By Jim Brown
February 27, 2006
(AgapePress) - Christian students are being encouraged to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda in public schools by celebrating the second annual "Day of Truth."
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) established the observance in response to the national "Day of Silence," an event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to protest discrimination and harassment experienced by homosexuals.
Students will be observing the Day of Truth on Thursday, April 27, by wearing T-shirts and passing out cards expressing an opposing viewpoint on homosexuality. ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb says the event is "an opportunity for students to exercise their First Amendment rights in an appropriate way and get the message out about a Christian view of truth."
Students taking part in the pro-family event will be handing out cards that state: "I am speaking the truth to break the silence. Silence isn't freedom; it's a constraint. Truth tolerates open discussion, because the truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed. By proclaiming the truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved."
The Day of Truth represents "an important moment in American history," McCaleb contends. "This thing has gotten a lot of traction in the couple years that we've been working on it," he says. "It really does provide an opportunity for Christians to speak out, to speak the truth in love, and I think that's important.
"We lawyers can do a lot to change the law," the ADF spokesman continues, "but if Christians don't come out and speak and engage society, then all the lawyers in the world are kind of useless. You need the folks to get out there and speak and engage the culture."
Last year, according to ADF's statistics, more than 1,100 students from at least 350 schools nationwide took part in Day of Truth activities. McCaleb says the group hopes to see even more Christian young people joining in on April 27 this year to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda in public schools by breaking the silence and speaking the truth about that lifestyle.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/272006c.asp
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Grad student booted for sharing her faith outside of work hours
Because she shared her faith with co-workers during lunch breaks and after work hours -- and because she refused to sign a document agreeing not to do that -- a Christian woman in California has been terminated from her internship with the Department of Children and Family Services and threatened with expulsion from a graduate program at Cal State-Long Beach.
The document the school had asked Jacqueline Escobar to sign also included a statement admitting she had "an inability to separate her religious beliefs from her role" as an intern.
Consequently, Escobar's legal representative -- the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) -- filed a federal lawsuit on her behalf against the DCFS. Escobar, according to a press release from PJI, demonstrated outstanding academic and work performance but "came under scrutiny" for sharing her faith while an intern at the DCFS.
That state agency, says PJI president Brad Dacus, "has no business telling an intern that she cannot share her faith during non-working hours."
The attorney says he is confident a federal court will "cut off [the] muzzle" that the agency has used to silence his client. [Jody Brown]
News from Agape Press
The document the school had asked Jacqueline Escobar to sign also included a statement admitting she had "an inability to separate her religious beliefs from her role" as an intern.
Consequently, Escobar's legal representative -- the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) -- filed a federal lawsuit on her behalf against the DCFS. Escobar, according to a press release from PJI, demonstrated outstanding academic and work performance but "came under scrutiny" for sharing her faith while an intern at the DCFS.
That state agency, says PJI president Brad Dacus, "has no business telling an intern that she cannot share her faith during non-working hours."
The attorney says he is confident a federal court will "cut off [the] muzzle" that the agency has used to silence his client. [Jody Brown]
News from Agape Press
Chaplain Rebels at Prayer Censorship, Then Removed From Assignment
By Chad Groening
February 23, 2006
(AgapePress) - Another military chaplain has gotten into trouble with his superiors because he has refused to go along with orders not to pray in the name of Jesus.
Captain Jonathan Stertzbach is an Army chaplain assigned to the 10th Mountain Division in Iraq. He was recently removed from his chapel after he commented to the Washington Times about how chaplains of all faiths are being told to offer up only non-sectarian prayers.
Chaplain Stertzbach is now under orders not to talk to the media -- but his representative, Dr. Billy Baugham of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, is under no such restrictions. According to Baugham, Stertzbach was upset at having a prayer censored.
"He was told to write out his prayer," Baugham explains, "and when they saw 'In Jesus' name. Amen,' his brigade chaplain struck through it and said, 'You're going to have to change it.'"
Baugham says Stertzbach's response was that he cannot pray a prayer unless he uses Jesus' name. The chaplain, adds Baugham, said: "My local church is an independent Baptist church, and that's the way we pray."
The retired Army chaplain adamantly notes that military regulations forbid restrictions on chaplains' prayers. "There are Department of Defense instructions which state that a chaplain is to adhere to the faith group of his tenets before they do the military," Baugham says. "[A chaplain] has no authority to pray any other prayer other than what his sending agency or his sending church allows him to pray."
In short, says Baugham, a chaplain's duty is to represent his faith group. "It's not to represent another faith group, it's not to represent the prayers of the United States government or the United States Army," he says. "He can only speak for his endorsing agency, be that what it may be."
Baugham indicates he is working with North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones and others to get Chaplain Stertzbach reinstated to his chapel.
Chaplain Rebels at Prayer Censorship, Then Removed From Assignment
February 23, 2006
(AgapePress) - Another military chaplain has gotten into trouble with his superiors because he has refused to go along with orders not to pray in the name of Jesus.
Captain Jonathan Stertzbach is an Army chaplain assigned to the 10th Mountain Division in Iraq. He was recently removed from his chapel after he commented to the Washington Times about how chaplains of all faiths are being told to offer up only non-sectarian prayers.
Chaplain Stertzbach is now under orders not to talk to the media -- but his representative, Dr. Billy Baugham of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, is under no such restrictions. According to Baugham, Stertzbach was upset at having a prayer censored.
"He was told to write out his prayer," Baugham explains, "and when they saw 'In Jesus' name. Amen,' his brigade chaplain struck through it and said, 'You're going to have to change it.'"
Baugham says Stertzbach's response was that he cannot pray a prayer unless he uses Jesus' name. The chaplain, adds Baugham, said: "My local church is an independent Baptist church, and that's the way we pray."
The retired Army chaplain adamantly notes that military regulations forbid restrictions on chaplains' prayers. "There are Department of Defense instructions which state that a chaplain is to adhere to the faith group of his tenets before they do the military," Baugham says. "[A chaplain] has no authority to pray any other prayer other than what his sending agency or his sending church allows him to pray."
In short, says Baugham, a chaplain's duty is to represent his faith group. "It's not to represent another faith group, it's not to represent the prayers of the United States government or the United States Army," he says. "He can only speak for his endorsing agency, be that what it may be."
Baugham indicates he is working with North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones and others to get Chaplain Stertzbach reinstated to his chapel.
Chaplain Rebels at Prayer Censorship, Then Removed From Assignment
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Biblical preaching could be outlawed unless Christians become more politically active
British Pol Advises American Christians to Get Involved in Politics
By Allie Martin
February 22, 2006
(AgapePress) - A member of the British House of Lords has told the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) convention in Dallas that biblical preaching could be outlawed unless Christians become more politically active.
Recently the British Parliament nearly passed legislation that would have amended that nation's Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and outlawed incitement to religious hatred. The measure lost by a single vote -- the vote of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who left early, confident that the bill would pass without him.
John Taylor, a member of the House of Lords, spoke at this week's NRB gathering in Texas. Taylor said passage of the bill could have led to pastors being arrested for so-called "hate speech." Unless Christians take action, says Taylor, clergy in his country -- as well as in the United States -- could fall victim to such statutes, should they be enacted.
"There's an old saying that things won't change until people change," Taylor says. "So we can moan about these [political] institutions and so forth, or we can basically get in there. We are called to be salt and light -- so why don't we take over the Senate and Congress and so forth?"
According to Taylor, Christians in Britain have virtually abandoned politics. He says there is a "kind of lethargy" in Christians that often causes them to retreat from the political arena, saying "Well, that's politics; we don't get involved in politics." But try telling that to Muslims, he adds.
"There are Muslim Members of Parliament who are sponsored by mosques. They are there to preach Islam," he says. "In the House of Lords, there's a room where you can pray to Mecca -- but there's no room where you can pray to Christ."
Taylor calls it a "miracle" that the prime minister was absent for the final vote. Earlier, members of Parliament had voted 288-278 to back the amendment to the bill.
A BBC report quotes one member of Parliament as saying "the government just failed to understand that they can't take liberties with freedom of expression. This [vote] has showed ... that we will stand up for freedom of expression." That report notes this was only the second defeat of government-backed legislation in almost ten years.
News from Agape Press
By Allie Martin
February 22, 2006
(AgapePress) - A member of the British House of Lords has told the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) convention in Dallas that biblical preaching could be outlawed unless Christians become more politically active.
Recently the British Parliament nearly passed legislation that would have amended that nation's Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and outlawed incitement to religious hatred. The measure lost by a single vote -- the vote of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who left early, confident that the bill would pass without him.
John Taylor, a member of the House of Lords, spoke at this week's NRB gathering in Texas. Taylor said passage of the bill could have led to pastors being arrested for so-called "hate speech." Unless Christians take action, says Taylor, clergy in his country -- as well as in the United States -- could fall victim to such statutes, should they be enacted.
"There's an old saying that things won't change until people change," Taylor says. "So we can moan about these [political] institutions and so forth, or we can basically get in there. We are called to be salt and light -- so why don't we take over the Senate and Congress and so forth?"
According to Taylor, Christians in Britain have virtually abandoned politics. He says there is a "kind of lethargy" in Christians that often causes them to retreat from the political arena, saying "Well, that's politics; we don't get involved in politics." But try telling that to Muslims, he adds.
"There are Muslim Members of Parliament who are sponsored by mosques. They are there to preach Islam," he says. "In the House of Lords, there's a room where you can pray to Mecca -- but there's no room where you can pray to Christ."
Taylor calls it a "miracle" that the prime minister was absent for the final vote. Earlier, members of Parliament had voted 288-278 to back the amendment to the bill.
A BBC report quotes one member of Parliament as saying "the government just failed to understand that they can't take liberties with freedom of expression. This [vote] has showed ... that we will stand up for freedom of expression." That report notes this was only the second defeat of government-backed legislation in almost ten years.
News from Agape Press
New Disease Strains Heighten Risks of Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle
By Mary Rettig
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) - Culture and Family Institute (CFI) director Bob Knight says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has discovered some new reasons why homosexual men need to stop their destructive and potentially deadly lifestyle.
The CDC recently reported that a rare strain of chlamydia called LGV (lymphogranuloma venereum) in the U.S. have been HIV-infected men who have sex with other men. was found in several dozen U.S. patients. Public health officials say this strain of the sexually transmitted disease is extremely hard to diagnose and poses a serious health threat, as it compromises a person's immune system and makes the infected person even more susceptible to other kinds of infections.
This is one reason CDC researchers are particularly concerned about the rising incidence of LGV, Knight points out. "They're worried because, when you have an infection like that, it affects your immune system and makes you more prone to get other diseases such as HIV infection, which can lead to AIDS," he explains.
According to the pro-family advocate, LGV is just one of those sexually transmitted diseases prevalent among homosexual men on which CDC investigators are reporting some alarming data. He notes, "They've also found other diseases that are concentrated among male homosexuals -- a new strain of syphilis, and a strain of tuberculosis that is drug resistant."
"Clearly," Knight contends, "the ongoing promiscuity that characterizes the young homosexual male population is contributing to the spread of illnesses -- perhaps even strains that we hadn't seen before."
Knight says the homosexual community needs to be concerned about LGV, just as public health officials are. And homosexual men cannot rely on condom use to protect them from the disease, he warns, because condoms have proven very ineffective against the disease.
According to CDC statistics, the majority of patients diagnosed with LGV proctitis (anal inflammation due to lymphogranuloma venereum infection) in the U.S. have been HIV-infected men who have sex with other men. Unlike routine cases of chlamydia, LGV can cause chronic gastrointestinal distress, including inflammation and bleeding of the rectum and colon.
New Disease Strains Heighten Risks of Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) - Culture and Family Institute (CFI) director Bob Knight says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has discovered some new reasons why homosexual men need to stop their destructive and potentially deadly lifestyle.
The CDC recently reported that a rare strain of chlamydia called LGV (lymphogranuloma venereum) in the U.S. have been HIV-infected men who have sex with other men. was found in several dozen U.S. patients. Public health officials say this strain of the sexually transmitted disease is extremely hard to diagnose and poses a serious health threat, as it compromises a person's immune system and makes the infected person even more susceptible to other kinds of infections.
This is one reason CDC researchers are particularly concerned about the rising incidence of LGV, Knight points out. "They're worried because, when you have an infection like that, it affects your immune system and makes you more prone to get other diseases such as HIV infection, which can lead to AIDS," he explains.
According to the pro-family advocate, LGV is just one of those sexually transmitted diseases prevalent among homosexual men on which CDC investigators are reporting some alarming data. He notes, "They've also found other diseases that are concentrated among male homosexuals -- a new strain of syphilis, and a strain of tuberculosis that is drug resistant."
"Clearly," Knight contends, "the ongoing promiscuity that characterizes the young homosexual male population is contributing to the spread of illnesses -- perhaps even strains that we hadn't seen before."
Knight says the homosexual community needs to be concerned about LGV, just as public health officials are. And homosexual men cannot rely on condom use to protect them from the disease, he warns, because condoms have proven very ineffective against the disease.
According to CDC statistics, the majority of patients diagnosed with LGV proctitis (anal inflammation due to lymphogranuloma venereum infection) in the U.S. have been HIV-infected men who have sex with other men. Unlike routine cases of chlamydia, LGV can cause chronic gastrointestinal distress, including inflammation and bleeding of the rectum and colon.
New Disease Strains Heighten Risks of Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle
Protect Religious Freedom in U.S. Military
Bush and Congress Urged to Protect Religious Freedom in U.S. Military
By Chad Groening
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) - A Navy chaplain who went on an 18-day hunger strike for the right to pray in Jesus' name says new guidelines adopted by the U.S. Air Force might be expanded to cover America's other armed forces as well. However, he believes those regulations would end up restricting free speech and religious expression.
Lieutenant Gordon Klingenschmitt says the Air Force's new policy does nothing to free up chaplains and other Christian military personnel to pray according to their own religious traditions. Instead, the regulations require inclusive or nondenominational prayers at public events -- which, he points out, in effect prohibits praying in Jesus' name.
Klingenschmitt fears the Air Force regulations regarding prayer may eventually become policy throughout the U.S. military. "The Secretary of Defense has indicated that, when these guidelines are finalized, they will be implemented across all the Armed Services, telling Army, Navy, and Air Force chaplains that they are not allowed to pray in Jesus name," he notes.
Already, the Christian Naval officer points out, some believers in uniform have had to take legal action to fight what he believes amounts to religious persecution in the U.S. armed services. "Many chaplains are suing because they can't get promoted," he says. "They're passed over for promotions. Sixty-five chaplains in the Navy, and Congressman Jones has complaints from over 130 chaplains, including Army and Air Force chaplains who were all punished for their faith."
The new Air Force guidelines on public prayer are "basically the same as the old guidelines," Klingenschmitt contends. "They still require what they call nondenominational prayers, which is just a code for saying no Jesus -- you cannot pray in Jesus name. And if these Air Force guidelines are implemented in the Navy, I will definitely take legal action."
The best way to resolve the issue, the Navy chaplain asserts, would be for the federal legislature to get involved to enact a policy on prayer that safeguards the First Amendment rights of military personnel, or for President Bush to issue an executive order to that effect.
"We need congressional oversight," Klingenschmitt insists. "We still need the President to step in and protect free speech for military chaplains."
Bush and Congress Urged to Protect Religious Freedom in U.S. Military
By Chad Groening
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) - A Navy chaplain who went on an 18-day hunger strike for the right to pray in Jesus' name says new guidelines adopted by the U.S. Air Force might be expanded to cover America's other armed forces as well. However, he believes those regulations would end up restricting free speech and religious expression.
Lieutenant Gordon Klingenschmitt says the Air Force's new policy does nothing to free up chaplains and other Christian military personnel to pray according to their own religious traditions. Instead, the regulations require inclusive or nondenominational prayers at public events -- which, he points out, in effect prohibits praying in Jesus' name.
Klingenschmitt fears the Air Force regulations regarding prayer may eventually become policy throughout the U.S. military. "The Secretary of Defense has indicated that, when these guidelines are finalized, they will be implemented across all the Armed Services, telling Army, Navy, and Air Force chaplains that they are not allowed to pray in Jesus name," he notes.
Already, the Christian Naval officer points out, some believers in uniform have had to take legal action to fight what he believes amounts to religious persecution in the U.S. armed services. "Many chaplains are suing because they can't get promoted," he says. "They're passed over for promotions. Sixty-five chaplains in the Navy, and Congressman Jones has complaints from over 130 chaplains, including Army and Air Force chaplains who were all punished for their faith."
The new Air Force guidelines on public prayer are "basically the same as the old guidelines," Klingenschmitt contends. "They still require what they call nondenominational prayers, which is just a code for saying no Jesus -- you cannot pray in Jesus name. And if these Air Force guidelines are implemented in the Navy, I will definitely take legal action."
The best way to resolve the issue, the Navy chaplain asserts, would be for the federal legislature to get involved to enact a policy on prayer that safeguards the First Amendment rights of military personnel, or for President Bush to issue an executive order to that effect.
"We need congressional oversight," Klingenschmitt insists. "We still need the President to step in and protect free speech for military chaplains."
Bush and Congress Urged to Protect Religious Freedom in U.S. Military
Homosexual Activists' War Against Christianity
Church Seen as Main Obstacle Hindering Wholesale Acceptance of Homosexual Agenda
By Ed Vitagliano
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) - "All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary," declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
"Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant -- which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record -- claimed that the entire piece was a "cruel fantasy" that explained "how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."
The "dream" was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d'etat: "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked .... [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men .... The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished .... All churches who condemn us will be closed."
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swift's sentiments, such as the following: "We shall sodomize your sons .... We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together."
Identifying the Opponent
Whether or not the ravings of this "gay revolutionary" were intended as satire, what is striking is the remarkable success of the plan found within the article. Who can doubt that the legal system -- especially following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) striking down sodomy laws -- has been brought to heel by gay activists? Or that Hollywood has freely committed its tremendous resources to the fight for homosexual legitimacy? Or that the family unit will virtually cease to exist in any traditional sense should gay adoption and same-sex "marriage" become legal everywhere?
While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality, marriage and family.
This is not an overexaggeration. Paula Ettelbrick is former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ettelbrick stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so .... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society .... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society's views of reality."
That is a pretty comprehensive goal, and activists face a daunting task if they hope to accomplish it. They must change the views of a culture that still remains somewhat anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which considers homosexuality unnatural and sinful. For Ettelbrick and her ilk to convince the American people to change their mind on this issue, the foundation of our culture must be shifted to a new way of perceiving reality that rejects the Judeo-Christian view.
However, that leaves one major institution standing in the way: the Church. Christians who still hold to the Judeo-Christian views of human sexuality, marriage and family are called by religious faithfulness to resist the homosexual movement.
That makes Christians the enemy. In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled "Warning to the Homophobes," Warren spoke of "the mean-spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality."
Even in 1987, Warren felt that the homosexual movement could not be stopped. And as activists continued to find success, he promised that "we are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality."
Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. "Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others," he said, "eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages."
Battle Tactics
So a homosexual utopia awaits these activists, if only they can deal with those pesky Christians. But if removing the obstacle of the Church is the strategy, what are the tactics through which this victory might be achieved?
That question was answered as far back as 1985, when in their article for Christopher Street, a gay magazine, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to "persuade straight America" to accept homosexuality. Their article was expanded into a book on the subject, the national number-one best seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s.
Kirk and Madsen focused the heart of their strategy on using the media as a propaganda tool in persuading the majority of Americans that gay is OK. But they also addressed the question of what to do with the hardened opposition -- that is, at least in institutional terms, those following the "religious authority" of the Church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led opposition.
First, to "confound" what Kirk and Madsen called "the homophobia of true believers," they suggested that gays "muddy the moral waters." This would be accomplished in part by "publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches" and "raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings."
This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations have so clouded the issues regarding the biblical view of homosexuality as to threaten each with schism and ruin.
For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They suggested that gays "undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times ...."
It should come as no surprise, therefore, when Christians see themselves portrayed on countless television shows as self-righteous bigots or hate-filled lunatics who simply refuse to accept the fact that things have changed in America.
Nevertheless, Kirk and Madsen knew that the religious authority of Christian denominations in the U.S. would be difficult to dispel; churches would therefore continue to act as a powerful braking mechanism on any momentum for the acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Kirk and Madsen understood, for example, that simply poking fun of "bigoted Southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred" would not be enough.
Instead, they said, "Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed 'secular humanism'). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion."
Thus Christians involved in this theater of the culture war have become accustomed to defending the Judeo-Christian view on sexuality against claims that science has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic. The same is true of the claim that all major mental health and medical professional groups have declared that being gay or lesbian is as natural as being left-handed. Such "scientific" claims have no doubt been instrumental in the dramatic shifts of American public opinion on this topic.
End Game
But beyond these tactics, Kirk and Madsen said plans must also be drawn up to deal with "the entrenched enemy," which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary schemes. They said: "At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights -- long after other gay ads have become commonplace -- it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified."
Again, astute Christians who are paying attention to what is happening in our culture can already see this occurring. On high school and college campuses, for example, believers who dare to speak up against the homosexual agenda are being ridiculed and smeared. In corporations where they work, some Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the reigning pro-gay environment are reprimanded or fired.
Nor does it require prophetic insight to understand that churches will not be immune from coercion, either. In fact, gay and lesbian activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights made this demand: "Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status."
Is it conceivable that in the near future, churches could be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they refuse to hire a homosexual employee?
Some might scoff at such a threat, relying on the Constitutional protection of religion in the U.S. as a shield. But some homosexual activists seem to view religious liberty as an obstacle to be overcome. For example, lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay predicted that "the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."
If sexual orientation is ever enshrined as a protected status in federal and state laws, which right will win that showdown?
For the time being, activists can simply attempt to suppress religious free speech whenever the mood hits them.
For example, when a church in Boston hosted a 2005 conference with a message that Jesus can free gays and lesbians from that lifestyle, they were harassed and terrorized by hundreds of homosexual activists and sympathizers outside -- while Boston police stood by and did nothing (See related article).
Finally, if activists ever achieve their goal of having sexual orientation included in federal hate crime statutes, many pro-family groups fear such a moment will be a beachhead on the way to criminalizing "anti-gay" speech and thought.
In his article, Warren's final warning should cause wise Christians to accurately discern the times in which we live: "We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now."
Homosexual Activists' War Against Christianity
By Ed Vitagliano
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) - "All churches who condemn us will be closed." That was what Michael Swift, a "gay revolutionary," declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
"Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant -- which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record -- claimed that the entire piece was a "cruel fantasy" that explained "how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."
The "dream" was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d'etat: "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked .... [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men .... The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished .... All churches who condemn us will be closed."
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swift's sentiments, such as the following: "We shall sodomize your sons .... We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together."
Identifying the Opponent
Whether or not the ravings of this "gay revolutionary" were intended as satire, what is striking is the remarkable success of the plan found within the article. Who can doubt that the legal system -- especially following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) striking down sodomy laws -- has been brought to heel by gay activists? Or that Hollywood has freely committed its tremendous resources to the fight for homosexual legitimacy? Or that the family unit will virtually cease to exist in any traditional sense should gay adoption and same-sex "marriage" become legal everywhere?
While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality, marriage and family.
This is not an overexaggeration. Paula Ettelbrick is former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ettelbrick stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so .... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society .... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society's views of reality."
That is a pretty comprehensive goal, and activists face a daunting task if they hope to accomplish it. They must change the views of a culture that still remains somewhat anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which considers homosexuality unnatural and sinful. For Ettelbrick and her ilk to convince the American people to change their mind on this issue, the foundation of our culture must be shifted to a new way of perceiving reality that rejects the Judeo-Christian view.
However, that leaves one major institution standing in the way: the Church. Christians who still hold to the Judeo-Christian views of human sexuality, marriage and family are called by religious faithfulness to resist the homosexual movement.
That makes Christians the enemy. In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled "Warning to the Homophobes," Warren spoke of "the mean-spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality."
Even in 1987, Warren felt that the homosexual movement could not be stopped. And as activists continued to find success, he promised that "we are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality."
Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. "Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others," he said, "eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages."
Battle Tactics
So a homosexual utopia awaits these activists, if only they can deal with those pesky Christians. But if removing the obstacle of the Church is the strategy, what are the tactics through which this victory might be achieved?
That question was answered as far back as 1985, when in their article for Christopher Street, a gay magazine, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to "persuade straight America" to accept homosexuality. Their article was expanded into a book on the subject, the national number-one best seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s.
Kirk and Madsen focused the heart of their strategy on using the media as a propaganda tool in persuading the majority of Americans that gay is OK. But they also addressed the question of what to do with the hardened opposition -- that is, at least in institutional terms, those following the "religious authority" of the Church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led opposition.
First, to "confound" what Kirk and Madsen called "the homophobia of true believers," they suggested that gays "muddy the moral waters." This would be accomplished in part by "publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches" and "raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings."
This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations have so clouded the issues regarding the biblical view of homosexuality as to threaten each with schism and ruin.
For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They suggested that gays "undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times ...."
It should come as no surprise, therefore, when Christians see themselves portrayed on countless television shows as self-righteous bigots or hate-filled lunatics who simply refuse to accept the fact that things have changed in America.
Nevertheless, Kirk and Madsen knew that the religious authority of Christian denominations in the U.S. would be difficult to dispel; churches would therefore continue to act as a powerful braking mechanism on any momentum for the acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Kirk and Madsen understood, for example, that simply poking fun of "bigoted Southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred" would not be enough.
Instead, they said, "Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed 'secular humanism'). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion."
Thus Christians involved in this theater of the culture war have become accustomed to defending the Judeo-Christian view on sexuality against claims that science has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic. The same is true of the claim that all major mental health and medical professional groups have declared that being gay or lesbian is as natural as being left-handed. Such "scientific" claims have no doubt been instrumental in the dramatic shifts of American public opinion on this topic.
End Game
But beyond these tactics, Kirk and Madsen said plans must also be drawn up to deal with "the entrenched enemy," which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary schemes. They said: "At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights -- long after other gay ads have become commonplace -- it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified."
Again, astute Christians who are paying attention to what is happening in our culture can already see this occurring. On high school and college campuses, for example, believers who dare to speak up against the homosexual agenda are being ridiculed and smeared. In corporations where they work, some Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the reigning pro-gay environment are reprimanded or fired.
Nor does it require prophetic insight to understand that churches will not be immune from coercion, either. In fact, gay and lesbian activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights made this demand: "Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status."
Is it conceivable that in the near future, churches could be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they refuse to hire a homosexual employee?
Some might scoff at such a threat, relying on the Constitutional protection of religion in the U.S. as a shield. But some homosexual activists seem to view religious liberty as an obstacle to be overcome. For example, lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay predicted that "the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."
If sexual orientation is ever enshrined as a protected status in federal and state laws, which right will win that showdown?
For the time being, activists can simply attempt to suppress religious free speech whenever the mood hits them.
For example, when a church in Boston hosted a 2005 conference with a message that Jesus can free gays and lesbians from that lifestyle, they were harassed and terrorized by hundreds of homosexual activists and sympathizers outside -- while Boston police stood by and did nothing (See related article).
Finally, if activists ever achieve their goal of having sexual orientation included in federal hate crime statutes, many pro-family groups fear such a moment will be a beachhead on the way to criminalizing "anti-gay" speech and thought.
In his article, Warren's final warning should cause wise Christians to accurately discern the times in which we live: "We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now."
Homosexual Activists' War Against Christianity
Monday, January 23, 2006
Hollywood -- Pushing Their Agenda and Mocking Christians
Hollywood -- Pushing Their Agenda and Mocking Christians
By Jason T. Christy
January 20, 2006
(AgapePress) - If anyone bothered to watch the Golden Globe Awards on television the other night, they may have been as shocked as I was at the winners. With the exception of a Johnny Cash movie, Walk the Line, and a Sunday evening medical drama, Grey's Anatomy, the award winners were all based upon projects and characters with anything but family values.
The pro-homosexual cowboy film, Brokeback Mountain, was the clear winner with honors for best drama, best director, best song and best screenplay. Not to be outdone, Felicity Huffman, of ABC's Desperate Housewives fame, won best actress for her portrayal of a transsexual in a film adeptly named Transamerica. Other poor examples of what Hollywood is peddling as entertainment include: Weeds, HBO's series about a stay-at-home mother who sells marijuana in her upscale California neighborhood; and George Clooney's (no surprise here) anti-American film, Syriana. After watching the awards show for a few minutes on Monday evening, it became evident that Hollywood executives were using this national exposure as a means of promoting their liberal, anti-American, pro-homosexual agenda. (See related article)
Adding insult to injury is NBC's new Friday series, The Book of Daniel. This outrageous new show features none other than Jesus and creates opportunities for the audience to laugh at him or with him -- neither of which I was comfortable with, much less entertained by. Starring Aidan Quinn as Daniel Webster, a Vicodin-addicted Episcopalian priest who struggles with his family and his church, this drama makes use of the dysfunctional family and takes it to a new low with comments by Jesus. His wife is an alcoholic. His son is gay. His daughter sells marijuana. And his Bishop is having an affair with his father!
I support my friends at the American Family Association (AFA) and their call for a boycott, and applaud them in their efforts to contact advertisers and tell them how this show repulses Christians all over the country. Strangely, the Episcopal Church supports the show, with one diocese even posting a web blog.
Isn't it time for Christians to say enough is enough? Gone are shows with values and movies with messages. They have been replaced with desperate housewives and gay cowboys, pill-popping priests and dope-selling mothers. Join me in supporting AFA to challenge Hollywood for better programming so we don't have to witness another Golden Globe awards like this year.
By Jason T. Christy
January 20, 2006
(AgapePress) - If anyone bothered to watch the Golden Globe Awards on television the other night, they may have been as shocked as I was at the winners. With the exception of a Johnny Cash movie, Walk the Line, and a Sunday evening medical drama, Grey's Anatomy, the award winners were all based upon projects and characters with anything but family values.
The pro-homosexual cowboy film, Brokeback Mountain, was the clear winner with honors for best drama, best director, best song and best screenplay. Not to be outdone, Felicity Huffman, of ABC's Desperate Housewives fame, won best actress for her portrayal of a transsexual in a film adeptly named Transamerica. Other poor examples of what Hollywood is peddling as entertainment include: Weeds, HBO's series about a stay-at-home mother who sells marijuana in her upscale California neighborhood; and George Clooney's (no surprise here) anti-American film, Syriana. After watching the awards show for a few minutes on Monday evening, it became evident that Hollywood executives were using this national exposure as a means of promoting their liberal, anti-American, pro-homosexual agenda. (See related article)
Adding insult to injury is NBC's new Friday series, The Book of Daniel. This outrageous new show features none other than Jesus and creates opportunities for the audience to laugh at him or with him -- neither of which I was comfortable with, much less entertained by. Starring Aidan Quinn as Daniel Webster, a Vicodin-addicted Episcopalian priest who struggles with his family and his church, this drama makes use of the dysfunctional family and takes it to a new low with comments by Jesus. His wife is an alcoholic. His son is gay. His daughter sells marijuana. And his Bishop is having an affair with his father!
I support my friends at the American Family Association (AFA) and their call for a boycott, and applaud them in their efforts to contact advertisers and tell them how this show repulses Christians all over the country. Strangely, the Episcopal Church supports the show, with one diocese even posting a web blog.
Isn't it time for Christians to say enough is enough? Gone are shows with values and movies with messages. They have been replaced with desperate housewives and gay cowboys, pill-popping priests and dope-selling mothers. Join me in supporting AFA to challenge Hollywood for better programming so we don't have to witness another Golden Globe awards like this year.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Stupid in America
Jan. 13, 2006 — "Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it.
Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."
For the whole story visit:
ABC News: Stupid in America
Kids at New York's Abraham Lincoln High School told me their teachers are so dull students fall asleep in class. One student said, "You see kids all the time walking in the school smoking weed, you know. It's a normal thing here."
For the whole story visit:
ABC News: Stupid in America
Friday, December 09, 2005
Attorney Advises Christian Teachers Caught in Christmas Dilemma
Attorney Advises Christian Teachers Caught in Christmas Dilemma
By Allie Martin
December 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - Christian teachers in public schools that censor religious expression during Christmastime are being advised to respectfully educate their superiors on what can and cannot legally be done to celebrate Christmas on campus.
Steve Crampton
This time of year many Christian teachers are finding themselves at odds with school policies that ban use of the words "Christmas" or "Christ" in December events. Steve Crampton, an attorney with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (CLP), has some advice. He says while teachers certainly owe allegiance and respect to their employer, they should contact groups -- such as the CLP -- that can take quick action to correct instances of Christmas censorship.
But before taking that step, Crampton suggests teachers respectfully approach their employers to explain that the law is, as he puts it, "perfectly accommodating" on such points. "Try to educate the school officials who, oftentimes, are working off of the talking points of the ACLU and the Left," he advises, asserting those officials have "just gotten bad information."
Crampton notes that teachers are perfectly within their constitutional rights to share the Christmas story or sing Christmas carols with their students. He cites a recent legal case he feels is relevant.
"The comparison here," he says, "ought to be drawn to the very recent case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to the court upholding the right of the schools to force students to engage in role-playing of Muslim pilgrims and so forth."
He adds that if anything, that incident is "a far more extreme example of religion and coercion in the public schools" than merely reciting the Christmas story."
News from Agape Press: "Attorney Advises Christian Teachers Caught in Christmas Dilemma"
By Allie Martin
December 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - Christian teachers in public schools that censor religious expression during Christmastime are being advised to respectfully educate their superiors on what can and cannot legally be done to celebrate Christmas on campus.
Steve Crampton
This time of year many Christian teachers are finding themselves at odds with school policies that ban use of the words "Christmas" or "Christ" in December events. Steve Crampton, an attorney with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (CLP), has some advice. He says while teachers certainly owe allegiance and respect to their employer, they should contact groups -- such as the CLP -- that can take quick action to correct instances of Christmas censorship.
But before taking that step, Crampton suggests teachers respectfully approach their employers to explain that the law is, as he puts it, "perfectly accommodating" on such points. "Try to educate the school officials who, oftentimes, are working off of the talking points of the ACLU and the Left," he advises, asserting those officials have "just gotten bad information."
Crampton notes that teachers are perfectly within their constitutional rights to share the Christmas story or sing Christmas carols with their students. He cites a recent legal case he feels is relevant.
"The comparison here," he says, "ought to be drawn to the very recent case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to the court upholding the right of the schools to force students to engage in role-playing of Muslim pilgrims and so forth."
He adds that if anything, that incident is "a far more extreme example of religion and coercion in the public schools" than merely reciting the Christmas story."
News from Agape Press: "Attorney Advises Christian Teachers Caught in Christmas Dilemma"
CWA Urges Support for Legally Mandated Cable Choice
CWA Urges Support for Legally Mandated Cable Choice
By Bill Fancher and Jenni Parker
December 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - The pro-family group Concerned Women for America has commended the Federal Communications Commission for standing up for family values by announcing the agency's support for cable companies offering customers cable choice options instead of forcing them to purchase pre-packaged channel bundles. Now CWA is calling on Congress and a reluctant cable industry to give U.S. families "channel choice."
CWA president Beverly LaHaye notes that cable television has long been offered to the American public on a "take it or leave it" basis, since consumers have few viable competitors to turn to when fed up with their cable providers. As a result, she says, pro-family consumers have rallied around "the only option open to them -- a la carte pricing, which offers consumers choice of which channels they want to pay for."
Lanier Swann, CWA's director of government relations, says cable choice is the logical solution to the growing problem of negative influences coming into American families' lives through cable programming. A growing number of people feel consumers should be allowed to choose the television networks they want to allow into their homes and should not be forced to pay for those they find offensive or inappropriate.
The effort by a groundswell of pro-family forces to get the a la carte cable packaging or "channel choice" solution implemented is "a campaign that just aims to put the power back into the hands that matter most, and that is the American consumer, the American families who subscribe to cable," Swann says. That is why CWA, the largest women's public policy organization in the United States, is throwing its weight behind the concept.
"We think it is ridiculous that cable companies ask families to pay for channels they don't want to watch," CWA's head of government relations explains. "Cable choice would simply allow subscribers to pick and choose each and every cable channel they want coming into their home, and our polling numbers actually show about 80 percent of Americans support cable choice."
Specifically, the CWA poll found that 80 percent of U.S. consumers disagree with the way the cable tier-pricing system currently functions, and a majority (62 percent) said they would prefer to choose cable programming for themselves. Also, cable customers pay for 50 to 75 channels for basic cable packages and more than 200 channels for digital cable packages, yet these consumers watch only 12 to 15 channels regularly on average.
CWA chief counsel Jan LaRue says cable-subscriber families nationwide are "fed up with paying for somebody else's choice" and want more individualized options. "Having to block out programming you pay for is no choice -- it's a rip off." American consumers "don't pay for food we don't want to eat" or for "magazines we don't want to read," she asserts, "and we're not remotely interested in paying for programs we don't want to watch."
Swann says although the cable television industry has been fighting the idea of channel choice for years, the momentum in favor of the consumer-friendly option is growing. Still, she says it will take pressure from the public to get Congress to act on the issue.
A bill that would mandate cable choice is even now being held up in the U.S. Senate, and CWA reports that the prospects are not good for any action on the legislation within the next few months.
News from Agape Press: "CWA Urges Support for Legally Mandated Cable Choice"
By Bill Fancher and Jenni Parker
December 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - The pro-family group Concerned Women for America has commended the Federal Communications Commission for standing up for family values by announcing the agency's support for cable companies offering customers cable choice options instead of forcing them to purchase pre-packaged channel bundles. Now CWA is calling on Congress and a reluctant cable industry to give U.S. families "channel choice."
CWA president Beverly LaHaye notes that cable television has long been offered to the American public on a "take it or leave it" basis, since consumers have few viable competitors to turn to when fed up with their cable providers. As a result, she says, pro-family consumers have rallied around "the only option open to them -- a la carte pricing, which offers consumers choice of which channels they want to pay for."
Lanier Swann, CWA's director of government relations, says cable choice is the logical solution to the growing problem of negative influences coming into American families' lives through cable programming. A growing number of people feel consumers should be allowed to choose the television networks they want to allow into their homes and should not be forced to pay for those they find offensive or inappropriate.
The effort by a groundswell of pro-family forces to get the a la carte cable packaging or "channel choice" solution implemented is "a campaign that just aims to put the power back into the hands that matter most, and that is the American consumer, the American families who subscribe to cable," Swann says. That is why CWA, the largest women's public policy organization in the United States, is throwing its weight behind the concept.
"We think it is ridiculous that cable companies ask families to pay for channels they don't want to watch," CWA's head of government relations explains. "Cable choice would simply allow subscribers to pick and choose each and every cable channel they want coming into their home, and our polling numbers actually show about 80 percent of Americans support cable choice."
Specifically, the CWA poll found that 80 percent of U.S. consumers disagree with the way the cable tier-pricing system currently functions, and a majority (62 percent) said they would prefer to choose cable programming for themselves. Also, cable customers pay for 50 to 75 channels for basic cable packages and more than 200 channels for digital cable packages, yet these consumers watch only 12 to 15 channels regularly on average.
CWA chief counsel Jan LaRue says cable-subscriber families nationwide are "fed up with paying for somebody else's choice" and want more individualized options. "Having to block out programming you pay for is no choice -- it's a rip off." American consumers "don't pay for food we don't want to eat" or for "magazines we don't want to read," she asserts, "and we're not remotely interested in paying for programs we don't want to watch."
Swann says although the cable television industry has been fighting the idea of channel choice for years, the momentum in favor of the consumer-friendly option is growing. Still, she says it will take pressure from the public to get Congress to act on the issue.
A bill that would mandate cable choice is even now being held up in the U.S. Senate, and CWA reports that the prospects are not good for any action on the legislation within the next few months.
News from Agape Press: "CWA Urges Support for Legally Mandated Cable Choice"
School Okays 'Christmas Witch,' Menorahs; Rewrites 'Silent Night'
Secularized Lyrics 'Mock' Christian Christmas Carols
By Jim Brown
December 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - The "war against Christmas" rages on. A Wisconsin elementary school has changed the song "Silent Night" to "Cold in the Night," and secularized the lyrics.
Ridgeway Elementary School in Dodgeville may be taking a cue from the White House, which as been sending out greeting cards in the last few weeks, wishing recipients a happy "Holiday Season" rather than "Merry Christmas." The school's "Winter Program" features a secularized version of the traditional Christmas carol "Silent Night" with the following lyrics:
Cold in the night, no one in sight;
Winter winds whirl and bite.
How I wish I were happy and warm,
Safe with my family out of the storm.
A concerned parent whose child attends Ridgeway Elementary contacted the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which has contacted the school. The legal group's president and general counsel, Mat Staver, explains that as part of its program, the school has also included decorations from other holiday themes.
Mat Staver
"At the same time the school has changed the religious songs to secular," Staver says, "their so-called 'Winter Program' has included decorating classrooms with Santa Claus, Kwanzaa, menorahs, and even Labafana -- a term I'd not even heard of until this year." Labafana, he says, is "apparently a Christmas witch."
The attorney says Ridgeway is now a target of Liberty Counsel's "Friend or Foe" campaign. "As a result of this absurdness, Liberty Counsel has issued a demand letter on behalf of a parent whose child attends this elementary school, and who will be participating in this program if the school does not back down." That demand letter, he says, asks for an immediate change in the program -- or Liberty Counsel will file suit.
The basic premise of the "Friend or Foe" campaign is to educate the public that it is legal to celebrate Christmas in schools, public buildings, and private businesses -- including use of the word "Christmas," singing of religious Christmas carols, and displaying of Nativity scenes. According to Staver, there indeed is a war on Christmas.
"Our opponents in this Christmas campaign are not debating us anymore on the law," he admits. "They agree with us that the law allows Christmas. They are trying to say that, in fact, there's no problem going on in America."
But that is definitely not the case, Staver continues. "For those who deny that there is a war on Christmas, this Wisconsin school district -- where they changed the lyrics of 'Silent Night' to 'Cold in the Night' -- is essentially Exhibit A."
The Liberty Counsel president says the law is clear that Christmas is constitutional. But he notes that "when a public school intentionally mocks Christian Christmas songs by secularizing their content, they cross the line from a neutral position -- which the Constitution requires -- to a hostile position, which the Constitution forbids."
Staver says Ridgeway Elementary ought to realize that Christmas is a national holiday celebrated by 96 percent of Americans.
News from Agape Press
By Jim Brown
December 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - The "war against Christmas" rages on. A Wisconsin elementary school has changed the song "Silent Night" to "Cold in the Night," and secularized the lyrics.
Ridgeway Elementary School in Dodgeville may be taking a cue from the White House, which as been sending out greeting cards in the last few weeks, wishing recipients a happy "Holiday Season" rather than "Merry Christmas." The school's "Winter Program" features a secularized version of the traditional Christmas carol "Silent Night" with the following lyrics:
Cold in the night, no one in sight;
Winter winds whirl and bite.
How I wish I were happy and warm,
Safe with my family out of the storm.
A concerned parent whose child attends Ridgeway Elementary contacted the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which has contacted the school. The legal group's president and general counsel, Mat Staver, explains that as part of its program, the school has also included decorations from other holiday themes.
Mat Staver
"At the same time the school has changed the religious songs to secular," Staver says, "their so-called 'Winter Program' has included decorating classrooms with Santa Claus, Kwanzaa, menorahs, and even Labafana -- a term I'd not even heard of until this year." Labafana, he says, is "apparently a Christmas witch."
The attorney says Ridgeway is now a target of Liberty Counsel's "Friend or Foe" campaign. "As a result of this absurdness, Liberty Counsel has issued a demand letter on behalf of a parent whose child attends this elementary school, and who will be participating in this program if the school does not back down." That demand letter, he says, asks for an immediate change in the program -- or Liberty Counsel will file suit.
The basic premise of the "Friend or Foe" campaign is to educate the public that it is legal to celebrate Christmas in schools, public buildings, and private businesses -- including use of the word "Christmas," singing of religious Christmas carols, and displaying of Nativity scenes. According to Staver, there indeed is a war on Christmas.
"Our opponents in this Christmas campaign are not debating us anymore on the law," he admits. "They agree with us that the law allows Christmas. They are trying to say that, in fact, there's no problem going on in America."
But that is definitely not the case, Staver continues. "For those who deny that there is a war on Christmas, this Wisconsin school district -- where they changed the lyrics of 'Silent Night' to 'Cold in the Night' -- is essentially Exhibit A."
The Liberty Counsel president says the law is clear that Christmas is constitutional. But he notes that "when a public school intentionally mocks Christian Christmas songs by secularizing their content, they cross the line from a neutral position -- which the Constitution requires -- to a hostile position, which the Constitution forbids."
Staver says Ridgeway Elementary ought to realize that Christmas is a national holiday celebrated by 96 percent of Americans.
News from Agape Press
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Anti-Christian Hostility Driving 'War on Christmas'
By Jim Brown
December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Christian attorney says recent acts of censorship indicate Christmas is under attack in public schools across the United States.
One Ohio high school principal, for example, recently renamed the school's Christmas tree and concert a "holiday tree" and a "holiday concert." Similarly, a Missouri school superintendent informed fine arts teachers in his district that an upcoming winter assembly may not include "direct references to Christmas or the birth of Jesus," and a Wisconsin school district has banned all Christian Christmas songs.
Such phenomena are occurring not only in primary and secondary public schools, but also at the college level. Controversy recently erupted at Auburn University in Texas when the student government association re-dubbed its Christmas tree a "holiday tree."
Steve Crampton
Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, takes issue with those who argue there is no "war against Christmas" going on. "They are flat wrong," he says, "and to miss what is happening in our public schools and in the public square -- even in our so-called places of public accommodation, such as the department stores during the Christmas season -- is to be completely blind to the culture war that's raging around us."
The hostility against Christianity that Crampton asserts has "been under the surface for years" has finally boiled over, he contends, and secularists are making no bones about their attempts to blot out all religious meaning associated with the holiday. He feels such acts of censorship indicate that public school officials have run amok with hypocrisy.
"When a public entity such as these high schools takes the extreme position that we can't even use the name 'Christmas,' let alone 'Jesus Christ,' how else can you describe it other than censorship?" the pro-family attorney asks. He says these public education officials' attempt to strip every vestige of Christian faith from the holiday represents "a running away, not only from our own history and tradition but from the very principles of tolerance that they are espousing on the other side of their mouth."
Crampton says the rising incidence of Christmas censorship is an indication that the culture war continues to rage (See related commentary). He suggests that anyone who denies this fact is either blind to an ever-mounting body of evidence or has been lulled into a false sense of complacency.
News from Agape Press
December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Christian attorney says recent acts of censorship indicate Christmas is under attack in public schools across the United States.
One Ohio high school principal, for example, recently renamed the school's Christmas tree and concert a "holiday tree" and a "holiday concert." Similarly, a Missouri school superintendent informed fine arts teachers in his district that an upcoming winter assembly may not include "direct references to Christmas or the birth of Jesus," and a Wisconsin school district has banned all Christian Christmas songs.
Such phenomena are occurring not only in primary and secondary public schools, but also at the college level. Controversy recently erupted at Auburn University in Texas when the student government association re-dubbed its Christmas tree a "holiday tree."
Steve Crampton
Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, takes issue with those who argue there is no "war against Christmas" going on. "They are flat wrong," he says, "and to miss what is happening in our public schools and in the public square -- even in our so-called places of public accommodation, such as the department stores during the Christmas season -- is to be completely blind to the culture war that's raging around us."
The hostility against Christianity that Crampton asserts has "been under the surface for years" has finally boiled over, he contends, and secularists are making no bones about their attempts to blot out all religious meaning associated with the holiday. He feels such acts of censorship indicate that public school officials have run amok with hypocrisy.
"When a public entity such as these high schools takes the extreme position that we can't even use the name 'Christmas,' let alone 'Jesus Christ,' how else can you describe it other than censorship?" the pro-family attorney asks. He says these public education officials' attempt to strip every vestige of Christian faith from the holiday represents "a running away, not only from our own history and tradition but from the very principles of tolerance that they are espousing on the other side of their mouth."
Crampton says the rising incidence of Christmas censorship is an indication that the culture war continues to rage (See related commentary). He suggests that anyone who denies this fact is either blind to an ever-mounting body of evidence or has been lulled into a false sense of complacency.
News from Agape Press
Religious Freedom for Christians in France Up in the Air, Says Observer
Religious Freedom for Christians in France Up in the Air, Says Observer
By Chad Groening
December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Messianic Jewish leader believes the political winds in France could go either way when it comes to religious freedom for Christians. The Jewish evangelist thinks the tide has changed somewhat.
Stephen Pacht spent 14 years in France serving as station chief for Jew for Jesus in Paris until his transfer to London this summer. The Messianic Jewish believer says many Christians in France believe their religious freedom of speech is being curtailed by the government. "That remains to be seen," he says -- but notes hopefully that some in the government are sympathetic to Christians.
"I think the tide has changed somewhat," he offers. "You can see the tensions within the French political system. You've got the more conservative part, which is in power at the moment" -- particularly from the French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, who Pacht says is "sympathetic to Christians."
But Pacht says then there are those who are against Christians: "[Y]ou have the traditional, more socialist-leaning politicians who are opposed to Christians," he shares. "So we see that tension within French politics -- and Christians don't know which way the wind is going to blow."
Pacht says Christians both within and outside of France need to pray that God will continue to open doors so that the gospel is preached "with confidence and assurance.
News from Agape Press
By Chad Groening
December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Messianic Jewish leader believes the political winds in France could go either way when it comes to religious freedom for Christians. The Jewish evangelist thinks the tide has changed somewhat.
Stephen Pacht spent 14 years in France serving as station chief for Jew for Jesus in Paris until his transfer to London this summer. The Messianic Jewish believer says many Christians in France believe their religious freedom of speech is being curtailed by the government. "That remains to be seen," he says -- but notes hopefully that some in the government are sympathetic to Christians.
"I think the tide has changed somewhat," he offers. "You can see the tensions within the French political system. You've got the more conservative part, which is in power at the moment" -- particularly from the French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, who Pacht says is "sympathetic to Christians."
But Pacht says then there are those who are against Christians: "[Y]ou have the traditional, more socialist-leaning politicians who are opposed to Christians," he shares. "So we see that tension within French politics -- and Christians don't know which way the wind is going to blow."
Pacht says Christians both within and outside of France need to pray that God will continue to open doors so that the gospel is preached "with confidence and assurance.
News from Agape Press
Pro-Family Pressure Prompts Retailers to Reconsider PC 'Holiday' Policies
AFA Founder Says Consumers Are Convincing Corporate Grinches to Give Back 'Christmas'
By Allie Martin
December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - Target department stores appear to be backing off a ban on using "Merry Christmas" in their advertising campaigns. According to the New York Times, a Target spokesperson said the retail chain did not intend to ban the use of the traditional greeting and might use it in ads later this year.
Last week, the American Family Association called for a boycott of Target after company representatives failed to respond to repeated inquiries about the absence of the phrase "Merry Christmas" in any of the national chain's seasonal promotions. AFA founder Donald Wildmon believes this indicates that store officials heard from lots of Christian consumers, who let Target know they were not pleased.
Wildmon says Target's corporate officials heard the message loud and clear and moved quickly to adjust its "holiday" marketing approach. "I figured that they don't want their bottom line to be hurt," the pro-family leader says. "They're doing this in order to keep from losing money."
That, after all, is the name of the game with a corporation, Wildmon points out. "They're in business to make money, and if they offend enough people they're going to lose sales," he says. "So I think they're beginning to turn this ship around. I certainly hope they are."
An AFA survey of typical television advertising during a night of December prime-time programming on the four major networks showed that 91 percent of the TV ads avoided using the word "Christmas." Instead, the study found that the "holiday" theme was used in 105 commercials, while Christmas was the theme in only 11 spots. According to AFA analysts, this follows the pattern of Christmas season print advertising, where the term "holiday" is used 25 times more often than the word "Christmas."
Wildmon believes the voices of traditional, pro-family consumers are already having an impact on retailers this Christmas. Sears has recently made a point of adding "Merry Christmas" signs in its stores. And Lowe's, which lately began using the terms "Holiday Season" and "holiday trees" in its promotions, expressed regret to anyone who may have been offended and assured the public that it is reviewing its policy changes.
Lowe's stated that "feedback we have received from customers" drove its decision to review its recent advertising policy changes and to reconsider how best to describe products sold for holiday celebrations to a diverse public. The company's corporate officials also promised that this year's "holiday trees" would, in next year's advertising campaigns, be properly referred to as "Christmas trees."
By Allie Martin
December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - Target department stores appear to be backing off a ban on using "Merry Christmas" in their advertising campaigns. According to the New York Times, a Target spokesperson said the retail chain did not intend to ban the use of the traditional greeting and might use it in ads later this year.
Last week, the American Family Association called for a boycott of Target after company representatives failed to respond to repeated inquiries about the absence of the phrase "Merry Christmas" in any of the national chain's seasonal promotions. AFA founder Donald Wildmon believes this indicates that store officials heard from lots of Christian consumers, who let Target know they were not pleased.
Wildmon says Target's corporate officials heard the message loud and clear and moved quickly to adjust its "holiday" marketing approach. "I figured that they don't want their bottom line to be hurt," the pro-family leader says. "They're doing this in order to keep from losing money."
That, after all, is the name of the game with a corporation, Wildmon points out. "They're in business to make money, and if they offend enough people they're going to lose sales," he says. "So I think they're beginning to turn this ship around. I certainly hope they are."
An AFA survey of typical television advertising during a night of December prime-time programming on the four major networks showed that 91 percent of the TV ads avoided using the word "Christmas." Instead, the study found that the "holiday" theme was used in 105 commercials, while Christmas was the theme in only 11 spots. According to AFA analysts, this follows the pattern of Christmas season print advertising, where the term "holiday" is used 25 times more often than the word "Christmas."
Wildmon believes the voices of traditional, pro-family consumers are already having an impact on retailers this Christmas. Sears has recently made a point of adding "Merry Christmas" signs in its stores. And Lowe's, which lately began using the terms "Holiday Season" and "holiday trees" in its promotions, expressed regret to anyone who may have been offended and assured the public that it is reviewing its policy changes.
Lowe's stated that "feedback we have received from customers" drove its decision to review its recent advertising policy changes and to reconsider how best to describe products sold for holiday celebrations to a diverse public. The company's corporate officials also promised that this year's "holiday trees" would, in next year's advertising campaigns, be properly referred to as "Christmas trees."
Study Links Teen Depression with Sexual Experimentation, Drug Use
By Jim Brown
December 5, 2005
(AgapePress) - A prominent mental health counselor says depression may be the new sexually transmitted disease. He points to a new study that finds sexual experimentation and drug use often precede adolescent depression.
Many mental health counselors assume students will medicate their depression with sex and drug use. However, a recently published study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds that depression is actually a risk factor for sexual experimentation on the part of girls, and heavy drug use on the part of boys. The study, led by Dr. Denise Hallfors, followed more than 13,000 middle and high school students for two years in a row.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, says discussions of risks associated with teen sexuality need to include more than just STDs and pregnancy.
"Students who are depressed may owe their depression to their risky behavior," he observes, "which again is just one more reason why students should be warned about their behavior, that it does have consequences."
Throckmorton also contends that the findings expose some of the adverse effects of condom-based sex education in public schools, and should prompt parents and educators to discourage teen sexual relationships.
"Teenagers simply don't have the financial [or] the emotional resources to handle those kinds of relationships," the educator says. "And yet there are many people who are in the Planned Parenthood camp ... and [agree with] Advocates for Youth and groups like that who essentially say that sex if fine as long as it's physically safe. Well, this study should wake everybody up that it isn't safe."
While he acknowledges that more research is needed to isolate the causes and cures for the link between experimentation and depression, Throckmorton says "there is no reason for policy makers to wait to encourage abstinence." He says every health-care professional, school counselor, teacher, and parent should be doing that.
"Whatever we think about the morality of sexual behavior, can't we agree that teens should be given a clear and consistent message that it is best to wait to engage in sex until they are ready to accept the financial, relationship, and emotional consequences of making that choice?" he wonders. For nearly all teens, he adds, that would be adulthood.
News from Agape Press
December 5, 2005
(AgapePress) - A prominent mental health counselor says depression may be the new sexually transmitted disease. He points to a new study that finds sexual experimentation and drug use often precede adolescent depression.
Many mental health counselors assume students will medicate their depression with sex and drug use. However, a recently published study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds that depression is actually a risk factor for sexual experimentation on the part of girls, and heavy drug use on the part of boys. The study, led by Dr. Denise Hallfors, followed more than 13,000 middle and high school students for two years in a row.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, says discussions of risks associated with teen sexuality need to include more than just STDs and pregnancy.
"Students who are depressed may owe their depression to their risky behavior," he observes, "which again is just one more reason why students should be warned about their behavior, that it does have consequences."
Throckmorton also contends that the findings expose some of the adverse effects of condom-based sex education in public schools, and should prompt parents and educators to discourage teen sexual relationships.
"Teenagers simply don't have the financial [or] the emotional resources to handle those kinds of relationships," the educator says. "And yet there are many people who are in the Planned Parenthood camp ... and [agree with] Advocates for Youth and groups like that who essentially say that sex if fine as long as it's physically safe. Well, this study should wake everybody up that it isn't safe."
While he acknowledges that more research is needed to isolate the causes and cures for the link between experimentation and depression, Throckmorton says "there is no reason for policy makers to wait to encourage abstinence." He says every health-care professional, school counselor, teacher, and parent should be doing that.
"Whatever we think about the morality of sexual behavior, can't we agree that teens should be given a clear and consistent message that it is best to wait to engage in sex until they are ready to accept the financial, relationship, and emotional consequences of making that choice?" he wonders. For nearly all teens, he adds, that would be adulthood.
News from Agape Press
ADF Battles Georgia County's 'Christmas' Ban in Schools
By Jim Brown
December 5, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Christian attorney says he's fighting the censorship of Christmas in a Georgia school district where teachers are prohibited from wearing clothing with any sort of religious connotation -- and are under instruction not to have "Christmas" parties in the classroom, but to refer them as "winter" parties.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has contacted more than 9,000 school districts this year, informing them of the constitutionality of religious expression at Christmastime. The campaign is called "Merry Christmas -- It's Okay to Say It." But apparently the Jackson County (Georgia) school system never got the memo.
ADF attorney David Cortman says Jackson County officials have completely eradicated Christmas from the public school system.
"Teachers are not allowed to say 'Merry Christmas' [and] they're not allowed to wear any pins or angels or crosses or clothing that has any religious connotation or affiliation," Cortman explains. "They can't have a Christmas party -- they have to call it a 'winter party.' They can't sing religious songs. In fact ... they actually censored the word 'God' from the song."
In addition, says the attorney, teachers are prohibited from displaying a Bible in their classroom. The ADF attorney says such restrictions are "incredible," explaining that there are no legal grounds upon which they can be based.
"[T]here is no support in the law" for Jackson County's dictates, he says. "No court has ever held that it's illegal to say 'Merry Christmas' or have a Christmas party or be able to sing Christmas songs, both religious and secular," he says. Instead, Cortman believes threats and intimidation from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have led partly to the county's ban on Christmas expression.
ADF Battles Georgia County's 'Christmas' Ban in Schools
December 5, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Christian attorney says he's fighting the censorship of Christmas in a Georgia school district where teachers are prohibited from wearing clothing with any sort of religious connotation -- and are under instruction not to have "Christmas" parties in the classroom, but to refer them as "winter" parties.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has contacted more than 9,000 school districts this year, informing them of the constitutionality of religious expression at Christmastime. The campaign is called "Merry Christmas -- It's Okay to Say It." But apparently the Jackson County (Georgia) school system never got the memo.
ADF attorney David Cortman says Jackson County officials have completely eradicated Christmas from the public school system.
"Teachers are not allowed to say 'Merry Christmas' [and] they're not allowed to wear any pins or angels or crosses or clothing that has any religious connotation or affiliation," Cortman explains. "They can't have a Christmas party -- they have to call it a 'winter party.' They can't sing religious songs. In fact ... they actually censored the word 'God' from the song."
In addition, says the attorney, teachers are prohibited from displaying a Bible in their classroom. The ADF attorney says such restrictions are "incredible," explaining that there are no legal grounds upon which they can be based.
"[T]here is no support in the law" for Jackson County's dictates, he says. "No court has ever held that it's illegal to say 'Merry Christmas' or have a Christmas party or be able to sing Christmas songs, both religious and secular," he says. Instead, Cortman believes threats and intimidation from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have led partly to the county's ban on Christmas expression.
ADF Battles Georgia County's 'Christmas' Ban in Schools
Monday, December 05, 2005
Christians Persecuted in the Holy Land
By Chris Mitchell
CWNews.com – Two thousand years after the birth of Christ, Christians are leaving the Holy Land in record numbers. Now, a new report suggests persecution against Palestinian Christian believers is getting worse.
Charred ruins are all that remain of 14 homes set a blaze in the West Bank village of Taybeh. An angry Muslim mob, from a neighboring village, attacked the Christian town last September. They said they were avenging the dishonor of a Muslim woman allegedly impregnated by her Christian employer from Taybeh.
Taybeh is the only West Bank village completely inhabited by Christians, about 2,000 of them. Originally, it was called Ephraim in the Old Testament; and in the book of John it is mentioned as a village where Jesus stayed.
David Khoury is the Mayor of Taybeh. He says the attack would not have occurred if Taybeh were a Muslim village instead of a Christian one.
Khoury said, "It’s happened many times between a Muslim and a Muslim; and what they did was, most times, just marry the girl off. Had they given us a chance, and proved this pregnancy was by the man from Taybeh, maybe we would have married him to that girl."
Palestinian officials are downplaying what happened here—depicting it as a dispute between families—the result of an out-of-wedlock romance. But some villagers insist the incident was "pure religious hatred"—that Taybeh Christians were used as scapegoats. Some of the 400 attackers were reportedly heard shouting "Allahu akbar—‘Allah is great’”—as they threw molotov cocktails at Christian houses.
We've hidden the identity of a West Bank evangelist for his protection. We'll call him Nadeem. He suggests Palestinian authorities are covering up a larger problem: a rising tide of Muslim intolerance and violence directed against the Christian minority.
‘Nadeem’ said, "It's a downplay in order to avoid a bigger issue which would be a fight on the village level, when you have villages attacking other villages. It's easier for them to downplay it, to avoid the bigger problem. Which, I don't know if there will be enough officials around to handle it, if that happens."
The attack on the village of Taybeh is one more example of the precarious position of Christians in the West Bank and throughout the Middle East."
Last February, hundreds of Druze Muslims attacked Palestinian Christians in the northern Israeli village of Mughar. Rioters damaged 125 homes and businesses after a Druze teenager spread the false rumor that Christians had posted pornographic images of Druze women on the internet.
International Human Rights attorney Justus Weiner has researched the plight of Palestinian Christians for more than eight years. His findings were recently published by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs.
Weiner warned, "Palestinian Christians are in very dire straights…"
He also says Palestinian Christians are now living in fear because persecution against them is increasing.
Weiner added, "I think the situation has been on a steep downhill for at least 12 years—since Israel withdrew from the Palestinian populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza. The Christians fear for their own lives, they fear for their own family, they fear for the future of their community."
The Christians are a community that many of their fellow Christians believe will be marginalized as the Palestinians move toward statehood.
As Palestinians continue to gain more land from the Israelis, many Arab Christians fear the persecution against them will only get worse. In some cases it's already starting to happen.
This Palestinian woman suggests that the marginalization of Christians has already begun. We'll call her Hannan. We've hidden her identity to protect her from retribution.
Hannan said, "It's a hurt church, it's a suffering church …there's no mercy."
Also, Hannan says, Christians are now being treated as ‘second class citizens’ in the Holy Land because Islamists dominate the Palestinian authority.
Hannan added, "Now, all the leadership and the people in authority are Muslims. And they force their laws, their teaching, their Koran, everything in the courts, in the schools, everywhere…they threaten people. People are afraid to say ‘no’."
Western leaders say elections scheduled for January prove the Palestinians are committed to establishing a democratic society. But the draft Palestinian constitution shows a government consigned to institutionalizing Islam.
While the draft constitution pledges to guarantee freedom of worship:
Islam is stated as the official religion of Palestine.
Shariah law is stated as the primary source of legislation. Under shariah law, any Muslim who leaves Islam and converts to another faith must be killed.
So it was for Ahmad El-Achwal, former owner of a falafel stand. The father of eight, he converted to Christianity and held regular Bible studies in his home.
But, he suffered repeated arrests and torture at the hands of Palestinian authority police.
Human Rights attorney Weiner met and interviewed Achwal prior to his death in January, 2004.
Weiner attested, "He showed me, at the time, the results of his—what were then—recent arrests, which included burns all over his body. Where hot pieces of sheet metal were taken from a fire and touched to his skin. And, on January 21st, 2004, someone knocked on the door- he opened the door and he was met with a hail of bullets. And he was shot dead in the entrance to his apartment."
Hannan verified, "A lot of families—they are leaving because they can't do anything about what is going on. They can't take it; they can't handle it."
Half of Hannan’s family left the West Bank she said, because of persecution against them.
Her family is not alone. Political instability, economic hardship and human rights violations have caused a mass exodus of Christians from the West Bank/Judea-Samaria and throughout the Middle East.
One recent population study shows that the Christian presence in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority has declined from 26 percent in 1914 to 9 percent today.
The city of Bethlehem—the birthplace of Jesus—was once a Christian city.
Several decades ago it was more than 80 percent Christian, but today it is less than 15 percent Christian
While their numbers may be fewer, and persecution against them is increasing, thousands of Christians have chosen to remain in the Holy Land….and some are quietly leading Muslims to Christ…
Nadeem said,” When the person's faith is true, and they realize that their suffering doesn't go unnoticed by God, and they see that they're doing something for the cause of Christ and furthering his kingdom, then they grow with more courage and the work goes on."
In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul said that those who live a godly life in Christ will be persecuted. Nearly 2000 years later, those words are ringing true for Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land, where persecution is now a way of life.
Christians Persecuted in the Holy Land
CWNews.com – Two thousand years after the birth of Christ, Christians are leaving the Holy Land in record numbers. Now, a new report suggests persecution against Palestinian Christian believers is getting worse.
Charred ruins are all that remain of 14 homes set a blaze in the West Bank village of Taybeh. An angry Muslim mob, from a neighboring village, attacked the Christian town last September. They said they were avenging the dishonor of a Muslim woman allegedly impregnated by her Christian employer from Taybeh.
Taybeh is the only West Bank village completely inhabited by Christians, about 2,000 of them. Originally, it was called Ephraim in the Old Testament; and in the book of John it is mentioned as a village where Jesus stayed.
David Khoury is the Mayor of Taybeh. He says the attack would not have occurred if Taybeh were a Muslim village instead of a Christian one.
Khoury said, "It’s happened many times between a Muslim and a Muslim; and what they did was, most times, just marry the girl off. Had they given us a chance, and proved this pregnancy was by the man from Taybeh, maybe we would have married him to that girl."
Palestinian officials are downplaying what happened here—depicting it as a dispute between families—the result of an out-of-wedlock romance. But some villagers insist the incident was "pure religious hatred"—that Taybeh Christians were used as scapegoats. Some of the 400 attackers were reportedly heard shouting "Allahu akbar—‘Allah is great’”—as they threw molotov cocktails at Christian houses.
We've hidden the identity of a West Bank evangelist for his protection. We'll call him Nadeem. He suggests Palestinian authorities are covering up a larger problem: a rising tide of Muslim intolerance and violence directed against the Christian minority.
‘Nadeem’ said, "It's a downplay in order to avoid a bigger issue which would be a fight on the village level, when you have villages attacking other villages. It's easier for them to downplay it, to avoid the bigger problem. Which, I don't know if there will be enough officials around to handle it, if that happens."
The attack on the village of Taybeh is one more example of the precarious position of Christians in the West Bank and throughout the Middle East."
Last February, hundreds of Druze Muslims attacked Palestinian Christians in the northern Israeli village of Mughar. Rioters damaged 125 homes and businesses after a Druze teenager spread the false rumor that Christians had posted pornographic images of Druze women on the internet.
International Human Rights attorney Justus Weiner has researched the plight of Palestinian Christians for more than eight years. His findings were recently published by the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs.
Weiner warned, "Palestinian Christians are in very dire straights…"
He also says Palestinian Christians are now living in fear because persecution against them is increasing.
Weiner added, "I think the situation has been on a steep downhill for at least 12 years—since Israel withdrew from the Palestinian populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza. The Christians fear for their own lives, they fear for their own family, they fear for the future of their community."
The Christians are a community that many of their fellow Christians believe will be marginalized as the Palestinians move toward statehood.
As Palestinians continue to gain more land from the Israelis, many Arab Christians fear the persecution against them will only get worse. In some cases it's already starting to happen.
This Palestinian woman suggests that the marginalization of Christians has already begun. We'll call her Hannan. We've hidden her identity to protect her from retribution.
Hannan said, "It's a hurt church, it's a suffering church …there's no mercy."
Also, Hannan says, Christians are now being treated as ‘second class citizens’ in the Holy Land because Islamists dominate the Palestinian authority.
Hannan added, "Now, all the leadership and the people in authority are Muslims. And they force their laws, their teaching, their Koran, everything in the courts, in the schools, everywhere…they threaten people. People are afraid to say ‘no’."
Western leaders say elections scheduled for January prove the Palestinians are committed to establishing a democratic society. But the draft Palestinian constitution shows a government consigned to institutionalizing Islam.
While the draft constitution pledges to guarantee freedom of worship:
Islam is stated as the official religion of Palestine.
Shariah law is stated as the primary source of legislation. Under shariah law, any Muslim who leaves Islam and converts to another faith must be killed.
So it was for Ahmad El-Achwal, former owner of a falafel stand. The father of eight, he converted to Christianity and held regular Bible studies in his home.
But, he suffered repeated arrests and torture at the hands of Palestinian authority police.
Human Rights attorney Weiner met and interviewed Achwal prior to his death in January, 2004.
Weiner attested, "He showed me, at the time, the results of his—what were then—recent arrests, which included burns all over his body. Where hot pieces of sheet metal were taken from a fire and touched to his skin. And, on January 21st, 2004, someone knocked on the door- he opened the door and he was met with a hail of bullets. And he was shot dead in the entrance to his apartment."
Hannan verified, "A lot of families—they are leaving because they can't do anything about what is going on. They can't take it; they can't handle it."
Half of Hannan’s family left the West Bank she said, because of persecution against them.
Her family is not alone. Political instability, economic hardship and human rights violations have caused a mass exodus of Christians from the West Bank/Judea-Samaria and throughout the Middle East.
One recent population study shows that the Christian presence in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority has declined from 26 percent in 1914 to 9 percent today.
The city of Bethlehem—the birthplace of Jesus—was once a Christian city.
Several decades ago it was more than 80 percent Christian, but today it is less than 15 percent Christian
While their numbers may be fewer, and persecution against them is increasing, thousands of Christians have chosen to remain in the Holy Land….and some are quietly leading Muslims to Christ…
Nadeem said,” When the person's faith is true, and they realize that their suffering doesn't go unnoticed by God, and they see that they're doing something for the cause of Christ and furthering his kingdom, then they grow with more courage and the work goes on."
In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul said that those who live a godly life in Christ will be persecuted. Nearly 2000 years later, those words are ringing true for Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land, where persecution is now a way of life.
Christians Persecuted in the Holy Land
Thursday, December 01, 2005
What Are They Afraid Of?
What Are They Afraid Of?
Creation/evolution issues have been a constant subject in the news media recently, much of the reporting slanted and poorly-informed, all of it negative towards creation. Nevertheless, the events are real and warrant our attention.
A school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, a small farming community, recently voted to allow a brief mention of Intelligent Design in biology classes. ID was not to be “taught,” nor was evolution removed, and most certainly Biblical creation was not mandated, but evolutionists reacted with a fervor reserved for this one issue. In an ACLU-orchestrated move, several local parents filed a lawsuit to maintain an evolution-only perspective, inviting the testimony of well-known evolutionists. Meanwhile, evolution-supporting individuals and organizations poured money into the district, mounting a successful political campaign against the “errant” school board members, replacing them with others leaning towards evolution. ID advocates had their champions too, leading to a media frenzy quite overshadowing the minimal facts of the case and size of the school district.
Similarly, debate has been raging in Kansas. There the state school board had established new state curriculum guidelines, which neither introduced creation nor removed evolution. Rather it allowed all the data to be taught, not just that supporting evolution. It permitted the exquisite design of living things to be acknowledged and studied. Once again, the same aggregate of partisans began crusading in support of evolution. Knowing the school board’s majority was behind the new guidelines evolutionists boycotted the hearings and instead took their case to a sympathetic press, who almost never correctly reported the facts.
The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven, what are evolutionists afraid of? Why must evolution be protected from scrutiny? Why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?
Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent design, that ID is just religion, or at least a “backdoor” to religion. But the facts are that many secular scientists, through observation and experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they’ve obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not created by mere chance from nothing.
Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There’s no religion in the facts. ICR has recently discovered groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth. ICR is adamant that this science be available for scrutiny by critical thinkers—that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, which we’re sure it does not, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps evolutionists’ avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic insecurity in their position. ICR has long held that evolution cannot stand the test of science—it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the debate can evolutionists hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability.
News / What Are They Afraid Of? - Institute for Creation Research
Creation/evolution issues have been a constant subject in the news media recently, much of the reporting slanted and poorly-informed, all of it negative towards creation. Nevertheless, the events are real and warrant our attention.
A school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, a small farming community, recently voted to allow a brief mention of Intelligent Design in biology classes. ID was not to be “taught,” nor was evolution removed, and most certainly Biblical creation was not mandated, but evolutionists reacted with a fervor reserved for this one issue. In an ACLU-orchestrated move, several local parents filed a lawsuit to maintain an evolution-only perspective, inviting the testimony of well-known evolutionists. Meanwhile, evolution-supporting individuals and organizations poured money into the district, mounting a successful political campaign against the “errant” school board members, replacing them with others leaning towards evolution. ID advocates had their champions too, leading to a media frenzy quite overshadowing the minimal facts of the case and size of the school district.
Similarly, debate has been raging in Kansas. There the state school board had established new state curriculum guidelines, which neither introduced creation nor removed evolution. Rather it allowed all the data to be taught, not just that supporting evolution. It permitted the exquisite design of living things to be acknowledged and studied. Once again, the same aggregate of partisans began crusading in support of evolution. Knowing the school board’s majority was behind the new guidelines evolutionists boycotted the hearings and instead took their case to a sympathetic press, who almost never correctly reported the facts.
The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven, what are evolutionists afraid of? Why must evolution be protected from scrutiny? Why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?
Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent design, that ID is just religion, or at least a “backdoor” to religion. But the facts are that many secular scientists, through observation and experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they’ve obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not created by mere chance from nothing.
Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There’s no religion in the facts. ICR has recently discovered groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth. ICR is adamant that this science be available for scrutiny by critical thinkers—that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, which we’re sure it does not, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps evolutionists’ avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic insecurity in their position. ICR has long held that evolution cannot stand the test of science—it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the debate can evolutionists hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability.
News / What Are They Afraid Of? - Institute for Creation Research
Washington Times Op-ed—Complete Control Over What is Taught
by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently issued a wake-up call to parents in the case of Fields v. Palmdale School District. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the court, ruled that though parents have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a general right to direct how the school teaches their child.
The case before the court that led to this ruling centered on a survey that asked several public schoolchildren invasive questions about sex. The parents argued that the school should not have allowed their children to be asked these questions.
The parents, however, had given their consent by signing a form that included the following statement provided by the school district: "I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then ... the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary."
If the nature of the questions that were to be asked could lead a child to seek psychological help, this should have raised a red flag with the parents.
Despite the presence of a consent form, however, many people agree that public schools should not usurp the authority of parents, especially if the subject is controversial. In addition, many people believe that if you choose to send your child to public school, it's reasonable to expect the school to act as a partner rather than as a parent.
In fact, 320 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sided with the parents when they passed a resolution urging the entire 9th Circuit to rehear the case. Unfortunately, there is legal precedent to support Judge Reinhardt's opinion. These decisions slowly have eroded parents' constitutional right to control the education of their own children once they have handed over the children to the public school.
The 9th Circuit explained that the legitimate function of public school exceeds simply teaching academic courses to students. Judge Reinhardt concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court has said: "Education serves higher civic and social functions, including the rearing of children into healthy, productive and responsible adults and the cultivation of talented and qualified leaders of diverse backgrounds" Grutter v. Bolinger, 539 US 306 (2003).
Citing precedent from other courts, Judge Reinhardt ruled that parents of public school students do not have a fundamental right to object to a public school uniform policy or a community service requirement for high school students or to have their children exempted from certain reading programs the parents find objectionable or from an assembly program that includes sexually explicit topics.
These opinions show that when conflicts arise, the trend in the courts is to side with school officials rather than parents. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. How could a school operate if every administrative detail was challenged successfully by parents? A school could not function in this type of environment.
A better way to view public schools is to see them as a benefit provided by the state. Because the state is providing a benefit, it is able to set the rules. Of course, the result is that public schools inevitably act as parents.
Judge Reinhardt was very clear, and parents across the nation should be aware that in the current legal climate, they are sacrificing almost all their parental authority when they send their children to public school.
Fortunately, there is an alternative for parents who do not want to compete with public schools or the courts for the authority to educate their own children. Hundreds of thousands of parents have decided to home-school.
When you home-school, you have control of the curriculum, and you are the final authority. The responsibility for educating and raising your children is not delegated to the state, which may act in ways you do not support. As the parents in Fields v. Palmdale discovered, they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of what their children are exposed to at school.
The moral of the story is: "There is no place like home" when it comes to education. Home-schooling is the best choice for parents who wish to remain the principal figures in the upbringing of their children.
HSLDA | Washington Times Op-ed�Complete Control Over What is Taught
HSLDA President
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently issued a wake-up call to parents in the case of Fields v. Palmdale School District. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the court, ruled that though parents have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a general right to direct how the school teaches their child.
The case before the court that led to this ruling centered on a survey that asked several public schoolchildren invasive questions about sex. The parents argued that the school should not have allowed their children to be asked these questions.
The parents, however, had given their consent by signing a form that included the following statement provided by the school district: "I understand answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable. If this occurs, then ... the research study coordinator, will assist us in locating a therapist for further psychological help if necessary."
If the nature of the questions that were to be asked could lead a child to seek psychological help, this should have raised a red flag with the parents.
Despite the presence of a consent form, however, many people agree that public schools should not usurp the authority of parents, especially if the subject is controversial. In addition, many people believe that if you choose to send your child to public school, it's reasonable to expect the school to act as a partner rather than as a parent.
In fact, 320 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sided with the parents when they passed a resolution urging the entire 9th Circuit to rehear the case. Unfortunately, there is legal precedent to support Judge Reinhardt's opinion. These decisions slowly have eroded parents' constitutional right to control the education of their own children once they have handed over the children to the public school.
The 9th Circuit explained that the legitimate function of public school exceeds simply teaching academic courses to students. Judge Reinhardt concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court has said: "Education serves higher civic and social functions, including the rearing of children into healthy, productive and responsible adults and the cultivation of talented and qualified leaders of diverse backgrounds" Grutter v. Bolinger, 539 US 306 (2003).
Citing precedent from other courts, Judge Reinhardt ruled that parents of public school students do not have a fundamental right to object to a public school uniform policy or a community service requirement for high school students or to have their children exempted from certain reading programs the parents find objectionable or from an assembly program that includes sexually explicit topics.
These opinions show that when conflicts arise, the trend in the courts is to side with school officials rather than parents. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. How could a school operate if every administrative detail was challenged successfully by parents? A school could not function in this type of environment.
A better way to view public schools is to see them as a benefit provided by the state. Because the state is providing a benefit, it is able to set the rules. Of course, the result is that public schools inevitably act as parents.
Judge Reinhardt was very clear, and parents across the nation should be aware that in the current legal climate, they are sacrificing almost all their parental authority when they send their children to public school.
Fortunately, there is an alternative for parents who do not want to compete with public schools or the courts for the authority to educate their own children. Hundreds of thousands of parents have decided to home-school.
When you home-school, you have control of the curriculum, and you are the final authority. The responsibility for educating and raising your children is not delegated to the state, which may act in ways you do not support. As the parents in Fields v. Palmdale discovered, they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of what their children are exposed to at school.
The moral of the story is: "There is no place like home" when it comes to education. Home-schooling is the best choice for parents who wish to remain the principal figures in the upbringing of their children.
HSLDA | Washington Times Op-ed�Complete Control Over What is Taught
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)