President Obama just promised, in the presence of the Pope, that he would do everything possible to reduce abortion, but Obama isn't fooling the Catholic hierarchy, with his pro-abortion appointments, and overt funding of Planned Parenthood and shifting policies away from abstinence, and forcing abortion on all health professionals.
UPDATE 7/30/09: Look out, Holdren OK with you being hauled into court by a tree!
UPDATE 7/29/09: Holdren's opinion of life in the womb, and his advocacy for 'De-Development' of the United States
UPDATE 7/25/09: Left meets Right - On the Edge of Genetic Control in US?
-- From "Obama Science Czar Wrote Book Supporting Forced Abortions, Mass Sterilization And A World Government" posted at KXMD-TV CBS11 7/11/09
. . . John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar,” once wrote a book supporting things such as mass sterilization and forced abortions. Things even staunch members of the liberal Democrat base would probably find objectionable and radical.
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States’ Science Czar.
From "Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/11/09
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," and his wife, Anne, to pen "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."
Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
"Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable," Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. ... The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Church Attacked for Proclaiming Beliefs in Lawn Sign
Those behind a sign posted in front of their northwest Gainesville church, proclaiming in red letters "Islam is of the devil," say it's a way to express their religious beliefs and is a message of "a great act of love."
-- From "Anti-Islam church sign stirs up community outrage" by Lise Fisher & Karen Voyles, Staff Writers Gainesville Florida Sun 7/8/09
Some living near the Dove World Outreach Center, however, are outraged and disappointed with the sign's message, which has sparked protests and acts of vandalism at the church since it was posted over the weekend.
"It's an act of saying there is only one way, and that is actually what Christianity is about. It is about pointing the people in the right direction, and that right direction is Jesus and only Jesus," said the church's senior pastor, Terry Jones. "We feel the sign is an act of giving the people a chance."
Jones acknowledged not everyone has welcomed the sign.
The church has received about 100 calls in the past 24 hours about the sign, Jones said. One was positive, he said Tuesday.
Since the sign went up, it reportedly has been protested by picketers, successfully torn down in another expression of protest late Sunday, quickly re-erected on Monday, and marred by spray paint before it was repainted and back in place Tuesday morning.
Jones said the acts of vandalism will be reported to police and that there are no plans to remove the sign or change what it says.
"We actually posted the sign because there is a tremendous growth in Islam at this time. It is a violent and oppressive religion and does not have anything to do with the truth of the Bible," Jones said. "We are definitely trying to send the message that Jesus Christ is the only way."
The church's first sign won't be its last, Jones said.
In the future, the message on the sign might change to express the church's beliefs against same-sex marriage or abortion, Jones said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Anti-Islam church sign stirs up community outrage" by Lise Fisher & Karen Voyles, Staff Writers Gainesville Florida Sun 7/8/09
Some living near the Dove World Outreach Center, however, are outraged and disappointed with the sign's message, which has sparked protests and acts of vandalism at the church since it was posted over the weekend.
"It's an act of saying there is only one way, and that is actually what Christianity is about. It is about pointing the people in the right direction, and that right direction is Jesus and only Jesus," said the church's senior pastor, Terry Jones. "We feel the sign is an act of giving the people a chance."
Jones acknowledged not everyone has welcomed the sign.
The church has received about 100 calls in the past 24 hours about the sign, Jones said. One was positive, he said Tuesday.
Since the sign went up, it reportedly has been protested by picketers, successfully torn down in another expression of protest late Sunday, quickly re-erected on Monday, and marred by spray paint before it was repainted and back in place Tuesday morning.
Jones said the acts of vandalism will be reported to police and that there are no plans to remove the sign or change what it says.
"We actually posted the sign because there is a tremendous growth in Islam at this time. It is a violent and oppressive religion and does not have anything to do with the truth of the Bible," Jones said. "We are definitely trying to send the message that Jesus Christ is the only way."
The church's first sign won't be its last, Jones said.
In the future, the message on the sign might change to express the church's beliefs against same-sex marriage or abortion, Jones said.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Kansas City Council Condemns Christian Witness, Praises Homosexuality
Kansas City officials said Thursday that they would pull city support from a large spiritual conference planned at Bartle Hall this month . . . after Kansas City Council members expressed concern about a scheduled preacher who has condemned homosexuals.
-- From "City withdrawing its support from Bartle Hall spiritual conference" by Michael Mansur, The Kansas City Star 7/9/09
At the council’s business session, council member Deb Hermann said the conference would feature a speaker who has used hateful speech against the gay and lesbian community. The council later passed a resolution that condemned hateful, hurtful and harmful speech. It also recognized the gay and lesbian community.
David Park, acting director of neighborhoods and community services . . . said the event schedule showed worship services listed, which would appear to violate city requirements that the event organizers “provide no religious instruction or counseling, conduct no religious worship or services, engage in no religious proselytizing and exert no religious influence.”
Bishop Mark Tolbert, director of the Life Changers Conference, said . . . that the preacher in question, Prophet Todd Hall, would not be talking in Kansas City about homosexuality.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "City withdrawing its support from Bartle Hall spiritual conference" by Michael Mansur, The Kansas City Star 7/9/09
At the council’s business session, council member Deb Hermann said the conference would feature a speaker who has used hateful speech against the gay and lesbian community. The council later passed a resolution that condemned hateful, hurtful and harmful speech. It also recognized the gay and lesbian community.
David Park, acting director of neighborhoods and community services . . . said the event schedule showed worship services listed, which would appear to violate city requirements that the event organizers “provide no religious instruction or counseling, conduct no religious worship or services, engage in no religious proselytizing and exert no religious influence.”
Bishop Mark Tolbert, director of the Life Changers Conference, said . . . that the preacher in question, Prophet Todd Hall, would not be talking in Kansas City about homosexuality.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Episcopal Church Head Says Salvation Overdone
The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church called the evangelical notion that individuals can be right with God a "great Western heresy" that is behind many problems facing the church and the wider society.
-- From "Episcopal presiding bishop terms individualistic salvation 'heresy'" by Bob Allen, senior writer for Associated Baptist Press 7/9/09
Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group's triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with "the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."
"It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus," Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. "That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."
Jefferts Schori said "heretical and individualistic understanding" contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.
About 200 Episcopal bishops and 850 clergy and lay deputies were expected to convene for the 10-day meeting. Business items are set to include debates over human sexuality [a.k.a. homosexual behavior], politics and poverty.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Episcopal presiding bishop terms individualistic salvation 'heresy'" by Bob Allen, senior writer for Associated Baptist Press 7/9/09
Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group's triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with "the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."
"It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus," Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. "That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."
Jefferts Schori said "heretical and individualistic understanding" contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.
About 200 Episcopal bishops and 850 clergy and lay deputies were expected to convene for the 10-day meeting. Business items are set to include debates over human sexuality [a.k.a. homosexual behavior], politics and poverty.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Massachusetts Bans Pro-life Sidewalk Counseling
Federal appeals court ruled the ban necessary to stop "unduly aggressive behaviors in the vicinity of reproductive healthcare facilities" -- Pro-lifers say law . . . had a "content-neutral patina" that masked a "more sinister reality," that the Legislature’s true motive was to curb antiabortion speech.
-- From "Abortion clinic buffer law upheld" by Martin Finucane, Boston Globe Staff 7/10/09
A Massachusetts law that bans protesters from a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinic entrances has been upheld by [the First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.]
The law, the court said, "represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety."
But Tim Chandler - legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent the plaintiffs - said antiabortion advocates "shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs."
"The government cannot single them out for punishment simply because they want to share their message with people entering the clinic," Chandler said in a statement. "The government simply cannot create censorship zones where the First Amendment does not apply in order to silence a particular viewpoint." He said the fund and its allies were evaluating the "next legal step."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion clinic buffer law upheld" by Martin Finucane, Boston Globe Staff 7/10/09
A Massachusetts law that bans protesters from a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinic entrances has been upheld by [the First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.]
The law, the court said, "represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety."
But Tim Chandler - legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent the plaintiffs - said antiabortion advocates "shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs."
"The government cannot single them out for punishment simply because they want to share their message with people entering the clinic," Chandler said in a statement. "The government simply cannot create censorship zones where the First Amendment does not apply in order to silence a particular viewpoint." He said the fund and its allies were evaluating the "next legal step."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Abortionist Kills both Mother and Baby, Again -- Small Fine Imposed
Abortion practitioner Alberto Hodari, based in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan, has been fined $10,000 by a state board in connection with a woman's botched abortion death. One of Hodari's staff did an abortion on Regina Johnson and, afterwards, suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest.
-- From "Abortion Practitioner Alberto Hodari Fined $10,000 For Woman's Abortion Death" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/3/09
Staff at Hodari's abortion center allegedly failed to help her or call for an ambulance and she was deprived of oxygen for an extended time. She died a short time later at Hodari's Womencare clinic in Lathrup Village.
Johnson's death is one of several women to have died over the years under Hodari's care.
At least two other women have also died from failed abortions at Hodari's abortion centers and many more have been injured.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion Practitioner Alberto Hodari Fined $10,000 For Woman's Abortion Death" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/3/09
Staff at Hodari's abortion center allegedly failed to help her or call for an ambulance and she was deprived of oxygen for an extended time. She died a short time later at Hodari's Womencare clinic in Lathrup Village.
Johnson's death is one of several women to have died over the years under Hodari's care.
At least two other women have also died from failed abortions at Hodari's abortion centers and many more have been injured.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Hate Crimes Laws = Blatant Discrimination
The 4th of July attack on a family by a hate-filled mob of nearly fifty teens doesn't qualify as a hate crime because of the race of the victims and perpetrators.
-- From "Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family" by Phil Trexler, Akron Beacon Journal staff writer 7/7/09
Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.
It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted "This is our world" and "This is a black world" as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
"This was almost like being a terrorist act," Marshall said. "And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?"
Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.
The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family" by Phil Trexler, Akron Beacon Journal staff writer 7/7/09
Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.
It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted "This is our world" and "This is a black world" as they confronted Marshall and his family.
The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.
"This was almost like being a terrorist act," Marshall said. "And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?"
Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.
The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Ginsburg: Feminizing From the Bench
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in rare, bazaar interview, demonstrates disconnect with most all Americans -- explains her assumption that Margaret Sanger eugenics was basis of Roe v. Wade
UPDATE 7/10/09: Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations
Be sure to read the entire interview; below are just a few excerpts . . .
-- From "The Place of Women on the Court" by Emily Bazelon, New York Times Magazine 7/12/09 edition
Q: Let me ask you about the fight you waged for the courts to understand that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I wrote about it a number of times. I litigated Captain Struck’s case about reproductive choice. [In 1972, Ginsburg represented Capt. Susan Struck, who became pregnant during her service in the Air Force. At the time, the Air Force automatically discharged any woman who became pregnant and told Captain Struck that she should have an abortion if she wanted to keep her job. The government changed the regulation before the Supreme Court could decide the case.] If the court could have seen Susan Struck’s case — this was the U.S. government, a U.S. Air Force post, offering abortions, in 1971, two years before Roe.
Q: And suggesting an abortion as the solution to Struck’s problem.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes. Not only that, but it was available to her on the base.
Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.
Q: In the 1980s, you wrote about how while the sphere for women has widened to include more work, men haven’t taken on as much domestic responsibility. Do you think that things are beginning to change?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That’s going to take time, changing that kind of culture. But looking at my own family, my daughter Jane teaches at Columbia, she travels all over the world, and she has the most outstanding supportive husband who certainly carries his fair share of the load. Although their division of labor is different than mine and my husband’s, because my daughter is a super cook.
Q: Can courts play a role in changing that culture?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage.
UPDATE 7/10/09: Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations
Be sure to read the entire interview; below are just a few excerpts . . .
-- From "The Place of Women on the Court" by Emily Bazelon, New York Times Magazine 7/12/09 edition
Q: Let me ask you about the fight you waged for the courts to understand that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I wrote about it a number of times. I litigated Captain Struck’s case about reproductive choice. [In 1972, Ginsburg represented Capt. Susan Struck, who became pregnant during her service in the Air Force. At the time, the Air Force automatically discharged any woman who became pregnant and told Captain Struck that she should have an abortion if she wanted to keep her job. The government changed the regulation before the Supreme Court could decide the case.] If the court could have seen Susan Struck’s case — this was the U.S. government, a U.S. Air Force post, offering abortions, in 1971, two years before Roe.
Q: And suggesting an abortion as the solution to Struck’s problem.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes. Not only that, but it was available to her on the base.
Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.
Q: In the 1980s, you wrote about how while the sphere for women has widened to include more work, men haven’t taken on as much domestic responsibility. Do you think that things are beginning to change?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That’s going to take time, changing that kind of culture. But looking at my own family, my daughter Jane teaches at Columbia, she travels all over the world, and she has the most outstanding supportive husband who certainly carries his fair share of the load. Although their division of labor is different than mine and my husband’s, because my daughter is a super cook.
Q: Can courts play a role in changing that culture?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage.
Massachusetts Sues to Force Nationwide Same-sex 'Marriage'
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under attack from all sides, including the 9th Circuit Court, as well as President Obama, who vows to repeal DOMA, and now this from Massachusetts.
UPDATE 5/2/10: Federal judge in Boston will hear arguments this week
UPDATE 2/19/10: Mass. A.G. Martha Coakley files for ruling DOMA unconstitutional without trial
UPDATE 9/18/09: Obama Justice Dept. "defends" DOMA, while saying Obama opposes DOMA
-- From "Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law" by Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/9/09
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.
[Separately,] On March 3, six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands died brought a claim that said the federal law barred them from getting more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees and tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the government in litigation, issued a two-sentence statement yesterday saying President Obama "supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. We will review this case."
Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire allow or will soon permit same-sex marriages. The unions are scheduled to become legal in Maine, as well, in September, but that could be put on hold if opponents gather enough signatures to force a statewide vote.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 5/2/10: Federal judge in Boston will hear arguments this week
UPDATE 2/19/10: Mass. A.G. Martha Coakley files for ruling DOMA unconstitutional without trial
UPDATE 9/18/09: Obama Justice Dept. "defends" DOMA, while saying Obama opposes DOMA
-- From "Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law" by Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe Correspondent 7/9/09
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.
[Separately,] On March 3, six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands died brought a claim that said the federal law barred them from getting more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. The benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees and tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the government in litigation, issued a two-sentence statement yesterday saying President Obama "supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. We will review this case."
Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire allow or will soon permit same-sex marriages. The unions are scheduled to become legal in Maine, as well, in September, but that could be put on hold if opponents gather enough signatures to force a statewide vote.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 06, 2009
UK Law Forces Homosexuality into All Churches
Religious groups are to be forced to accept homosexual youth workers, secretaries and other staff, even if their faith holds same-sex relationships to be sinful.
And . . .
Homosexual "weddings" should be celebrated in churches, a Government minister has said in defiance of religious teaching.
-- From "Law 'will force churches to employ gay staff'" by Matthew Moore, The London Telegraph 5/21/09
Churches will be banned from turning down gay job applicants on the grounds of their sexuality under new anti-discrimination laws, a Government minister said.
Christian organisations fear that the tightened legislation, which is due to come into force next year, will undermine the integrity of churches and dilute their moral message.
It comes amid growing concern that Christians are being unfairly targeted by discrimination laws, following a number of high-profile cases of courts finding against believers who stand up for their faith.
Religious leaders had hoped to lobby for exemptions to the Equality Bill but Maria Eagle, the deputy equalities minister, has now indicated that it will cover almost all church employees.
Under existing equalities legislation, any roles deemed to be necessary "for the purposes of an organised religion" are excluded from gay rights protection.
But the Equality Bill, which is currently passing through parliament, for the first time defines this as applying only to those who lead the liturgy or spend the majority of the time teaching doctrine - essentially just ministers, bishops and their equivalents in other faiths.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexual 'weddings' should be celebrated in church, says Chris Bryant" by Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent, The London Telegraph 7/2/09
Chris Bryant, [a government minister] who once posed in his underpants on a gay dating website, said he wanted clergy to be "much more open" to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.
However, his suggestion goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church.
It comes as the Government is pushing through an Equality Bill that religious groups fear will force them to give jobs to homosexual youth workers or secretaries, even if their faith maintains that same-sex relationships are sinful.
Mr Bryant, a former deputy leader of the Commons who is now a junior Foreign Office minister, trained as an Anglican priest and served as a curate before becoming the MP for the Rhondda.
He was questioned by the magazine Time Out this week on whether he believed civil partnerships, introduced to England and Wales in 2005, should be scrapped in favour of same-sex marriage.
The minister replied: "All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their 'marriage' or their 'wedding' so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality.
"I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
And . . .
Homosexual "weddings" should be celebrated in churches, a Government minister has said in defiance of religious teaching.
-- From "Law 'will force churches to employ gay staff'" by Matthew Moore, The London Telegraph 5/21/09
Churches will be banned from turning down gay job applicants on the grounds of their sexuality under new anti-discrimination laws, a Government minister said.
Christian organisations fear that the tightened legislation, which is due to come into force next year, will undermine the integrity of churches and dilute their moral message.
It comes amid growing concern that Christians are being unfairly targeted by discrimination laws, following a number of high-profile cases of courts finding against believers who stand up for their faith.
Religious leaders had hoped to lobby for exemptions to the Equality Bill but Maria Eagle, the deputy equalities minister, has now indicated that it will cover almost all church employees.
Under existing equalities legislation, any roles deemed to be necessary "for the purposes of an organised religion" are excluded from gay rights protection.
But the Equality Bill, which is currently passing through parliament, for the first time defines this as applying only to those who lead the liturgy or spend the majority of the time teaching doctrine - essentially just ministers, bishops and their equivalents in other faiths.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Homosexual 'weddings' should be celebrated in church, says Chris Bryant" by Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent, The London Telegraph 7/2/09
Chris Bryant, [a government minister] who once posed in his underpants on a gay dating website, said he wanted clergy to be "much more open" to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.
However, his suggestion goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church.
It comes as the Government is pushing through an Equality Bill that religious groups fear will force them to give jobs to homosexual youth workers or secretaries, even if their faith maintains that same-sex relationships are sinful.
Mr Bryant, a former deputy leader of the Commons who is now a junior Foreign Office minister, trained as an Anglican priest and served as a curate before becoming the MP for the Rhondda.
He was questioned by the magazine Time Out this week on whether he believed civil partnerships, introduced to England and Wales in 2005, should be scrapped in favour of same-sex marriage.
The minister replied: "All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their 'marriage' or their 'wedding' so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality.
"I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Darwinists Fear Fred Flintstone and Barney & Friends
Children as young as five should be taught about evolution to prevent pupils mistaking Barney the Dinosaur and Fred Flintstone for scientific fact, an academic has claimed.
-- From "Young children 'should be taught evolution so they don't mistake Fred Flintstone for scientific fact'" By Laura Clark, London Daily Mail 7/4/09
The failure to teach primary school children scientific truth [sic] is playing into the hands of advocates of creationism - the belief that God created the world in six days, according to James Williams, lecturer in education at Sussex University.
He warned that creationists go to great lengths to influence primary children with comics, magazines and videos that mix scientific misconceptions with proper science.
'While creationists have a right to publish and voice their views, no matter how far from real science they may be, the science education community must respond by introducing evolution and the reality of how life developed and diversified much earlier in the curriculum to combat the establishment of creationist misconceptions.'
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read: Intelligentsia Fear Critique of Darwin in Texas Schools
-- From "Young children 'should be taught evolution so they don't mistake Fred Flintstone for scientific fact'" By Laura Clark, London Daily Mail 7/4/09
The failure to teach primary school children scientific truth [sic] is playing into the hands of advocates of creationism - the belief that God created the world in six days, according to James Williams, lecturer in education at Sussex University.
He warned that creationists go to great lengths to influence primary children with comics, magazines and videos that mix scientific misconceptions with proper science.
'While creationists have a right to publish and voice their views, no matter how far from real science they may be, the science education community must respond by introducing evolution and the reality of how life developed and diversified much earlier in the curriculum to combat the establishment of creationist misconceptions.'
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read: Intelligentsia Fear Critique of Darwin in Texas Schools
Obama 'Stimulus' Funds Contraception Distribution Study
The so-called economic stimulus legislation is funding comparative studies on the effectiveness of health care options, which includes strategies of "over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives or other hormonal methods, expanding access to long-acting methods for young women, [and] providing free contraceptive methods at public clinics, pharmacies or other locations."
-- From "Panel Suggests U.S. Medical Priorities" by Barry Meier, New York Times 7/1/09
An influential scientific advisory panel has recommended that federal officials give top priority to comparing the effectiveness of competing medical strategies in areas that include treating prostate cancer, reducing hospital infections and lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
In a highly anticipated report, released Tuesday morning, a panel assembled by the Institute of Medicine released a list of 100 health topics that it said should get high priority as the Obama administration proceeded with a plan to spend $1.1 billion in comparing the effectiveness of competing drugs, medical devices, operations and other treatments for specific health conditions.
Some of the panel’s recommendations also involved social or preventative issues that could generate controversy among industry or interest groups. For example, the panel . . . recommended research to determine the programs most effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies, including the free distribution of contraceptives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "IOM Panel's Comparative Effectiveness Report Includes Pregnancy Prevention Measures" posted at Medical News Today 7/2/09
Harold Sox, co-chair of the IOM panel that wrote the report and the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said that based on public comments, the panel decided it was important to include pregnancy prevention and other public health issues in its recommendations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Panel Suggests U.S. Medical Priorities" by Barry Meier, New York Times 7/1/09
An influential scientific advisory panel has recommended that federal officials give top priority to comparing the effectiveness of competing medical strategies in areas that include treating prostate cancer, reducing hospital infections and lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
In a highly anticipated report, released Tuesday morning, a panel assembled by the Institute of Medicine released a list of 100 health topics that it said should get high priority as the Obama administration proceeded with a plan to spend $1.1 billion in comparing the effectiveness of competing drugs, medical devices, operations and other treatments for specific health conditions.
Some of the panel’s recommendations also involved social or preventative issues that could generate controversy among industry or interest groups. For example, the panel . . . recommended research to determine the programs most effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies, including the free distribution of contraceptives.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "IOM Panel's Comparative Effectiveness Report Includes Pregnancy Prevention Measures" posted at Medical News Today 7/2/09
Harold Sox, co-chair of the IOM panel that wrote the report and the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said that based on public comments, the panel decided it was important to include pregnancy prevention and other public health issues in its recommendations.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Calif. Prop 8: Homosexualists Fear Supreme Court Decision
Two high-profile lawyers, one liberal, one conservative, have teamed up to overturn the will of the California voters, and fabricate same-sex 'marriage' as a civil right, but many homosexual advocates believe that the inevitable U.S. Supreme Court decision will not be in their favor.
UPDATE 8/20/09: Judge sets January 11, 2010 date for trial
UPDATE 7/20/09: Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8 - by David Boies
-- From "Judge clarifies purpose at first federal Proposition 8 hearing" by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times 7/3/09
In the first hearing on a federal challenge to Proposition 8, a judge reminded lawyers Thursday that the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage measure would be determined by higher courts and that his job was to give them as many facts and findings as possible.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appearing before a packed courtroom, also declined to suspend Proposition 8 before trial, noting that such a move would create too much uncertainty for the state and same-sex couples who would marry.
"This case is only touching down in this court," Walker said. "It will have life after this court, and what happens here in many ways is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.
"Our job at this point," he said, "is to make a record."
Walker's statements Thursday mirrored a tentative ruling he handed down Tuesday. That ruling heartened gay rights activists, who said Walker made it clear he appreciated the gravity of the challenge and their arguments.
Neither side objected to Walker's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction.
Theodore B. Olson, representing two same-sex couples who wish to marry, said he understood Walker's concerns and respected the judge's "wisdom."
Olson repeatedly noted that Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the state's top law enforcement officer, believes that the November ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution.
With neither Brown nor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger defending Proposition 8's constitutionality, Walker permitted backers of the measure to argue on its behalf.
Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is viewed as independent. The next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 19.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal marriage lawsuit premature, gay groups say" Associated Press 5/27/09
A coalition of gay rights groups said Wednesday that a federal same-sex marriage lawsuit brought by two high-profile lawyers is premature and they'd rather work through state legislatures and voters to win wedding rights.
A day after the California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other national organizations issued a statement saying they think the U.S. Supreme Court is not ready to rule in their favor on the issue.
On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A favorable ruling there would allow gays and lesbians to get married in every state, just as the court's 1967 ruling in a Virginia case outlawed prohibitions on interracial marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson Files Suit Claiming Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional Right" by Monica Gabriel, CNSNews.com 6/24/09
Olson and Boies say that Prop. 8 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Olson is a member of the Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian attorneys who advocate an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution. This means that the words of the Constitution should be considered to mean the same thing now that they meant to the people who wrote them.
For an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution to conclude that the 14th Amendment protects a right to same-sex marriage, it would need to be demonstrated that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment in the late 1860s understood it to mean that.
The lawsuit requests that the court prohibit the enforcement of Prop. 8 and any other related California statutes. It also cites other cases, such as Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas as precedents to support the idea that Prop. 8 is a violation of the rights of homosexual men and women.
Boies and Olson are representing the plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarrillo. Perry and Stier have been in a relationship for nine years and Katami and Zarrillo have been in a relationship for eight years. The plaintiffs are arguing for the right to a state-sanctioned marriage in California.
Olson and Boies were retained by the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, a liberal, pro-homosexual group, to file their lawsuit. In their suit, the lawyers state that the “defendants” – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials -- “cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that they have compelling reason for consigning gay and lesbian individuals to the separate-but-inherently-unequal institution of domestic partnership.”
The plaintiffs are in a “committed relationship” and want to express their love for each other “by getting married and obtaining official sanction for their family from the State,” reads the lawsuit. “But Prop. 8 denies them that right in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/20/09: Judge sets January 11, 2010 date for trial
UPDATE 7/20/09: Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8 - by David Boies
-- From "Judge clarifies purpose at first federal Proposition 8 hearing" by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times 7/3/09
In the first hearing on a federal challenge to Proposition 8, a judge reminded lawyers Thursday that the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage measure would be determined by higher courts and that his job was to give them as many facts and findings as possible.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appearing before a packed courtroom, also declined to suspend Proposition 8 before trial, noting that such a move would create too much uncertainty for the state and same-sex couples who would marry.
"This case is only touching down in this court," Walker said. "It will have life after this court, and what happens here in many ways is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.
"Our job at this point," he said, "is to make a record."
Walker's statements Thursday mirrored a tentative ruling he handed down Tuesday. That ruling heartened gay rights activists, who said Walker made it clear he appreciated the gravity of the challenge and their arguments.
Neither side objected to Walker's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction.
Theodore B. Olson, representing two same-sex couples who wish to marry, said he understood Walker's concerns and respected the judge's "wisdom."
Olson repeatedly noted that Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the state's top law enforcement officer, believes that the November ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution.
With neither Brown nor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger defending Proposition 8's constitutionality, Walker permitted backers of the measure to argue on its behalf.
Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is viewed as independent. The next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 19.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal marriage lawsuit premature, gay groups say" Associated Press 5/27/09
A coalition of gay rights groups said Wednesday that a federal same-sex marriage lawsuit brought by two high-profile lawyers is premature and they'd rather work through state legislatures and voters to win wedding rights.
A day after the California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other national organizations issued a statement saying they think the U.S. Supreme Court is not ready to rule in their favor on the issue.
On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A favorable ruling there would allow gays and lesbians to get married in every state, just as the court's 1967 ruling in a Virginia case outlawed prohibitions on interracial marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson Files Suit Claiming Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional Right" by Monica Gabriel, CNSNews.com 6/24/09
Olson and Boies say that Prop. 8 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Olson is a member of the Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian attorneys who advocate an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution. This means that the words of the Constitution should be considered to mean the same thing now that they meant to the people who wrote them.
For an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution to conclude that the 14th Amendment protects a right to same-sex marriage, it would need to be demonstrated that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment in the late 1860s understood it to mean that.
The lawsuit requests that the court prohibit the enforcement of Prop. 8 and any other related California statutes. It also cites other cases, such as Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas as precedents to support the idea that Prop. 8 is a violation of the rights of homosexual men and women.
Boies and Olson are representing the plaintiffs Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarrillo. Perry and Stier have been in a relationship for nine years and Katami and Zarrillo have been in a relationship for eight years. The plaintiffs are arguing for the right to a state-sanctioned marriage in California.
Olson and Boies were retained by the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, a liberal, pro-homosexual group, to file their lawsuit. In their suit, the lawyers state that the “defendants” – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials -- “cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that they have compelling reason for consigning gay and lesbian individuals to the separate-but-inherently-unequal institution of domestic partnership.”
The plaintiffs are in a “committed relationship” and want to express their love for each other “by getting married and obtaining official sanction for their family from the State,” reads the lawsuit. “But Prop. 8 denies them that right in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Senate to Pass Hate Crimes as Amendment to Defense Bill
In an effort to end Christian witness in America, homosexual advocates in the Senate connive to attach the hate crimes legislation (having already passed in the House as a standalone bill) to troop funding, expected to pass in mid-July.
-- From "Hate crimes measure to ride on defense bill" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 7/3/09
David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, said in a June 26 statement to the Blade that the Senate would probably pass the bill in this way.
“The [Department of Defense] authorization bill as well as other vehicles have been under consideration since House passage earlier this year,” he said. “Between now and the August recess, DOD appears to be the most likely candidate for hate crimes.”
A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intended to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.
[In contrast,] A standalone bill submitted to the Senate floor would be vulnerable to dangerous amendments, such as a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in D.C., the he said. [Read about, and view last week's Senate hearings on the bill by clicking here.]
Smith said a vote on the defense bill is tentatively scheduled in the Senate by mid July, but added that “as with any Senate scheduled bill, that could change.”
Upon hearing of the Senate’s plan, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he’s “disappointed” the Senate settled on this method of passage. But he added “we could still be all right” because the House passed its version of the defense bill with a bigger margin than he expected.
The Senate aide noted that Reid had pledged to pass hate crime legislation by August recess and said the defense bill is the only option as a vehicle before that time.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Hate crimes measure to ride on defense bill" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 7/3/09
David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, said in a June 26 statement to the Blade that the Senate would probably pass the bill in this way.
“The [Department of Defense] authorization bill as well as other vehicles have been under consideration since House passage earlier this year,” he said. “Between now and the August recess, DOD appears to be the most likely candidate for hate crimes.”
A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intended to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.
[In contrast,] A standalone bill submitted to the Senate floor would be vulnerable to dangerous amendments, such as a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in D.C., the he said. [Read about, and view last week's Senate hearings on the bill by clicking here.]
Smith said a vote on the defense bill is tentatively scheduled in the Senate by mid July, but added that “as with any Senate scheduled bill, that could change.”
Upon hearing of the Senate’s plan, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he’s “disappointed” the Senate settled on this method of passage. But he added “we could still be all right” because the House passed its version of the defense bill with a bigger margin than he expected.
The Senate aide noted that Reid had pledged to pass hate crime legislation by August recess and said the defense bill is the only option as a vehicle before that time.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Government-run Health Care Rules Against Prayer
The UK government's universal health care system warns a baptist nurse "that she could be disciplined after a patient complained that she had offered to pray for her."
-- From "Doctors and nurses demand right to pray for patients" by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, The [UK] Telegraph 6/29/09
Guidance given by the NHS suggests staff could be sanctioned if they offer spiritual help to anyone who does not share their beliefs, according to the sponsors of a motion at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual representatives meeting in Liverpool.
The doctors will argue that the rules need clarifying to distinguish between those who try to offer religious support to patients as part of a programme of care and zealots who might target the infirm as potential converts.
The debate, which comes after the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie, who given a warning earlier this year, will take place on Wednesday.
. . . a Department of Health document warns explicitly that disciplinary action could be taken against health staff discussing prayer with patients.
The NHS guidance says: "Members of some religions ... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.
"To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Doctors and nurses demand right to pray for patients" by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, The [UK] Telegraph 6/29/09
Guidance given by the NHS suggests staff could be sanctioned if they offer spiritual help to anyone who does not share their beliefs, according to the sponsors of a motion at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual representatives meeting in Liverpool.
The doctors will argue that the rules need clarifying to distinguish between those who try to offer religious support to patients as part of a programme of care and zealots who might target the infirm as potential converts.
The debate, which comes after the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie, who given a warning earlier this year, will take place on Wednesday.
. . . a Department of Health document warns explicitly that disciplinary action could be taken against health staff discussing prayer with patients.
The NHS guidance says: "Members of some religions ... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.
"To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Mainstream Media Hide News Detrimental to Gay Agenda
When a Duke University administrator is arrested for selling his adopted 5-year-old son for deviant sex, it makes the news nationwide, except if the man is homosexual. After more than a week, one local news source has covered the story.
-- From "Health director Lombard faces child sex charges" by Julius Jones, The Duke Chronicle 7/1/09
A University employee was charged by the FBI with child sex abuse June 24 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Frank Lombard, 42, associate director for the Health Inequalities Program at the Center for Heath Policy, is charged with enticing an undercover police officer over the Internet to take part in interstate travel in order to engage in an illegal sex act with a minor . . .
After the sting operation began, the officer alleges that over the course of a Yahoo! Instant Messenger conversation June 23, Lombard-using the display name "F L"-confessed to multiple acts of sexual abuse online using the ICUii video chat program. Lombard identified the minor he had molested as his 5-year-old, black adopted child.
Lombard also offered to allow the undercover officer to watch him perform sexual acts on the child via ICUii and fly to Lombard's home to have sex with the child himself, according to the affidavit.
"He further told your affiant that he lived in Durham, North Carolina with his live-in homosexual partner," Palchak wrote in his affidavit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "News agencies gagging 'gay' factor in boy's rape" by Joe Kovacs © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/1/09
The arrest affidavit goes into graphic detail of Lombard's alleged actions, including alleged performance of oral sex with the child in front of a webcam, and sodomizing the boy with his finger and tongue. It also prominently cites the fact that Lombard is a homosexual living with another "gay" man.
In his online profile, Lombard reportedly describes himself as "perv dad for fun."
But days after the case broke, there have been few, if any, mentions in news stories that Lombard is part of a homosexual couple raising children.
In reports by the Associated Press, CNN and ABC News, for instance, the "gay" factor is never brought up.
A Lexis-Nexis news database search by WND using search terms "Frank Lombard" and "homosexual" or "gay" resulted in just four results, none of which were any major media.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented today on the apparent double standard [compared to the high-profile case of Duke lacrosse players who were wrongly accused of a rape that never happened], stating, "Did you hear there has been an actual rape at Duke University? An actual rape in Durham, North Carolina. It's not a phony one. Not a false charge. An actual rape. A guy sold his adopted 5-year-old son to a sex practitioner. A 5-year-old kid, yeah. There's a problem with this, too, because the guy is gay, a gay adoption.
"This is why you haven't heard about it. This does not fit the template. A false charge of rape at Duke when you had the poor, black, down-on-her-luck dancer and the rich, white, lacrosse players, oh, that fit the template. They were guilty before any evidence. This you haven't heard about because this doesn't fit the template here of what we're trying to accomplish." [Referring to the mainstream media being complicit in the Gay Agenda.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Episcopal Activist Arrested on Pedophile Charges He Molested Own Children" by David W. Virtue, virtueonline.org 7/1/2009
A gay Episcopal activist who is a fan of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson and a Duke University official has been charged in federal court with offering his 5-year-old adopted son up for sex.
When news of this story broke, VOL sent an e-mail to Robinson asking for clarification about his relationship with Lombard, but got no response. "It is reported that he is a fan of yours," VOL wrote to Robinson.
VOL phoned The Episcopal Church of The Advocate, a pro-gay "welcoming" parish located in Carrboro, North Carolina, where Lombard worships and sought comment from the rector, Lisa G. Fischbeck, a deputy to General Convention. She did not respond.
The diocese did (finally) release a statement with Bishop Michael B. Curry responding to the arrest of the Duke researcher, "Frank Lombard is a parishioner of a congregation in the diocese of North Carolina. It is the bishop's policy that in matters such as these, clergy will cooperate fully with law enforcement and allow the judicial process to run its course. In keeping with this same policy, clergy will not comment on investigations which are still in progress. The bishops and clergy of this diocese are committed to making certain that all of our churches remain safe places where all may worship and serve God. The Church is providing pastoral care and spiritual guidance for all parishioners who have been affected by this painful situation."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Health director Lombard faces child sex charges" by Julius Jones, The Duke Chronicle 7/1/09
A University employee was charged by the FBI with child sex abuse June 24 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Frank Lombard, 42, associate director for the Health Inequalities Program at the Center for Heath Policy, is charged with enticing an undercover police officer over the Internet to take part in interstate travel in order to engage in an illegal sex act with a minor . . .
After the sting operation began, the officer alleges that over the course of a Yahoo! Instant Messenger conversation June 23, Lombard-using the display name "F L"-confessed to multiple acts of sexual abuse online using the ICUii video chat program. Lombard identified the minor he had molested as his 5-year-old, black adopted child.
Lombard also offered to allow the undercover officer to watch him perform sexual acts on the child via ICUii and fly to Lombard's home to have sex with the child himself, according to the affidavit.
"He further told your affiant that he lived in Durham, North Carolina with his live-in homosexual partner," Palchak wrote in his affidavit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "News agencies gagging 'gay' factor in boy's rape" by Joe Kovacs © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/1/09
The arrest affidavit goes into graphic detail of Lombard's alleged actions, including alleged performance of oral sex with the child in front of a webcam, and sodomizing the boy with his finger and tongue. It also prominently cites the fact that Lombard is a homosexual living with another "gay" man.
In his online profile, Lombard reportedly describes himself as "perv dad for fun."
But days after the case broke, there have been few, if any, mentions in news stories that Lombard is part of a homosexual couple raising children.
In reports by the Associated Press, CNN and ABC News, for instance, the "gay" factor is never brought up.
A Lexis-Nexis news database search by WND using search terms "Frank Lombard" and "homosexual" or "gay" resulted in just four results, none of which were any major media.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented today on the apparent double standard [compared to the high-profile case of Duke lacrosse players who were wrongly accused of a rape that never happened], stating, "Did you hear there has been an actual rape at Duke University? An actual rape in Durham, North Carolina. It's not a phony one. Not a false charge. An actual rape. A guy sold his adopted 5-year-old son to a sex practitioner. A 5-year-old kid, yeah. There's a problem with this, too, because the guy is gay, a gay adoption.
"This is why you haven't heard about it. This does not fit the template. A false charge of rape at Duke when you had the poor, black, down-on-her-luck dancer and the rich, white, lacrosse players, oh, that fit the template. They were guilty before any evidence. This you haven't heard about because this doesn't fit the template here of what we're trying to accomplish." [Referring to the mainstream media being complicit in the Gay Agenda.]
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay Episcopal Activist Arrested on Pedophile Charges He Molested Own Children" by David W. Virtue, virtueonline.org 7/1/2009
A gay Episcopal activist who is a fan of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson and a Duke University official has been charged in federal court with offering his 5-year-old adopted son up for sex.
When news of this story broke, VOL sent an e-mail to Robinson asking for clarification about his relationship with Lombard, but got no response. "It is reported that he is a fan of yours," VOL wrote to Robinson.
VOL phoned The Episcopal Church of The Advocate, a pro-gay "welcoming" parish located in Carrboro, North Carolina, where Lombard worships and sought comment from the rector, Lisa G. Fischbeck, a deputy to General Convention. She did not respond.
The diocese did (finally) release a statement with Bishop Michael B. Curry responding to the arrest of the Duke researcher, "Frank Lombard is a parishioner of a congregation in the diocese of North Carolina. It is the bishop's policy that in matters such as these, clergy will cooperate fully with law enforcement and allow the judicial process to run its course. In keeping with this same policy, clergy will not comment on investigations which are still in progress. The bishops and clergy of this diocese are committed to making certain that all of our churches remain safe places where all may worship and serve God. The Church is providing pastoral care and spiritual guidance for all parishioners who have been affected by this painful situation."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
ObamaCare would Team-up with Planned Parenthood
As a preview to government-run health care, observe the sex training that Planned Parenthood has for children in this cartoon. President Obama wants to end abstinence-only education, and the viewpoint of his Secretary of Education is exemplified by how he trained children in the Chicago schools.
There's still time . . .
When local and state governments are informed of the evil effects of Planned Parenthood, it's a different story, such as in Tennessee, and also in Texas, and even in California!
-- From "Planned Parenthood’s Animated Cartoon Advises Teens on Benefits of ‘Sex Play’ and ‘Outercourse’" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/1/09
In an animated video cartoon on its Web site, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America advises teens that taking part in "sex play" and "outercourse" can greatly reduce their risk of getting a sexually transmitted infection (STI).
The cartoon features Tina the Farmer who gives viewers a tour of her “Sexually Transmitted Infections Petting Zoo.” At the end of the video, viewers are asked to take a quiz.
The second question on the quiz asks about protecting oneself from getting a STI.
“The only way to protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections is not having any sex play at all," the second quiz question asks.
There are two choices to click on to answer: “This Sounds Right” and “This Couldn’t Possibly be Right.”
If you click on “This Sounds Right,” animated creatures representing the SDIs run across the screen and scream “WRONG!”
By clicking on the “correct” answer – “This Couldn’t Possibly be Right” – they are rewarded with the visual and audio message “RIGHT-O” and this message appears:
“You can still get it goin’ on without having intercourse. Ever hear of outercourse? That’s right, outercourse. Outercourse includes body rubbing (people who are less polite might call it ‘dry humping’), masturbation, deep kissing, and erotic massage. Outercourse can GREATLY reduce the risk of many sexually transmitted infections – unless body fluids are exchanged through oral sex or anal intercourse."
Wendy Wright, executive director of Concerned Women for America, said the cartoon is in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s claim of the importance of medically accurate information being used in "comprehensive" sex education programs for teens
“For a teenager -- and teenagers are the target market here -- they are going to read that and they are going to come away with the deepest impression that as long as you don’t exchange bodily fluids, as long as you don’t have oral, vaginal, or anal sex then you are safe from getting an STI or an STD and that’s just not true,” Wright said.
Planned Parenthood, which, according to its annual report for 2007-2008, got $349.6 million dollars from the federal government, did not respond to repeated calls and e-mails from CNSNews.com asking several questions, including what age group the cartoon is targeting, whether the organization believes the cartoon encourages teens to be sexually active, and if any of the federal funding goes toward producing the cartoon.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
There's still time . . .
When local and state governments are informed of the evil effects of Planned Parenthood, it's a different story, such as in Tennessee, and also in Texas, and even in California!
-- From "Planned Parenthood’s Animated Cartoon Advises Teens on Benefits of ‘Sex Play’ and ‘Outercourse’" by Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer CNSNews.com 7/1/09
In an animated video cartoon on its Web site, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America advises teens that taking part in "sex play" and "outercourse" can greatly reduce their risk of getting a sexually transmitted infection (STI).
The cartoon features Tina the Farmer who gives viewers a tour of her “Sexually Transmitted Infections Petting Zoo.” At the end of the video, viewers are asked to take a quiz.
The second question on the quiz asks about protecting oneself from getting a STI.
“The only way to protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections is not having any sex play at all," the second quiz question asks.
There are two choices to click on to answer: “This Sounds Right” and “This Couldn’t Possibly be Right.”
If you click on “This Sounds Right,” animated creatures representing the SDIs run across the screen and scream “WRONG!”
By clicking on the “correct” answer – “This Couldn’t Possibly be Right” – they are rewarded with the visual and audio message “RIGHT-O” and this message appears:
“You can still get it goin’ on without having intercourse. Ever hear of outercourse? That’s right, outercourse. Outercourse includes body rubbing (people who are less polite might call it ‘dry humping’), masturbation, deep kissing, and erotic massage. Outercourse can GREATLY reduce the risk of many sexually transmitted infections – unless body fluids are exchanged through oral sex or anal intercourse."
Wendy Wright, executive director of Concerned Women for America, said the cartoon is in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s claim of the importance of medically accurate information being used in "comprehensive" sex education programs for teens
“For a teenager -- and teenagers are the target market here -- they are going to read that and they are going to come away with the deepest impression that as long as you don’t exchange bodily fluids, as long as you don’t have oral, vaginal, or anal sex then you are safe from getting an STI or an STD and that’s just not true,” Wright said.
Planned Parenthood, which, according to its annual report for 2007-2008, got $349.6 million dollars from the federal government, did not respond to repeated calls and e-mails from CNSNews.com asking several questions, including what age group the cartoon is targeting, whether the organization believes the cartoon encourages teens to be sexually active, and if any of the federal funding goes toward producing the cartoon.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Supreme Court Allows School's Exclusion of Christian Club
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to stop the Kent School District from blocking a group of Christian students from forming a Bible club on a high school campus.
-- From "High Court allows Kent school to block Bible club" by Associated Press 6/29/09
The court refused to hear an appeal from the high school students who wanted to form the Truth Bible Club at Kentridge High School in Washington state in 2001.
The Associated Student Body council refused to let the group be chartered as a school club. It cited the group's name and the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club, and it argued that allowing the club would bring religion into the school. The club's would-be founders then sued the Kent School District, claiming discrimination.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the district did not violate the students' First Amendment rights by requiring them to allow all students full membership in their club.
The decision does not block the formation of Bible clubs - several schools in the Kent district have them. It does not prevent the Truth Bible Club from meeting on school property - almost any group can meet on school property, including religious groups.
Rather, Tierney said, the decision allows the student council to refuse to make the Bible group an official student organization, with all the trappings of that status including access to student government money.
The school district says all official student groups must be open to all, without requiring a religious membership pledge or adherence to a Christian code of conduct as the Truth Bible Club was proposing for its voting members.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "High Court allows Kent school to block Bible club" by Associated Press 6/29/09
The court refused to hear an appeal from the high school students who wanted to form the Truth Bible Club at Kentridge High School in Washington state in 2001.
The Associated Student Body council refused to let the group be chartered as a school club. It cited the group's name and the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club, and it argued that allowing the club would bring religion into the school. The club's would-be founders then sued the Kent School District, claiming discrimination.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the district did not violate the students' First Amendment rights by requiring them to allow all students full membership in their club.
The decision does not block the formation of Bible clubs - several schools in the Kent district have them. It does not prevent the Truth Bible Club from meeting on school property - almost any group can meet on school property, including religious groups.
Rather, Tierney said, the decision allows the student council to refuse to make the Bible group an official student organization, with all the trappings of that status including access to student government money.
The school district says all official student groups must be open to all, without requiring a religious membership pledge or adherence to a Christian code of conduct as the Truth Bible Club was proposing for its voting members.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Pennsylvania Legislature Makes Prayer a Farce
The Pennsylvania House invites religious leaders to open legislative sessions, but requires a prior written submittal of the prayer, and yield to editing to ensure only "nondenominational prayers" are spoken.
-- From "State House edits 'Jesus' from pastor's prayer" by Erin James, For the York Daily Record/Sunday News [Pennsylvania] 6/30/2009
[Rev. Gerry] Stoltzfoos had been invited by state Rep. Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County, to open Tuesday's session of the House with a prayer as guest chaplain. The pastor declined the invitation after someone on [House Speaker] McCall's staff told him he could not use Jesus' name in the prayer. . . . a new policy of Pennsylvania's Speaker of the House, Keith McCall, D-Carbon County.
The policy -- not yet three months old -- requires guest chaplains to first submit their prayers in writing and then, if deemed necessary, agree to change their words to meet "nondenominational" guidelines established by McCall's staff.
It is not an attempt to silence religious leaders, McCall spokesman Bob Caton said, but rather an effort to prevent taxpayers from having to foot the bill of a lawsuit if someone objects to a prayer's contents and chooses to sue the state.
State Rep. Dan Moul, R-Conewago Township, Adams County -- whose district includes Straban Township, where Pastor Gerry Stoltzfoos' church is located -- said he also objects to the prayer policy.
"I personally don't think it's reasonable because our country was founded on Christian-Judeo beliefs. That's who started our government," Moul said. "We should never be ashamed to speak about our Christian beliefs. That's what our prayers are for."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This article was re-published by the source 7/22/09.
-- From "State House edits 'Jesus' from pastor's prayer" by Erin James, For the York Daily Record/Sunday News [Pennsylvania] 6/30/2009
[Rev. Gerry] Stoltzfoos had been invited by state Rep. Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County, to open Tuesday's session of the House with a prayer as guest chaplain. The pastor declined the invitation after someone on [House Speaker] McCall's staff told him he could not use Jesus' name in the prayer. . . . a new policy of Pennsylvania's Speaker of the House, Keith McCall, D-Carbon County.
The policy -- not yet three months old -- requires guest chaplains to first submit their prayers in writing and then, if deemed necessary, agree to change their words to meet "nondenominational" guidelines established by McCall's staff.
It is not an attempt to silence religious leaders, McCall spokesman Bob Caton said, but rather an effort to prevent taxpayers from having to foot the bill of a lawsuit if someone objects to a prayer's contents and chooses to sue the state.
State Rep. Dan Moul, R-Conewago Township, Adams County -- whose district includes Straban Township, where Pastor Gerry Stoltzfoos' church is located -- said he also objects to the prayer policy.
"I personally don't think it's reasonable because our country was founded on Christian-Judeo beliefs. That's who started our government," Moul said. "We should never be ashamed to speak about our Christian beliefs. That's what our prayers are for."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
This article was re-published by the source 7/22/09.
Christians Arrested at Twin Cities Homosexual Festival
Born-again Christians were arrested for distributing Bibles without permission from the homosexualists, unlike the previous eleven years when their evangelism was tolerated.
-- From "Bible-Dispensing Family Arrested At Pride Festival" WCCO-TV 6/27/09
Minneapolis Police arrested three people from Hayward, Wis. for trespassing.
For 11 years, Brian and Doris Johnson have passed out free Bibles at the festival.
This year, they were not allowed to have a booth.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bible Vendor Blocked From Pride Festival In Mpls." WCCO-TV 6/27/09
In past years, [Homosexualists] Pride has attracted all sorts of people for the camaraderie and the big parade. There are always hundreds of vendors. But this year, a couple who's had a booth for the past decade isn't allowed.
[Homosexualists] Pride organizers are cracking down and enforcing the vendor rules. As vendors set up for the Pride Festival, this booth with its signs about Jesus, models of fetuses and stack of bibles won't be there this year.
"What we do is we have two signs on our table, one says 'free bibles' and one says 'who is Jesus?' That's the content. That's what we want to talk about. We're not wanting to talk about homosexuality," said vendor applicant Brian Johnson.
While they do not behave violently, their display and discussions do offend some and have even incited participants to rip up their bibles. Because of that, the new festival management wouldn't approve their application this year.
There are many organizations including churches in the area that are affirming of the [homosexual] GLBT community. But festival organizers say the Johnsons are not.
While the Johnsons did sign the festival's anti-discrimination statement, signing is not enough.
[Homosexualists] Pride has paid a fee to rent the whole park. According to Minneapolis Parks, in that case, Pride does have the right to choose which vendors are allowed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Bible-Dispensing Family Arrested At Pride Festival" WCCO-TV 6/27/09
Minneapolis Police arrested three people from Hayward, Wis. for trespassing.
For 11 years, Brian and Doris Johnson have passed out free Bibles at the festival.
This year, they were not allowed to have a booth.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bible Vendor Blocked From Pride Festival In Mpls." WCCO-TV 6/27/09
In past years, [Homosexualists] Pride has attracted all sorts of people for the camaraderie and the big parade. There are always hundreds of vendors. But this year, a couple who's had a booth for the past decade isn't allowed.
[Homosexualists] Pride organizers are cracking down and enforcing the vendor rules. As vendors set up for the Pride Festival, this booth with its signs about Jesus, models of fetuses and stack of bibles won't be there this year.
"What we do is we have two signs on our table, one says 'free bibles' and one says 'who is Jesus?' That's the content. That's what we want to talk about. We're not wanting to talk about homosexuality," said vendor applicant Brian Johnson.
While they do not behave violently, their display and discussions do offend some and have even incited participants to rip up their bibles. Because of that, the new festival management wouldn't approve their application this year.
There are many organizations including churches in the area that are affirming of the [homosexual] GLBT community. But festival organizers say the Johnsons are not.
While the Johnsons did sign the festival's anti-discrimination statement, signing is not enough.
[Homosexualists] Pride has paid a fee to rent the whole park. According to Minneapolis Parks, in that case, Pride does have the right to choose which vendors are allowed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
