Senate Dems Consider Honoring Pro-abortion Anti-Abstinence Activist

"The U.S. emphasis on stopping young people from beginning intercourse…may be directly and indirectly harming American youth." --Cynthia Dailard

Cynthia Dailard , who recently passed away, believed that teaching abstinence to children might hurt them. So she spent much of her life's work writing, speaking and generally promoting this lie:

Adolescence is a time marked by physiological and psychological maturation. The formation and testing of romantic attachments and the physical expression of sexual feelings are a natural and developmentally appropriate part of this process.

Teach comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and they are much better off, Dailard believed.

"Contraception is the most effective way to help people avoid unintended pregnancy."³

Luckily, facts - as John Adams once said - are stubborn things, and "whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Thus, it matters not that liberals like Cynthia Dailard are passionate about teaching kids how to put condoms on bananas and telling them which birth control is best. A rational examination of the evidence - the physical, emotional, cultural and economic ramifications of unwed teen pregnancy - points directly to the necessity of an unequivocal abstinence-only message.

Dailard also railed against attempts to curtail or ban abortion. She called South Dakota's attempt to ban abortion a "punitive and misguided approach."

If Senator Hillary Clinton and other pro-abortion Democrats have their way, Congress will pass a resolution (H. Con. Res.39 and S. Res. 36) posthumously honoring Dailard's life of pro-abortion, anti-abstinence work.

Read the rest at Concerned Women for America

Men Jailed For Handing Out Bibles on Public Sidewalk

Two men who are members of Gideons International, the Christian organization that is famous for, among other ministries, placing Bibles in motels and giving them to children, have been arrested after trying to hand out Bibles on a public sidewalk in Florida, according to a law firm.

Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund have confirmed they will be representing Anthony Mirto and Ernest Simpson, who were arrested, booked into jail and charged with trespassing.

Jeremy Tedesco, one of the ADF's lawyers on the case, confirmed to WND that the organization's clients were on a public sidewalk when they were handing out Bibles and school officials summoned police.

"The First Amendment protects the right to engage in religious speech on a public sidewalk," ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said. "Members of the Gideons have been highly respected for decades as peaceful providers of free Bibles to those who want them."

The arrest happened Jan. 19, when Mirto and Simpson were on the sidewalk outside of Key Largo School in Key Largo, Fla., and were distributing copies of the Bible to those interested.

"Neither man entered school grounds," the law firm said. "After the school's principal called police, a Monroe County sheriff's officer asked the men to leave immediately or face trespassing charges. As the men prepared to leave, the officer decided to arrest both individuals."

A hearing is scheduled March 5 in Monroe County Court in the cases, and ADF attorneys are preparing motions to dismiss the charges.

"Officials cannot use fear of arrest as a means of bullying law-abiding Christians into silence," Cortman said. "These men broke no laws when they decided to communicate their message on a public sidewalk."

Tedesco noted that sometimes school officials have a misconception about whether they can control activities on school grounds and adjacent public sidewalks. But the First Amendment does provide a protection for speech on those parcels of ground that are public, he said.

"There's no reason why they should be put in jail," he said.

Read the rest of this article at WorldNetDaily.com

Wheeling High School Principal Weighs in on Students' Oral Sex Article

As blogged earlier this week by Culture Campaign, this inside look at public school attitudes regarding the sexualization of students continues to expose more disturbing facts.

Excerpts from 'Article on teen sex fans debate'
February 8, 2007
By CRISTEL MOHRMAN Staff Writer

A high school newspaper story about teen sex habits has sparked discussion within the school and community about the appropriateness of the topic and the accuracy of the story.

"The whole purpose of the article was to show what teenagers are thinking about oral sex," said Karen Barrett, Spokesman adviser and journalism teacher. "I think the story portrays pretty accurately this teenager's experience. Unfortunately, I feel it's more common than people think it is. I was really happy with how it portrayed this girl's story."

Critics, including the Wheeling High School Principal Dorothy "Dottie" Sievert, say the story did not warn students about the risks involving oral sex, particularly sexually transmitted diseases.

Sievert said she thought the story came across as one-sided.

School administrators do not review the student newspaper before it is published, but Sievert said the story resulted in a new policy that requires the postponement of questionable stories if the newspaper adviser is not present at deadline.

Barrett said she guided the article's author, Elizabeth Corey, throughout the writing process. She is typically there to advise students on the newspaper's deadline night, but was out of town due to a death in her family when the Jan. 26 issue was completed. Colleagues at Wheeling High School filled in for her.

Had Barrett been present the night the newspaper was completed, she's not sure how different the final product might have been.

"I think the story definitely would have run. How it would have run, I don't know. Hindsight is always 20-20. Maybe we could have avoided some of the backlash and still told the story responsibly," she said.

Sievert acknowledged that students are talking about oral sex, and national statistics indicate it is happening.

"I don't think Wheeling High School is different than any other high school around, and I don't think a majority of students are engaging in this activity," she said.

Sievert said she's received "minimal reaction" from the Spokesman article.

Barrett said most students did not seem to have a problem with the Spokesman's article.

"The students I've heard from weren't shocked that someone had this experience. They were more shocked that it was published in the newspaper," she said.

Who would our Founders endorse for president today?

What would they look for in elected officials?
On May 26, 1790, I believe we were given some answers to those questions, before an auspicious audience such as Massachusetts Governor, former President of the Constitutional Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, and Lieutenant Governor and another signer of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, as well as the then entire legislature of both governmental Massachusetts' Houses.

Rev. Daniel Fosters' inspirational address to these magistrates is a must read for anyone concerned with the future of our country and criteria for properly appointed representatives. Pay particular attention to the end of his message where he speaks to each of those listed above.

A primer for the presidency
Foster was a New Braintree pastor, who was invited to deliver a sermon before the newly-elected officials – a governmental tradition in the founding years of our Republic.
The words he shared that day were not only stirring but reflective of a general consensus and credo of what citizens (not just clergy) expected of their legislative leaders. Its components still contain what I would call a primer for the election of the presidency or any other chosen representative.

Such an elementary leadership text would include, but not be exclusive to, the following:

''Select and prefer Christians''
For Foster and our Founders, government is a ''divine appointment,'' an ordained institution of God, and ''an important mean of delivering us from the evils of the apostasy; and designed to prepare us for the more encouraging restraints the gospel enjoins.'' As such, it too has Jesus Christ, not some nebulous and neutered god, as its head.

He being commissioned by the Father to manage the great affairs of Empire, as well as of Zion. "Yet have I set my King upon my holy Hill of Zion." – "The government shall be upon his shoulders."

Subsequently, governmental leaders are to be regarded as ministers or servants of God, unless they refrain from obeying and executing his laws.

And as magistrates are honored by Christ, and act under his banner, they should be careful to be his glory, and support his religion in the world. ... If they rule for God, and for good to the people, they are to be subjected to, otherwise, "we ought to obey God, rather than men.''

Foster warned, ''If religion is not honored and supported by men in places of public trust, the glory of the Lord will soon depart, and the fire of God be scattered over the city.''

Though the Framers opposed the reign of kings or priests, they advocated and intermingled their Christian faith and politics. As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Read more at WorldNetDaily.com

Wheeling High School Student Newspaper Article Proclaims "Oral Sex the New Romantic Norm"

An article in the January 26 edition of the Wheeling High School student newspaper [.PDF] could be somewhat shocking for parents who do not understand that many, if not most American teens have become tragically sexualized.

The article detailed an account of an anonymous senior female student who got drunk and performed oral sex on a boy she described as little more than a friend. The article quotes the student:

"We have a don't ask, don't tell policy. I'm sure my parents think I've had some experience, but they don't know the specifics. Aside from being unwilling to tell our parents, teens are very willing to publicize oral sex and we aren't very ashamed of ourselves."

An article in the Daily Herald newspaper published Sunday, February 4th predictably glosses over the obvious implication of the piece and instead focuses on the 'power of the press.'

However, what the article exposes is what can happen when students' real lives and attitudes are exposed to the view of the public; it doesn't reflect well on the public institution. There's a lesson to be learned here: When schools insist on 'teaching' safe sex and how to avoid pregnancy, students learn, and the results can be very scary for parents.

Excerpts:

A Wheeling High School student newspaper article that officials say unintentionally painted the perception teenagers are permissibly blase about oral sex is handing the teen journalists a real-life lesson in the power of the press.

Is that really the only lesson here?

Adviser Karen Barrett said she always has been there before, but a death in the family last time around prompted her unscheduled absence. A colleague supervised instead.

“The article would have run whether I was here or not. But would it have run in its current form? Who’s to say,” said Barrett, who was aware of the piece in advance and had coached the writer early on.

Barrett said she’s also hopeful parents who read the paper — about 150 people subscribe to the monthly publication — see it as a “window into what students are talking about."

We hope parents see it as more than that. It's a wake-up call to see what is happening to our kids as a result of living in a society that is unwilling to make any moral judgments regarding sex. Sex is constantly presented to our children in a morally 'neutral' fashion -- in the media, music, movies, television programs, and even our public schools. That our kids have come to the conclusion that it's 'no big deal' should surprise no one.

Sandy Rios summed it up well:

“It isn’t so much that the article appeared in the paper,” said Rios, a host on [AM1160 WYLL.] “It’s the fact that this is mainstream America. It’s sad for the kids and sad for us.

From the Daily Herald article, it would also appear that the school learned its lesson: Don't let the students' real lives and attitudes be exposed to the view of the public. Make sure the students' free press isn't so free, otherwise, administrators might get fired and school board members might be booted by the voters.

Read the whole article at the DailyHerald.

France MP Fined for Criticizing Homosexuality Under “Hate Speech” Law

Former Soviet dissident warns democracy being rapidly dimantled in Europe.

PARIS, France, January 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A member of France’s ruling party has been fined almost $4,000 for comments opposing homosexuality, under the country’s hate speech law.

Christian Vanneste was fined by a court in Douai, in northern France, and charged an additional $2,000 in court fees.

The case stemmed from comments Vanneste made in 2004, when the mayor of a small southwestern community performed a homosexual “marriage”, later declared illegal. Vanneste said homosexuality was “inferior” to heterosexuality and said the practice would be “dangerous for humanity if it was pushed to the limit.”

Three homosexual and lesbian activist groups filed suit against Vanneste under the law criminalizing the incitement of hatred against minorities--homosexuality had recently been included under that law.

The case marks the first instance where the law has been used to bring charges against a member of Parliament, after it was adapted two years ago to prohibit speech against homosexuality.

by Gudrun Schultz for LifesiteNews

Episcopal Diocese Threatens to Defrock Priests Who Follow Biblical Teaching Regarding Homosexuality

A bishop in the Episcopal diocese of Virginia is threatening to defrock priests who follow biblical teaching on homosexuality.

Virginia Bishop Peter Lee this week officially warned clergy who disagree with the guidelines that they have six months to change. Twenty-one clergymen have left the diocese over the denomination's stand on the issue.

Patrick Getlein, a diocese spokesman, was reticent to talk about the spiritual implications.

“I’m not really in a position to talk about the theology of this," he told Family News in Focus. "I’m happy to talk about the nuts and bolts of this going on, but if you want that kind of interview, I’d be happy to set you up with someone.”

The Rev. Todd Wetzel of the Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Cedar Hill, Texas, former director of Episcopalians United, said he’s seen the fallout coming.

“The issue is really on the authority of Scripture and the departures of the Episcopal Church consistently over the last 40 years,” he said. “The Episcopal Church is stepping further down the path of apostasy.”

Bishop Martyn Minns, who will lead the clergy members who have objected, agreed that changing views on moral issues have contributed to the problem, but he said the church should not accommodate the culture.

“I’m more than willing to say that we all fall short and we all need God’s healing and transforming grace," he said. "But when we start saying that God’s intention as is shown in Scripture has now been changed, then we’re really in trouble.

Read article at CitizenLink.org

Canada: Influential Prof Says Religious Doctrine Should Conform to Ideology of the State or Lose Charitable Status

By Hilary White

TORONTO, February 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A political scientist at the University of Toronto has argued that as Canadian “Charter values” and Christian values drift further apart, churches should either adhere to and promote the state ideology, or lose the financial support they enjoy through their tax-free status.

In her article, “Living Better Multiculturally: Whose values should prevail?” published in the Fall 2006 edition of the Literary Review of Canada, Janice Gross Stein equates “Canadian values” with “Charter values,” in other words, those formulated and championed by the Liberal party of Canada after Pierre Trudeau’s leftist revolution.

Stein is a prominent political scientist and director of the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Affairs, a member of the Order of Canada and a recognized expert in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Deborah Gyapong reported in Canadian Catholic News that Stein proposed traditional religious groups essentially must either abandon any religious beliefs that conflict with the ideologies of the state, notably that of radical feminism, or cease to make any claims to special financial considerations for their charitable, non-profit works for the community.

Read the whole article at LifesiteNews.com

British PM ~ No Religious Exemption Forcing Provision of Goods and Services to Gays

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced today that there will be no exemptions possible for Catholic adoption agencies who attempt to refuse services to homosexual partners.

“I start from a very firm foundation. There is no place in our society for discrimination,” Blair said. “That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple.”

“While views obviously differ, everyone is agreed that above all the interests of the children and particularly the most vulnerable children must come first,” he added.

Blair is expected to announce a “transition period” after the SOR’s come into general effect to allow Churches to become accustomed to compromising their beliefs. Blair said the rules will not come "fully" into force until the end of 2008. In the meantime, Catholic agencies, he said, had a “statutory duty” to refer homosexual couples to other agencies. Blair also added that the House of Commons Labour MP’s would not be allowed a free vote on the issue.

The PM’s decision has been expected since last week to be in line with his cabinet who, it was said, were appalled and in a state of near revolt over the possibility that he would allow Catholics to act according to their religious principles.

Blair’s announcement comes in the midst of what some are calling the most serious Church/state crisis in Britain in a century. It also comes at the end of Blair’s long tenure as Prime Minister and leader of his party with polls showing slipping support for Labour.
The recently-passed Equality Act’s Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR’s) specify that no one may “discriminate” against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services, including in religious schools, adoption and social aid agencies, hotels or rental facilities.

Read the whole article at LifesiteNews.com

ACLU Targets Kentucky Children's Home

CitizenLink, 1-29-2007 -- A Kentucky foster care program is facing a threat of closure thanks to an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenge.

Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC) receives state money to help fund residential homes, foster placements and pregnancy counseling centers for young people. The ACLU filed suit in federal court, charging the state funding runs counter to the First Amendment.

Bill Smithwick, president of KBHC, told Family News in Focus he stands by the agency and its Christian foundation.

"Our goal and our mission in ministry is to take care of these kids," he said. "We do so from an unapologetically faith-based perspective."

Australian Pastor Convicted for Criticizing Islam

Christian leaders from six continents gathered in New York City Jan. 26 to recognize an Australian pastor who became one of the first people indicted under the country’s new “religious vilification” law, which makes public criticism of any religion -– including Islam -– a hate crime.

In 2002, Scot found himself a defendant in the courts of Victoria in Australia. Three Muslim converts accused the pastor of vilifying Islam after he had given a series of lectures about the differences between Islam and Christianity. Scot’s indictment touched off a four-year legal battle. He was convicted and ordered to apologize to Muslims in a series of advertisements in Melbourne -– at a potential cost of nearly $50,000.

But Scot would not purchase the advertisements and launched an appeal in 2004. Mark Durie, vicar of St. Mary’s Anglican Church, Caulfield, in Melbourne, recounted at the dinner that Scot would not dishonor Christ or the Gospel by disavowing what he had said. Durie said Scot has a passion for sharing the Gospel with Muslims, adding that people one day will grasp the significance of the stand he took.

Scot, Durie said, gave a “very carefully argued presentation from the Koran” at his own church and then gave further lectures on how to love Muslims and be friends with them. But the government was listening when three Islamic converts of the Islamic Council of Victoria complained. Scot was then indicted under the state’s new Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

Justice Geoffrey Nettle said the lower court had erred, misinterpreting honest and comparative discussions of religion for hate speech. It is “essential to keep the distinction between the hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily in view,” Nettle noted.

Scot’s case tallied a cost of more than $500,000 in legal fees. The high court ruled that the Islamic Council of Victoria must pay half of the cost of the original appeal from 2004. Scot’s legal troubles, however, may be far from over as he continues to face opposition from Muslims in Australia.

Read the rest of the article at BPNews.net

UK Couple Rejected as Adoptive Parents Because of Christian Beliefs Regarding Homosexuality

Long before the current row over whether church-based adoption agencies should be allowed to set their own rules about accepting homosexual couples on to their books, my husband and I felt the cold breath of discrimination. It wasn't because of our sexual orientation – no, nothing as routine as that. Instead, we were found wanting because we were Christians and because we hold strong views about the importance of children having both a father and a mother.

Research endorses this model as best for children but our "idealism about family life", as the social workers called it, prevented us being able to provide a needy child with a loving home. If you are single or gay, it seems, it would be far easier to adopt.

My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.

We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months. We didn't want to wait, so we approached our local council, which had a slightly shorter waiting list. As we were over 40, we knew we would not be eligible for a baby, so we said we would be happy to have a child up to the age of 10. The home assessment process then began, which involved regular visits by social workers over an 18-month period.

The social workers seemed to be forever trying to trip us up. They asked us how we would cope with a child who smeared faeces on the walls or trashed the house. We knew that children who had had difficult, insecure lives could be challenging and might be prone to temper tantrums, but I said surely every child wasn't that bad? We run a social club and we had some experience of people whose difficult lives had left them withdrawn and introverted. We have seen how their lives can be transformed and we believed that we could help a child to blossom similarly.

However, it wasn't just our reaction to the "faeces question" that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn't want to go? We said that it wouldn't be a problem because, if a child didn't want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone's throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.

We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.

The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don't believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn't agree with the lifestyle they chose.

Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality...

Read the entire article at Telegraph Newspaper Online

Note: Anti-discrimination laws will be soon taking effect in the UK that will result in the closure of all Christian adoption agencies who refuse to adopt to homosexuals. Bible-believing Christians couples will apparently be unable to adopt in Great Britain.

Let the Porn Flow, Says Public Library

While pornography itself doesn't "shoot the bullet" for sex crimes, it does "cock the trigger," and Sacramento officials who supervise their public library system have told porn addicts to go ahead and get loaded.

The Sacramento Public Library Authority Board has decided against protecting library users from explicit pornography, a move lawyers at the Pacific Justice Institute had asked them to take, and which may, in fact, violate the library's own Internet guidelines.

"The present policy is to require filters on the computers," Brad Dacus, chief of the PJI, told WND. "However, all that is needed to have access to pornography is for an adult to request that the filters be removed."

He said then anyone in the library, including young children, would be able to see the most explicit porn the Internet can offer.

"People know all too well that the pornography doesn't shoot the bullet, but it definitely cocks the trigger," he said. "We were asking [the library board] to minimize this risk."

Matthew McReynolds, a staff attorney with the PJI, a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties, appeared at the library board meeting to encourage restrictions on access to pornography on the publicly-funded computer resources.

"There was an investigation report done recently in Chicago … and the results were extremely disturbing," he told WND. "They had things like 33 confirmed sex crimes committed at one library branch over a period of three years, and beyond that, just numerous calls to police."
He said the software must be installed on the computers under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act, but it does little good if librarians turn the filters off for any reason at all.

"They don't see it as their place to question what's going to be accessed," he said. But the result is that pedophiles and sex offenders are "mingling with young children" in the library facilities.

Read more at WorldNet.Daily

Good News! Choose Life License Plates Win in Court

Illinois Choose Life adoption specialty license plates has won its case in federal civil court case against the Secretary of State's office!

The Secretary of State's office may try to appeal this case. Pro-life supporters want to try to take the steam out of that plan by getting at least 300-400 people from across the state to call or email their office.

Whether or not you plan on purchasing the plate, please contact Secretary of State Jesse White's office and inquire about the Choose Life plate.*

Contact Information

Jesse White
213 State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62706

Call toll-free within Illinois: 1-(800) 252-8980

*It's very easy. Ask when and where it will be available. Or just tell them how thankful you are that such a worthwhile cause will be getting its own license plate.

Read more Lifesite

Three States Seek to Abolish No-fault Divorce

Under no-fault divorce -- the law in all 50 states -- all that's required is one unhappy spouse. He or she doesn't need a reason to end the marriage. Since no-fault divorce swept the nation in the 1970s, 38 million marriages have dissolved, according to Mike McManus, cofounder of Marriage Savers.

"(No-fault divorce) has destroyed or . . . scarred the lives of 35 million children who are now, as they grow up, finding it very difficult to bond with someone of the opposite sex," he told Family News in Focus.

While 27 states have passed constitutional amendments affirming marriage as being between one man and one woman -- efforts McManus applauds -- he wonders why divorce isn’t being addressed as well.

Three states want to change that. Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia are considering mutual-consent divorce proposals; meaning both spouses must agree to split, if there are children involved. The proposals include exceptions for abuse and adultery.

Read the rest of this article at CitizenLink

37% of Births Now Out of Wedlock: 3/4 of them to women age 20 and older

Officials at the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the birth rate among girls ages 10 to 17 dropped in 2005 to the lowest level on record. But births among unmarried mothers in their 20s rose dramatically, the center found. Nearly four in 10 babies born in the United States in 2005 were born to unmarried mothers, an all-time high for out-of-wedlock births.

“A lot of people think of teenagers and unmarried mothers synonymously, but they are not driving this,” Stephanie Ventura, a co-author of the report, told the Associated Press.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for American had this to say:

Planned Parenthood and other leftist, pro-abortion organizations have succeeded in painting a picture of unwed motherhood as that of an ill-fated teenager who — from ignorance, impulsiveness, lack of “protection,” or emotional vulnerability — “finds” herself pregnant. But is this correct? Planned Parenthood also conveys the idea that most of the babies being born out of wedlock are unintended and unwanted. Is that correct?

When more than 3/4 of the 1.5 million unwed births are to women age 20 and older, these results cannot be blamed on youthful immaturity.

These post teen behaviors can only be characterized as reckless and irresponsible given what is well known about (a) the skyrocketing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among sexually active, unmarried women (b) the abysmally high rates of poverty among children living in female-headed families and (c) the well documented risks of children living in father absent households...

Read more of this article at CWFA.org

Osama & Gore: Too much hot air

According to experts at a London conference on "Climate Change: the Global Security Impact" we can add increased terrorism to the long list of catastrophic consequences of global warming...

John Mitchell, chief scientist at Britain's Met Office, noted al Qaeda had already listed environmental damage among its litany of grievances against the United States.

Noted climatologist Osama bin Laden had this to say...

"You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries," al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 "letter to the American people."

Ummm . . . when you find yourself on the same political platform as the leading terrorist . . .

Come hear the other side as Culture Campaign presents:

Global Warming: Hysteria or Reality?

with Dr. Jay Richards

Is global warming a reality?
Is it God vs. Gore?

Sunday, Feb. 11th
7:15 PM

College Church Commons
332 E. Seminary Ave.
Wheaton, IL

Part of the God, Sex, and Culture War Education Series

Land: Church Bears 'Some Responsibility' for Abortion tragedy

Jan 23, 2007
By Dwayne Hastings
Baptist Press

People of faith are at least somewhat complicit in the massacre of millions of unborn babies by abortion, Richard Land said January 21 at a pro-life rally, noting an estimated one out of three babies conceived since 1973 have been aborted.

“That could never have happened without at least the acquiescence of people in our churches -- Protestant and Catholic alike,” said Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“We bear some responsibility for allowing this to continue and not insisting it should stop. It is time that we demand it stop and stop now.”

Read the rest of this article at bpnews.net

Review: 'A Tasteful Movie about Men Fornicating with Horses'

Bestiality doc premieres at Sundance
The world of "Zoo" makes some go "Ewww."
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
January 22, 2007

PARK CITY, Utah — "Zoo" is a documentary about what director Robinson Devor accurately characterizes as "the last taboo, on the boundary of something comprehensible." But remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film has resulted.

"Zoo," premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen "Police Beat") and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews (two of the three men involved did not want to appear on camera) with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

[Devor said,] "I thought the marriage of this completely strange mind-set and the beauty of the natural world could be something interesting."

In the end, Devor ended up agreeing with the Roman writer Terence, who said "I consider nothing human alien to me."

"It happens," the filmmaker said, "so it's part of who we are."

They love horses, don't they?
January 22, 2007
Geoff Pevere, Movie Critic

PARK CITY, UTAH — It was merely the latest perversity in an opening weekend full of them that possibly the darkest of the Sundance Film Festival's entries – a strangely poetic non-fiction movie about men who have sex with horses – had its packed press screening on a brilliantly sunny afternoon yesterday.

On the contrary, Devor – a three-time Sundance invitee and graduate of Southern Methodist University at Dallas, Texas – treats the subject with a formally sophisticated and almost dreamy beauty.

Using audio interviews with both cult participants (some who appear in filmed re-enactments playing themselves) and actors reading from a script, the movie attempts to get inside both the minds and the desires of these men who feel what they do is simply an expression of their (albeit extreme) love of animals and sincere need to commune with the natural world.

While the movie never asks us to buy that rationale, it does successfully put bestiality in a disquietingly humane and even quasi-spiritual context. And, considering how sparingly the movie both alludes to and depicts the acts involved, that may be Zoo's most perverse aspect.

[Concerning the variety of movies at the festival:]

Yet, if the discrepancy between subject and treatment in Zoo is especially dramatic, it must also be noted that most of these movies tackle subjects like violence, sexual deviance and military atrocity in anything but sensational or exploitative fashion.

To varying degrees, they're describing forms of social sickness with an eye toward understanding and enlightenment. They want to know why it is that people can do the evil they so often do and whether there's any hope that anything might stop it.

Give Thanks to God: Free Speech Preserved for Grassroots Groups...

43 out of 50 Democratic Senators Vote Against Bennett Amendment protecting free speech - including Senator Barack Obama

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) - Pro-life groups are delighted with a Senate vote on Thursday that removed the concerns they had about bill that would have made it difficult for them and others to lobby members of Congress on por-life issues. The measure, before the amendment, would have imposed strict reporting requirements.

The restrictions would have been in place for any group conducting the smallest amount of lobbying and local pro-life advocates who didn't comply properly would face fines and jail sentences for noncompliance.

The groups, including National Right to Life, Family Research Council, American Family Association, and others, were worried about bill S. 1.

However, the Senate voted 55-43 for an amendment offered by pro-life Senator Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, to strip the so-called "grassroots lobbying" provision (Section 220) from the ethics reform bill.

The provisions it fixed were so onerous that even the pro-abortion American Civil Liberties Union sided with pro-life groups in opposition to them.

Leaders of the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives are expected to soon propose their own version of an omnibus "ethics" bill, which is also expected to contain the same problematic language, according to a National Right to Life statement LifeNews.com obtained.

Pro-life advocates will likely seek an amendment on the House side as well.

Under Senate bill before the Bennett amendment was adopted, anyone who is paid by any organization that encourages more than 500 people to contact Congress on any matter or anyone who has called a Congressional office more than two times urging a vote on legislation must register as a lobbyist.

Also, any paid individual who spends more than $25,000 in a three-month period on "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" would also be required to register and report expenditures as a "grassroots lobbying firm."

While the bill purports to reform special interest lobbying, the pro-life groups say it would put significant and complex hurdles in front of smaller, local groups.

Any pro-life advocate who runs afoul of the complex requirements of Section 220 of the bill could be subjected to crushing civil penalties, raised from $50,000 to $200,000 per infraction. Punishment could also include as much as up to 10 years in prison.

Read the rest at LifeNews.com