both categories the same guaranteed number as military veterans and each state Senate district under the charter. The charter and bylaws also call for gay, lesbian, elderly, youth, and ethnic minority delegates.
Some Democratic legislators criticized the proposal to rewrite party rules as divisive.
"I think this is a good issue; I’m not sure this is the year for it," said Representative Ellen Story, an Amherst Democrat. "We need to be focusing on jobs and the economy."
The governor [Deval Patrick] has been an advocate of sexual identity policies, helping to defeat an effort to end gay marriage in Massachusetts and backing the transgender rights bill.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Environmentalism Greatest Threat to Civilization
“Climate change is the totalitarian’s dream come true. It offers a rationale for government intrusion into every aspect of life for every person on Earth.”
UPDATE 8/31/13: Global Warming a Religion, Say Climate Scientists
-- From "Christian Theologian on Earth Day: ‘Climate Change Is the Totalitarian’s Dream Come True’" By Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 4/22/10
For E. Calvin Beisner and his colleagues at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (CASC), every day is Earth Day because Christians are called by God to be good stewards of the planet and its inhabitants.
Beisner believes that it is not carbon emissions but global warming activism and international climate treaties that are a threat to the nation’s future and the world’s poorest populations.
The enforcement of a U.N.-style treaty would mean a global government’s intrusion into how people live their private lives – “everything from the temperature at which you keep your house to whether to drive a large, crash-worthy vehicle or a small car that conserves fuel but is a death trap in an accident,” Beisner said.
In his speech, Beisner said that Christians should be concerned about global warming policies because they affect myriad issues, such as the sanctity of human life, individual liberty, the survival of free enterprise and free markets in the United States, compassion for the poor around the world, and a sovereign America with the kind of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
“Secular environmentalism, in contrast to creation stewardship, is at heart a false religion,” Beisner said.
Beisner concluded by citing one of the founding principles of the CASC, which states that the Earth is not a fragile entity made randomly by chance but the creation of an almighty God, who sustains it.
“Our God is a more intelligent designer than to make a system so fragile, and a better judge to call such a system ‘very good’ after he made it,” Beisner said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/31/13: Global Warming a Religion, Say Climate Scientists
-- From "Christian Theologian on Earth Day: ‘Climate Change Is the Totalitarian’s Dream Come True’" By Penny Starr, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer 4/22/10
For E. Calvin Beisner and his colleagues at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (CASC), every day is Earth Day because Christians are called by God to be good stewards of the planet and its inhabitants.
Beisner believes that it is not carbon emissions but global warming activism and international climate treaties that are a threat to the nation’s future and the world’s poorest populations.
The enforcement of a U.N.-style treaty would mean a global government’s intrusion into how people live their private lives – “everything from the temperature at which you keep your house to whether to drive a large, crash-worthy vehicle or a small car that conserves fuel but is a death trap in an accident,” Beisner said.
In his speech, Beisner said that Christians should be concerned about global warming policies because they affect myriad issues, such as the sanctity of human life, individual liberty, the survival of free enterprise and free markets in the United States, compassion for the poor around the world, and a sovereign America with the kind of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
“Secular environmentalism, in contrast to creation stewardship, is at heart a false religion,” Beisner said.
Beisner concluded by citing one of the founding principles of the CASC, which states that the Earth is not a fragile entity made randomly by chance but the creation of an almighty God, who sustains it.
“Our God is a more intelligent designer than to make a system so fragile, and a better judge to call such a system ‘very good’ after he made it,” Beisner said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Miami-Dade Bucks Islam Threat, Favors Religious Liberty
A public transit authority in Florida has reversed a decision to take down banner advertisements on buses that offer help to Muslims wanting to leave their faith. Activists are hailing the move as a victory for free speech and religious freedom.
-- From "Miami-Dade Transit to remove `offensive' Islamic bus ads" by Jaweed Kaleem, Miami Herald 4/16/10
The ads, which went up [April 13th] said "Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you?" and directed Muslims to a website encouraging them to leave Islam.
Robert Spencer, associate director of New York-based Stop the Islamization of America [SIOA], which purchased the ads for one-month as the first leg of a national campaign, said they were "offered in defense of religious liberty."
But on [April 15th], Miami-Dade Transit spokeswoman Karla Damian said that after reviewing the ads, the department decided they "may be offensive to Islam" and would remove them before the buses ran on [April 16th].
The South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations had critiqued the ads as promoting "bigotry" and making false statements about Islam.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Activists Claim Free Speech Victory As ‘Leaving Islam’ Ads Return to Buses" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 4/22/10
The decision [to put the ads back up] came after the group initiating the ad campaign threatened a lawsuit, claiming breach of contract and violation of First Amendment rights.
Not only will the ten originally planned ads appear on Miami-Dade Transit buses in coming days, but an additional 20 ads will be run at no extra cost.
It was confirmed in an agreement signed on Wednesday, according to lawyer David Yerushalmi, whose firm prepared a federal complaint together with the Thomas More Law Center.
Miami-Dade Transit did not respond to queries Wednesday.
The driving forces behind SIOA and a related group, the Freedom Defense Initiative, are Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs Web site, and Jihad Watch director and author Robert Spencer.
When they launched the campaign last week, Geller and Spencer said it marked “the first time anyone has offered public help to those who are threatened under Islam’s apostasy law. In the Land of the Free, government and law enforcement should be on this. But they aren’t. So we are. It is time for free citizens to stand for freedom – or lose it.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Miami-Dade Transit to remove `offensive' Islamic bus ads" by Jaweed Kaleem, Miami Herald 4/16/10
The ads, which went up [April 13th] said "Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you?" and directed Muslims to a website encouraging them to leave Islam.
Robert Spencer, associate director of New York-based Stop the Islamization of America [SIOA], which purchased the ads for one-month as the first leg of a national campaign, said they were "offered in defense of religious liberty."
But on [April 15th], Miami-Dade Transit spokeswoman Karla Damian said that after reviewing the ads, the department decided they "may be offensive to Islam" and would remove them before the buses ran on [April 16th].
The South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations had critiqued the ads as promoting "bigotry" and making false statements about Islam.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Activists Claim Free Speech Victory As ‘Leaving Islam’ Ads Return to Buses" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com International Editor 4/22/10
The decision [to put the ads back up] came after the group initiating the ad campaign threatened a lawsuit, claiming breach of contract and violation of First Amendment rights.
Not only will the ten originally planned ads appear on Miami-Dade Transit buses in coming days, but an additional 20 ads will be run at no extra cost.
It was confirmed in an agreement signed on Wednesday, according to lawyer David Yerushalmi, whose firm prepared a federal complaint together with the Thomas More Law Center.
Miami-Dade Transit did not respond to queries Wednesday.
The driving forces behind SIOA and a related group, the Freedom Defense Initiative, are Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs Web site, and Jihad Watch director and author Robert Spencer.
When they launched the campaign last week, Geller and Spencer said it marked “the first time anyone has offered public help to those who are threatened under Islam’s apostasy law. In the Land of the Free, government and law enforcement should be on this. But they aren’t. So we are. It is time for free citizens to stand for freedom – or lose it.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
African American Declares War on Congressional Black Caucus
"I am an American who happens to be black and I am proud to call myself part of the tea party movement. Mr. President, the government is not God and you are not the Messiah."-- From "Hampton Roads tea party rally aims at Obama and health care" by Kimball Payne, Daily Press (Virginia) 4/16/10
In Norfolk, partisan hopefuls shook hands and passed out bumper stickers as speakers kept the crowd entertained for hours under sunny skies. Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr. of Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake said it was time to throw the health care law "in the harbor." Jackson bristled at the idea that the tea party has racist undertones.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Black Minister Forms Political Action Committee (STAND America PAC) to Defeat Liberal Congressional Black Caucus and Break 'Death Grip' of Democrat Party on Black Community" posted at Christian Newswire 4/21/10
Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., retired attorney and Harvard Law graduate, is declaring political war on the Democrat Party and the liberal Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Bishop Jackson, having fought for pro-life and pro-family causes for 25 years, has entered fully into the political arena by forming a political action committee. The top priority of STAND AMERICA PAC, formed on April 1, 2010, is to recruit and support conservative black candidates to run against liberals in Congressional Black Caucus districts.
Says Bishop Jackson, "The black community has been deceived into voting for liberal black leadership which does not reflect their values." Jackson's strategy is to have black voters register as independents and vote their Christian values. He argues that the black voter is a conservative church going person.
According to Bishop Jackson, CBC members insult the black community by "conflating the black struggle for civil rights with the demands of radical homosexuals for marriage and other special rights." He calls it "one of the most preposterous frauds ever perpetrated on a people."
Bishop Jackson says the time has ended when getting elected to Congress in the black community requires no more than being a Democrat and play the race card.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Congressman Touts God's Commandment Against Energy Usage
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D.-Mo.), a United Methodist pastor, says that the citizens of America sin against God by using fossil fuels as desired because the Bible commands us otherwise.-- From "Democrat Congressman: America's Fossil Fuel Use Is ‘Sinful’" by Matt Cover, CNSNews Staff Writer 4/21/10
“When you realize how much fossil fuel we use, it is sinful,” Cleaver told reporters on Capitol Hill. “I do know what is in the Bible, and we are, it is declared by--that the Sun and the Earth is the Lord’s, in the fullness thereof, meaning everything that is in it. And that means that we are stewards that must take care of God’s Earth.”
Cleaver made his remarks at a press conference announcing the installation of a [$140,000] LED (Light Emitting Diode) lighting system in the House of Representatives’ cafeteria, a project that is part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) ‘Green the Capitol’ initiative.
Cleaver said that by greening the Capitol Congress was demonstrating to the rest of the country what Congress would like it to do.
“As a minister, I hear people say (that) the Bible says God helps those who help themselves,” said Cleaver. “It sounds really good, except it’s not in the Bible. So, there are things that we say that sound good so we just attribute it to something significant.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Bisexual Men Not Gay Enough for Softball
Three bisexual men from the San Francisco area have filed a lawsuit claiming they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series in the Seattle area two years ago.
UPDATE 11/28/11: Gay softball organization agrees to pay undisclosed sum to the bisexual men
UPDATE 6/2/11: Federal Judge rules softball league can limit number of non-homosexual players
-- From "Bisexual men say gay softball series discriminated" by Associated Press 4/20/10
The Seattle Times reports that the men filed the case Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the softball tournament's organizer, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance. It alleges that after another team complained, the alliance ruled the three men were "nongay," and took away the team's second-place finish.
The lawsuit accuses the alliance of violating Washington state laws barring discrimination.
Beth Allen, the alliance's attorney . . . said the alliance is a private organization and can determine its membership based on its goals.
The lawsuit, however, contends the tournament is a "public accommodation" that is open to the public and uses public softball fields.
The lawsuit said that after another team complained, each of the three men was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people and asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if he was heterosexual or gay.
The men are asking for $75,000 each for emotional distress.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 11/28/11: Gay softball organization agrees to pay undisclosed sum to the bisexual men
UPDATE 6/2/11: Federal Judge rules softball league can limit number of non-homosexual players
-- From "Bisexual men say gay softball series discriminated" by Associated Press 4/20/10
The Seattle Times reports that the men filed the case Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the softball tournament's organizer, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance. It alleges that after another team complained, the alliance ruled the three men were "nongay," and took away the team's second-place finish.
The lawsuit accuses the alliance of violating Washington state laws barring discrimination.
Beth Allen, the alliance's attorney . . . said the alliance is a private organization and can determine its membership based on its goals.
The lawsuit, however, contends the tournament is a "public accommodation" that is open to the public and uses public softball fields.
The lawsuit said that after another team complained, each of the three men was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people and asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if he was heterosexual or gay.
The men are asking for $75,000 each for emotional distress.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Pentagon Under Fire on National Day of Prayer
As Christian evangelist Franklin Graham responds to recent ruling against the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer, anti-Christian activists call for his Pentagon speaking engagement to be cancelled out of respect for Muslims
UPDATE 4/23/10: Sarah Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. Yes, things have changed."
UPDATE 4/22/10: Pentagon gives Rev. Graham the boot
-- From "Group Wants Evangelist's Pentagon Event Canceled" By Dan Elliott, Associated Press 4/20/10
Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said inviting evangelist Franklin Graham to speak May 6, the National Day of Prayer, "would be like bringing someone in on national prayer day madly denigrating Christianity" or other religious groups.
It would also endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists, Weinstein said.
After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion." He hasn't changed his views on Islam, said his spokesman, Mark DeMoss.
Weinstein, the foundation president, also criticized the Pentagon's working relationship with the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a Colorado group that organizes Christian events for the prayer day, designated by Congress.
Weinstein said that while he doesn't object to the day of prayer, the Pentagon chaplain's office has effectively endorsed the task force by using its materials and routinely inviting its honorary chairman to speak at the Pentagon. Weinstein said that amounts to preferential treatment in violation of Defense Department rules.
Graham is honorary chairman this year for the National Day of Prayer Task Force, based in Colorado Springs. A spokesman for the task force didn't immediately return a telephone message.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Franklin Graham fires back about National Day of Prayer" by WSOC-TV posted at The Star of Shelby, NC 4/19/10
Graham responded to [Wisconsin ruling] by saying, "It sounds to me like even the judge in this case understands the power of prayer. But it's voluntary. There's no requirement that people pray. To act like a National Day of Prayer is a bad thing or somehow subversive is ridiculous. Surely our country needs prayer now more than ever."
"Our country has a long history of recognizing a national day of prayer. It's something that dates back to the Continental Congress, when it recommended that states set aside a day for prayer and thanksgiving," Graham said. "This is a significant part of our country's heritage."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/23/10: Sarah Palin said, "Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. Yes, things have changed."
UPDATE 4/22/10: Pentagon gives Rev. Graham the boot
-- From "Group Wants Evangelist's Pentagon Event Canceled" By Dan Elliott, Associated Press 4/20/10
Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said inviting evangelist Franklin Graham to speak May 6, the National Day of Prayer, "would be like bringing someone in on national prayer day madly denigrating Christianity" or other religious groups.
It would also endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists, Weinstein said.
After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion." He hasn't changed his views on Islam, said his spokesman, Mark DeMoss.
Weinstein, the foundation president, also criticized the Pentagon's working relationship with the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a Colorado group that organizes Christian events for the prayer day, designated by Congress.
Weinstein said that while he doesn't object to the day of prayer, the Pentagon chaplain's office has effectively endorsed the task force by using its materials and routinely inviting its honorary chairman to speak at the Pentagon. Weinstein said that amounts to preferential treatment in violation of Defense Department rules.
Graham is honorary chairman this year for the National Day of Prayer Task Force, based in Colorado Springs. A spokesman for the task force didn't immediately return a telephone message.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Franklin Graham fires back about National Day of Prayer" by WSOC-TV posted at The Star of Shelby, NC 4/19/10
Graham responded to [Wisconsin ruling] by saying, "It sounds to me like even the judge in this case understands the power of prayer. But it's voluntary. There's no requirement that people pray. To act like a National Day of Prayer is a bad thing or somehow subversive is ridiculous. Surely our country needs prayer now more than ever."
"Our country has a long history of recognizing a national day of prayer. It's something that dates back to the Continental Congress, when it recommended that states set aside a day for prayer and thanksgiving," Graham said. "This is a significant part of our country's heritage."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008 arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
ABC News Goes Anti-Palin & Anti-Christian re: American History
Everywhere you look, the mainstream media ignorantly repeats the liberal talking points recently heard in the Texas school textbook controversy. Here's today's ABC News report; below is a rebuttal to Chicago Tribune bias.
-- From "Sarah Palin's 'Christian Nation' Remarks Spark Debate" by Teddy Davis And Matt Loffman, ABC News 4/20/10
Is America a Christian nation?
Sarah Palin said on Friday that it's "mind-boggling" to suggest otherwise.
Palin spoke Friday evening to 16,000 evangelical Christian women at the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Ky. Speaking about the separation of church and state, Palin said that the founding fathers of the United States were "true believers" and that George Washington "saw faith in God as basic to life."
But two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders' intent.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. history includes our faith" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, writing in Chicago Tribune 4/8/10
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone recently wrote an op-ed titled "The crazy imaginings of the Texas Board of Education," which sought to warn an unsuspecting America that there is "a coterie of Christian evangelicals who are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth." His fretful missive was prompted by the Texas Board of Education's efforts to restore balance to the teaching of American history after decades of successful "progressive" efforts to erase from history and the minds of children the place of Christianity in the founding of America.
The Chicago Tribune decided to publish this piece on Easter. I can only ask: Really — on Easter Sunday?
It has become so commonplace to read denigrating comments about Christians that the offensiveness of such comments barely registers on our tolerance meters.
Stone's apparent concern for historical accuracy might be more credible had he included these quotations:
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Sarah Palin's 'Christian Nation' Remarks Spark Debate" by Teddy Davis And Matt Loffman, ABC News 4/20/10
Is America a Christian nation?
Sarah Palin said on Friday that it's "mind-boggling" to suggest otherwise.
Palin spoke Friday evening to 16,000 evangelical Christian women at the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Ky. Speaking about the separation of church and state, Palin said that the founding fathers of the United States were "true believers" and that George Washington "saw faith in God as basic to life."
But two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders' intent.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. history includes our faith" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, writing in Chicago Tribune 4/8/10
University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone recently wrote an op-ed titled "The crazy imaginings of the Texas Board of Education," which sought to warn an unsuspecting America that there is "a coterie of Christian evangelicals who are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth." His fretful missive was prompted by the Texas Board of Education's efforts to restore balance to the teaching of American history after decades of successful "progressive" efforts to erase from history and the minds of children the place of Christianity in the founding of America.
The Chicago Tribune decided to publish this piece on Easter. I can only ask: Really — on Easter Sunday?
It has become so commonplace to read denigrating comments about Christians that the offensiveness of such comments barely registers on our tolerance meters.
Stone's apparent concern for historical accuracy might be more credible had he included these quotations:
"The fundamental truths reported in the four gospels as from the lips of Jesus Christ … are settled and fixed moral precepts with me."— Abraham Lincoln
— John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers; first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "
— Benjamin Franklin
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Praise Homosexuality - It's Law in California Schools
The California Legislature has overwhelmingly passed the equivalent of a Gay Agenda indoctrination law requiring that "homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality must be positively spoken or written about and not ever negatively spoken or written about or deemed to be negatively spoken or written about."
-- From "ACR 82 Public education: 'Discrimination-Free Zones'" posted at Legislative Counsel's Digest
This measure would encourage public education institutions to designate each campus as a "Discrimination-Free Zone" to provide a safe haven from intolerance or discrimination, to enact appropriate procedures that meaningfully address acts of discrimination that occur on campus, to notify parents and the campus community of existing policies and procedures that encourage tolerance of others, and to use existing resources to identify themselves as "Discrimination-Free Zones" to create a campus climate that welcomes diversity and supports the tolerance of others.
To read more of the California bill above, CLICK HERE.
From "Skirmishes continue for families in Calif. schools" by OneNewsNow 4/19/2010
. . . a student, teacher, or parent who speaks about traditional family values on campus could face a complaint or mandatory counseling, "but it's not limited to that. Suspension, detention, [and] other types of reprimand can certainly be in the mix here, and the hammer can certainly come down hard, depending on the district," [said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.]
He feels the new legislation throws constitutionally given rights out of the picture as he encourages parents to remove their children from the "anti-family government school system."
The SaveCalifornia.com president concludes that the "government school system in California is decidedly immoral, and parents have to open up their eyes and come out of denial."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Schools' assignment: Squelch family values" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 4/15/10
Lawmakers in California have adopted a resolution calling for "meaningful" counseling for students, teachers or even parents who exhibit the wrong attitudes on school campuses, a move a critic calls the latest tool in an arsenal of weapons to squelch pro-family values.
Critics say the "procedures" could be enacted over an act as basic as a statement that the Bible does not approve of homosexuality.
"The Democrats with the help of silent Republicans have given homosexual activists and the liberal education establishment a new tool with which to squelch and punish pro-family values in public schools," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.
California has a long history of demanding advocacy for homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles in its schools. In 1999, Gov. Gray Davis signed AB 537 permitting teachers and students to announce their homosexuality or cross-dress. The bill also was called a non-discrimination plan..
Then in 2003, Davis signed SB 71 establishing new "sexual health" standards that teach children as young as fifth grade that consensual sex is "safe" if the student is "protected" with a condom. It also teaches homosexuality is normal.
In 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 prohibiting any public school instruction or activity that "promotes" a discriminatory bias. The law now requires positive depictions of transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality at all levels in school.
Schwarzenegger followed in 2007 with AB 394, which promotes alternative sexual lifestyle choices through "anti-harassment" language.
Thomasson pointed out that California has no prohibition on public school teachers promoting "any legal sexual lifestyle or practice," and schools already have pro-homosexual "diversity" days, weeks or months.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "ACR 82 Public education: 'Discrimination-Free Zones'" posted at Legislative Counsel's Digest
This measure would encourage public education institutions to designate each campus as a "Discrimination-Free Zone" to provide a safe haven from intolerance or discrimination, to enact appropriate procedures that meaningfully address acts of discrimination that occur on campus, to notify parents and the campus community of existing policies and procedures that encourage tolerance of others, and to use existing resources to identify themselves as "Discrimination-Free Zones" to create a campus climate that welcomes diversity and supports the tolerance of others.
To read more of the California bill above, CLICK HERE.
From "Skirmishes continue for families in Calif. schools" by OneNewsNow 4/19/2010
. . . a student, teacher, or parent who speaks about traditional family values on campus could face a complaint or mandatory counseling, "but it's not limited to that. Suspension, detention, [and] other types of reprimand can certainly be in the mix here, and the hammer can certainly come down hard, depending on the district," [said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.]
He feels the new legislation throws constitutionally given rights out of the picture as he encourages parents to remove their children from the "anti-family government school system."
The SaveCalifornia.com president concludes that the "government school system in California is decidedly immoral, and parents have to open up their eyes and come out of denial."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Schools' assignment: Squelch family values" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 4/15/10
Lawmakers in California have adopted a resolution calling for "meaningful" counseling for students, teachers or even parents who exhibit the wrong attitudes on school campuses, a move a critic calls the latest tool in an arsenal of weapons to squelch pro-family values.
Critics say the "procedures" could be enacted over an act as basic as a statement that the Bible does not approve of homosexuality.
"The Democrats with the help of silent Republicans have given homosexual activists and the liberal education establishment a new tool with which to squelch and punish pro-family values in public schools," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com.
California has a long history of demanding advocacy for homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles in its schools. In 1999, Gov. Gray Davis signed AB 537 permitting teachers and students to announce their homosexuality or cross-dress. The bill also was called a non-discrimination plan..
Then in 2003, Davis signed SB 71 establishing new "sexual health" standards that teach children as young as fifth grade that consensual sex is "safe" if the student is "protected" with a condom. It also teaches homosexuality is normal.
In 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 prohibiting any public school instruction or activity that "promotes" a discriminatory bias. The law now requires positive depictions of transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality at all levels in school.
Schwarzenegger followed in 2007 with AB 394, which promotes alternative sexual lifestyle choices through "anti-harassment" language.
Thomasson pointed out that California has no prohibition on public school teachers promoting "any legal sexual lifestyle or practice," and schools already have pro-homosexual "diversity" days, weeks or months.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Monday, April 19, 2010
ACLU Sues to Stop Voters' Prayer
Voters in Lancaster [Calif.] overwhelmingly approve a controversial ballot measure that allows the City Council to continue beginning its meetings with prayers. By a 3 to 1 margin . . .
UPDATE 3/27/13: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Prayer Policy
-- From "Lancaster voters approve prayers before mtg" ©2010 KABC-TV/DT 7, Los Angeles 4/15/10
Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the ACLU is considering taking Lancaster to court if the prayers are allowed to continue. Critics say Christian prayers are usually delivered. But, city officials say clergy of different faiths are invited to lead the opening prayer.
Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris, who won re-election over four challengers, said he is confident the measure will hold up in court. The controversy first came to light earlier this year when Parris remarked that he was "growing a Christian community" in Lancaster. He later apologized for those remarks and said he realized his words offended non-Christians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "California City May Face Legal Action over Prayer Vote" by John Rogers, Associated Press 4/15/10
When Lancaster's flamboyant mayor R. Rex Parris calls the City Council to order at its next meeting, it's a good bet he'll open the proceedings with a prayer.
Parris, who was up for re-election, had exhorted people to vote for the prayer initiative even if they didn't want to vote for him.
Apparently quite a few listened, as he won re-election over four challengers by collecting 57 percent of the vote. Voters also extended the mayor's term from two to four years beginning in 2012.
Nonbinding Measure I, the prayer measure placed on the ballot by the City Council, put the spotlight on the dusty, high-desert community of 145,000 located 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 3/27/13: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Prayer Policy
-- From "Lancaster voters approve prayers before mtg" ©2010 KABC-TV/DT 7, Los Angeles 4/15/10
Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the ACLU is considering taking Lancaster to court if the prayers are allowed to continue. Critics say Christian prayers are usually delivered. But, city officials say clergy of different faiths are invited to lead the opening prayer.
Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris, who won re-election over four challengers, said he is confident the measure will hold up in court. The controversy first came to light earlier this year when Parris remarked that he was "growing a Christian community" in Lancaster. He later apologized for those remarks and said he realized his words offended non-Christians.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "California City May Face Legal Action over Prayer Vote" by John Rogers, Associated Press 4/15/10
When Lancaster's flamboyant mayor R. Rex Parris calls the City Council to order at its next meeting, it's a good bet he'll open the proceedings with a prayer.
Parris, who was up for re-election, had exhorted people to vote for the prayer initiative even if they didn't want to vote for him.
Apparently quite a few listened, as he won re-election over four challengers by collecting 57 percent of the vote. Voters also extended the mayor's term from two to four years beginning in 2012.
Nonbinding Measure I, the prayer measure placed on the ballot by the City Council, put the spotlight on the dusty, high-desert community of 145,000 located 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
ENDA: Next Obamanation of Gay Agenda
Homosexual congressmen Barney Frank (D-Mass.) & Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) are promising that the next Pelosi ram-jam legislation will be the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- the 'pièce de résistance' of the Gay Agenda.
ENDA would equate sexual deviancy rights to civil rights, thus requiring, for example, Christian schools to hire cross-dressing men.
UPDATE 4/22/10: “What ENDA could do is put transgender teachers in every classroom in America.”
-- From "ENDA Vote Coming Soon" by Chris Geidner, Metro Weekly 4/18/10
Legislation aimed at ending employment discrimination against LGBT people will be marked up in committee "this week or next," according to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). [bill HR 3017]
Frank, speaking to Metro Weekly after his appearance at the Victory Fund's annual Champagne Brunch, said the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) – currently in the House Education and Labor Committee – has been "promised" a quick vote in the full House by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once the bill leaves committee.
In the past month, Frank has been speaking with increased confidence and specificity about House passage of ENDA. The legislation, which has been introduced in different forms in Congress since 1994, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for employers with 15 or more employees.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Barney And Barack's Anti-Religion Agenda" by J. Matt Barber, of Liberty Counsel posted at The Washington Times 4/18/10
According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.
ENDA would force - under penalty of law - Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to adopt a secular-humanist viewpoint, ignoring all matters surrounding sexual morality while making hiring and firing decisions. Unlike race or sex, homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors are both volitional and mutable. Nonetheless, and despite the reality that such conduct is in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology, ENDA would compel business owners with 15 or more employees to leave sincerely held religious beliefs at the workplace door and submit to the demands of the homosexual activist lobby.
This is government-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination. It is no different from forcing a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an "out and proud" adulterous "swinger." It directly alienates the unalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.
During his second term, President George W. Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, highlighting its unconstitutionality: "[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)."
President Obama, however, has publicly endorsed the bill and promises to sign it into law should it pass. This is in perfect keeping with his demonstrated belief that the federal government's constitutionally limited powers are more of a suggestion than a requirement. Mr. Obama has appointed at least one like-minded ENDA heavy. Chai R. Feldblum is a lesbian activist and sexual nihilist lawyer who in the past has publicly supported legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory.
When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Ms. Feldblum snapped: "Gays win, Christians lose." And where Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of homosexual "rights," Ms. Feldblum has admitted having "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The companion Senate bill (S 1584) has 44 co-sponsors, including two Republicans
ENDA would equate sexual deviancy rights to civil rights, thus requiring, for example, Christian schools to hire cross-dressing men.
UPDATE 4/22/10: “What ENDA could do is put transgender teachers in every classroom in America.”
-- From "ENDA Vote Coming Soon" by Chris Geidner, Metro Weekly 4/18/10
Legislation aimed at ending employment discrimination against LGBT people will be marked up in committee "this week or next," according to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). [bill HR 3017]
Frank, speaking to Metro Weekly after his appearance at the Victory Fund's annual Champagne Brunch, said the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) – currently in the House Education and Labor Committee – has been "promised" a quick vote in the full House by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once the bill leaves committee.
In the past month, Frank has been speaking with increased confidence and specificity about House passage of ENDA. The legislation, which has been introduced in different forms in Congress since 1994, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for employers with 15 or more employees.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Barney And Barack's Anti-Religion Agenda" by J. Matt Barber, of Liberty Counsel posted at The Washington Times 4/18/10
According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.
ENDA would force - under penalty of law - Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to adopt a secular-humanist viewpoint, ignoring all matters surrounding sexual morality while making hiring and firing decisions. Unlike race or sex, homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors are both volitional and mutable. Nonetheless, and despite the reality that such conduct is in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology, ENDA would compel business owners with 15 or more employees to leave sincerely held religious beliefs at the workplace door and submit to the demands of the homosexual activist lobby.
This is government-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination. It is no different from forcing a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an "out and proud" adulterous "swinger." It directly alienates the unalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.
During his second term, President George W. Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, highlighting its unconstitutionality: "[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)."
President Obama, however, has publicly endorsed the bill and promises to sign it into law should it pass. This is in perfect keeping with his demonstrated belief that the federal government's constitutionally limited powers are more of a suggestion than a requirement. Mr. Obama has appointed at least one like-minded ENDA heavy. Chai R. Feldblum is a lesbian activist and sexual nihilist lawyer who in the past has publicly supported legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory.
When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Ms. Feldblum snapped: "Gays win, Christians lose." And where Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of homosexual "rights," Ms. Feldblum has admitted having "a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The companion Senate bill (S 1584) has 44 co-sponsors, including two Republicans
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Christian College Clubs Must Accept Atheists? Supremes to Decide
Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case of a college club with a Christian mission that desires to restrict its leadership to Christians, not homosexual activists or atheists.
UPDATE 6/28/10: Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
UPDATE 4/19/10: Supreme Court justices, during oral arguments, appear to split on case
-- From "Supreme Court to consider case against California law school" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer 4/18/10
In a case that carries great implications for how public universities and schools must accommodate religious groups, the University of California's Hastings College of the Law is defending its anti-discrimination policy against charges that it denies religious freedom.
The college, which requires officially recognized student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join, may be well-meaning, says the student outpost of the Christian Legal Society. But the group contends that requiring it to allow gay students and nonbelievers into its leadership would be a renunciation of its core beliefs, and that the policy violates the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, association with like-minded individuals and exercise of religion.
"Hastings' policy is a threat to every group that seeks to form and define its own voice," the group told the court in a brief. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, will be argued in the Supreme Court Monday morning.
Hastings counters that the CLS, a national organization that seeks to "proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law," is demanding special treatment. It wants the college's official stamp of approval and the access to benefits and student activity fees that come with it, but it will not commit to following the nondiscrimination policy that every other student group follows.
The case poses a quandary for a court that has recognized both the ability of public universities and schools to control the use of their facilities and funds and the right of religious groups to select members based on their beliefs. It comes as religious groups have become more active and litigious in demanding a place in the public forum of free speech.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/28/10: Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus
UPDATE 4/19/10: Supreme Court justices, during oral arguments, appear to split on case
-- From "Supreme Court to consider case against California law school" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer 4/18/10
In a case that carries great implications for how public universities and schools must accommodate religious groups, the University of California's Hastings College of the Law is defending its anti-discrimination policy against charges that it denies religious freedom.
The college, which requires officially recognized student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join, may be well-meaning, says the student outpost of the Christian Legal Society. But the group contends that requiring it to allow gay students and nonbelievers into its leadership would be a renunciation of its core beliefs, and that the policy violates the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, association with like-minded individuals and exercise of religion.
"Hastings' policy is a threat to every group that seeks to form and define its own voice," the group told the court in a brief. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, will be argued in the Supreme Court Monday morning.
Hastings counters that the CLS, a national organization that seeks to "proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law," is demanding special treatment. It wants the college's official stamp of approval and the access to benefits and student activity fees that come with it, but it will not commit to following the nondiscrimination policy that every other student group follows.
The case poses a quandary for a court that has recognized both the ability of public universities and schools to control the use of their facilities and funds and the right of religious groups to select members based on their beliefs. It comes as religious groups have become more active and litigious in demanding a place in the public forum of free speech.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Obama Cranks Gay Agenda Up One Notch via Hospitals
President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.
-- From "Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays" by Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writer 4/16/10
The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.
Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. Obama's order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.
Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples' efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured.
Obama's mandate is the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.
In his first 15 months in office, he has hailed the passage of hate crime legislation and held the first Gay Pride Day celebration at the White House. Last month, Obama's top military and defense officials testified before Congress in favor of repealing of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the armed forces.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex visitation rights: Opposing White House intervention" comments by Peter Sprigg, posted at Washington Post 4/16/10
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow of Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, was online Friday, April 16, at 2:30 p.m. ET to discuss the reasons why the organization is against White House intervention.
Fairfax, Va.: Why do you believe that the Obama memo grants special rights to gays and lesbians?
Peter Sprigg: We actually have no problem with homosexuals being able to visit their partners in the hospital. On this issue (unlike some other "benefits of marriage," including ones that cost taxpayer money), we take a libertarian stance--the patient's wishes should prevail. But we feel that can be achieved through private contractual arrangements, and White House intervention is unnecessary. However, this issue is usually raised in support of changing the definition of marriage.
Washington, D.C.: I have visited friends and family in the hospital many times and have never been asked to prove that I am a family member. Is this a real problem? Or does the president have other ulterior motives here?
Peter Sprigg: You have hit on a key point. To hear the advocates of same-sex "marriage" talk, you would think that hospitals are surrounded by airport-level security and require 4 forms of ID for someone to visit. Anyone who regularly visits hospitals knows this is untrue--for the most part, you just walk in. There may be exceptions (intensive care, for example), but this "problem" has been greatly exaggerated in order to generate an emotional reaction that will increase support for same-sex "marriage." For the most part, the President's memo is a solution in search of a problem.
Trying to follow your logic: So, the government telling hospitals that they can't forbid gays from seeing their ill partners is a "government intrusion into healthcare," while the hospital's prohibition does not intrude into health care in any way. Right?
Peter Sprigg: The idea that homosexuals are regularly denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is one that has only one source--homosexual activists who want to change the definition of marriage. Where are the media surveys of hospital administrators to determine how many hospitals actually have such restrictive policies? I think you would find this is rare, not common.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays" by Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writer 4/16/10
The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.
Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. Obama's order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.
Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples' efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured.
Obama's mandate is the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.
In his first 15 months in office, he has hailed the passage of hate crime legislation and held the first Gay Pride Day celebration at the White House. Last month, Obama's top military and defense officials testified before Congress in favor of repealing of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the armed forces.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex visitation rights: Opposing White House intervention" comments by Peter Sprigg, posted at Washington Post 4/16/10
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow of Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, was online Friday, April 16, at 2:30 p.m. ET to discuss the reasons why the organization is against White House intervention.
Fairfax, Va.: Why do you believe that the Obama memo grants special rights to gays and lesbians?
Peter Sprigg: We actually have no problem with homosexuals being able to visit their partners in the hospital. On this issue (unlike some other "benefits of marriage," including ones that cost taxpayer money), we take a libertarian stance--the patient's wishes should prevail. But we feel that can be achieved through private contractual arrangements, and White House intervention is unnecessary. However, this issue is usually raised in support of changing the definition of marriage.
Washington, D.C.: I have visited friends and family in the hospital many times and have never been asked to prove that I am a family member. Is this a real problem? Or does the president have other ulterior motives here?
Peter Sprigg: You have hit on a key point. To hear the advocates of same-sex "marriage" talk, you would think that hospitals are surrounded by airport-level security and require 4 forms of ID for someone to visit. Anyone who regularly visits hospitals knows this is untrue--for the most part, you just walk in. There may be exceptions (intensive care, for example), but this "problem" has been greatly exaggerated in order to generate an emotional reaction that will increase support for same-sex "marriage." For the most part, the President's memo is a solution in search of a problem.
Trying to follow your logic: So, the government telling hospitals that they can't forbid gays from seeing their ill partners is a "government intrusion into healthcare," while the hospital's prohibition does not intrude into health care in any way. Right?
Peter Sprigg: The idea that homosexuals are regularly denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is one that has only one source--homosexual activists who want to change the definition of marriage. Where are the media surveys of hospital administrators to determine how many hospitals actually have such restrictive policies? I think you would find this is rare, not common.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Calif. Porn Advocates Perplexed re: STD Transmission
"They keep trying to figure out who to blame, and now they’re blaming the agents."UPDATE 3/31/11: OSHA fines Hustler for porn stars without "protection"
UPDATE 12/8/10: HIV-Positive Porn Actor Calls for Condom Use in Adult Films
UPDATE 10/14/10: Discovery of HIV-positive sex "actor" causes voluntary pornography industry shut down
UPDATE 10/13/10: Free speech advocate says don't blame porn industry as "knee jerk" reaction.
-- From "Activists to target porn agents in latest push for increased regulation" by Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times 4/14/10
An advocacy group that has been demanding greater government protections for adult film performers plans to file a complaint Thursday with state regulators against nine Los Angeles-area porn talent agencies.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation officials, opening a new front in their fight with the porn industry, said they plan to send a letter to State Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet arguing the agencies encourage porn performers to engage in unsafe sex that puts them at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
The nonprofit foundation, based in Los Angeles, has been campaigning for increased regulation of the porn industry since a 2004 HIV outbreak among performers in the San Fernando Valley.
[One] agency’s owner, a former porn actress known as Shy Love, said she believes AIDS Healthcare activists are on a witch hunt.
Love said she cannot dictate what sex acts the performers she represents are willing to do. She said her job is simply to match performers with production companies and projects, just as a mainstream movie agent would.
“We make sure our performers are well taken care of,” said Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a Canoga Park-based porn trade association. “This is a legal, vital and important industry.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Feminists: Avoid Childbirth for Selfish Economics
Researchers' study of female baby boomers with careers shows those who have kids earlier make less money in life; highest earners were childless
File this one under "studies that prove the obvious"
-- From "Delaying kids may prevent financial 'motherhood penalty'" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 4/16/10
Researchers at the University of Maryland in College Park and the University of California at Los Angeles reviewed 35 years of data from some 2,200 women born between 1944 and 1954, and found that women who had kids in the early- to mid-20s or even younger didn't fare as well economically as those who delayed.
Research has found that women who are childless tend to have greater earnings and those with kids have what some have referred to as a "motherhood penalty," that is, lower wages for working mothers.
But this new study, presented by co-author Joan Kahn, a sociologist at the University of Maryland in College Park, finds women who got more education and job training before having children don't experience that so-called "penalty."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
File this one under "studies that prove the obvious"
-- From "Delaying kids may prevent financial 'motherhood penalty'" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 4/16/10
Researchers at the University of Maryland in College Park and the University of California at Los Angeles reviewed 35 years of data from some 2,200 women born between 1944 and 1954, and found that women who had kids in the early- to mid-20s or even younger didn't fare as well economically as those who delayed.
Research has found that women who are childless tend to have greater earnings and those with kids have what some have referred to as a "motherhood penalty," that is, lower wages for working mothers.
But this new study, presented by co-author Joan Kahn, a sociologist at the University of Maryland in College Park, finds women who got more education and job training before having children don't experience that so-called "penalty."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Mainstream Media Touts Darwinist 'Bible Scholar'
Secular media pounces on opportunity to pit so-called evangelical theologian against evangelical Christendom in attack on Scriptural Authority
-- From "Evangelical scholar forced out after endorsing evolution" by Scott Jaschik, USA Today 4/9/10
When it comes to incriminating videos these days, the one of Bruce K. Waltke might seem pretty tame. It shows the noted evangelical scholar of the Old Testament talking about scholarship, faith and evolution. What was incriminating? He not only endorsed evolution, but said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.
"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was — until this week — a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)
The statements so upset officials of the seminary that Waltke had to ask the BioLogos Foundation, a group that promotes the idea that science and faith need not be incompatible, to remove it from its website (which the foundation did) and to post a clarification. The video was shot during a BioLogos workshop. But even those steps weren't enough for the seminary, which announced that it had accepted his resignation.
. . . the fact that his seminary did dismiss him is viewed as a sign of just how difficult it may be for scholars at some institutions to raise issues involving science that are not 100% consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The Waltke Controversy" by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 4/15/10
In February, during my State of the Nation 2 live webcast presentation, I quoted from Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke, as one of those theological leaders who is undermining the authority of Scripture. He had been asked by the BioLogos Foundation founder, Francis Collins, to prepare a white paper. Dr. Waltke stated:
It is so obvious to me that the BioLogos Foundation (now headed up by two Nazarene college professors who are ardent evolutionists and liberal in their theology) have loved having a world renowned scholar like Waltke endorse them, as they are being very aggressive in pushing their liberal theology agenda on the church. In fact, if you want to see where compromising evolution/millions of years with the Bible leads to, go to the BioLogos website and read their question and answer section.
They do not believe in a literal Fall of Genesis 3, and they do not believe in the historicity of Adam. In a previous blog I actually included a number of other quotes from the BioLogos staff to show clearly that they deviate from orthodox Christianity.
I don’t often recommend websites of those who undermine Scripture—but in this instance, God’s people need to know what the BioLogos Foundation is teaching, and what in essence Waltke (either wittingly or unwittingly) was endorsing.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Evangelical scholar forced out after endorsing evolution" by Scott Jaschik, USA Today 4/9/10
When it comes to incriminating videos these days, the one of Bruce K. Waltke might seem pretty tame. It shows the noted evangelical scholar of the Old Testament talking about scholarship, faith and evolution. What was incriminating? He not only endorsed evolution, but said that evangelical Christianity could face a crisis for not coming to accept science.
"If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ... some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God's Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness," he says, according to several accounts by those who have seen the video. Those words set off a furor at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where Waltke was — until this week — a professor. (The seminary is evangelical, with ties to several denominations.)
The statements so upset officials of the seminary that Waltke had to ask the BioLogos Foundation, a group that promotes the idea that science and faith need not be incompatible, to remove it from its website (which the foundation did) and to post a clarification. The video was shot during a BioLogos workshop. But even those steps weren't enough for the seminary, which announced that it had accepted his resignation.
. . . the fact that his seminary did dismiss him is viewed as a sign of just how difficult it may be for scholars at some institutions to raise issues involving science that are not 100% consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The Waltke Controversy" by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 4/15/10
In February, during my State of the Nation 2 live webcast presentation, I quoted from Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke, as one of those theological leaders who is undermining the authority of Scripture. He had been asked by the BioLogos Foundation founder, Francis Collins, to prepare a white paper. Dr. Waltke stated:
Francis S. Collins, noted for his leadership of the Human Genome Project, for his recent appointment by President Barack Obama to head up the National Institutes of Health, and for his founding of BioLogos, has asked me to prepare a white paper by September 15, 2009, on “Identifying the barriers that hinder the typical evangelical theologians from accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process.”Last evening, I was interviewed about the Waltke controversy for Diane Sawyer’s ABC World News TV program—I don’t know which clips of the interview they will use, but I did emphasize a number of times in my recorded interview that for Christians who believe in evolution, although it is not a salvation issue, it is an authority issue as they are undermining the authority of the Word of God.
It is so obvious to me that the BioLogos Foundation (now headed up by two Nazarene college professors who are ardent evolutionists and liberal in their theology) have loved having a world renowned scholar like Waltke endorse them, as they are being very aggressive in pushing their liberal theology agenda on the church. In fact, if you want to see where compromising evolution/millions of years with the Bible leads to, go to the BioLogos website and read their question and answer section.
They do not believe in a literal Fall of Genesis 3, and they do not believe in the historicity of Adam. In a previous blog I actually included a number of other quotes from the BioLogos staff to show clearly that they deviate from orthodox Christianity.
I don’t often recommend websites of those who undermine Scripture—but in this instance, God’s people need to know what the BioLogos Foundation is teaching, and what in essence Waltke (either wittingly or unwittingly) was endorsing.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.