Thursday, May 03, 2007

Think Smoking and Transfats are Bad? Then how about Teaching Against Deviant Sex Acts?

While significant public school class time hours are consumed teaching children the horrible dangers of smoking, drug abuse, driving too fast, etc., why not teach the dangers of aberrant sex acts in between the condom class and the homosexual-behavior-is-normal class?

WARNING: The information that follows is important. People must be aware of this to understand the nature of male homosexuality -- be warned, it is highly disgusting to most people. Please skip the overview the section (in blue) if you are afraid you will be offended.

An overview of male homosexual behavior:

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.

Every time a homosexual advocate sees the above oft-repeated statistics, you'll hear him/her cry, "These sex acts aren't exclusive to homosexuals -- heterosexuals do this stuff too!"

OK, fine, for sake of argument, let's suppose that aberrant sex acts are equally common among heterosexuals. The question remains: Why don't the public school sexual revolutionaries, who insist on sexualizing children, teach the children the health hazards of any number of deviant sex acts?

There's no shortage of medical data to prove the health hazards. Check out this webpage or this one.

Since we observe that the public schools have no qualms about teaching kids sexual techniques for increasing pleasure with their partner, it's obvious that these teachers aren't too timid to broach the subject of the dangers of coprophilia (using feces for sexual excitement).

So why isn't this taught? The answer is obvious. If the general public became aware of the aberrant nature of homosexual behavior (which such school instruction would certainly cause), the homosexual agenda would be stopped dead in its tracks. Therefore, the homosexual advocates who write curriculum in public schools know better than to address the health risks of the deviancy of homosexual behavior.

"Now children, why is it we don't smoke cigarettes, or eat potato chips? That's right, these behaviors can harm our bodies."

Yah, right -- you keep 'em safe, teach!

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Airport admits installing foot-washing benches


From "Airport admits installing foot-washing benches" posted 5/1/07 at WorldNetDaily.com

Kansas City officials have acknowledged installing foot-washing benches in a restroom at the airport, but deny they're intended for Muslim cab drivers.

WND over the weekend reported that KCI Airport recently constructed four foot-washing benches to accommodate a growing number of Muslim drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer.

The story set off a firestorm after talk radio host Michael Savage ran with it on his nationally syndicated show. Local media in Kansas City, Mo., also weighed in on the controversy, triggering an official response from airport authorities.

"Recently, a small expansion was made to the building," said Kansas City Aviation Department spokesman Joe McBride in a statement to WND. "Included were wash areas used for any wash purpose by any of the users, including filling car wash buckets."

He insisted the wash benches were not "built for the exclusive use of any ethnic group or culture."

However, the department director in an earlier statement to WND appeared to contradict that claim.

"The majority of our drivers are Muslim, so preventing them from praying at all was not an option, especially in our public terminal restrooms," said Mark VanLoh, director of the Kansas City Aviation Department. "This was the best solution, and those facilities were added without public money."

He added that cab drivers paid for construction through a one-dollar per-trip fee.

Read the rest of this article.


Lawful Incest May Be on its Way

From "Lawful incest may be on its way" by Jeff Jacoby, posted 5/2/07 at the Boston Globe

WHEN THE BBC invited me onto one of its talk shows recently to talk about the day's hot topic -- legalizing adult incest -- I thought of Rick Santorum.

Back in 2003, as the Supreme Court was preparing to rule in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging the constitutionality of laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy, then-Senator Santorum caught holy hell for warning that if the law were struck down, there would be no avoiding the slippery slope.

"If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home," he told a reporter, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

It was a common-sensical observation, though you wouldn't have known it from the nail-spitting it triggered in some quarters. When the justices, voting 6-3, did in fact declare it unconstitutional for any state to punish consensual gay sex, the dissenters echoed Santorum's point. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today's decision," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the minority. Now, Time magazine acknowledges: "It turns out the critics were right."

Read the rest of this commentary.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Hate Crimes Law: Dems Admit Pastors Could be Charged with Inciting Hate

From "TVC Report on Hate Crimes Hearing: Religious Protection Amendment Rejected" by Peter LaBarbera, posted 4/25/07 at Americans for Truth.

The following is Traditional Values Coalition’s firsthand report from last week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the “Thought Crimes” bill, H.R. 1592 (the bill’s is benignly called the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”):

Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion. “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”

A number of Republicans spoke in support of it. But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.

Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”

...The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”

And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

Read the whole article.

This legislation is expected to come up for a full vote in the House as soon as Thursday, May 3rd! Check and see if your representative supports this amendment to federal hate crimes law and then call them and tell them to vote NO!

How About a Federal 'Nice Crimes' Law?

From "How about a federal 'nice crimes' law?" by Linda Harvey, posted 5/1/07 at WorldNetDaily.com

Now that the left has ascended to power in Washington, San Fran Nan and her munchkins have declared that adding "sexual orientation" to existing federal "hate crimes" law will rise to the top of the congressional priority list.

But wait. Why not first pass a "nice crimes" law, at the federal level and also in some states?

After all, selecting some crimes for special designation as markers of "hate" is helpful, but only if we first recognize other "non-hate" crimes as the nice ones.

For instance, I would nominate all nice murders, where the offender expresses tender sentiments toward the victim before bludgeoning him/her to death. There's also the nice, reasonable spouse abuse crimes, where a husband was set off because he had a bad day, or because his woman looked twice at another man. His self-esteem was low and he had a good reason. Outside the orange jumpsuits, these are really great guys.

Read the rest of this commentary.

Check and see if your representative supports this amendment to federal hate crimes law and then tell them what you think about it.

Pennsylvania Court Finds Three Adults Can Have Parental Rights

From "Deceased Sperm Donor Held Liable For Child Support" by , posted 5/11/07 at Lancasteronline.com

A unanimous panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, an intermediate appellate court, ruled on April 30 in Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 2007 Westlaw 1240885, 2007 PA Super 118, that a child may have three parents, in this case a former lesbian couple and the man who donated sperm so they could have some children. The unusual ruling is not based on Pennsylvania family law statutes, but instead on judge-made doctrine of "equitable estoppel," which has occasionally been used to in the past to enforce child support obligations against persons who are not legal parents.

According to the opinion for the court by Senior Judge John T. Kelly, Jr., Jodilynn Jacob and Jennifer Schultz lived together in York County, Pennsylvania, for about six years beginning in 1996. During that time, they had a commitment ceremony in Pittsburgh, and formed a civil union in Vermont, Jennifer taking the last name Schultz-Jacob. Jodilynn had two young nephews whom she had adopted, and she was the birth mother of two other children, conceived through donor insemination. The sperm donor was Carl Frampton, a long-time friend of Jennifer.

In February 2006, several months after the women had decided that their partnership was at an end, Jodilynn relocated with the four children to Dauphin County, and soon thereafter, Jennifer filed a lawsuit, naming Jodilynn and Carl as defendants, in York County Court, seeking legal and physical custody of the four children. The court made a temporary award of primary custody to Jodilynn while the case was pending, with partial custody (visitation) for Jennifer and Carl (for the two children who were his biological offspring).

Shortly after this, however, some trouble arose with one of the nephews, some unresolved delinquency charges that he had committed an "indecent assault" against one of the younger children, and he was sent to live with Jennifer, with Jodilynn providing money for his expenses. The Dauphin County Court directed that "at no point in time are the parties to exercise custody of [the nephew] and [the younger child] at the same time." Then, after a hearing last August where the court received expert testimony from a child psychologist, the court gave Jennifer primary custody of the one nephew who was living with her, and partial custody (visitation rights) with the other three children; Jodilynn got primary custody of the three children and partial custody (visitation) with the one nephew, and Carl was awarded partial custody (visitation) of one weekend a month with his two children. Jennifer appealed this ruling, claiming that according to the expert’s opinion, she should have primary custody of the children.

Read the rest of this article.

What the Hate Crimes Law Would Do

From "The Thought Police" by Chuck Colson, posted 5/1/07 at Breakpoint.org

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Read the rest of this commentary.

Check and see if your representative supports this amendment to federal hate crimes law and then tell them to vote no!

Why Are We Constructing Places of Worship for Muslims in Our Airports?

From "Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies" posted 4/28/07 at WorldNetDaily.com.

The Kansas City International Airport has added several foot-washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer, WND has learned.

The move concerns airport police who worry about Middle Eastern men loitering inside the building. After 9/11, the airport beefed up its police force to help prevent terrorist attacks.

"Why are we constructing places of worship for them inside our airports?" said an airport official who requested anonymity. "Why are we catering to their rituals? We don't do it for any other religion."

Why indeed?

This is very interesting when contrasted with the fact that citizens of Muslim countries can be killed for converting to Christianity.

On a different note, one might think the ACLU could take a little time out from scrubbing our public square clean of every last vestige of our Christian heritage to devote a little time to something like this...

See related coverage:

MN: Community College to Constuct Footwashing Facilities for Muslims



Monday, April 30, 2007

Italian Cardinal Opposing Same-sex Unions Threatened

From "Threats Escalate with Bullet Mailed to Italian Cardinal Opposing Same-sex Unions" by Gudrun Schultz, posted 4/30/07 at Lifesite.net

Homosexual activists mailed a bullet to the office of Genoese Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco Friday, in the latest threat against the senior church official over his opposition to same-sex civil unions.

Police bodyguards were assigned to protect Archbishop Bagnasco several weeks ago, after threatening graffiti appeared on his cathedral and other buildings across the city. “Death to Bagnaso” and “Shame on you, Bagnasco” were spray painted, along with insults against Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Camillo Ruini, previous head of the bishops conference.

Pornographic images of the Virgin Mary portrayed as a bisexual were left in pamphlets in the cathedral at the end of the Easter Vigil Mass, Catholic News Agency reported April 11.

According to a Herald Tribune report, a local newspaper said a photo of the archbishop accompanied the bullet, with a swastika scratched into the image.

Archbishop Bagnasco was recently elected as head of the powerful Italian Bishops Conference. Since his induction into that role, the archbishop has led a campaign against the government proposal to legally recognize homosexual civil unions.

Read the rest of this article.

German Authorities Decree Ceasefire in Homeschooler Case – For Now

From "German Authorities Decree Ceasefire in Homeschooler Case – For Now" by Peter J. Smith, posted 4/30/07 at Lifesite.net

German authorities have decided to leave 16 year old German homeschooler Melissa Busekros and her family in peace for now reports the International Human Rights Group (IHRG).

In a letter to the family’s attorney, the Erlangen Jugendamt (Youth Welfare Office), which was responsible for seizing Melissa from her home in February – affirmed that they were going to “de-escalate” the situation and allow Melissa to remain with her family as long as the Busekros family would continue to dialogue with the authorities.

“This is a great victory for the Busekros family, but the situation is not completely resolved,” said Joel Thornton, president of the IHRG. “We are considering it a significant half-time lead, but not the final win.”

Last Monday, Melissa Busekros decided on her own initiative to return to her family on her 16th birthday making a daring trip in the dead of night and arriving on her doorstep at 3AM. Under German law, Melissa Busekros is entitled to far more rights after turning 16, allowing her to determine her own custody and freely choose to live with her family. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07042301.html)

Read the rest of this article.

Montana Seniors Regain Right to Sing Christian Songs

From "Montana Seniors Regain Right to Sing Christian Songs" posted 4/30/07 at Citizenlink.org

Some seniors in Bozeman, Mont., have their voices back, after nearly losing the right to sing Christian songs before meals.

A few of their peers had threatened to call in the ACLU, but administrators did their homework and the singing can be heard again at the Bozeman Senior Center.

At first, administrators feared they might risk losing federal funding for a Meals on Wheels program. But Amy Smith, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), said when senior center board members contacted her group, they learned that the seniors are well within their rights.

"On Good Friday, they voted to reinstate the singing of songs before meals, and they were very pleased to do so,” Smith told Family News in Focus.

Kay Owen, a spokeswoman for Crossroads Ministries USA, said seniors in such a situation often fear another joy in their lives is being taken away. She said they deserve support and defense.

“Since they’ve already lost so many things in their life, like their spouse, their home, their friends," she said, "it's very, very difficult to continue to lose them.”

Good News! Illinois House Defeats Bill to Weaken Parental Notification

From "Illinois House Defeats Bill to Weaken Parental Notification" posted 4/30/07 at Citizenlink.org

The Illinois House voted Thursday against a bill that would have allowed teenagers to talk to a counselor before an abortion instead of notifying their parents. Rather than waiting 48 hours, which current statute requires, teens would have been able to have an abortion immediately after meeting with a counselor.

“Under this bill, parents would not know their child is to undergo a serious medical procedure that can have serious and long-lasting medical, emotional and psychological consequences,” Zack Wichmann of the Catholic Conference of Illinois said in a statement.

“This legislation seeks to create the appearance of a parental notice law without involving parents or requiring any notice.”

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Is Discrimination Always Wrong?

From "What's discrimination" by Walter E. Williams, posted 9/6/06 at Townhall.com

There's so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I'd take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs. Williams demands continued discrimination.

You say, "Williams, such discrimination doesn't harm anyone." You're wrong. Discriminating in favor of Bordeaux wine reduces the value of resources held in Burgundy production. Discriminating in favor of Mrs. Williams harmed other women by reducing their opportunity set, assuming I'm a man other women would marry.

Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination. When we modify the term with race, sex, height, weight or age, we merely specify the choice criteria.

Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.

I've sometimes asked students if they believe in equal opportunity in employment. Invariably, they answer yes. Then I ask them, when they graduate, whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often they answer no; they plan to discriminate against certain employers. Then I ask them, if they're not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about requiring an employer to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?

Sometimes students will argue that certain forms of discrimination are OK but it's racial discrimination that's truly offensive. That's when I confess my own history of racial discrimination. In the late 1950s, whilst selecting a lifelong mate, even though white, Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese women might have been just as qualified as a mate, I gave them no chance whatsoever. It appears that most Americans act identically by racially discriminating in setting up marriage contracts. According to the 1992 Census Bureau, only 2.2 percent of Americans are married to people other than their own race or ethnicity...

Read the rest of this commentary.


California Bill Would Mandate Gender-Neutral Schools

From "California Bill Would Mandate Gender-Neutral Schools" by Wendy Cloyd, posted 4/27/07 at Citizenlink.org

California state Sen. Sheila Kuehl is again pushing for legislation that would require schools to teach about homosexuality in a positive light.

UPDATE 3/15/12: Same-sex marriage laws eliminate terms "husband" and "wife" etc.

SB 777 is an expansion of a similar bill – SB 1437 – that Kuehl drove through the Legislature last year. That bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

If Kuehl is successful this year, all teaching material would have to amend the definition of “sex” and references to “male or female.” Instead, students would be taught about “gender defined as either real or imagined, and not limited to a person’s assigned sex at birth.”

Some experts say that means “mom" and "dad," as well as "husband" and "wife," would be edited out of textbooks. And traditional, school-sponsored social activities, such as homecoming and the kings and queens elected by the student body, would be forced to become gender-neutral.

Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, said Kuehl’s intention is to promote pro-homosexual content in public school curriculum and disallow any instruction or school events that would support a traditional perspective of biologically based gender identity.

“This bill would re-engineer the curricula and culture of publicly funded schools,” he said.

While Kuehl calls it “bias-free education,” Prentice said SB 777 would silence students and teachers who hold a biblical view.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Let the Python Eat its Tail. Amen.

From "Let the Python Eat its Tail. Amen" by John Piper, posted 4/15/07 at desiringod.org.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in upholding the ban on partial birth abortions on April 18, 2007. It is astonishing to read the opinion (PDF). The detail with which abortion is discussed exceeded my expectation. Kennedy’s own descriptions of the various forms of abortion are explicit and extensive. Descriptions of the procedure of partial birth abortion (“intact dilation and extraction”) are given from both doctors’ and nurses’ perspectives.

For example, one nurse described the procedure on a twenty-six-week-old “fetus” as follows—and remember this is a quote from Justice Kennedy’s official Supreme Court decision:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . . The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. (p. 8)

There is a certain irony to the argument for the Supreme Court’s ruling. One argument against the necessity of a health exception for the mother was that alternative methods of abortion are legally available, if necessary, even at this late stage in the pregnancy. For example, the ordinary D&E (dilation and extraction). The irony is that the Court concedes that the “the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than intact D&E” (p. 6). In other words, in normal, legal abortions, the baby is torn apart limb fromLink limb while still in the womb, but in a partial birth abortion, the baby is mercifully spared the dismemberment and his brains are quickly sucked out of his head.

Such are the contorted conditions in which we find ourselves: The proposal of a manifestly barbaric law (permitting the brain evacuation of a partially born child) is defeated by the legal standing of a more barbaric law (permitting the dismemberment of a child in the womb). But the history of Providence has many such stories to tell—great evils finally being self-destroyed, like a python swallowing its own tail.

Read the rest of this article.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Partial Birth Abortion is Not About Abortion

From "Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not about Abortion" by Greg Koukl, posted 4/6/07 at Townhall.com

When we justify the killing of a fully human child because of severe, congenital defect, we are not making a case for abortion; we're promoting something much more chilling.

Partial-term Abortion Is Not about Abortion.

If there is no good reason to allow partial-birth abortion, then why the intense resistance? Why the repeated challenges to a Federal ban on these procedures? Why do so many--mothers, doctors, Senators, members of Congress--accept such bad reasons for this barbaric practice? Rudy Giuliani's recent comments suggest that he's changed his previous position that he "would vote to preserve the option for women." The Supreme Court will hand down its decision within weeks on a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. Have they finally recognized that nothing justifies killing a baby partially born that can simply be delivered completely?

As I turned this question over in my mind, I realized why people don't see the obvious. They misunderstand this procedure—partial-birth abortion, D&X abortion--because of one very misleading term: abortion.

Abortion is sacred to many in this country. "Abortion is a woman's Constitutional right, therefore all abortions must be defended," we hear. "Make one type of abortion illegal and the dominoes begin to fall," others warn.

There's a problem, though. Simply calling a procedure an abortion doesn't make it one. A thing is what it is, regardless of the name used for it. Language may change perception, but it doesn't change the thing itself.

An abortion is what happens to a child within the womb of its mother. This is clear from every court case dealing with the issue. In partial-birth abortion, however, the delivery is 85% complete. The child is not on the inside of its mother when it's killed; it's on the outside.

If partial-birth abortion is not really an abortion, then what is it? Let me ask a question. What is it called when a newborn child is killed outside the womb? It's not called an abortion; it's called infanticide. The chilling truth is this: Partial-birth abortion is not really abortion; it's infanticide.

...When you start with the view that abortion is a sacred right, then by reason of a logical slippery slope, you must argue for anything called abortion. "All abortions ought to be legal. D&X is an abortion. Therefore, D&X ought to be legal, too." Slide a bit further and it looks like this: "If partial-birth abortion is moral, and partial-birth abortion is essentially the same as infanticide, then infanticide must be moral, too.

...We could, however, regain our moral sanity and slide the other way. If this atrocity is made illegal, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the very same thing is happening out of sight inside the womb in every late-term abortion. If the first is morally grotesque and illegal, then the second is grotesque and should be illegal, too.

Pro-abortionists know this, and that's why they're fighting so hard against the federal ban. They want freedom of choice at any cost, regardless of the moral consequences. When they raise the alarm, "This is the first step towards making all abortions illegal!" we finally have their real objection to the federal ban.

Read the whole article.




The Books were a Front for the Porn

This is an astonishingly courageous and honest article. Please pray for this man.

From "The Books were a Front for the Porn" by Ronald G. Lee, Feb. 2006, posted at theroadtoemmaus.org

There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W. H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street. The pornography section. Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.

So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.

This is how I "deconstruct" Lobo's. There are two kinds of people who are going to be looking in through the window: those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, and those who aren't. To those who aren't, the shelves of books transmit the message that gay people are no different from anyone else, that homosexuality is not wrong, just different. Since most of them will never know more about homosexuality than what they learned looking in the window, that impression is of the greatest political and cultural importance, because on that basis they will react without alarm, or even with active support, to the progress of gay rights. There are millions of well-meaning Americans who support gay rights because they believe that what they see looking in at Lobo's is what is really there. It does not occur to them that they are seeing a carefully stage-managed effort to manipulate them, to distract them from a truth they would never condone.

For those who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts, the view from the street is also consoling. It makes life as a homosexual look safe and unthreatening. Normal, in other words. Sooner or later, many of these people will stop looking in through the window and go inside. Unlike the first sort of window-shopper, they won't be distracted by the books for long. They will soon discover the existence of the porn section. And no matter how distasteful they might find the idea at first (if indeed they do find it distasteful), they will also notice that the porn section is where all the customers are. And they will feel sort of silly standing alone among the books. Eventually, they will find their way back to the porn, with the rest of the customers. And like them, they will start rooting through the videos. And, gentle reader, that is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.

...A popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. That was me, the whole time I was laboring to become a happy homosexual. I was a lunatic. Several times I turned for advice to gay men who seemed better adjusted to their lot in life than I was. First, I wanted confirmation that my perceptions were accurate, that life as a male homosexual really was as awful as it seemed to be. And then I wanted to know what I was supposed to do about it. When was it going to get better? What could I do to make it better? I got two sorts of reactions to these questions, both of which left me feeling hurt and confused. The first sort of reaction was denial, often bitter denial, of what I was suggesting. I was told that there was something wrong with me, that most gay men were having a wonderful time, that I was generalizing on the basis of my own experience (whose experience was I supposed to generalize from?), and that I should shut up and stop bothering others with my "internalized homophobia."

... Not everyone I spoke to over the years rejected what I had to say out of hand. I once corresponded with an English ex-Dominican. I was ecstatic to learn that he was gay, and was eventually kicked out of his order for refusing to remain in the closet. He included an e-mail address in one of his books, and I wrote him, wanting to know if his experience of life as a homosexual was significantly different from mine. I presumed it must be, since he had written a couple of books, passionately defending the right of homosexuals to a place in the Church. His response to me was one of the last nails in the coffin of my life as a gay man. To my astonishment, he admitted that his experiences were not unlike mine. All he could suggest was that I keep trying, and eventually everything would work out. In other words, this brilliant man, whose books had meant so much to me, had nothing to suggest except that I keep doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. There was only one reasonable conclusion. I would be nuts if I took his advice. It took me twenty years, but I finally reached the conclusion that I did not want to be insane.

... So where am I now? I am attending a militantly orthodox parish in Houston that is one of God's most spectacular gifts to me. My best friend Mark (not his real name) is, like me, a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum. He is also a devout believer, though a Presbyterian (no one is perfect). From Mark I have learned that two men can love each other profoundly while remaining clothed the entire time.

We are told that the Church opposes same-sex love. Not true. The Church opposes homogenital sex, which in my experience is not about love, but about obsession, addiction, and compensation for a compromised masculinity.

... So, what do we as a Church and a culture need to do? Tear down the respectable façade and expose the pornography beneath. Start pressuring homosexuals to tell the truth about their lives. Stop debating the correct interpretation of Genesis 19. Leave the men of Sodom and Gomorrah buried in the brimstone where they belong. Sodom is hidden in plain view from us, here and now, today. Once, when preparing a lecture on Cardinal Newman, I summarized his classic Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in this fashion: Truth ripens, error rots. The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. Sooner or later, those who are caught up in it are going to wake up from the dream of unbridled desire or else die. It is just a matter of time. The question is: how long? How many children are going to be sacrificed to this Moloch?

Warning: There is SO MUCH MORE to this amazing account. It really is a MUST READ. However, the rest of the article contains an honest description of the homosexual "lifestyle." If you don't want to read such accounts, DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE.

Read the rest of the
article.




Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

From "Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church" posted 4/23/07 at Thomas More Law Center

ANN ARBOR, MI – In its brief filed last week with the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Thomas More Law Center urged the court to reverse a federal judge’s ruling that an anti-Catholic resolution of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was constitutionally justified because the Church opposed adoptions by homosexual couples. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, a President Carter appointee and one-time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW), ruled that the Board resolution condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urging the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is appealing the ruling on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, observed, “Judge Patel clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church. During oral argument and in her written decision she claimed that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying. This judge attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan.”

Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution, the San Francisco Board voted—again unanimously—to condemn some 25,000 Evangelical teens who gathered in the city to express their opposition to homosexual conduct. Openly gay San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno said the teenage group is “obnoxious” and “disgusting” and should not be tolerated. He told the Christian group to “get out of San Francisco.”

Thompson remarked, “The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct. My concern is that if the judge’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden the San Francisco Board in its anti-Christian attacks.”

Read the whole article.

Internet Providers Censoring Conservative News E-Mail

From "Internet news providers censoring conservative news e-mail" by Jim Kouri, posted 4/26/07 at NewsWithViews.com

Something ominous and sinister has been happening on the Internet lately: two major internet service providers -- without any prior explanation or notice -- have been discriminating against conservative e-zines and web journals.

According to several subscribers to NewsWithViews.Com's newsletter, companies such as Earthlink and SBC Global are intentionally blocking delivery of NWV's e-mail to subscribers.

"When I wasn't receiving my NewsWithViews notices I called their office in Oregon to ask why. I was concerned they had closed down or worse. The gentleman I spoke with told me that all the Earthlink folks were being denied delivery of the daily posts from NWV," complains Jackie Juntti, a NewswithViews.com e-mail subscriber.

"I have to admit that shocked me as Earthlink has long had the reputation of sending EVERYTHING thru their servers -- no holds barred. I tried and tried to make an e-mail complaint about their blocking NWV from getting to me. I explained to them I SUBSCRIBED to that list and I WANT IT DELIVERED!! I tried several different Earthlink e-mail addresses and as of this moment I have yet to receive any response from Earthlink about my emailed complaints on this topic," said Ms. Juntti.

As reported by NewsBusters, the most recent widespread occurrence of this unexplained phenomenon was when Frank Salvato, proprietor of The New Media Journal, realized that his content that day hadn't been disseminated at Google News as it had been on a daily basis since he reached an agreement with the search engine in September 2005.

After sending the Google Help Desk a query concerning the matter, Salvato was informed that there had been complaints of "hate speech" at his website, and as a result, The New Media Journal would no longer be part of Google News. As evidence of his offense, the Google Team supplied Salvato with links to three recent op-eds published by his contributing writers, all coincidentally about radical Islam and its relation to terrorism.

Read the rest of this article.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Study: Religion is Good for Kids

From "Study: Religion is Good for Kids" by Melinda Wenner, posted 4/24/07 at LiveScience.com

Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.

The conflict that arises when parents regularly argue over their faith at home, however, has the opposite effect.

John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.

The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home.

The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.

But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. “Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family,” Bartkowski noted.

Why so good?

Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children
who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also “take more to heart the messages that they get in the home,” he said.

Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience. These “could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response,” he said.

Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said.

University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, who was not involved in the study, agrees. At least for the most religious parents, “getting their kids into heaven is more important than getting their kids into Harvard,” Wilcox said.

Read the rest of the article.