The High Cost of Free Love

By Heather Sells
CBN News
May 18, 2007

CBNNews.com - The old-fashioned romance associated with Valentine's Day is no longer a reality for many young people. That's because casual sex, known as "hooking up," is in.

But at least one campus doctor is worried about the medical and emotional downsides of such activity.

Here is more on the doctor’s concerns, and the politically charged field of sexual health.

Social advocates on both sides of the issue can agree -- our habits and understanding of sex changed profoundly 40 years ago.

Educator Pam Stenzel notes, "In the 1960s, we could do whatever we wanted. Sex was free. It was no big deal."

With the Sexual Revolution, many began to think of sex as a recreational event, with no consequences.

But today, the costs are clear.

Each year, 19-million Americans become infected with a sexually transmitted disease, or STD.

Almost half of them are between the ages of 15 and 24.

Just 40 years ago, only two sexually transmitted diseases existed. Today, there are 25.

There are young people who choose abstinence.

But research shows 47 percent of high school students have had sex, paving the way for a variety of "relationships" in college.

"They're having multiple-partner sex completely indiscriminately," said Stenzel. "It's hooking up. It's friends with benefits. It's something we do cause we're bored on a Friday night. It has nothing to do with intimacy."

With STDs, other problems can come -- like cervical cancer, infertility and depression.

But while it's OK to talk about the mechanics of sex with young people, frank discussion of the medical and emotional downsides has become rare.

And that's why Dr. Miriam Grossman is speaking up.

Her new book Unprotected explains how political correctness has invaded today's university health centers.

As an Ivy-League-trained campus psychiatrist herself, she says health providers can give plenty of information and caution about other risky behaviors -- such as smoking, drinking and overeating.

But when it comes to sex -- risky behaviors are not discouraged.

Her conclusion?

Ideology-driven health care is misinforming, and putting the health of millions of students at risk.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/104261.aspx?option=print

Importing a Slave Class

- We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up
on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate
for servants that now they're importing an underclass
to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This
vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new
form of slavery.


- The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans
won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled
immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to
strike generous, humanitarian poses with other
people's lives.


- The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is
supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we
must grant amnesty to illegal aliens -- and fast!

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty
to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists
living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws?
Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up
everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we
can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What
we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not
"amnesty" -- we'll ask them to pay a small fine.


- Noticeably, the biggest proponents of the
government's policy of importing a huge underclass of
unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled
workers.

The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled
immigrants isn't going to hardworking Americans who
hang drywall or clean hotel rooms -- and who are
having trouble getting jobs, now that they're forced
to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers
who don't pay taxes.

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking
immigrants -- unlike you lazy Americans -- are the
wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the
rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food
and health care.


Ann Coulter
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20855

Why would they ever want to come back?

by Bob Yandian

Psalm 116:15: Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.

I ministered from this verse at the memorial service for Chip this week. This verse has been a blessing to me when a Christian dies and goes to be with the Lord. This verse did not say it was precious to us, but to the Lord. In our sight, death is a time for grieving and sorrow. Rightfully so. God commanded Israel to take time to grieve for the death of Moses. And throughout the Word we are given permission to mourn for the absence, the hole that will exist, when our friends and loved ones are gone. But we are also told not to grieve as those who have no hope. Our grieving only lasts for a short time before it is overtaken by the eternal joy inside of us. Our hope is in Jesus and in the fact that we will see the person again.

The death of a saint is precious in the sight of the Lord. We stand on one side of the door and see an exit. God stands on the other side of the door and sees an entrance. Our friends exited this life and entered eternity. From God’s side, it was a glorious event. True success in the Christian life comes from looking at our lives from God’s viewpoint, not ours. We are to set our affection (minds) on things above and not on things of the earth. The mind of Christ, which should guide us daily, tells us that the person is far better off in God’s presence than they ever were on earth. We often ask, “Why would that person want to leave us?” We should be asking, “Why would they ever want to come back?”

http://www.gracetulsa.com/blog_0705.asp#050107

Newspaper Skews Marriage Facts

by Wendy Cloyd
citizenlink.org

The New York Times compared apples to oranges in pronouncing that marriage is headed for extinction.

An article in The New York Times Monday reported that married women are now a minority, but marriage and family experts say that’s a distortion of U.S. Census data.

According to the Times report, 51 percent of American women are single, compared to 35 percent of women in 1950.

But included in that number were girls as young as 15 and women whose husbands work out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized.

"This is simply another brazen attempt by The New York Times to advance an ultra-liberal social agenda," said Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family.

Dr. Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, said women are marrying at a later age -- the median is now 26 -- which can radically skew marriage statistics.

"You can look at how many are married by age 40 in any particular era and you get a little more precise way to do it," he said. Marriage is less common than it used to be, “but the number of people who want to be married and have it work out well is still extraordinarily high.”

Maier said the Times article also failed to mention that married women have better physical and emotional health than unmarried women.

“They live longer, enjoy a much higher standard of living, report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and are less likely to be victims of violence," he said.

The New York Times seems intent on disparaging marriage and discouraging young women from even considering it, Maier said.

"Marriage as an institution is suffering in our country," he added. "We should do everything we can to promote healthy, stable marital relationships, because those relationships remain the bedrock of our society."

Religious Freedom Day, 2007

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On Religious Freedom Day, we commemorate the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson, and we celebrate the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom.

Across the centuries, people have come to America seeking to worship the Almighty freely. Today, our citizens profess many different faiths, and we welcome every religion. Yet people in many countries live without the freedom to worship as they choose and some face persecution for their beliefs. My Administration is working with our friends and allies around the globe to advance common values and spread the blessings of liberty to every corner of the world. Freedom is a gift from the Almighty, written in the heart and soul of every man, woman, and child, and we must continue to promote the importance of religious freedom at home and abroad.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2007, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to reflect on the great blessing of religious liberty, endeavor to preserve this freedom for future generations, and commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities in their schools, places of worship, neighborhoods, and homes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

NBC's Conan O'Brien mocks Jesus and Christianity

Posted: January 12, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

NBC has plummeted to the level of CBS, with a late-night skit that blatantly mocks Christianity by portraying Jesus as a homosexual voyeur, a stunt that would have been instantly condemned nationwide if it had focused on any subject other than Christianity, according to a pro-life leader.

Full article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53739

Navy dismisses chaplain who prayed 'in Jesus' name'

'We are homeless, jobless, and we are in God's hands'
January 12, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A U.S. Navy chaplain who prayed "in Jesus' name" as his conscience dictated is being ejected from the military service "in retaliation" for his victorious battle to change Navy policy that required religious rites be "non-sectarian."

"This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again."

Klingenschmitt has fought an extended battle with the Navy over its restrictions on religious expression by its chaplains. He appeared and delivered a public prayer "in Jesus' name" at a White House rally last winter and was court-martialed for that. The Navy convicted him of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus' name."

He's also launched a legal battle that he said he hopes eventually will result in his reinstatement, alleging the Navy assembled a "civic religion" by ordering its chaplains to pray in a certain way.

Full article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53731

New Stem-Cell Study Proves Embryos Need Not Be Killed

by Pete Winn, associate editor

Scientists -- and family advocates -- say the House should consider the new research before voting to expand funding for destructive stem-cell science.

Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research rejoiced today at news that scientists from Wake Forest and Harvard have discovered a new source of stem cells that doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos -- and have used the source to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory.

"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, senior researcher and director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, said the research is very exciting news, indeed.

"They found that they could get adult-type stem cells from amniotic fluid -- the liquid that cushions the baby as it's developing -- and from the placenta, the afterbirth," said Prentice, a former university biology professor.

"The exciting thing is that these cells show all of the positives that people are looking for: They are so flexible in being able to form virtually any tissue of the body; you can keep them growing for a long time in the laboratory; they don't form tumors -- it looks like they might not even cause transplant rejection."

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, was also encouraged by the news.

"This is one of a number of studies in recent years showing versatility and promise from using live-birth products -- amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and placenta," she said.

"It's ironic that while some members of Congress and scientists are fixated on destroying human embryos for research, we continue to see that young humans are more valuable to science alive than dead."

Researcher Atala said a stem-cell bank with 100,000 specimens could theoretically supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with "perfect genetic matches" of organs for transplantation.

The news is all the more poignant because on Thursday, the newly reorganized House of Representatives will consider a bill to expand federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos.

Sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., H.R. 3 would dramatically increase the number of stem-cell lines eligible for federally funded research grants. In 2001, President Bush approved federal funding for research on only a very limited number of stem-cell lines left over from in-vitro fertilization -- and already scheduled for destruction.

Earll predicted the amniotic research will be talked about on Capitol Hill over the next three days.

"This will cause a ripple preceding the vote on Thursday -- and will put some pressure on some members of the House to take a good hard look at whether destroying human embryos is necessary," she said.

One new congressman, Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., agreed.

Roskam, who was elected last November to succeed longtime pro-life stalwart Henry Hyde, said the new amniotic research is exactly what Congress should be considering Thursday -- not research that destroys human embryos.

"There's a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle -- and on both sides of the life issue -- for pursuing other types of stem-cell research, such as adult and cord-blood research, which has been receiving federal funding since 2001," Roskam told CitizenLink.

"I think the Democrats had an opportunity to frame the debate and concentrate on some bread-and-butter issues -- taxes, spending, and so forth -- and yet, here they go; they get the majority and jump right in and move some very controversial legislation. There's no doubt that embryonic stem-cell research is moral quicksand -- and is a very difficult issue to discuss clearly."

As the bill stands now, Roskam plans to vote no. Some of his House colleagues will be in a quandary, he said.

"I think there's going to be a lot of Democrats, who described themselves in their campaigns as pro-life and won, who are going to be in a very difficult situation -- either voting their pro-life constituency, or voting with their Democratic leaders," he said.

The congressman said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have decreed that no amendments or changes can be added to the stem-cell bill -- or to any of the bills Democrats hope to pass in the first 100 hours of Congress.

Last May, the House voted 238-194 to approve the DeGette bill, but President Bush vetoed the measure in July. Would he do so again if it makes it to his desk a second time? Bush adviser Tim Goeglein didn't say exactly, but made his boss's position on the issue clear.

"President Bush has welcomed snowflake children (adopted human embryos who grow up and become children) and their parents to the White House twice," Goeglein told CitizenLink. "Those visits underscore his commitment to the culture of life. He has been proactive on a stem-cell policy that underscores human dignity."

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003573.cfm

The Intolerance of Tolerance

by Greg Koukl

Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America’s noblest virtues has been so distorted it’s become a vice.

There’s one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is “intolerant.”

The modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.

The Tolerance Trick

As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the “passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Let me give you a real life example.

Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:

“All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.”

All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:

“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him.”

Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”

“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”

“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.

I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They all agreed.

Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them.

They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.

If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.

Escaping the Trap“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “You must reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classic view.”

Then I wrote these two principles on the board (This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College.):

Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.

…Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.

…Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.

…To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue…

Topsy-Turvy

The modern definition of tolerance turns the classical formula for tolerance on its head:

Be egalitarian regarding ideas.
Be elitist regarding persons.

If you reject another’s ideas, you’re automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did with me). On this new view of tolerance no idea or behavior can be opposed—even if done graciously—without inviting the charge of incivility.

To say I’m intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. Ironically, it results in elitism regarding persons. If I think my ideas are better than another’s, I can be ill-treated as a person, publicly marginalized and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent and—can you believe it—intolerant. Sometimes I can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.

Tolerance has thus gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but don’t tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception with those beliefs. Contrary opinions are labeled as “imposing your view on others” and quickly silenced.

This is nonsense and should be abandoned. The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable “Catch-22,” because each person in any debate has a point of view he thinks is correct.

Catch-22

Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.

Notice that we can’t truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently and with respect.

This essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement (elitism regarding ideas)—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat him.

This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet saying so brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.

Intellectual Cowardice

Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—”you intolerant bigot”—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it.

In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.

Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about his own views. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind of tolerance is a myth.

Full article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_intolerance_of_tolerance&ns=GregKoukl&dt=12/14/2006&page=full&comments=true

Growing up too fast

- Tween-targeted toys and fashions are prime examples of marketing attempts to make young girls, even those under the age of eight, grow up much too fast.

- Marketing aimed at children from ages eight to twelve, a group commonly called "tweens," now targets them with advertising previously pointed at teenagers.

- This past Christmas season's top-selling dolls for girls, the Bratz line, illustrate the pressure tween girls are under because of this type of marketing.

- The difficulty trying to buy an age-appropriate doll this past Christmas revealed the abundance of "highly sexualized" dolls now being produced for tweens and even younger girls.

- It's important for us to remember that the toys that we give to our children send messages to them about our perceptions of society, value, and beauty.

- When you give a Bratz doll to a little girl, you're saying this is what women should look like, this is what girls should look like -- this is what they should aspire to.

- These popular dolls, which now outsell even Barbie, present an image problem for girls who are, at an early age, already feeling pressured to meet a standard that has no basis in reality

- The Bratz are a highly sexualized, male fantasy, or a stereotyped male fantasy, of what girls and women should look like.


http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42007b.asp

Top Ten Persecutors of Christians

(January 3, 2007) The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) www.persecution.org has just released its annual Hall of Shame Awards. This list details the world’s top ten persecutors of Christians.

This report calls attention to a growing trend that shows the source of Christian persecution shifting from nations with Communist governments to Islamic nations.

The first example of this trend is Iraq. One of the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq was to bring more pressure on the Christian communities there. Much of the media attention has focused on bloodshed between Sunni and Shiite, but hardly any coverage has been given to the disproportionately large number of brutal attacks on the small Christian minority. Therefore, ICC has ranked Iraq as the second-worst persecutor of Christians.

In addition, radical Islam has gained a foothold in the Horn of Africa through the anarchy in Somalia. This has contributed to a sharp rise in violence against Christians in Somalia and Ethiopia. It remains to be seen what effect the recent defeat of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia will have on the region.

ICC’s President Jeff King said, “Persecution must and can be fought. Religious persecution must be named and shamed on an international level. Journalists need to speak out about Islam’s mistreatment of other religions, while concerned individuals should get involved in the fight by contacting their elected representatives and by calling embassies and requesting fair treatment for Christians overseas.”

In order, ICC has ranked the world’s worst persecutors as: North Korea, Iraq, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, China, Vietnam, and Pakistan.

The report is in PDF format, and can be found on the ICC website www.persecution.org, or it can be accessed directly at Hall of Shame 2007

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/pdfs/HallofShame2007.pdf

Human Rights and Pluralism: Conflicting Values?

Living in a democracy, we often hear the terms human rights and pluralism, but we don’t often stop to think about what they really mean or how they’re related.

In its recent decision in the case of Konrad v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the German government could outlaw homeschooling based on its determination that homeschooling hindered the promotion of pluralism in that country. This ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of both rights and pluralism and places these two at odds. Properly defined, pluralism and human rights are compatible goals.

In an operational sense, pluralism means that people of different races, religions, and views should live together with mutual respect and as equal citizens.

A government may promote pluralism. But if pluralism and human rights are to mean anything, they must mean that a person may not be compelled by the government to give up his or her individual views in the name of making a pluralistic society. In fact, coerced pluralism is a self-defeating objective. At the core, any theory of human rights views the decisions of individuals for their own lives to be presumptively superior to government authority. Of course, there are limits to this theory, and not all things claimed to be a human right survive logical analysis. But there’s something about the right of private judgment that’s fundamental to the idea of human rights.

One of the most important applications of this right of private judgment is the right of parents to decide how their children should be educated. Parents should have a prior right to make such decisions that’s superior to any claim of any government.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/hshb/72/hshb7207.asp

Another college drops cross emblem

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Official: It sent 'wrong message,' created 'confusion'
December 30, 2006
Bob Unruh

Another university is dropping a cross from its historic imagery, saying it creates confusion and sends the wrong message.

The announcement from Simon Fraser University near Vancouver, B.C., about the school's Coat of Arms brings it in alignment with a precedent set earlier by the College of William and Mary, which said that a historic cross in a structure built as a Christian chapel hundreds of years ago would have to go because it offended some people.

At virtually the same time, the school announced that was creating a center for the study of Muslim issues.

It is being funded by $1 million from the Amin Lalji family and $250,000 from school Board of Governors chair Saida Rasul and her husband Firoz.

"We have already a very strong program in Middle Eastern and Islamic history, an endowed lectureship in Iranian and Persian studies, courses in Persian, and soon, Arabic and other languages," said SFU President Michael Stevenson. "These activities are a strong base for building an internationally recognized center for scholarship that embraces the full diversity of Muslim societies and cultures."

In a months-old controversy that still is reverberating, the president of the College of William and Mary College ordered the removal of a donated cross from the historic Wren Chapel.

University administrator Melissa Engimann circulated an e-mail noting that the cross was going to be stored in order to make the chapel "less of a faith-specific space."

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has not returned messages left by WND seeking a comment.

She recently was named chancellor of the college. It was during her tenure in the Supreme Court that a growing intolerance by the court for religious symbols – particularly Christian symbols – in public places became evident.

The Wren Chapel, built about 274 years ago, became an integral part of the university when it was a Christian school.

"In the name of tolerance, we have intolerance; in the name of welcoming, we have hostility, and in the name of unity, we now have division," said junior Joe Luppino-Esposito.

Full article here: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53568

Brokeback Mountain May Be Tip of the Iceberg

Originally published on January 25, 2006

(AgapePress) - A former homosexual who now heads an international Christian ministry to individuals affected by homosexuality says movies such as the much touted mainstream media darling Brokeback Mountain are sending the wrong message to Americans about culture and sexuality.

Alan Chambers is president of Exodus International, an organization that includes the largest evangelical network of former homosexuals and that promotes the message to people struggling with unwanted same-sex desire that change from homosexuality is possible through the power of Jesus Christ. But while Exodus is offering hope based on scriptural truth, the ministry leader contends that movies like the homosexual "romance" Brokeback Mountain are fostering confusion and desperation.

"They don't point to the truth that homosexuality is a very difficult lifestyle," Chambers says. "It's one full of desperation and devastation and heartache. And the great thing is there are men and women who have overcome that lifestyle. That's something I wish was more talked about in the mainstream media."

It comes as no surprise to Chambers that the highly publicized film about two male sheepherders who meet and carry on an adulterous homosexual affair across 20 years has received four Golden Globes and was also named the Best Picture of 2005 by the Producers Guild of America. Brokeback Mountain is also being called a likely Oscar contender, and mainstream film critics have lavished the film with praise.

The president of Exodus International expects the film -- sometimes casually dubbed the "gay cowboy movie" in the press -- will usher in similar homosexually-themed projects. He says Hollywood will doubtless continue to push the boundaries of decency, and "certainly, we'll see movies that I think will cause Brokeback Mountain to pale in comparison to what might come down the pike."

Christians can and must fight back, Chambers asserts. "We in the evangelical community, the Christian community, even the pro-family community need to come out and support the movies that are family-friendly by going to see them," he says. "And we need to tell Hollywood that we don't want the others by sending the message that we're not going to pay for this, and we're not going to support it, and we're not going to allow you to bring it into our communities."

Exodus International has been in existence for 30 years and serves more than 400,000 people who contact the ministry for help each year. As the largest evangelical organization dealing with homosexual issues in the world today, Exodus is composed of more than 125 professional mental health and church-based member agencies across North America. Its expanding worldwide network of former homosexuals is made up of individuals who are dedicated to sharing the transforming power of Jesus Christ with those affected by unwanted same-sex attractions.

Today Alan Chambers, who left the homosexual lifestyle in 1991, is married with two children. In addition to serving as president of Exodus International, he is a guest speaker for Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out Conference, a seminar that travels to six major cities each year to help participants gain understanding about the roots, causes, and social and spiritual implications of homosexuality.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/262006d.asp

Agenda Clear in Premarital Sex Survey

by Wendy Cloyd

citizenlink.org

Pro-family experts dispute findings, conclusions of report that seeks to normalize unhealthy sexual behavior.

Family advocates are questioning the results of – and the agenda behind – a survey released this week by the Guttmacher Institute claiming that 95 percent of Americans have engaged in sex outside of marriage.

The study, published in Public Health Reports, purported to examine how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time. It is based on interviews with more than 38,000 people over two decades for the federal National Survey of Family Growth.

According to Lawrence Finer, author of the study, 99 percent of the respondents reported having had sex by age 44, and 95 percent reported having had sex outside of marriage. Among a subgroup that did not engage in sexual activity until at least age 20, four-fifths reported having premarital sex by age 44.

"This is reality-check research," Finer said. "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

The results, he added, call into question whether the federal government should fund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds.

But Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said the motive behind the Guttmacher report is suspect, especially given the group’s close affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

“This is the condom cartel's attempt at normalizing out-of-wedlock sexual behavior,” she said. “This is one in a series of documents that is designed to set the battle lines for January's congressional battles over (funding for) sex education.”

Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, questioned the method used to collect the data.

"These numbers seem a little high to me,” he said. “Additionally, what they don’t tell us is how active people were before marriage. Were most of these encounters among people who were engaged or were they simply casual hook-ups? We don't know.”

More than anything, though, Stanton is distressed by the author’s implication that since so many people are doing it, it must be fine.

“What did each one of our mothers tell us?” he asked. “Just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it OK.”

Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, confirmed Stanton’s -- and his mother’s -- sentiments.

“The fact that a high percentage of individuals are engaging in a particular behavior doesn’t indicate that it’s healthy or wise,” he said. “Sixty-one percent of American adults are overweight or obese — but just because most people are eating high-fat foods and not exercising doesn’t mean we should encourage our kids to embrace obesity.”

Stanton said the study ignores consistent research findings over the last few decades that prove the most sexually satisfied people today are faithfully married men and women who come to marriage with no previous sexual experience.

“What is more, sexual satisfaction tends to decline along with an increase in the number of different sexual partners one has had in a lifetime,” Stanton noted. “In sex, practice doesn't make perfect -- at least with different partners."

Finer’s assertion that schools should forgo abstinence education and simply teach “safe-sex” practices because premarital sex is normal, expected behavior, Klepacki said, is not the way to protect teens and young adults.

“We have an epidemic of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) in this country -- especially in the teen population,” she said. “We should be doing everything we can to prevent sexual behavior in our teens.”

Maier said Planned Parenthood and its colleagues at the Guttmacher Institute have a responsibility to give teens all the facts about premarital sex.

“Condoms don’t protect against all sexuality transmitted diseases,” he said. They don’t protect against the psychological ramifications of premarital sex, either, Maier added.

“Girls who are sexually active experience a higher incidence of clinical depression,” he said, “and women who’ve had multiple sexual partners report the highest levels of sexual dysfunction.”

Klepacki added that is exactly why abstinence-until-marriage education is vital to the well-being of the nation’s youth.

“We want every child to be able to work toward their future goals and dreams,” she said, “without illness impeding those efforts.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION

In And the Bride Wore White, best-selling author Dannah Gresh shares the seven most important secrets to sexual purity. She challenges young women to set and maintain high standards, to value their virginity and to make a commitment to Christ for a sexually pure lifestyle.

http://resources.family.org/product/and+the+bride+wore+white.do?search=basic&keyword=abstinence&sortby=shortdesc&asc=true&page=1

Guttmacher's Premarital Sex Stats Are Doubtful

Pro-Family Advocates Cast Doubt on Guttmacher's Reported Premarital Sex Stats

By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
December 21, 2006

(AgapePress) - A pro-family group is expressing skepticism about the accuracy of a new report that says 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex. A study by Lawrence Finer of the Alan Guttmacher Institute finds that 99 percent of Americans had sex by the age of 44, and 95 percent had done so before getting married.

The "reality-check research," as Finer calls it, was based on interviews of more than 38,000 people, some 33,000 of them women, in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey on Family Growth. The study purportedly examined how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time. According to Finer's analysis, even among those individuals who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44. The study also found women, even those born decades ago, virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex.

An Associated Press report on the study quotes Finer as saying that the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s. In other words, the researcher claims premarital sex is "normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

However, Dr. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) sees Finer's report as a ploy to cast doubt on the need for abstinence-until-marriage programs. "My eyebrows went up when I first saw the numbers," she recalls, "and I thought that the results were a bit too pat because they fit so specifically into the agenda of Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute."

For that reason, Crouse says she is "quite suspicious" about the numbers cited in the Institute's report. "They are so extreme," she contends, "I think you'd have to have another study done to replicate those results before I would buy into them."

One reason the CWA spokeswoman feels the credibility of this report on Americans and premarital sex needs to be questioned is that Finer works for a group which she believes actually favors both extramarital sex and abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a private New York-based think tank that investigates sexual and reproductive issues, is an organization that strongly discourages government-funded abstinence-only programs and instead promotes so-called "comprehensive sex education," which is condom-based and emphasizes the concept of "safe sex."

The Guttmacher Institute is among a number of organizations, including the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, that tout "sexual rights" and "reproductive rights" -- terms many pro-family and pro-life supporters understand to mean unrestricted sexual license and the right to abortion on demand. The Institute's website, similar to those of Planned Parenthood and SIECUS, expresses the organization's commitment to individuals' rights to express themselves sexually -- regardless of marital status -- and to have access to "comprehensive" information that will enable them to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and to "exercise the right to choose abortion."

"The federal programs prior to the Bush administration were overwhelmingly supportive of comprehensive sex education, of course, which is provided by Planned Parenthood and supported by Guttmacher and SIECUS and all of the left-wing groups," Crouse says. "And now that there is some money -- just a tad of money -- going for abstinence-till-marriage programs, [such groups] are objecting to any money whatsoever being spent in that direction."

Lawrence Finer talks about people needing a "reality check" regarding premarital sex, Crouse adds. However, she insists it is his research that needs the reality check.

Abstinence Education Advocate: Guttmacher's Facts Are Skewed
Abstinence-based sex education proponent Leslee Unruh, who heads the South Dakota-based Abstinence Clearinghouse, is also suspicious of the Guttmacher Institute's findings -- and of the motives behind them. "Of course, right now we know the reason abstinence education is being attacked and these types of studies are going to continue to come up more and more in the following months," she says, "is because of the reauthorization of Title V. Title V is the federal dollars that are funding the abstinence-until-marriage program across the nation."

Unruh says Guttmacher has been a part of Planned Parenthood in the past, and it continues to have an interest in pushing "this new, so-called research," which appears to support comprehensive sex education programs. However, she insists that the sexual "freedom" being promoted by Guttmacher and the other organizations pushing the "safe-sex" myth has failed an entire generation of Americans.

"The sexual revolution came, it went, and it lost," the Abstinence Clearinghouse director observes. "The sexual revolution ended the last century, and we feel people need to be looking to what the newfound research is on sexuality," she says. "Today's a new day, and we know that from the studies we have seen, that many young people are demanding the higher standard of abstinence education."

Abstinence Clearinghouse has seen study after study indicating that increasing numbers of young people are open to the abstinence message and that many are choosing to remain chaste until marriage, Unruh observes. "According to the CDC, there are less kids having sex now than those that are," she asserts. "So we have numbers that show there is a different thought process going on in America right now, and we believe a lot of that has to do with the fact that these programs raise the bar."

Condom-based sex education, Unruh suggests, can have the effect of communicating to young people that "everyone else" is having sex, and that having premarital sex is not only normal but inevitable. What abstinence-only education does, the pro-family advocate contends, is empower young people to choose intimacy over immediate gratification, love over lust, so that more and more are "looking to a lifetime mate, a monogamous relationship, and choosing purity over promiscuity."

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/212006a.asp

Georgia Battle to Label Evolution as Theory Ends

Georgia Battle to Label Evolution as Theory Ends

After a four-year legal battle, the Cobb County, Ga., school board announced Tuesday it has abandoned plans to hand out science books with a reminder to students that evolution is a theory, not a fact, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

In 2002, the school board approved the placement of a sticker on the texts that said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The stickers were immediately challenged; five parents claimed the message promoted religion and was unconstitutional because it implied the alternative theory of intelligent design.

In 2005, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ordered the Cobb school district to remove the stickers. School officials complied but sought an appeal. Last spring, an appellate-court panel determined it did not have sufficient information to rule and sent the case back to Cooper, effectively upholding his ruling.

Jeffery Selman, one of the parents who demanded the stickers be removed, said the First Amendment provided an argument against the disclaimer.

“Evolution cannot be redefined by people who don’t like it,” he said. “I sued in the name of science and protecting science education.”

Majorie Rogers, one of the parents who sought placement of the stickers, said it is the textbooks that present false information, not the stickers.

"The stickers were just a compromise the school board made to satisfy those of us who were offended by the material in the textbooks," she said. “The textbooks are inaccurate and biased and unconstitutional."

Teresa Plenge, chairwoman of the school board, said the board’s decision to refrain from using the stickers does not imply it considered them a mistake.

The board, she said, saw "the need to put this divisive issue behind us."

The stickers were well within constitutional bounds, she said.

In the settlement, the school board agreed not to alter materials on evolution in textbooks. It also agreed pay $166,659 toward legal fees in the case.

New Jersey’s “Banned” Pastor, Rev. Vincent Fields, Points the Way Back for America

By Peter LaBarbera

In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a war between good and evil going on in this country, between those who agree with God and those who fight for worldly and immoral agendas — homosexuality, abortion, pornography — that He opposes.

On Monday, the Rev. Vincent Fields (pictured above), having been invited to give the honorary invocation for the New Jersey State Senate, acted on a prompting from the God he serves. For that reason, this preacher will not be invited back to pray in an official capacity for New Jersey lawmakers.

Rev. Fields, (pictured above), pastor of Greater Works Ministries in Pleasantville, N.J., said that when he arrived Monday, he didn’t plan on praying against “gay marriage,” but “the Holy Spirit took over, and I had to pray what He said.”

Here is Rev. Fields’ prayer: “We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage … We ask you to just look over this place today, cause them to be shaken in their very heart in uprightness, Lord, to do [what] is right before you.”

After offense was taken at Rev. Fields’ too-truthful prayer, New Jersey’s Senate President Richard Codey (D) told the Newark Star-Ledger that Rev. Fields will “not be back” to pray in the Senate. The reverend needn’t fret; he is in good company: I doubt that the real, holy God of the Bible has been welcome in that chamber for quite some time. Yesterday was a case in point, as the New Jersey legislature passed a bill legalizing “civil unions” — counterfeit “same-sex marriage” in everything but the name — with an ease that makes one wonder if the Church in the Garden State is in hibernation.

Blue state New Jersey has become a bastion of officially-sanctioned secular immorality: you may recall that the state’s highest court voted 4-3 to mandate that the legislature pass either “gay marriage” or “gay marriage lite” (civil unions) — and the three dissenters were upset only that the court didn’t go all the way and require FULL “gay marriage.” In other words, not a single justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court — including several appointed by Republican governor Christine Todd Whitman — had a problem with giving marital-type rights and privileges to homosexuals.

Getting back our passion

Too often in the cultural debate over homosexuality, the debate is reduced to secular studies and research (e.g., how studies show that it’s better for children to have a mom and a dad). These are worthy pursuits because secular research validates divine truth, and many Americans have closed their minds to the Bible.

That said, appeals to God, the Bible and morality are the most powerful motivators in this struggle because they cut to the heart — at least for Christians. The less often Scripture is spoken in public debates, the less relevant it becomes to society. Surely the vast majority of serious Christians and religious people in the United States would agree with Rev. Fields’ prayer: there IS an ungodly spirit that surrounds the promotion of homosexuality. It is manifested in all aspects of the movement — from the hyper-promiscuity in the “gay” male world to the latest in “queer” theology, which twists the holy Scriptures to claim that homosexuality is a “gift from God.”

And, yes, this ungodly spirit is also found in the quest for domesticated, monogamous homosexuality that merely “regularizes sin,” to quote Rob Gagnon, while still mocking and radically redefining God’s perfect design for marriage and family.

Many of us are intimidated against speaking out on God’s behalf, but the “gay” lobby is quite willing to fill the void — “preaching” at us with its slick but morally bankrupt message that “being gay” is naturally “who they are,” and demonizing Christians as “haters.” They can redefine words all they want, but homosexual behavior will always be wrong, and “gay pride” is direct rebellion against God.

Truth is, homosexual sin is so egregious that the Bible calls it an “abomination” — crying out for judgment by all those who agree with God. If it is not wrong for men to commit sodomitic perversions with other men, and women with women — what Noah Webster termed a “crime against nature” in a wiser age — then nothing is wrong. Sterile public policy debates often fail to convey the moral outrage of legitimizing this destructive lifestyle, as do religious compromisers like Peggy Campolo who seek to make an accommodation with homosexuality, often out of pity for friends or relatives trapped in this lifestyle.

An America where you can’t judge anything as wrong — except Bible-believing Christians and “intolerant” religious people — is a banal and spiritually lifeless America, its moral energy sapped out of it. This is liberalism today. Behold how quickly social liberals like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) moved from considering homosexual “domestic partnership” (and eschewing “gay marriage”) to now embracing homosexual “marriage” as a civil right. And why not? They have no moral absolutes, or at least they don’t share God’s: if you can rationalize the legalized slaughter of innocent unborn life and call it a “choice,” why not let two guys or two ladies “playing house,” to quote ex-homosexual Stephen Bennett, call their arrangement a “marriage”?

Most Americans still call themselves Christian in this country, but when Christianity tolerates everything, it means nothing. There IS such a thing as “God’s side” of some core issues, and those who embrace homosexuality, abortion and pornography ain’t on it.

This is the season to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ came to save men from their sins. The Bible says that those who reject Christ stand condemned (John 3:16-18), but that He offers forgiveness and spiritual rebirth to all, including repentant homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). (Yes, there were “ex-gays,” so to speak, in Bible times.) If there is no sin, then there is no need for Christ. Pro-family advocates are often accused of arrogance for “judging” homosexuality as wrong, but the real arrogance comes from those who would effectively pronounce God (and His Word) a liar, because they — frail, created humans on this earth but a moment in the vast scope of time — know better than He does about what’s right and wrong.

In New Jersey, it’s easy to despair as homosexual activists claim yet another court-assisted victory, and all we have for inspiration is Rev. Fields’ Holy Spirit-led prayer. But the faithful pastor actually points the way back for our nation. Secular studies and catchy sound-bites will not bring a return of God’s blessing, but spiritual revival and repentance will — by bringing about godly humility and a desire to obey His moral laws, and creating a newfound wonder at His marvelous creation, including marriage and the family.

To bring about that repentance we need many more like Vincent Fields, men and women who are willing to cast off the shackles of Political Correctness and speak God’s truth to a dying culture. Some will say that Rev. Fields is only the latest casualty in America’s Culture Wars. To me, he is a loyal soldier who refused to squelch the voice of God to please men.

I encourage you to express your personal appreciation
by contacting Pastor Vincent Fields by e-mail
or by phone at (609) 407-7117.

Peter LaBarbera is the president of Americans For Truth.

http://americansfortruth.com/news/new-jerseys-banned-pastor-rev-fields-points-the-way-back-for-america.html

NEA Uses School Safety Rhetoric to Push Homosexual Agenda

By Jim Brown, Bill Fancher, and Jenni Parker

(AgapePress) - A former chairman of the National Education Association's Ex-Gay Educators Caucus says the NEA is engaging in a "big misinformation campaign" with the goal of changing public opinion on homosexuality, starting with the youngest generation.

The NEA has unveiled a new web page on "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students," stating that the educators' union is "committed" to fighting harassment, bullying, and discrimination aimed at those students. The page cites statistics from a study published by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, and even provides a link to an interview with that group's founder, homosexual activist Kevin Jennings.

Conservative critics of Jennings have blasted him for promoting what they see as radical pro-homosexual policies and ideas. Culture and media critic Bob Knight of the Media Research Center calls the GLSEN founder a "very controversial" figure, one "who has covered up an incident of molestation [of a 15-year-old boy by a homosexual man], who presided over a session in Massachusetts in which kids as young as 14 were exposed to graphic descriptions of homosexual sex acts," and who has said he wants children, even kindergartners, to be acquainted with homosexuality.

California teacher Jeralee Smith, who founded the NEA's Conservative Educator Caucus and formerly chaired the union's Ex-Gay Educators Caucus, says the new web page on GLBT students is all part of the union's ongoing agenda to legitimize homosexuality. However, she says she hopes this latest move by the national organization will finally open the eyes of some of its members.

"Maybe, finally," Smith comments, "some of the conservative and Christian teachers and other faiths who take issue with children being urged to adopt a gay identity" will recognize the NEA's pro-homosexual agenda for what it is. "Maybe, finally, some of these people will really believe that this is what their dues money is going for," she says.

Is the NEA Helping to Spread GLSEN Misinformation?
In July, at the NEA's annual convention, the educators union voted overwhelmingly to endorse legal same-sex civil unions and same-sex "marriages." And now, with its new web page on GLBT students, Smith feels the NEA is using misinformation in an effort to change public attitudes toward homosexuality, and she suspects the union's embrace of GLSEN's "safe schools" rhetoric is little more than a smokescreen for its support for and collaboration with the activist organization's agenda.

Also telling, Smith suggests, is which data the National Education Association chooses to report about GLBT students, and what it chooses to omit. She notes, for instance, that the NEA's new web page does not provide statistics about the many young people who have had same-sex sexual encounters in the past but have since abandoned such behavior.

Full article here:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/182006b.asp

Richard Dawkins' Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

---

Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil)

The man described as ‘Darwin’s Rotweiller’ (by supporter Charles Simonyi) has evolved to metaphorically resemble the big bad wolf of nursery rhyme fame, and he is on a bestselling mission to liberate the pigs (the analogy is mine, not his) from what he sees as their prisons of straw. Zoologist Richard Dawkins, who is Oxford University’s Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, has been described as ‘materialistic, reductionist and overtly anti-religious.’ Nevertheless, The God Delusion – which is descended by design from Dawkins’ controversial two-part television series The Root of all Evil? - is his first book written to make a direct (undoubtedly well-intentioned) attack upon theistic religion: ‘If this books works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.’

...Dawkins’ attack upon the historical reliability of the bible, which draws upon scholars like agnostic Bart Ehrman (who follows Hume’s discredited proposal that miracle claims cannot in principle be supported by evidence), is full of demonstrably false and misleading claims. Indeed, Dawkins’ critique constitutes a ‘greatest hits’ of the sort of thing I expect to hear from students who have uncritically lapped up philosophically outdated sceptical treatments of scripture that confirm their prejudices. Plenty of contemporary scholars reject Dawkins’ opinions concerning the reliability of the bible, on evidential grounds...

Full article and citations:

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview2.htm

More reviews of Dawkin's book:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?_r=1&8bu&emc=bu&oref=slogin
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061023&s=nagel102306