By Jim Brown
July 29, 2055
(AgapePress) - Complaints from outraged pro-family activists have prompted communications giant Clear Channel to remove a billboard in the Boston area that advertised a pornographic homosexual website. The controversial billboard featured two bare-chested men embracing while draped with an American flag. The sign on Massachusetts Avenue read, "Come together. Gay.com." (See earlier article)
Yesterday, after receiving complaints from conservative activists affiliated with the group Article 8 Alliance, Clear Channel had the ad taken down. Article 8 Alliance director Brian Camenker says the move was due to the "massive outrage" expressed by people who finally knew who to call with their complaints.
"Clear Channel had not put their logo on that board," Camenker explains. "They put it on every other board in the country, but not that one -- and probably for good reason." He says the Gay.com billboard was "the most disgusting thing you'd ever want to see on the side of a street: two men, one behind the other, naked, embracing, wrapped in an American flag, advertising a pornographic 'hook-up' website."
The Massachusetts pro-family activist hopes the controversy over the Gay.com sign will deter homosexual activists from posting similar billboard ads. He contends that the homosexual movement, particularly in Massachusetts since the same-sex marriage ruling, wants to push homosexuality in people's faces.
"They want to normalize it," Camenker asserts, "and I think what it takes is people being outraged. We're hoping that this sends the message, 'No, you can't do this right in front of our faces on our streets.'"
Clear Channel's regional office in Stoneham, Massachusetts, did not return phone calls seeking comment for this story. Incidentally, the Gay.com ad was by no means the first controversial ad accepted by the communications giant. Two years ago in Westboro, Massachusetts, ClearChannel Outdoors unveiled an advertisement promoting the legalization of marijuana.
Homosexual Porn Site Ad Comes Down After Pro-Family Protest
Friday, July 29, 2005
WPU Censures Student for Expressing Biblical Beliefs Against Homosexuality
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
July 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A 63-year-old campus technician and student at a New Jersey university who sent a private e-mail describing lesbianism and homosexuality as "perversions" has been formally reprimanded by the school for violating its non-discrimination policy.
Part-time student Jihad Daniel made his comment in response to an unsolicited e-mail he received from William Paterson University professor Arlene Holpp Scala, inviting people to a film and discussion about lesbian relationships. According to a WorldNetDaily article, Daniel responded to the message privately in a return e-mail, requesting that he receive no further mail "about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve'" -- that is, no more unsolicited e-mail regarding discussions of lesbianism or homosexuality.
"These are perversions," Daniel wrote in his e-mail message. He also observed that the "absence of God in higher education brings on confusion" and that this is "why the Creator of the heavens and the Earth is never mentioned" in typical university classes.
Two days later, Professor Scala, who chairs the women's studies department at WPU, filed a complaint with the school, alleging that Daniel's message was "threatening" and "violated the school's non-discrimination policy." A university investigation later found him guilty of violating state discrimination and harassment regulations. As a result, the president of the school placed a letter of reprimand in the student-employee's personnel file, claiming his comment was demeaning.
A FIRE-Fight for First Amendment Rights
Greg Lukianoff is with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech and civil rights advocacy group that is working on Daniel's behalf. Amazingly, he says, "Not only is the university completely violating Jihad Daniel's free speech, but it's clear that the professor in this case fully expected to be protected from his dissenting point of view, as if he had committed a crime against her."
Lukianoff believes William Paterson University is trying to avoid responsibility for what it has done to Daniel by labeling this incident as an employment policy matter. "The university is trying to portray Jihad Daniel as an employee," the FIRE spokesman says, "and while he does enjoy somewhat reduced free-speech rights in a workplace environment, that completely ignores the fact that he was a student."
Of course, the free-speech advocate points out, the university is apparently ignoring other salient points, including the fact that Jihad Daniel "didn't receive this e-mail in the capacity of a student, that this was sent to the general public, and that colleges and universities aren't your typical workplace."
In general, Lukianoff asserts, universities are required to allow their students a higher degree of free speech and academic freedom than they might afford to others. FIRE appealed WPU's decision against Daniel on First Amendment grounds and wrote to the school's president, Arnold Speert, protesting Daniel's treatment and reminding the public university of its obligations to protect its students' rights under the U.S. Constitution.
President Speert responded to FIRE's protest by saying the constitutional argument on Daniel's behalf was "beyond the scope" of the university's finding, and that "the assessed penalty of a written reprimand must, therefore, stand as issued." Nevertheless, FIRE maintains that WPU violated Daniel's rights by convicting him of "discrimination" and "harassment" -- without due process -- and penalizing the student-employee by placing a reprimand on his record.
On July 15, New Jersey's Attorney General Peter C. Harvey in effect backed the university when he answered FIRE's charge that Daniel's rights were being trampled. In that response, Harvey asserted that "speech which violates a non-discrimination policy is not protected" by the First Amendment. He also denied the university had violated Daniel’s due process rights, and said "the recommended penalty" against him will stand, subject to his next appeal.
Lukianoff says William Paterson University and New Jersey's attorney general "have decided that Mr. Daniel is guilty until proven innocent." Nevertheless, the FIRE spokesman says his group will continue to fight such "illiberal actions" until Jihad Daniel’s rights are vindicated.
WPU Censures Student-Employee for Expressing Biblical Beliefs Against Homosexuality
July 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - A 63-year-old campus technician and student at a New Jersey university who sent a private e-mail describing lesbianism and homosexuality as "perversions" has been formally reprimanded by the school for violating its non-discrimination policy.
Part-time student Jihad Daniel made his comment in response to an unsolicited e-mail he received from William Paterson University professor Arlene Holpp Scala, inviting people to a film and discussion about lesbian relationships. According to a WorldNetDaily article, Daniel responded to the message privately in a return e-mail, requesting that he receive no further mail "about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve'" -- that is, no more unsolicited e-mail regarding discussions of lesbianism or homosexuality.
"These are perversions," Daniel wrote in his e-mail message. He also observed that the "absence of God in higher education brings on confusion" and that this is "why the Creator of the heavens and the Earth is never mentioned" in typical university classes.
Two days later, Professor Scala, who chairs the women's studies department at WPU, filed a complaint with the school, alleging that Daniel's message was "threatening" and "violated the school's non-discrimination policy." A university investigation later found him guilty of violating state discrimination and harassment regulations. As a result, the president of the school placed a letter of reprimand in the student-employee's personnel file, claiming his comment was demeaning.
A FIRE-Fight for First Amendment Rights
Greg Lukianoff is with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech and civil rights advocacy group that is working on Daniel's behalf. Amazingly, he says, "Not only is the university completely violating Jihad Daniel's free speech, but it's clear that the professor in this case fully expected to be protected from his dissenting point of view, as if he had committed a crime against her."
Lukianoff believes William Paterson University is trying to avoid responsibility for what it has done to Daniel by labeling this incident as an employment policy matter. "The university is trying to portray Jihad Daniel as an employee," the FIRE spokesman says, "and while he does enjoy somewhat reduced free-speech rights in a workplace environment, that completely ignores the fact that he was a student."
Of course, the free-speech advocate points out, the university is apparently ignoring other salient points, including the fact that Jihad Daniel "didn't receive this e-mail in the capacity of a student, that this was sent to the general public, and that colleges and universities aren't your typical workplace."
In general, Lukianoff asserts, universities are required to allow their students a higher degree of free speech and academic freedom than they might afford to others. FIRE appealed WPU's decision against Daniel on First Amendment grounds and wrote to the school's president, Arnold Speert, protesting Daniel's treatment and reminding the public university of its obligations to protect its students' rights under the U.S. Constitution.
President Speert responded to FIRE's protest by saying the constitutional argument on Daniel's behalf was "beyond the scope" of the university's finding, and that "the assessed penalty of a written reprimand must, therefore, stand as issued." Nevertheless, FIRE maintains that WPU violated Daniel's rights by convicting him of "discrimination" and "harassment" -- without due process -- and penalizing the student-employee by placing a reprimand on his record.
On July 15, New Jersey's Attorney General Peter C. Harvey in effect backed the university when he answered FIRE's charge that Daniel's rights were being trampled. In that response, Harvey asserted that "speech which violates a non-discrimination policy is not protected" by the First Amendment. He also denied the university had violated Daniel’s due process rights, and said "the recommended penalty" against him will stand, subject to his next appeal.
Lukianoff says William Paterson University and New Jersey's attorney general "have decided that Mr. Daniel is guilty until proven innocent." Nevertheless, the FIRE spokesman says his group will continue to fight such "illiberal actions" until Jihad Daniel’s rights are vindicated.
WPU Censures Student-Employee for Expressing Biblical Beliefs Against Homosexuality
Christian Law Student Group Denied Recognition
By Jim Brown
July 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Christian Legal Society chapter at Southern Illinois University Law School is asking a federal court to order the law school to reinstate the evangelical group as an official student organization.
CLS filed suit in April, alleging the law school violated its First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by revoking the organization's registered status. SIU dropped its recognition of CLS after a homosexual student complained to law school officials about the chapter's requirement that its members and leaders be Christians.
CLS is now appealing their case to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. M. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom, is one of the attorneys representing the group. He says SIU is erroneously claiming the chapter violates the school's affirmative action policy.
"We've pointed out repeatedly, of course, that CLS doesn't employ anyone," Mattox notes, "and it's obvious that the affirmative action policy was intended to apply to the university itself in its own employment decisions, not to student organizations." But that argument has "fallen on deaf ears so far," he says.
Meanwhile, as a result of the revocation of the chapter's registered student organization status, the CLS group has been denied access to the law school's bulletin boards, meeting rooms, and e-mail system. But all CLS is seeking, the chapter's legal representative points out, is to be given the same treatment afforded to other campus groups.
Right now, Mattox contends, every other student organization on the SIU campus has the right to place restrictions on membership and leadership eligibility according to the group's identity and common beliefs. "There's both a Republican and a Democrat club at the law school," he says, "and they can, of course, require that their members and officers agree with their Republican and Democratic beliefs. But CLS can't require that its members and even its officers be [Christian] believers."
CLS is asking the federal circuit court to overturn a lower court ruling denying the Christian group's motion for a preliminary injunction, thus compelling SIU to reinstate the student group's registered status with the university. The CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), and local counsel David O. Edwards with the law firm of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C. are representing the Christian student group in the case, with ADF generously supporting the Center's work.
Christian Law Student Group Denied Recognition Appeals for Justice
July 29, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Christian Legal Society chapter at Southern Illinois University Law School is asking a federal court to order the law school to reinstate the evangelical group as an official student organization.
CLS filed suit in April, alleging the law school violated its First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by revoking the organization's registered status. SIU dropped its recognition of CLS after a homosexual student complained to law school officials about the chapter's requirement that its members and leaders be Christians.
CLS is now appealing their case to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. M. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom, is one of the attorneys representing the group. He says SIU is erroneously claiming the chapter violates the school's affirmative action policy.
"We've pointed out repeatedly, of course, that CLS doesn't employ anyone," Mattox notes, "and it's obvious that the affirmative action policy was intended to apply to the university itself in its own employment decisions, not to student organizations." But that argument has "fallen on deaf ears so far," he says.
Meanwhile, as a result of the revocation of the chapter's registered student organization status, the CLS group has been denied access to the law school's bulletin boards, meeting rooms, and e-mail system. But all CLS is seeking, the chapter's legal representative points out, is to be given the same treatment afforded to other campus groups.
Right now, Mattox contends, every other student organization on the SIU campus has the right to place restrictions on membership and leadership eligibility according to the group's identity and common beliefs. "There's both a Republican and a Democrat club at the law school," he says, "and they can, of course, require that their members and officers agree with their Republican and Democratic beliefs. But CLS can't require that its members and even its officers be [Christian] believers."
CLS is asking the federal circuit court to overturn a lower court ruling denying the Christian group's motion for a preliminary injunction, thus compelling SIU to reinstate the student group's registered status with the university. The CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), and local counsel David O. Edwards with the law firm of Giffin, Winning, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C. are representing the Christian student group in the case, with ADF generously supporting the Center's work.
Christian Law Student Group Denied Recognition Appeals for Justice
Thursday, July 28, 2005
The Political Left Gets Religion
And, Frankly, It Provides a Little Comedy to Watch the 'Bridge-Builders' Burn Them
By Matt Friedeman
July 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Party of the Left Wing, known best for its tax-increasing, huge-spending, pro-abortion sentiments, looked at the polls in the last election and noticed something big-time. First, seriously religious people vote. Two -- they didn't vote for the Left Wing.
"Fixable!" they thought. And then they schemed. Let's start praying at meetings, mentioning people of faith in our speeches, and allowing Democrats to be pro-life if they really want (insults of the last three decades now to be overlooked).
And a website. Oh, yes, a website is always needed. So, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has hoisted his religious sentiments onto the worldwide web in hopes that the faithful will come along and join God-appreciating Democrats in vote-harvesting prayer down at the altar.
Check it out. It's called "A Word to the Faithful." There you will see a hand-holding prayer circle, Reid standing by lots of clergy collars, liberal after liberal behind pulpits and that great man of faith -- John F. Kennedy -- looking over Reid's shoulder.
Thank you, Mr. Reid. On this site he shows what we already know: it is really business as usual with the Dems, they just want websurfers to know that pro-abortion, left-leaning politicians can be religious when they want to be, too.
The "bridge-building" aspect might take a little longer.
Mark Tooley of the Institute of Religion and Democracy reports on IRD's website concerning the religious rhetoric of the Left. Urging a new "politics of meaning," liberal Jewish activist and Bill and Hillary Clinton family friend Michael Lerner talks in a way that might not sway the religious right to his side anytime soon.
"In Europe they [the Right] turned against the Jews," Lerner declared to a Conference on Spiritual Activism. "In the U.S. they demeaned African Americans and Native Americans. Increasingly that role [targets of the Right] is played today by gays and lesbians, feminists, liberals, and secular humanists." The Right exploits spiritual crisis, he said, by "demeaning others."
My. And did we mention this speech was given in ... Berkeley?
Jim Wallis, religious counselor to the Democrats who attended the same conference, announced that "They [the conservatives] made religion into a political wedge to divide us and destroy us." Wallis alleged, "Religion is meant to be ... a bridge to bring us back." So in his efforts to build bridges, he noted that the political right is so comfortable with the language of religion ... "They act like ... maybe they even own God."
Bishop John Shelby Spong was also at the conference. Said the free-wheeling Episcopalian: "I don't want to denigrate any human being .... I rise up to say 'no' to popular religion in America today," and called American religiosity "tribal" and the "blessing of private prejudices."
Citing the obvious fact that growing churches in America are theologically orthodox, he deftly acknowledged that he didn't want to "denigrate any human being" by lambasting "post-menopausal" Catholic bishops who call God "Father" and tell women "what they can do with their bodies."
"Conservative Roman Catholicism and evangelical fundamentalists are growing," Spong worried. "Hysterical people are seeking security."
The Bible, Spong wanted the conference to know, has been a "major force in dark chapters of American history." He blamed it for supporting slavery, oppressing women, and justifying war with the ominous current reality being its use to "make abortion illegal" and to "oppose end-of-life decisions" and even being used to justify the "preservation of living cadavers," a reference to the once severely disabled Terri Schiavo.
"What kind of Bible do they read in the Bible Belt?" Spong asked. "Did they not practice slavery? Did they not allow lynchings?"
And the hilarity of it all? The Democrats still don't get it. They don't want to demean, they don't want to denigrate. They want to build bridges. Then they demean, denigrate, burn bridges, and all the while mark the progress because they posed with some clergy for the camera.
God is not a Republican. Not even close. But neither will he be mocked by the Left in their cynical attempt to deride people of faith while pretending to take Him seriously.
News from Agape Press
By Matt Friedeman
July 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Party of the Left Wing, known best for its tax-increasing, huge-spending, pro-abortion sentiments, looked at the polls in the last election and noticed something big-time. First, seriously religious people vote. Two -- they didn't vote for the Left Wing.
"Fixable!" they thought. And then they schemed. Let's start praying at meetings, mentioning people of faith in our speeches, and allowing Democrats to be pro-life if they really want (insults of the last three decades now to be overlooked).
And a website. Oh, yes, a website is always needed. So, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has hoisted his religious sentiments onto the worldwide web in hopes that the faithful will come along and join God-appreciating Democrats in vote-harvesting prayer down at the altar.
Check it out. It's called "A Word to the Faithful." There you will see a hand-holding prayer circle, Reid standing by lots of clergy collars, liberal after liberal behind pulpits and that great man of faith -- John F. Kennedy -- looking over Reid's shoulder.
Thank you, Mr. Reid. On this site he shows what we already know: it is really business as usual with the Dems, they just want websurfers to know that pro-abortion, left-leaning politicians can be religious when they want to be, too.
The "bridge-building" aspect might take a little longer.
Mark Tooley of the Institute of Religion and Democracy reports on IRD's website concerning the religious rhetoric of the Left. Urging a new "politics of meaning," liberal Jewish activist and Bill and Hillary Clinton family friend Michael Lerner talks in a way that might not sway the religious right to his side anytime soon.
"In Europe they [the Right] turned against the Jews," Lerner declared to a Conference on Spiritual Activism. "In the U.S. they demeaned African Americans and Native Americans. Increasingly that role [targets of the Right] is played today by gays and lesbians, feminists, liberals, and secular humanists." The Right exploits spiritual crisis, he said, by "demeaning others."
My. And did we mention this speech was given in ... Berkeley?
Jim Wallis, religious counselor to the Democrats who attended the same conference, announced that "They [the conservatives] made religion into a political wedge to divide us and destroy us." Wallis alleged, "Religion is meant to be ... a bridge to bring us back." So in his efforts to build bridges, he noted that the political right is so comfortable with the language of religion ... "They act like ... maybe they even own God."
Bishop John Shelby Spong was also at the conference. Said the free-wheeling Episcopalian: "I don't want to denigrate any human being .... I rise up to say 'no' to popular religion in America today," and called American religiosity "tribal" and the "blessing of private prejudices."
Citing the obvious fact that growing churches in America are theologically orthodox, he deftly acknowledged that he didn't want to "denigrate any human being" by lambasting "post-menopausal" Catholic bishops who call God "Father" and tell women "what they can do with their bodies."
"Conservative Roman Catholicism and evangelical fundamentalists are growing," Spong worried. "Hysterical people are seeking security."
The Bible, Spong wanted the conference to know, has been a "major force in dark chapters of American history." He blamed it for supporting slavery, oppressing women, and justifying war with the ominous current reality being its use to "make abortion illegal" and to "oppose end-of-life decisions" and even being used to justify the "preservation of living cadavers," a reference to the once severely disabled Terri Schiavo.
"What kind of Bible do they read in the Bible Belt?" Spong asked. "Did they not practice slavery? Did they not allow lynchings?"
And the hilarity of it all? The Democrats still don't get it. They don't want to demean, they don't want to denigrate. They want to build bridges. Then they demean, denigrate, burn bridges, and all the while mark the progress because they posed with some clergy for the camera.
God is not a Republican. Not even close. But neither will he be mocked by the Left in their cynical attempt to deride people of faith while pretending to take Him seriously.
News from Agape Press
Ask Congress to Make Companies Offer Cable Choice
By Bill Fancher
July 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - Twenty-five organizations are taking on the cable industry over what they are calling a parents' rights issue bill. Lanier Swann of Concerned Women for America (CWA) says it is time Congress stepped into the battle over who chooses what kind of cable programming comes into each subscriber home.
CWA has released a letter signed by itself and two dozen other national and state-based organizations addressing U.S. Senate and House of Representatives leaders. The letter calls on the lawmakers to enact legislation that would require cable monopolies to offer "a la carte" pricing to consumers.
Swann, CWA's director of governmental relations, says the decision is not up to cable companies to say what programming should be pumped into U.S. homes. "It is up to the families," she contends, "and over 80 percent of Americans polled believe that they should have that choice put back into their hands."
In the letter, which was addressed to Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the 25 organizations urge Congress to get involved in changing how the cable industry offers its programming to consumers.
"We feel very, very strongly about re-igniting this topic on Capitol Hill," Swann says. "The industry is touting its new $250 million campaign to educate consumers about rating systems and the v-chip, [which demonstrates] that the cable industry is missing the point. We've had a parental blocking system since the invention of the TV -- it's called the 'off' switch."
What is offensive to the coalition and other pro-family consumers, the CWA spokeswoman explains, is that "cable operators essentially function as a monopoly in the communities they serve." As such, she says, "they can get away with forcing consumers to subsidize programming that is obscene, violent, and immoral."
Consumers should only have to pay for channels they actually want in their homes, Swann asserts -- not "the filth that they force us to buy in their current bundles." In the letter to Congress, CWA and the other organizations argue that the U.S. legislature needs to act now to compel cable companies to offer customers cable choice through "a la carte" pricing.
Bob Peters of Morality in Media agrees, another of the organizations that have signed the letter to Congress demanding cable choice. He says allowing subscribers to choose their own cable programming packages by individually picking the channels they want is a system that will work.
"I can't imagine an 'a la carte' law that would prevent cable operators from offering great prices for packages of channels. That wouldn't have to come to an end," the Morality in Media spokesman adds. "But if a customer only wanted one or two channels in that package, they could subscribe for a reasonable price."
Peters points out that Congress does not allow movie studios to force local theaters to show every movie produced. So in principle, he says, cable providers should not be allowed to dictate what subscribers must subsidize in order to get the channels they want.
Pro-Family Groups Ask Congress to Make Companies Offer Cable Choice
July 28, 2005
(AgapePress) - Twenty-five organizations are taking on the cable industry over what they are calling a parents' rights issue bill. Lanier Swann of Concerned Women for America (CWA) says it is time Congress stepped into the battle over who chooses what kind of cable programming comes into each subscriber home.
CWA has released a letter signed by itself and two dozen other national and state-based organizations addressing U.S. Senate and House of Representatives leaders. The letter calls on the lawmakers to enact legislation that would require cable monopolies to offer "a la carte" pricing to consumers.
Swann, CWA's director of governmental relations, says the decision is not up to cable companies to say what programming should be pumped into U.S. homes. "It is up to the families," she contends, "and over 80 percent of Americans polled believe that they should have that choice put back into their hands."
In the letter, which was addressed to Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the 25 organizations urge Congress to get involved in changing how the cable industry offers its programming to consumers.
"We feel very, very strongly about re-igniting this topic on Capitol Hill," Swann says. "The industry is touting its new $250 million campaign to educate consumers about rating systems and the v-chip, [which demonstrates] that the cable industry is missing the point. We've had a parental blocking system since the invention of the TV -- it's called the 'off' switch."
What is offensive to the coalition and other pro-family consumers, the CWA spokeswoman explains, is that "cable operators essentially function as a monopoly in the communities they serve." As such, she says, "they can get away with forcing consumers to subsidize programming that is obscene, violent, and immoral."
Consumers should only have to pay for channels they actually want in their homes, Swann asserts -- not "the filth that they force us to buy in their current bundles." In the letter to Congress, CWA and the other organizations argue that the U.S. legislature needs to act now to compel cable companies to offer customers cable choice through "a la carte" pricing.
Bob Peters of Morality in Media agrees, another of the organizations that have signed the letter to Congress demanding cable choice. He says allowing subscribers to choose their own cable programming packages by individually picking the channels they want is a system that will work.
"I can't imagine an 'a la carte' law that would prevent cable operators from offering great prices for packages of channels. That wouldn't have to come to an end," the Morality in Media spokesman adds. "But if a customer only wanted one or two channels in that package, they could subscribe for a reasonable price."
Peters points out that Congress does not allow movie studios to force local theaters to show every movie produced. So in principle, he says, cable providers should not be allowed to dictate what subscribers must subsidize in order to get the channels they want.
Pro-Family Groups Ask Congress to Make Companies Offer Cable Choice
Circumcision 'helps to halt HIV'
BBC News
New research suggests circumcision could be effective in preventing the spread of HIV among men.
The study of more than 3,000 men in South Africa was done by the French agency for Aids and Viral Hepatitis.
The data, outlined at a conference in Brazil, shows male circumcision prevented about seven of 10 infections.
UN health agencies have cautioned that more trials are necessary before they will recommend this as a method to protect against Aids.
Previous studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection.
It is thought that the cells of the foreskin are much more susceptible to HIV than cells on other parts of the penis, so by removing the foreskin, the likelihood of infection drops.
Further trials are being carried out in Uganda and Kenya to measure the effect of circumcision on other populations.
If similar results are found, then circumcision could be used alongside condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, the BBC's Ania Lichtarowicz reports from the conference in Rio de Janeiro.
But implementing this measure on a large scale will be complicated, our correspondent says.
She says that ensuring safe techniques and changing cultural and social attitudes towards male circumcision will prove challenging
Worthy News - News from a Christian View
New research suggests circumcision could be effective in preventing the spread of HIV among men.
The study of more than 3,000 men in South Africa was done by the French agency for Aids and Viral Hepatitis.
The data, outlined at a conference in Brazil, shows male circumcision prevented about seven of 10 infections.
UN health agencies have cautioned that more trials are necessary before they will recommend this as a method to protect against Aids.
Previous studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection.
It is thought that the cells of the foreskin are much more susceptible to HIV than cells on other parts of the penis, so by removing the foreskin, the likelihood of infection drops.
Further trials are being carried out in Uganda and Kenya to measure the effect of circumcision on other populations.
If similar results are found, then circumcision could be used alongside condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, the BBC's Ania Lichtarowicz reports from the conference in Rio de Janeiro.
But implementing this measure on a large scale will be complicated, our correspondent says.
She says that ensuring safe techniques and changing cultural and social attitudes towards male circumcision will prove challenging
Worthy News - News from a Christian View
ACLU Sues To Allow Qur'an For Oaths
This is a particularly bad idea, especially as the Qur'an allows adherents to lie, if lying furthers the cause of Islam.
Robert Spencer: "The idea that all these texts teach the same values is a multiculturalist dogma with no basis in fact"
RALEIGH, N.C. -- The religious texts of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and faiths other than Christianity should be allowed in North Carolina courts for oaths promising truthful testimony, the ACLU argued in a lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.
State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book or by using no religious symbols.
"We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase "holy scripture" includes the Quran, Old Testament, and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina....
The ACLU last month called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing use of the Quran and other religious texts in North Carolina courtrooms. The request came after the two top judges in Guilford County decided that Muslims could not legally take an oath on the Quran.
Dhimmi Watch: ACLU Sues N.C. To Allow Qur'an For Oaths
Robert Spencer: "The idea that all these texts teach the same values is a multiculturalist dogma with no basis in fact"
RALEIGH, N.C. -- The religious texts of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and faiths other than Christianity should be allowed in North Carolina courts for oaths promising truthful testimony, the ACLU argued in a lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.
State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book or by using no religious symbols.
"We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase "holy scripture" includes the Quran, Old Testament, and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina....
The ACLU last month called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing use of the Quran and other religious texts in North Carolina courtrooms. The request came after the two top judges in Guilford County decided that Muslims could not legally take an oath on the Quran.
Dhimmi Watch: ACLU Sues N.C. To Allow Qur'an For Oaths
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Christ, not commandments, foundation of Christian faith
The ten commandments are considered the foundation for law in our country and do not 'establish' any particular religion.
By E.H. Zimmermann
Posted on Mon, Jul. 25, 2005
Regarding the column by Dan K. Thomasson, “Rulings hit women, press, non-Christians” (July 3):
Thomasson should get his facts straight before he pontificates about the Christian faith. He writes, “Since the commandments are the foundation of Christianity and display of them would seem aimed at promoting that religion ...” This is wrong. The Ten Commandments are not now and never have been the foundation of the Christian faith.
If the “Christian rights” people wanted to post a memorial honoring or promoting the foundation of their faith, they would post a statue of Jesus Christ or a cross or a crucifix. This would promote their religion. The Ten Commandments are all law: “Do this. Do that. Do something else. Do it right and you can get to heaven!” There isn’t an ounce of Gospel in them, nor is the law used by Christians as the way to get to heaven. If Christians thought this were true, Christianity would be like every other religion in the world. Christianity is the only religion that holds to the biblical doctrine, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:7-8 (NW) And in another passage: “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.” I Corinthians 3:11. There are many more passages that say the same thing.
Do Christians snub the commandments? No. They are like a mirror that shows our sinfulness and the wrongs we have committed and commit daily in thought, word and deed. They show us our need for a savior, for Jesus Christ who has redeemed us from the curse of the law by taking all our sins upon himself. They show us the kind of life God wants his people to live. Actually the Ten Commandments were respected by the Founding Fathers of our country. They call for a personal and civic behavior that became the basis for much subsequent legislation.
Further, the displays in question today show the Ten Commandments etched on two tablets of stone. This is an Old Testament symbol depicting the two tablets of stone that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai about 1500 B.C. The commandments were given by God for the people of Israel. They are quoted in their entirety in Exodus 20. Even then the commandments were not the foundation of the Israelites’ faith but rather a clear statement of the righteousness God expected of his people. Sacrifices were offered for the forgiveness of sins symbolizing the sacrifice the promised messiah would make for the sins of the whole world.
A final word. The U.S. Constitution does not deny the right of government to promote religion, but rather the promotion of one denomination (or religion) above another. At the time of writing the Constitution, the major concern was about establishing a state religion, one denomination above others, as many of the Founders had experienced in England. Since the commandments – the moral law – does not belong to one denomination or religion, it is a stretch to say they symbolize and promote Christianity above other religions. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of the Christian faith nor do they belong to Christians only. Christ Jesus is the foundation of Christianity.
Journal Gazette | 07/25/2005 | Christ, not commandments, foundation of Christian faith
By E.H. Zimmermann
Posted on Mon, Jul. 25, 2005
Regarding the column by Dan K. Thomasson, “Rulings hit women, press, non-Christians” (July 3):
Thomasson should get his facts straight before he pontificates about the Christian faith. He writes, “Since the commandments are the foundation of Christianity and display of them would seem aimed at promoting that religion ...” This is wrong. The Ten Commandments are not now and never have been the foundation of the Christian faith.
If the “Christian rights” people wanted to post a memorial honoring or promoting the foundation of their faith, they would post a statue of Jesus Christ or a cross or a crucifix. This would promote their religion. The Ten Commandments are all law: “Do this. Do that. Do something else. Do it right and you can get to heaven!” There isn’t an ounce of Gospel in them, nor is the law used by Christians as the way to get to heaven. If Christians thought this were true, Christianity would be like every other religion in the world. Christianity is the only religion that holds to the biblical doctrine, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:7-8 (NW) And in another passage: “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.” I Corinthians 3:11. There are many more passages that say the same thing.
Do Christians snub the commandments? No. They are like a mirror that shows our sinfulness and the wrongs we have committed and commit daily in thought, word and deed. They show us our need for a savior, for Jesus Christ who has redeemed us from the curse of the law by taking all our sins upon himself. They show us the kind of life God wants his people to live. Actually the Ten Commandments were respected by the Founding Fathers of our country. They call for a personal and civic behavior that became the basis for much subsequent legislation.
Further, the displays in question today show the Ten Commandments etched on two tablets of stone. This is an Old Testament symbol depicting the two tablets of stone that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai about 1500 B.C. The commandments were given by God for the people of Israel. They are quoted in their entirety in Exodus 20. Even then the commandments were not the foundation of the Israelites’ faith but rather a clear statement of the righteousness God expected of his people. Sacrifices were offered for the forgiveness of sins symbolizing the sacrifice the promised messiah would make for the sins of the whole world.
A final word. The U.S. Constitution does not deny the right of government to promote religion, but rather the promotion of one denomination (or religion) above another. At the time of writing the Constitution, the major concern was about establishing a state religion, one denomination above others, as many of the Founders had experienced in England. Since the commandments – the moral law – does not belong to one denomination or religion, it is a stretch to say they symbolize and promote Christianity above other religions. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of the Christian faith nor do they belong to Christians only. Christ Jesus is the foundation of Christianity.
Journal Gazette | 07/25/2005 | Christ, not commandments, foundation of Christian faith
Christian loses battle over Sunday work
I found this particularly disturbing in that they "held his sacking was not connected with his religious beliefs". What else do you call it when an employer fires you because you object to something based on your beliefs?
By Nikki Tait,Law Courts Correspondent
Published: July 26 2005
A devout Christian who lost his job as a quarry operator after refusing to take on Sunday working has lost the latest round of his legal battle with his employer.
Stephen Copsey, 33, who was asked to take on Sunday working as part of a new shift pattern, could not claim unfair dismissal, three senior judges ruled yesterday. The decision followed defeats for Mr Copsey in an employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal also refused Mr Copsey leave to appeal to the House of Lords, although he could still try to interest the highest court directly.
Applying for the hearing before the law lords, Paul Diamond, Mr Copsey's barrister, suggested the appeal court's decision meant the fourth commandment would have to be rewritten to say: "The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not work unless thy employer requires thee to work."
The Keep Sunday Special campaign, which helped fund Mr Copsey's case, said it would petition the law lords to hear the matter if it had sufficient funds.
Mr Copsey had worked for Devon Clays as a team leader at a quarry near King's Lynn, Norfolk, for 14 years. In 2000 and then 2002, it won a new order and changed the shift patterns to include some Sundays.
For two years Mr Copsey avoided Sundays and took lower pay. But eventually the company required a seven-day work pattern and Mr Copsey objected. He was warned about dismissal and after efforts to find a compromise failed, he was dismissed without redundancy pay in July 2002.
An employment tribunal found Mr Copsey had been dismissed because he refused to accept a change to the seven-day shift pattern. It also held that his sacking was not connected with his religious beliefs.
The Court of Appeal endorsed that outcome, although the judges gave differing views on how Mr Copsey's human rights, notably article nine, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion, were engaged and affected. However, they agreed Devon Clays had been reasonable.
FT.com / World / UK - Christian loses battle over Sunday work
By Nikki Tait,Law Courts Correspondent
Published: July 26 2005
A devout Christian who lost his job as a quarry operator after refusing to take on Sunday working has lost the latest round of his legal battle with his employer.
Stephen Copsey, 33, who was asked to take on Sunday working as part of a new shift pattern, could not claim unfair dismissal, three senior judges ruled yesterday. The decision followed defeats for Mr Copsey in an employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal also refused Mr Copsey leave to appeal to the House of Lords, although he could still try to interest the highest court directly.
Applying for the hearing before the law lords, Paul Diamond, Mr Copsey's barrister, suggested the appeal court's decision meant the fourth commandment would have to be rewritten to say: "The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not work unless thy employer requires thee to work."
The Keep Sunday Special campaign, which helped fund Mr Copsey's case, said it would petition the law lords to hear the matter if it had sufficient funds.
Mr Copsey had worked for Devon Clays as a team leader at a quarry near King's Lynn, Norfolk, for 14 years. In 2000 and then 2002, it won a new order and changed the shift patterns to include some Sundays.
For two years Mr Copsey avoided Sundays and took lower pay. But eventually the company required a seven-day work pattern and Mr Copsey objected. He was warned about dismissal and after efforts to find a compromise failed, he was dismissed without redundancy pay in July 2002.
An employment tribunal found Mr Copsey had been dismissed because he refused to accept a change to the seven-day shift pattern. It also held that his sacking was not connected with his religious beliefs.
The Court of Appeal endorsed that outcome, although the judges gave differing views on how Mr Copsey's human rights, notably article nine, which guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion, were engaged and affected. However, they agreed Devon Clays had been reasonable.
FT.com / World / UK - Christian loses battle over Sunday work
High Court Judicial Tyrants Redefined Eminent Domain
By Ed Thomas
July 26, 2005
(AgapePress) - The controversial court ruling on the United States' eminent domain law in the case of Kelo v. City of New London continues to spawn outrage among critics of the decision. One Christian activist and constitutional attorney is saying the ruling is just the latest example of judicial tyranny run rampant in America.
In Phyllis Schlafly's book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing, 2004), she makes the case that since the 1950s the U.S. Supreme Court has been trying to usurp the power of the other branches of federal government over U.S. political, social, and economic policy. For the author, the Kelo v. New London lawsuit was another clear case of that problem, with the high court making its ruling in favor of government taking the land of private property owners for other private developers to use.
Schlafly feels the increasing liberalism of the Supreme Court is behind its willingness to rule in a way that ultimately increases tax revenue. She contends, "We do not have a conservative court. We have a liberal court, and this was a decision which helps government to raise taxes -- and your liberals always like to raise taxes."
The author and constitutional lawyer says one only has to "follow the money to get the explanation for things we may not otherwise understand." Under this controversial ruling, she points out, money generated by taking land from the owner through eminent domain and redistributing it to another private entity would proceed to government coffers.
The Kelo v. New London decision is objectionable, Schlafly insists, not only because it is driven by liberal "big government" thinking but also because, to rule in the way they did, the justices had to re-write the constitutional definition of eminent domain. She finds this disturbing.
"The Constitution said that private property can be taken for public use," the conservative pundit explains. "The justices changed that to public purpose," the founder of Eagle Forum asserts, "and then they gave a very broad definition of 'purpose' which includes what they did in this Connecticut case."
Schlafly considers the justices' eminent domain ruling outrageous. She says the U.S. Supreme Court has put every citizen's private property in peril as a result of the judges doing something the Constitution does not give them the power to do -- namely, amending the words of that legislative document.
Schlafly Contends High Court Judicial Tyrants Redefined Eminent Domain
July 26, 2005
(AgapePress) - The controversial court ruling on the United States' eminent domain law in the case of Kelo v. City of New London continues to spawn outrage among critics of the decision. One Christian activist and constitutional attorney is saying the ruling is just the latest example of judicial tyranny run rampant in America.
In Phyllis Schlafly's book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing, 2004), she makes the case that since the 1950s the U.S. Supreme Court has been trying to usurp the power of the other branches of federal government over U.S. political, social, and economic policy. For the author, the Kelo v. New London lawsuit was another clear case of that problem, with the high court making its ruling in favor of government taking the land of private property owners for other private developers to use.
Schlafly feels the increasing liberalism of the Supreme Court is behind its willingness to rule in a way that ultimately increases tax revenue. She contends, "We do not have a conservative court. We have a liberal court, and this was a decision which helps government to raise taxes -- and your liberals always like to raise taxes."
The author and constitutional lawyer says one only has to "follow the money to get the explanation for things we may not otherwise understand." Under this controversial ruling, she points out, money generated by taking land from the owner through eminent domain and redistributing it to another private entity would proceed to government coffers.
The Kelo v. New London decision is objectionable, Schlafly insists, not only because it is driven by liberal "big government" thinking but also because, to rule in the way they did, the justices had to re-write the constitutional definition of eminent domain. She finds this disturbing.
"The Constitution said that private property can be taken for public use," the conservative pundit explains. "The justices changed that to public purpose," the founder of Eagle Forum asserts, "and then they gave a very broad definition of 'purpose' which includes what they did in this Connecticut case."
Schlafly considers the justices' eminent domain ruling outrageous. She says the U.S. Supreme Court has put every citizen's private property in peril as a result of the judges doing something the Constitution does not give them the power to do -- namely, amending the words of that legislative document.
Schlafly Contends High Court Judicial Tyrants Redefined Eminent Domain
Liberal Media Lashes Out at Christians
Has Political Success Triggered a Jihad?
By Ed Vitagliano
July 26, 2005
(AgapePress) - This bulletin just in: The culture wars have turned nastier than ever. And if conservative Christians are offended by being called insane, stupid, sinister -- or even the next incarnation of fascist storm troopers -- they'd better get used to it.
The news media is a major player in these cultural conflicts, and if there was ever a pretense of impartiality when it came to liberal versus conservative, or secular versus religious, that disguise has been stripped away.
Off the Charts
Over the last few years, it seems as though more members of the media have been willing to admit that real bias exists within the journalistic community. For example, in his 2001 book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, former Emmy-award-winning CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg plainly said the news media is biased against conservatives and Christians. For his honesty, Goldberg was blasted by many of his media comrades.
But that seemed to open the door enough to allow others in the media to come clean. Recently Michelle Cottle, senior editor for the liberal magazine New Republic, said on CNN's Reliable Sources that there is a strong bias among journalists when it comes to issues like evolution, the public display of the Ten Commandments, and same-sex marriage. These journalists "do behave as though the people who believe these things are on the fringe, when actually the vast majority of the American public describes itself as Christian."
Others, like New York Times' veterans Steve Roberts and R.W. Apple, and William McGowan, who has written for Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, have said the same thing.
However, in the months approaching, but especially in the months following, the 2004 presidential election, the liberal media bias against Christians seems to have gone off the charts.
Liberal media fury toward believers seemed to reach its apex when Christian pro-family groups joined together in April for a televised event called "Justice Sunday," which focused on the threat of activist judges. Numerous columnists raged against even the concept of such a program.
'Enraged and Paranoid Disciples'
Perhaps the most vile attacks on conservative Christians showed up in the May issue of Harper's magazine, which ran a series of cover-story articles under the headline, "The Christian Right's War on America." The stories themselves delivered exactly what the headline promised.
Harper's editor Lewis H. Lapham began the foul festivities -- which were worthy, at least verbally, of Nero -- with his mocking and vitriolic article, "The Wrath of the Lamb."
Roasted on Lapham's spit was the National Association of Evangelicals, after the group announced the release of its theological manifesto outlining Christian responsibilities in society. The document was, Lapham said, "a bullying threat backed with the currencies of jihadist fervor and invincible ignorance."
The Religious Right, in his view, consists of "increasingly large numbers of increasingly enraged and paranoid disciples who came together as a political constituency" just in time to get George Bush re-elected. The Christian cultural agenda consists in "stupidity" resulting from "the gospels of fear and hate" espoused by believers. Apparently left with some ink in his printer cartridge, Lapham also declared that the ideology of the Christian Right "has engulfed vast tracts of the American mind in the fogs of superstition."
Also in Harper's was "Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB)," an article by Chris Hedges, an author and former journalist. The story is based on his observations at the NRB's annual convention. Addressing his concerns about "the new militant Christianity," Hedges spends his 5,000 or so words mischaracterizing and maligning believers in the worst way. What conservative Christians really want, he apprises the reader, is to "dismantle the democratic state."
In the end, Hedges uses what may be the worst type of slander known to the modern mind: comparing Christians to the Nazis. He recalls the words of his Harvard Divinity School ethics professor, Dr. James Luther Adams, who apparently forewarned his students of the coming day when they would be fighting the "Christian fascists."
Hedges wrote: "But fascism, warned Adams, ... would not return wearing swastikas and brown shirts. Its ideological inheritors would cloak themselves in the language of the Bible; they would come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance."
Mainstream Malice
Such sentiments are common among mainstream media pundits, who lately seem much more open about posting their malicious attacks so all can see.
Bill Maher, host of HBO's live commentary show Real Time With Bill Maher, seems to have a deeply-rooted disdain for religious folk in general. On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, he told host Joe Scarborough: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
For some in the media, the words Christian and dumb seem to be synonymous. CBS' 60 Minutes' professional grouser Andy Rooney is quite open about this. After the 2004 election, Rooney -- a self-professed atheist -- told a group of students and faculty at Tufts University that he thought religion is "all nonsense." According to The Tufts Daily newspaper, he added that he thought Christian fundamentalism was the result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."
In response, Christian columnist Cal Thomas said, "That Rooney still holds his job after stereotyping and disparaging Christians sends a message of bias, even bigotry, to a substantial audience that CBS had mostly lost and obviously does not care if it wins back."
When it comes to spewing anti-Christian venom, however, columnists at the Washington Post and New York Times are gold-medal winners. For example, in an article entitled "What's Going On?", the Times' Paul Krugman wrote about "the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself."
Guess who that is? As opposed to Islamic extremists who exist as a minority in nations like the Netherlands, Krugman said the U.S. is a nation "where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence."
Krugman's hysterical piece ends with this warning: "America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here."
So Hedges likens conservative Christians to Nazis, Krugman to Islamic terrorists, indicating that many liberals in the media seem anxious to dredge up every well-known villainous type they can think of and slap the label on believers.
Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King also has the itch to stereotype. King didn't like the promoters of "Justice Sunday," claiming in a column that "there is no depth to which they won't sink in their campaign to seize the country."
The leaders of the Religious Right, he said, "are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders, as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross."
At either newspaper, however, the head man on this media hit squad has to be Frank Rich. A talented writer, Rich unfortunately seems to relish opportunities to smite conservative Christians with his wrath.
In his columns, Rich has called members of the Christian Right "moral zealots" and "God racketeers," and says they "will stop at little if they feel it is in their interests to exploit God to achieve" their ends. Likening them to those who burned witches at the stake in Salem and to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Rich believes Christian conservatives are simply "bullying" the majority into submission, having launched "a full-scale jihad" and "McCarthyism in God's name." They are like the fictional, fraudulent preacher Elmer Gantry, and use "the rhetoric of George Wallace and other segregationists."
Haranguing Against the Competition
Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to politics over the last 40 years knows that these diatribes by liberal media pundits are sheer hypocrisy.
Conservative columnist Don Feder, who is Jewish, remarks, "When any other group (environmentalists, feminists, peace activists) organizes to effect political change through education, lobbying, and get-out-the-vote efforts, it's called ... democracy. When Christians (as Christians) try to exercise their right as citizens, it's called sinister, an attempted hijacking of the political process -- theocracy! ... Theocracy (replete with heretic-roasts) is just around the corner."
However, a politically active Christian community in the U.S. is not simply a matter of choice any longer, but of necessity. Writing for the conservative National Review Online, contributing editor Stanley Kurtz, who identifies himself as a "secular American," said, "Given the way they're being treated in the culture at large, they'd be fools not to protect themselves by turning to politics. Yet traditional Christians are playing defense, not offense. Harper's speaks of a 'new militant Christianity.' But if Christians are increasingly bold and political, they've been forced into that mode by 40 years of revolutionary social reforms."
Still, what is driving the sheer hysterical anger of the liberal media concerning conservative Christianity? Feder said that "the Left has come to see evangelical Christians as the principal obstacle to the realization of its social agenda, hence the embodiment of evil. Correspondingly, attacks on 'fundamentalists' have grown increasingly shrill."
In other words, Christianity is the main competitor to the liberal dream of a secular paradise. Who else would radical leftists harangue against, if not the opposition?
It is one thing for Christian ideals to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from secular liberalism -- that is, a competitive idea only in the abstract. But conservative Christians are not just more involved, they're becoming more successful in competing with secularists.
Thomas noted, "This isn't really about religion. It's about results .... [L]iberals fear their earthly power is slipping away. They are less able to impose a secular leftist worldview on the country."
For the sake of the generations to come, Christians must continue to resist the secularization of America, for the result would be no paradise, but a spiritual disaster. To be successful in the political realm, however, Christians must be equally willing to take the heat, and to shrug off the rabid attacks of the media babblers who see Christians as the enemy.
News from Agape Press
By Ed Vitagliano
July 26, 2005
(AgapePress) - This bulletin just in: The culture wars have turned nastier than ever. And if conservative Christians are offended by being called insane, stupid, sinister -- or even the next incarnation of fascist storm troopers -- they'd better get used to it.
The news media is a major player in these cultural conflicts, and if there was ever a pretense of impartiality when it came to liberal versus conservative, or secular versus religious, that disguise has been stripped away.
Off the Charts
Over the last few years, it seems as though more members of the media have been willing to admit that real bias exists within the journalistic community. For example, in his 2001 book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, former Emmy-award-winning CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg plainly said the news media is biased against conservatives and Christians. For his honesty, Goldberg was blasted by many of his media comrades.
But that seemed to open the door enough to allow others in the media to come clean. Recently Michelle Cottle, senior editor for the liberal magazine New Republic, said on CNN's Reliable Sources that there is a strong bias among journalists when it comes to issues like evolution, the public display of the Ten Commandments, and same-sex marriage. These journalists "do behave as though the people who believe these things are on the fringe, when actually the vast majority of the American public describes itself as Christian."
Others, like New York Times' veterans Steve Roberts and R.W. Apple, and William McGowan, who has written for Newsweek, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, have said the same thing.
However, in the months approaching, but especially in the months following, the 2004 presidential election, the liberal media bias against Christians seems to have gone off the charts.
Liberal media fury toward believers seemed to reach its apex when Christian pro-family groups joined together in April for a televised event called "Justice Sunday," which focused on the threat of activist judges. Numerous columnists raged against even the concept of such a program.
'Enraged and Paranoid Disciples'
Perhaps the most vile attacks on conservative Christians showed up in the May issue of Harper's magazine, which ran a series of cover-story articles under the headline, "The Christian Right's War on America." The stories themselves delivered exactly what the headline promised.
Harper's editor Lewis H. Lapham began the foul festivities -- which were worthy, at least verbally, of Nero -- with his mocking and vitriolic article, "The Wrath of the Lamb."
Roasted on Lapham's spit was the National Association of Evangelicals, after the group announced the release of its theological manifesto outlining Christian responsibilities in society. The document was, Lapham said, "a bullying threat backed with the currencies of jihadist fervor and invincible ignorance."
The Religious Right, in his view, consists of "increasingly large numbers of increasingly enraged and paranoid disciples who came together as a political constituency" just in time to get George Bush re-elected. The Christian cultural agenda consists in "stupidity" resulting from "the gospels of fear and hate" espoused by believers. Apparently left with some ink in his printer cartridge, Lapham also declared that the ideology of the Christian Right "has engulfed vast tracts of the American mind in the fogs of superstition."
Also in Harper's was "Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB)," an article by Chris Hedges, an author and former journalist. The story is based on his observations at the NRB's annual convention. Addressing his concerns about "the new militant Christianity," Hedges spends his 5,000 or so words mischaracterizing and maligning believers in the worst way. What conservative Christians really want, he apprises the reader, is to "dismantle the democratic state."
In the end, Hedges uses what may be the worst type of slander known to the modern mind: comparing Christians to the Nazis. He recalls the words of his Harvard Divinity School ethics professor, Dr. James Luther Adams, who apparently forewarned his students of the coming day when they would be fighting the "Christian fascists."
Hedges wrote: "But fascism, warned Adams, ... would not return wearing swastikas and brown shirts. Its ideological inheritors would cloak themselves in the language of the Bible; they would come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance."
Mainstream Malice
Such sentiments are common among mainstream media pundits, who lately seem much more open about posting their malicious attacks so all can see.
Bill Maher, host of HBO's live commentary show Real Time With Bill Maher, seems to have a deeply-rooted disdain for religious folk in general. On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, he told host Joe Scarborough: "I think religion is a neurological disorder."
For some in the media, the words Christian and dumb seem to be synonymous. CBS' 60 Minutes' professional grouser Andy Rooney is quite open about this. After the 2004 election, Rooney -- a self-professed atheist -- told a group of students and faculty at Tufts University that he thought religion is "all nonsense." According to The Tufts Daily newspaper, he added that he thought Christian fundamentalism was the result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."
In response, Christian columnist Cal Thomas said, "That Rooney still holds his job after stereotyping and disparaging Christians sends a message of bias, even bigotry, to a substantial audience that CBS had mostly lost and obviously does not care if it wins back."
When it comes to spewing anti-Christian venom, however, columnists at the Washington Post and New York Times are gold-medal winners. For example, in an article entitled "What's Going On?", the Times' Paul Krugman wrote about "the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself."
Guess who that is? As opposed to Islamic extremists who exist as a minority in nations like the Netherlands, Krugman said the U.S. is a nation "where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence."
Krugman's hysterical piece ends with this warning: "America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here."
So Hedges likens conservative Christians to Nazis, Krugman to Islamic terrorists, indicating that many liberals in the media seem anxious to dredge up every well-known villainous type they can think of and slap the label on believers.
Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King also has the itch to stereotype. King didn't like the promoters of "Justice Sunday," claiming in a column that "there is no depth to which they won't sink in their campaign to seize the country."
The leaders of the Religious Right, he said, "are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders, as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross."
At either newspaper, however, the head man on this media hit squad has to be Frank Rich. A talented writer, Rich unfortunately seems to relish opportunities to smite conservative Christians with his wrath.
In his columns, Rich has called members of the Christian Right "moral zealots" and "God racketeers," and says they "will stop at little if they feel it is in their interests to exploit God to achieve" their ends. Likening them to those who burned witches at the stake in Salem and to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Rich believes Christian conservatives are simply "bullying" the majority into submission, having launched "a full-scale jihad" and "McCarthyism in God's name." They are like the fictional, fraudulent preacher Elmer Gantry, and use "the rhetoric of George Wallace and other segregationists."
Haranguing Against the Competition
Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to politics over the last 40 years knows that these diatribes by liberal media pundits are sheer hypocrisy.
Conservative columnist Don Feder, who is Jewish, remarks, "When any other group (environmentalists, feminists, peace activists) organizes to effect political change through education, lobbying, and get-out-the-vote efforts, it's called ... democracy. When Christians (as Christians) try to exercise their right as citizens, it's called sinister, an attempted hijacking of the political process -- theocracy! ... Theocracy (replete with heretic-roasts) is just around the corner."
However, a politically active Christian community in the U.S. is not simply a matter of choice any longer, but of necessity. Writing for the conservative National Review Online, contributing editor Stanley Kurtz, who identifies himself as a "secular American," said, "Given the way they're being treated in the culture at large, they'd be fools not to protect themselves by turning to politics. Yet traditional Christians are playing defense, not offense. Harper's speaks of a 'new militant Christianity.' But if Christians are increasingly bold and political, they've been forced into that mode by 40 years of revolutionary social reforms."
Still, what is driving the sheer hysterical anger of the liberal media concerning conservative Christianity? Feder said that "the Left has come to see evangelical Christians as the principal obstacle to the realization of its social agenda, hence the embodiment of evil. Correspondingly, attacks on 'fundamentalists' have grown increasingly shrill."
In other words, Christianity is the main competitor to the liberal dream of a secular paradise. Who else would radical leftists harangue against, if not the opposition?
It is one thing for Christian ideals to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from secular liberalism -- that is, a competitive idea only in the abstract. But conservative Christians are not just more involved, they're becoming more successful in competing with secularists.
Thomas noted, "This isn't really about religion. It's about results .... [L]iberals fear their earthly power is slipping away. They are less able to impose a secular leftist worldview on the country."
For the sake of the generations to come, Christians must continue to resist the secularization of America, for the result would be no paradise, but a spiritual disaster. To be successful in the political realm, however, Christians must be equally willing to take the heat, and to shrug off the rabid attacks of the media babblers who see Christians as the enemy.
News from Agape Press
On Campus, Only Some Free Speech Protected
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
By Wendy McElroy
The publicly funded William Paterson University (search) in New Jersey reprimanded Jihad Daniel for discrimination and sexual harassment. The 63-year-old Daniel, who is both an employee and a student at the university, is now at the center of a free speech controversy.
He is also a fine example of the sleight-of-hand being called "due process" by universities that quash politically incorrect speech.
The facts are uncontested.
On March 7, Arlene Holpp Scala (search), chair of the Women's Studies Department, sent Daniel an unsolicited e-mail announcement of an upcoming film event: "'Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House,' a lesbian relationship story." Scala advised those who wished to respond, "Please do not hit reply, click here," thus directing messages to her university e-mail address.
On March 8, Daniel clicked to privately reply, "Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned." [His message is quoted in full. No other communication with Scala ensued.]
On March 10, Scala filed a complaint with the university claiming Daniel's message sounded "threatening."
"I don't want to feel threatened at my place of work," she explained.
On June 15, university President Arnold Speert (search) issued a letter of reprimand, to be placed in Daniel's permanent employment file.
The unsavory matter might have ended there, but the stakes were raised by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and by Peter C. Harvey, the attorney general of New Jersey.
FIRE's mission is "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities.
"These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience."
Greg Lukianoff of FIRE reminded Speert that his university, as a public institution, had a duty to protect the "constitutional rights of all its faculty, staff, and students … and that no federal, state, local, or university rule, policy, or regulation trumps the exercise" of those rights.
Lukianoff flatly stated, "No one here was 'harassed' or 'threatened' as defined by the law." Instead, the university "simply strongly disliked a student's point of view."
Interestingly, the first response to FIRE was not from Speert but from Attorney General Harvey, who replied "on behalf" of the university. Harvey said the penalty against Daniel would stand because, as an employee, he had violated New Jersey policies against discrimination, harassment and creating a hostile environment in the workplace.
Several aspects of the entire exchange are interesting.
First, the entire weight of the state's legal authority is being directed at quashing Daniel's personal response to an unsolicited e-mail — an e-mail that invited feedback by instructing recipients on how best to do so. The university obviously feels the need to draw a big gun on this little man.
Second, Lukianoff refers to Daniel as a student; both Speert and Harvey call him an employee. Daniel is legitimately both, but in the capacity of student he undoubtedly has more established procedural "rights" against the university. The attorney general's office clearly wishes to reduce the "rights" it needs to recognize.
But as Lukianoff states: "Even in a workplace, it is ridiculous to conclude that a one-time e-mail constitutes unlawful discrimination and harassment. It is especially ridiculous to apply such a policy to a working student at an institution of higher education that has a special responsibility to ensure academic freedom."
Here the concept of "due process" emerges in full. As with freedom of speech, the university's policies seem to reduce to the formula, "rights for me but not for thee."
For example, according to Speert's view of free speech, Scala has the right to send an unsolicited and unwanted promotion of a pro-lesbian film over the university's network. Daniel has no right to respond with his personal opinion and a request for no contact in the future.
According to Speert's view of due process, if Scala feels threatened by a moralistic dismissal of an issue she chose to raise, then the attorney general's office should flex its muscle to protect a frail woman so imperiled. Meanwhile, Daniel has no right to even examine the evidence brought against him. He merely has the right to appeal.
In his letter, Lukianoff stressed that "due process" was being disregarded in order to chill dissent. Both Speert and Harvey replied that "due process" was clearly in place and pointed to the administrative procedures to which Daniel could appeal.
Making someone jump through bureaucratic hoops that embody a biased procedure is not due process. A kangaroo court that includes the right of appeal to a higher kangaroo authority does not constitute due process. It is a travesty.
Due process does not reside in bureaucracy. It is a set of legal principles established through tradition to protect "the accused," who is innocent until proven guilty. Those principles include the right to face and question your accuser, the right to examine all evidence against you.
Daniel has been granted neither. And the most extraordinary aspect of this denial of free speech and due process is that the attorney general's office felt it necessary to so quickly and heavily weigh in on a small matter.
Or is it?
On Campus, Only Some Free Speech Protected
By Wendy McElroy
The publicly funded William Paterson University (search) in New Jersey reprimanded Jihad Daniel for discrimination and sexual harassment. The 63-year-old Daniel, who is both an employee and a student at the university, is now at the center of a free speech controversy.
He is also a fine example of the sleight-of-hand being called "due process" by universities that quash politically incorrect speech.
The facts are uncontested.
On March 7, Arlene Holpp Scala (search), chair of the Women's Studies Department, sent Daniel an unsolicited e-mail announcement of an upcoming film event: "'Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House,' a lesbian relationship story." Scala advised those who wished to respond, "Please do not hit reply, click here," thus directing messages to her university e-mail address.
On March 8, Daniel clicked to privately reply, "Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned." [His message is quoted in full. No other communication with Scala ensued.]
On March 10, Scala filed a complaint with the university claiming Daniel's message sounded "threatening."
"I don't want to feel threatened at my place of work," she explained.
On June 15, university President Arnold Speert (search) issued a letter of reprimand, to be placed in Daniel's permanent employment file.
The unsavory matter might have ended there, but the stakes were raised by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and by Peter C. Harvey, the attorney general of New Jersey.
FIRE's mission is "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities.
"These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience."
Greg Lukianoff of FIRE reminded Speert that his university, as a public institution, had a duty to protect the "constitutional rights of all its faculty, staff, and students … and that no federal, state, local, or university rule, policy, or regulation trumps the exercise" of those rights.
Lukianoff flatly stated, "No one here was 'harassed' or 'threatened' as defined by the law." Instead, the university "simply strongly disliked a student's point of view."
Interestingly, the first response to FIRE was not from Speert but from Attorney General Harvey, who replied "on behalf" of the university. Harvey said the penalty against Daniel would stand because, as an employee, he had violated New Jersey policies against discrimination, harassment and creating a hostile environment in the workplace.
Several aspects of the entire exchange are interesting.
First, the entire weight of the state's legal authority is being directed at quashing Daniel's personal response to an unsolicited e-mail — an e-mail that invited feedback by instructing recipients on how best to do so. The university obviously feels the need to draw a big gun on this little man.
Second, Lukianoff refers to Daniel as a student; both Speert and Harvey call him an employee. Daniel is legitimately both, but in the capacity of student he undoubtedly has more established procedural "rights" against the university. The attorney general's office clearly wishes to reduce the "rights" it needs to recognize.
But as Lukianoff states: "Even in a workplace, it is ridiculous to conclude that a one-time e-mail constitutes unlawful discrimination and harassment. It is especially ridiculous to apply such a policy to a working student at an institution of higher education that has a special responsibility to ensure academic freedom."
Here the concept of "due process" emerges in full. As with freedom of speech, the university's policies seem to reduce to the formula, "rights for me but not for thee."
For example, according to Speert's view of free speech, Scala has the right to send an unsolicited and unwanted promotion of a pro-lesbian film over the university's network. Daniel has no right to respond with his personal opinion and a request for no contact in the future.
According to Speert's view of due process, if Scala feels threatened by a moralistic dismissal of an issue she chose to raise, then the attorney general's office should flex its muscle to protect a frail woman so imperiled. Meanwhile, Daniel has no right to even examine the evidence brought against him. He merely has the right to appeal.
In his letter, Lukianoff stressed that "due process" was being disregarded in order to chill dissent. Both Speert and Harvey replied that "due process" was clearly in place and pointed to the administrative procedures to which Daniel could appeal.
Making someone jump through bureaucratic hoops that embody a biased procedure is not due process. A kangaroo court that includes the right of appeal to a higher kangaroo authority does not constitute due process. It is a travesty.
Due process does not reside in bureaucracy. It is a set of legal principles established through tradition to protect "the accused," who is innocent until proven guilty. Those principles include the right to face and question your accuser, the right to examine all evidence against you.
Daniel has been granted neither. And the most extraordinary aspect of this denial of free speech and due process is that the attorney general's office felt it necessary to so quickly and heavily weigh in on a small matter.
Or is it?
On Campus, Only Some Free Speech Protected
Moms Hope to Make 'Housewives' Desperate for Sponsors
By Jody Brown and AFA Journal
July 27, 2005
(AgapePress) - Emmy Awards or not, an online activism group that includes thousands of moms and housewives finds no redeeming value in Desperate Housewives, the prime-time series that chronicles the "sex-ploits" of a group of suburban women.
The second season of ABC's sex-laden Desperate Housewives is slated to begin in late September -- and Associated Press says the network hopes to "clean up" with another dry cleaning campaign for the prime-time drama. According to the report, last year's campaign featured plastic clothes covers emblazoned with "Desperate Housewives." But this time around, notes AP, the plastic will display the message: "New season. New dirty laundry."
Some may find it amusing that the popular series -- which earlier this month received 15 Emmy nominations -- is playing upon its own sex-based plot line in an advertising campaign. But one pro-family activist group finds little humor in a prime-time television program that promotes such societal ills as adultery and sexual promiscuity. OneMillionMoms.com (OMM) -- an online activism group affiliated with the American Family Association (AFA) -- seeks to exert its pro-family influence by encouraging advertisers not to sponsor such programming.
For example, after being contacted by OMM supporters, Mary Kay, one of the largest sellers of beauty care and cosmetic products, pulled its sponsorship of Desperate Housewives. Mary Kay spokesperson Shannon Summers contacted AFA director of special projects Randy Sharp, who spearheads OMM, and said: "We are going to revise our media mix that we are working on, and we will not have Desperate Housewives in that mix."
Don Wildmon, AFA founder and chairman, has described the ABC drama as "a television show that promotes prostitution, adult-teen sexual relations, infidelity, deception, seduction, adultery, promiscuity [and] sadomasochism." Wildmon applauded Mary Kay's decision.
"Mary Kay's philosophy -- 'God first, family second, and career third' -- is what has drawn countless women to the company in the first place," he said. "We are happy to see Mary Kay disassociate itself from such a wretched show."
According to AP, producers of the one-hour TV soap opera asked to be considered in the comedy series category for Emmy Awards, usually home to half-hour sitcoms.
News from Agape Press
July 27, 2005
(AgapePress) - Emmy Awards or not, an online activism group that includes thousands of moms and housewives finds no redeeming value in Desperate Housewives, the prime-time series that chronicles the "sex-ploits" of a group of suburban women.
The second season of ABC's sex-laden Desperate Housewives is slated to begin in late September -- and Associated Press says the network hopes to "clean up" with another dry cleaning campaign for the prime-time drama. According to the report, last year's campaign featured plastic clothes covers emblazoned with "Desperate Housewives." But this time around, notes AP, the plastic will display the message: "New season. New dirty laundry."
Some may find it amusing that the popular series -- which earlier this month received 15 Emmy nominations -- is playing upon its own sex-based plot line in an advertising campaign. But one pro-family activist group finds little humor in a prime-time television program that promotes such societal ills as adultery and sexual promiscuity. OneMillionMoms.com (OMM) -- an online activism group affiliated with the American Family Association (AFA) -- seeks to exert its pro-family influence by encouraging advertisers not to sponsor such programming.
For example, after being contacted by OMM supporters, Mary Kay, one of the largest sellers of beauty care and cosmetic products, pulled its sponsorship of Desperate Housewives. Mary Kay spokesperson Shannon Summers contacted AFA director of special projects Randy Sharp, who spearheads OMM, and said: "We are going to revise our media mix that we are working on, and we will not have Desperate Housewives in that mix."
Don Wildmon, AFA founder and chairman, has described the ABC drama as "a television show that promotes prostitution, adult-teen sexual relations, infidelity, deception, seduction, adultery, promiscuity [and] sadomasochism." Wildmon applauded Mary Kay's decision.
"Mary Kay's philosophy -- 'God first, family second, and career third' -- is what has drawn countless women to the company in the first place," he said. "We are happy to see Mary Kay disassociate itself from such a wretched show."
According to AP, producers of the one-hour TV soap opera asked to be considered in the comedy series category for Emmy Awards, usually home to half-hour sitcoms.
News from Agape Press
High School Making Profanity Required Reading
Parent Protests High School Making Profanity Required Reading
By Jim Brown
July 27, 2005
(AgapePress) - Massachusetts parent Rick Plouffe is asking his local high school to remove a profanity-filled book from his daughter's required summer reading assignment. In an effort to enlighten students about the topic of autism, Wellesley High School is having students read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, a novel by Mark Haddon. But after reviewing the book, the Wellesley dad says he was shocked by its obscene content.
Plouffe, whose daughter will be a sophomore at the school this fall, says he got four pages into the novel and the "f-word" started popping up. And as he proceeded to finish the book, he says he encountered "just about every swear you can think of, including the 'c-word'."
Wellesley High School principal Rena Mirkin has responded to Plouffe's concerns about The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by saying the merit of the book outweighs its profane content. But Plouffe says he was troubled "that high school students from maybe 13 years and older were being exposed to this by a school administration that has a stated policy against profanity in the school."
The Massachusetts father says he is just one of several concerned Wellesley parents who want the obscene novel dumped from their children's reading list, and he believes many other residents support the move. "I have not heard from anybody in my neighborhood or in the community who's told me that I'm barking up the wrong tree," he points out.
But unfortunately, even though lots of other parents may agree with him that the reading material in question is unfit for the high school's required summer reading list, Plouffe says not all moms and dads are willing to speak out. Many "are concerned that if they voice their opinion there might be some negative ramifications as to their particular child," he contends, "and so they've told me, 'Rick, we're behind you -- but don't use our name.'"
According to a Wellesley Townsman news report, Plouffe doubts whether most parents have read the book; but he is convinced that, upon reading it, most would agree that its content is inappropriate for 13- to 15-year-olds. He says while he is allowing his daughter to read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, he is doing so with serious reservations.
News from Agape Press
By Jim Brown
July 27, 2005
(AgapePress) - Massachusetts parent Rick Plouffe is asking his local high school to remove a profanity-filled book from his daughter's required summer reading assignment. In an effort to enlighten students about the topic of autism, Wellesley High School is having students read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, a novel by Mark Haddon. But after reviewing the book, the Wellesley dad says he was shocked by its obscene content.
Plouffe, whose daughter will be a sophomore at the school this fall, says he got four pages into the novel and the "f-word" started popping up. And as he proceeded to finish the book, he says he encountered "just about every swear you can think of, including the 'c-word'."
Wellesley High School principal Rena Mirkin has responded to Plouffe's concerns about The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by saying the merit of the book outweighs its profane content. But Plouffe says he was troubled "that high school students from maybe 13 years and older were being exposed to this by a school administration that has a stated policy against profanity in the school."
The Massachusetts father says he is just one of several concerned Wellesley parents who want the obscene novel dumped from their children's reading list, and he believes many other residents support the move. "I have not heard from anybody in my neighborhood or in the community who's told me that I'm barking up the wrong tree," he points out.
But unfortunately, even though lots of other parents may agree with him that the reading material in question is unfit for the high school's required summer reading list, Plouffe says not all moms and dads are willing to speak out. Many "are concerned that if they voice their opinion there might be some negative ramifications as to their particular child," he contends, "and so they've told me, 'Rick, we're behind you -- but don't use our name.'"
According to a Wellesley Townsman news report, Plouffe doubts whether most parents have read the book; but he is convinced that, upon reading it, most would agree that its content is inappropriate for 13- to 15-year-olds. He says while he is allowing his daughter to read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, he is doing so with serious reservations.
News from Agape Press
Monday, July 25, 2005
Florida School Board Bars Sponge Bob: Pro-Homosexual Tolerance Video Declined
By Jim Brown
July 25, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Diversity Committee of the Broward County (Florida) School District has rejected a tolerance video featuring the cartoon character Sponge Bob and other popular children's TV figures. The committee recently voted 10 to 7 not to recommend the "We Are Family" DVD to the school board, which has been sent to more than 60,000 schools across the United States.
Local conservative radio talk show host Steve Kane has been a member of the Broward County School District's Diversity Committee for three years. He believes the We Are Family Foundation and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are using the video to get their foot in the door of school systems and to push a pro-homosexual agenda.
"Once they've established that liaison -- that acceptance -- with the school system," Kane asserts, "the next step is to try to go for a partnership arrangement with the school system. Then, of course, what you have to concern yourself [with] is the videos that come afterwards, which will become increasingly more 'pro' the lifestyle they are promoting."
With the homosexual activist movement, the radio commentator says, what one sees is rarely what one gets because many of its goals are advanced in devious ways. For instance, the We Are Family Foundation website previously contained a lot of homosexual-affirming material, including a tolerance pledge for kids. However, after a number of pro-family voices called attention to the group's apparent pro-homosexual agenda, the information has been removed from the foundation's site.
But Kane says now the Anti-Defamation League is using its reputation to push the We Are Family Foundation's agenda in schools. He says, "As the ADL makes this big issue of the fact they've got nothing to do with gays, nothing to do with homosexuality, all the people that are organizing this thing down here are all the major gay groups."
Although the ADL has not traditionally been a homosexual rights group, the South Florida radio host contends it has now become a pro-homosexual activist organization. "I keep saying 'Hey, if this has nothing to do with gays, why is it that all these meetings are being called by the gay activists? It's kind of just a little humorous sidelight," he says.
As a member of the local schools' Diversity Committee, Kane is opposing efforts by the We Are Family Foundation and the ADL to get the foundation's tolerance video shown in Broward County grade-school classrooms. Meanwhile, he continues to speak out against the encroachment of homosexual activism in the local and national public educational systems.
Florida School Board Bars Sponge Bob: Pro-Homosexual Tolerance Video Declined
July 25, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Diversity Committee of the Broward County (Florida) School District has rejected a tolerance video featuring the cartoon character Sponge Bob and other popular children's TV figures. The committee recently voted 10 to 7 not to recommend the "We Are Family" DVD to the school board, which has been sent to more than 60,000 schools across the United States.
Local conservative radio talk show host Steve Kane has been a member of the Broward County School District's Diversity Committee for three years. He believes the We Are Family Foundation and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are using the video to get their foot in the door of school systems and to push a pro-homosexual agenda.
"Once they've established that liaison -- that acceptance -- with the school system," Kane asserts, "the next step is to try to go for a partnership arrangement with the school system. Then, of course, what you have to concern yourself [with] is the videos that come afterwards, which will become increasingly more 'pro' the lifestyle they are promoting."
With the homosexual activist movement, the radio commentator says, what one sees is rarely what one gets because many of its goals are advanced in devious ways. For instance, the We Are Family Foundation website previously contained a lot of homosexual-affirming material, including a tolerance pledge for kids. However, after a number of pro-family voices called attention to the group's apparent pro-homosexual agenda, the information has been removed from the foundation's site.
But Kane says now the Anti-Defamation League is using its reputation to push the We Are Family Foundation's agenda in schools. He says, "As the ADL makes this big issue of the fact they've got nothing to do with gays, nothing to do with homosexuality, all the people that are organizing this thing down here are all the major gay groups."
Although the ADL has not traditionally been a homosexual rights group, the South Florida radio host contends it has now become a pro-homosexual activist organization. "I keep saying 'Hey, if this has nothing to do with gays, why is it that all these meetings are being called by the gay activists? It's kind of just a little humorous sidelight," he says.
As a member of the local schools' Diversity Committee, Kane is opposing efforts by the We Are Family Foundation and the ADL to get the foundation's tolerance video shown in Broward County grade-school classrooms. Meanwhile, he continues to speak out against the encroachment of homosexual activism in the local and national public educational systems.
Florida School Board Bars Sponge Bob: Pro-Homosexual Tolerance Video Declined
Homosexual activism threatens freedom of speech
By Rory Lieshman
Issue: July/August, 2005
In ruling last December on the constitutionality of same-sex “marriage,” the Supreme Court of Canada claimed that the protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence.” If that is so, how can it be that Canada’s human rights thought police are harassing Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary and Protestant activist Bill Whatcott of Regina for nothing other than the honest expression of their Christian faith?
Bishop Henry has come under fire for upholding the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality in a pastoral letter denouncing the Martin government’s bill on same-sex “marriage.” Citing this letter as evidence, Carol Johnson of Calgary has accused the Bishop of expressing views that are “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt” contrary to s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Code.
Marie Riddle, the director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, could have summarily dismissed this complaint on the ground that the bishop has an undeniable right to express his views on same-sex “marriage.” Instead, she has advised that the Commission could take a year to decide on summoning Bishop Henry before a human rights panel to answer to the complaint occasioned by his pastoral letter.
Meanwhile, Bill Whatcott has been embroiled with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal over the views he expressed on homosexuality in a series of flyers that he and other members of a group known as The Christian Truth Activists distributed in Regina and Saskatoon between September 2001 and April 2002. On May 5, the chairman of the Tribunal, Prince Albert lawyer Anil Pandila, ruled that in publishing these flyers, Whatcott had violated the ban in s. 14(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code on the publication and distribution of anything that promotes hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person on the basis of sexual orientation.
In support of this finding, Pandila noted that Whatcott’s flyers included statements like the following: “Sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and 3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!” “Born Gay? No Way! Homosexual sex is about risky and addictive behaviour!”
In testimony before the Tribunal, Whatcott defended these statements as truthful, citing as authority Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a former lecturer in psychiatry at Yale University and an internationally renowned expert on homosexuality. Whatcott also told Pandila that he harbours no ill-will for homosexuals. He testified that he used to engage in homosexual acts, that the Lord had set him free and that he is eager to help other homosexuals enjoy that same freedom.
Pandila rejected all of these arguments. Drawing upon precedents set by the Supreme Court of Canada, he held that the intentions of Whatcott in spreading the flyers were irrelevant; that the truthfulness of statements in the flyers was irrelevant; and that the guarantee of “freedom of conscience and religion” in s. 2(a) of the Charter does not give anyone the right to express religious convictions that expose homosexuals to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
All Christians should take note. In numerous cases like Whatcott’s, human rights tribunals and the courts have made clear that in their opinion, the equality rights of homosexuals in human rights codes and s. 15 of the Charter trump the ostensible guarantees of freedom of religion in the laws and the Constitution of Canada. Thanks to these judicial rulings, Canadians no longer have a legal right to make a public statement that is liable to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt, even if the statement is true and reflects the Christian convictions of the speaker.
As for Whatcott, Pandila has ordered him to cease distributing his flyers and to pay $17,500 in damages to four homosexual complainants. Whatcott has refused to comply. On the weekend of May 13-14, he and some fellow Christian Truth Activists defied the Tribunal, by distributing 1,000 more flyers in Saskatoon entitled: “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.”
Whatcott is on a course for jail as a Christian prisoner of conscience. Bishop Henry’s fate is less certain: It seems that human rights tribunals and the courts prefer to go after the little guys first.
Catholic Insight : Controversy : Homosexual activism threatens freedom of speech
Issue: July/August, 2005
In ruling last December on the constitutionality of same-sex “marriage,” the Supreme Court of Canada claimed that the protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence.” If that is so, how can it be that Canada’s human rights thought police are harassing Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary and Protestant activist Bill Whatcott of Regina for nothing other than the honest expression of their Christian faith?
Bishop Henry has come under fire for upholding the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality in a pastoral letter denouncing the Martin government’s bill on same-sex “marriage.” Citing this letter as evidence, Carol Johnson of Calgary has accused the Bishop of expressing views that are “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt” contrary to s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Code.
Marie Riddle, the director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, could have summarily dismissed this complaint on the ground that the bishop has an undeniable right to express his views on same-sex “marriage.” Instead, she has advised that the Commission could take a year to decide on summoning Bishop Henry before a human rights panel to answer to the complaint occasioned by his pastoral letter.
Meanwhile, Bill Whatcott has been embroiled with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal over the views he expressed on homosexuality in a series of flyers that he and other members of a group known as The Christian Truth Activists distributed in Regina and Saskatoon between September 2001 and April 2002. On May 5, the chairman of the Tribunal, Prince Albert lawyer Anil Pandila, ruled that in publishing these flyers, Whatcott had violated the ban in s. 14(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code on the publication and distribution of anything that promotes hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person on the basis of sexual orientation.
In support of this finding, Pandila noted that Whatcott’s flyers included statements like the following: “Sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and 3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!” “Born Gay? No Way! Homosexual sex is about risky and addictive behaviour!”
In testimony before the Tribunal, Whatcott defended these statements as truthful, citing as authority Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a former lecturer in psychiatry at Yale University and an internationally renowned expert on homosexuality. Whatcott also told Pandila that he harbours no ill-will for homosexuals. He testified that he used to engage in homosexual acts, that the Lord had set him free and that he is eager to help other homosexuals enjoy that same freedom.
Pandila rejected all of these arguments. Drawing upon precedents set by the Supreme Court of Canada, he held that the intentions of Whatcott in spreading the flyers were irrelevant; that the truthfulness of statements in the flyers was irrelevant; and that the guarantee of “freedom of conscience and religion” in s. 2(a) of the Charter does not give anyone the right to express religious convictions that expose homosexuals to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
All Christians should take note. In numerous cases like Whatcott’s, human rights tribunals and the courts have made clear that in their opinion, the equality rights of homosexuals in human rights codes and s. 15 of the Charter trump the ostensible guarantees of freedom of religion in the laws and the Constitution of Canada. Thanks to these judicial rulings, Canadians no longer have a legal right to make a public statement that is liable to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt, even if the statement is true and reflects the Christian convictions of the speaker.
As for Whatcott, Pandila has ordered him to cease distributing his flyers and to pay $17,500 in damages to four homosexual complainants. Whatcott has refused to comply. On the weekend of May 13-14, he and some fellow Christian Truth Activists defied the Tribunal, by distributing 1,000 more flyers in Saskatoon entitled: “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.”
Whatcott is on a course for jail as a Christian prisoner of conscience. Bishop Henry’s fate is less certain: It seems that human rights tribunals and the courts prefer to go after the little guys first.
Catholic Insight : Controversy : Homosexual activism threatens freedom of speech
Sunday, July 24, 2005
The sidewalks where terror breeds
July 24, 2005
A surprisingly informative piece in the Christian Science Monitor updates this March 2004 BBC article and explores how preachers of Islamic jihad use Islamic religious language to recruit people like the recent London bombers. Still no explanation from Iqbal Sacranie or anyone else about how to combat this sort of thing.
GREENWICH, ENGLAND - Outside a small, red-brick mosque, a young Muslim in sneakers and a white robe is lecturing a cluster of young men gathered on the sidewalk.
"The London bombings ... were about striking terror into the heart of the enemy," he thunders, just one week after the 7/7 attacks that killed 56 people and wounded hundreds more.
The Monitor doesn't mention, and probably doesn't know, that this is a reference to the Qur'an: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." (8:60).
Muslims around the world are being slaughtered, he tells them. "All we ask them is: 'Remove your troops from Muslim lands and we will stop all of this.' " The men nod in agreement. One glances into the baby stroller he's pushing. Car after car races past.
And yet troops were not in Muslim lands when this round of the conflict started, on 9/11. This is yet another example of how the pretexts for the conflict always change, while the jihad remains constant.
The preacher, who calls himself Abu Osama ("Father of Osama"), is one of a new breed of British radicals thriving at the margins of London's Muslim community.
Young, independent, and streetwise, they are preaching in urban slang outside the confines of Britain's mosques. They are helping teens and 20-somethings beat drugs and alcohol. And they are inspiring a new pool of impressionable young Muslims to consider killing their fellow Britons.
These radical bands constitute a small fraction of London's 1 million Muslims. But their freewheeling ideology - hardened in the jihadi echo chambers of cliques like Abu Osama's - is creating a new subculture within Britain's Islamic community. So far, the growing influence of these informal, maverick groups has gone largely undetected - and unchecked.
As older, camera-courting, foreign-born extremists like Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza al-Masri recede from relevance, their younger counterparts are striking out quietly and independently with a new brand of do-it-yourself radicalism.
"On the ground level, people like Bakri don't communicate with the youth," says Nadim Shehadi, an analyst at Chatham House, a think tank in London. The fragmentation of British radical groups and their dispersal underground, he adds, is the "worst of all possible options."
"When the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB] said 'We must be vigilant,' this pushed [radical groups] underground," says Abdul-Rehman Malik, contributing editor at the Muslim magazine Q-News, based London. As radicals fled to minor mosques and homes, Britain's security services, and even mainstream Muslims, lost track of them.
Did the 7/7 bombers come from Bakri's circle? "Probably not - it's something far more insidious," says Mr. Malik. "It's beyond the Omar Bakris; it's a low rumble."
Yearning for jihad
Abu Osama, just 30, was born and raised here in East London, amid peeling paint and dingy kebab shops. "I know English. I know Britain. But if I live here, I must speak for Muslims elsewhere," he says, stressing that he belongs first to the ummah, or global Islamic community.
Note that he doesn't say "But if I live here, I must abide by the laws of Britain and accept the parameters of British society." Instead, his primary allegiance is to the umma.
Abu Osama's faith deepened early. Watching his Pakistani immigrant father struggle to support his family of seven, he sought strength in Islam.
"I began praying and studying when I was 16, and since then I've been like this," he says, pointing to his long, curling beard.
Abu Osama first spoke publicly eight years ago; he has since won ardent followers.
Last fall, addressing a meeting of scores of British radicals, he sighed: "At the moment in Britain there is no jihad." Faces fell around the hall.
"Yet!" he exclaimed suddenly, to approving murmurs. The jihad would soon come, Abu Osama predicted, and he urged his listeners to embrace its arrival.
On 7/7, the jihad came. The suicide bombers were aged 18 to 30 - the same age as Abu Osama's cohorts. By portraying militancy as the ultimate expression of piety, Abu Osama and preachers like him are leading young Muslims down the path toward violence.
"Some of the people tell you Islam is a religion of peace because they think that then you'll want to convert," says Dublin-born convert Khalid Kelly, who soaks up Abu Osama's sidewalk sermon. "But you cannot possibly say Islam is a religion of peace; jihad is not an internal struggle."
Thank you for speaking the truth, Mr. Kelly. When non-Muslims say that they are tarred and vilified by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But no one can possibly call you an "Islamophobe." What, I wonder, would Iqbal Sacranie say to convince you that you are wrong -- if anything?
Armed struggle was the last thing on Mr. Kelly's mind until his conversion several years ago. "I was your average Irish drunkard, partying and so on," he says. Arrested in Saudi Arabia, where he worked as a nurse, for brewing his own alcohol, Kelly found Islam in prison - an increasingly common arena for Muslim conversion and radicalization.
After his return to Britain in 2002, Kelly quickly became a disciple of Bakri, a radical Syrian-born cleric based in Britain, who is most widely known for celebrating 9/11, and more recently, blaming 7/7 on British foreign policy. Through Bakri's circle, which is now largely underground, Kelly met Abu Osama. Now, they gravitate toward obscure mosques that nurture homegrown extremists.
"The imam here" - Kelly nods at the mosque - "said, 'Pray for the victory of the mujahideen in all the world.' He's talking about Osama bin Laden, but he can't say that."
Jihad Watch: The sidewalks where terror breeds
A surprisingly informative piece in the Christian Science Monitor updates this March 2004 BBC article and explores how preachers of Islamic jihad use Islamic religious language to recruit people like the recent London bombers. Still no explanation from Iqbal Sacranie or anyone else about how to combat this sort of thing.
GREENWICH, ENGLAND - Outside a small, red-brick mosque, a young Muslim in sneakers and a white robe is lecturing a cluster of young men gathered on the sidewalk.
"The London bombings ... were about striking terror into the heart of the enemy," he thunders, just one week after the 7/7 attacks that killed 56 people and wounded hundreds more.
The Monitor doesn't mention, and probably doesn't know, that this is a reference to the Qur'an: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." (8:60).
Muslims around the world are being slaughtered, he tells them. "All we ask them is: 'Remove your troops from Muslim lands and we will stop all of this.' " The men nod in agreement. One glances into the baby stroller he's pushing. Car after car races past.
And yet troops were not in Muslim lands when this round of the conflict started, on 9/11. This is yet another example of how the pretexts for the conflict always change, while the jihad remains constant.
The preacher, who calls himself Abu Osama ("Father of Osama"), is one of a new breed of British radicals thriving at the margins of London's Muslim community.
Young, independent, and streetwise, they are preaching in urban slang outside the confines of Britain's mosques. They are helping teens and 20-somethings beat drugs and alcohol. And they are inspiring a new pool of impressionable young Muslims to consider killing their fellow Britons.
These radical bands constitute a small fraction of London's 1 million Muslims. But their freewheeling ideology - hardened in the jihadi echo chambers of cliques like Abu Osama's - is creating a new subculture within Britain's Islamic community. So far, the growing influence of these informal, maverick groups has gone largely undetected - and unchecked.
As older, camera-courting, foreign-born extremists like Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza al-Masri recede from relevance, their younger counterparts are striking out quietly and independently with a new brand of do-it-yourself radicalism.
"On the ground level, people like Bakri don't communicate with the youth," says Nadim Shehadi, an analyst at Chatham House, a think tank in London. The fragmentation of British radical groups and their dispersal underground, he adds, is the "worst of all possible options."
"When the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB] said 'We must be vigilant,' this pushed [radical groups] underground," says Abdul-Rehman Malik, contributing editor at the Muslim magazine Q-News, based London. As radicals fled to minor mosques and homes, Britain's security services, and even mainstream Muslims, lost track of them.
Did the 7/7 bombers come from Bakri's circle? "Probably not - it's something far more insidious," says Mr. Malik. "It's beyond the Omar Bakris; it's a low rumble."
Yearning for jihad
Abu Osama, just 30, was born and raised here in East London, amid peeling paint and dingy kebab shops. "I know English. I know Britain. But if I live here, I must speak for Muslims elsewhere," he says, stressing that he belongs first to the ummah, or global Islamic community.
Note that he doesn't say "But if I live here, I must abide by the laws of Britain and accept the parameters of British society." Instead, his primary allegiance is to the umma.
Abu Osama's faith deepened early. Watching his Pakistani immigrant father struggle to support his family of seven, he sought strength in Islam.
"I began praying and studying when I was 16, and since then I've been like this," he says, pointing to his long, curling beard.
Abu Osama first spoke publicly eight years ago; he has since won ardent followers.
Last fall, addressing a meeting of scores of British radicals, he sighed: "At the moment in Britain there is no jihad." Faces fell around the hall.
"Yet!" he exclaimed suddenly, to approving murmurs. The jihad would soon come, Abu Osama predicted, and he urged his listeners to embrace its arrival.
On 7/7, the jihad came. The suicide bombers were aged 18 to 30 - the same age as Abu Osama's cohorts. By portraying militancy as the ultimate expression of piety, Abu Osama and preachers like him are leading young Muslims down the path toward violence.
"Some of the people tell you Islam is a religion of peace because they think that then you'll want to convert," says Dublin-born convert Khalid Kelly, who soaks up Abu Osama's sidewalk sermon. "But you cannot possibly say Islam is a religion of peace; jihad is not an internal struggle."
Thank you for speaking the truth, Mr. Kelly. When non-Muslims say that they are tarred and vilified by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But no one can possibly call you an "Islamophobe." What, I wonder, would Iqbal Sacranie say to convince you that you are wrong -- if anything?
Armed struggle was the last thing on Mr. Kelly's mind until his conversion several years ago. "I was your average Irish drunkard, partying and so on," he says. Arrested in Saudi Arabia, where he worked as a nurse, for brewing his own alcohol, Kelly found Islam in prison - an increasingly common arena for Muslim conversion and radicalization.
After his return to Britain in 2002, Kelly quickly became a disciple of Bakri, a radical Syrian-born cleric based in Britain, who is most widely known for celebrating 9/11, and more recently, blaming 7/7 on British foreign policy. Through Bakri's circle, which is now largely underground, Kelly met Abu Osama. Now, they gravitate toward obscure mosques that nurture homegrown extremists.
"The imam here" - Kelly nods at the mosque - "said, 'Pray for the victory of the mujahideen in all the world.' He's talking about Osama bin Laden, but he can't say that."
Jihad Watch: The sidewalks where terror breeds
Friday, July 22, 2005
Vile Literature in School Libraries
Arkansas Parents Uncover Volumes of Vile Literature in School Libraries
By Jim Brown
July 22, 2005
(AgapePress) - An Arkansas mother who succeeded in getting three sexually explicit books removed from Fayetteville school libraries says she has found there are more than a hundred books of that nature in the school district. Now a mental health counselor is recommending a parental audit of all the books in the city's school libraries.
According to a search conducted by Fayetteville mom Laurie Taylor, out of 502 books listed under "sex" in the city's middle, junior high, and high school libraries, there are 66 books on sex instruction, and 32 of those are on child sex instruction. Another 75 of the books deal with homosexuality, 23 fall under the category of lesbian fiction, 16 are on rape, 9 on incest, and there are even some books on bestiality.
Taylor and other concerned mothers and fathers are calling area school officials on the carpet for allowing books filled with profanity and gratuitous sex to remain on the shelves in the city's schools. The group has asked Superintendent Bobby New and school board members to restrict students' access to the materials. Meanwhile, Taylor and other parents have begun reviewing the libraries' collections and are providing a summary of some of the shocking and offensive content they have found on the "www.wpaag.org" website.
"The majority of these ... are fiction books," the Arkansas mom notes, "so there's no educational
value in them outside of the fact that they're literary -- and I hesitate when I say 'works' -- but they're literary works that have been put into our library system to, in my opinion, desensitize and indoctrinate our kids to thinking that sex with whoever, whenever, whatever you want to is okay."
Taylor points out that, although the bulk of these books are actually in the middle school and above, in Fayetteville any child in the entire county -- which covers several school districts -- can access any book from the library. "And here's the terrible thing," she adds; after choosing a possibly inappropriate book from any of the libraries, boys and girls can "have it delivered to their home school without their parents' consent or knowledge."
So far, Taylor says, "irresponsible" Fayetteville school officials have refused to address the issue, at least until school resumes. The National Coalition Against Censorship and other left-wing groups have written a letter to Superintendent New and the school board, urging them to resist removing or imposing a parental consent requirement on the sexually explicit books.
Mental Health Expert Appalled by School Libraries' Explicit Literature
Grove City College professor and psychologist Dr. Warren Throckmorton says he, too, is appalled by the content of scores of books on human sexuality in Fayetteville's school libraries. After reviewing just a portion of literature, the noted sexual orientation researcher and mental health counselor says he found the literary value of many offensive books to be of insufficient weight to overlook their sexually explicit content.
"We're talking not just about descriptions of sexual thoughts or feelings," Throckmorton says, "and certainly we're not talking about any kind of sexual education material. What we're talking about are things that are problems in schools, such as adult-child sexual relationships."
The psychology expert notes one particularly egregious example in particular, a book called Doing It by Melvin Burgess. In it, he says, "there's a description of a boy who has a sexual relationship with his teacher. He doesn't tell the authorities."
Another book to which Throckmorton took especial offense was Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez, which features a threesome of boys who believe they are homosexuals. "One of them has unprotected sex with an adult that he met through a Gay-Straight Alliance [club]," the mental health counselor says. And these kinds of books, he points out, "are touted as being recommended books by groups like the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, or GLSEN. And they're in these libraries. I don't understand what educational purpose [books like] this could possibly have to be in a school library."
Dr. Throckmorton says it is important to remember, researchers warn that kids who are exposed to sexually explicit material -- whether it be in books or on television -- are more inclined to engage in sexual activity. He feels an audit should be made of the books currently included in the Fayetteville School Libraries, to be conducted by a broad committee of parents in the school system.
News from Agape Press
By Jim Brown
July 22, 2005
(AgapePress) - An Arkansas mother who succeeded in getting three sexually explicit books removed from Fayetteville school libraries says she has found there are more than a hundred books of that nature in the school district. Now a mental health counselor is recommending a parental audit of all the books in the city's school libraries.
According to a search conducted by Fayetteville mom Laurie Taylor, out of 502 books listed under "sex" in the city's middle, junior high, and high school libraries, there are 66 books on sex instruction, and 32 of those are on child sex instruction. Another 75 of the books deal with homosexuality, 23 fall under the category of lesbian fiction, 16 are on rape, 9 on incest, and there are even some books on bestiality.
Taylor and other concerned mothers and fathers are calling area school officials on the carpet for allowing books filled with profanity and gratuitous sex to remain on the shelves in the city's schools. The group has asked Superintendent Bobby New and school board members to restrict students' access to the materials. Meanwhile, Taylor and other parents have begun reviewing the libraries' collections and are providing a summary of some of the shocking and offensive content they have found on the "www.wpaag.org" website.
"The majority of these ... are fiction books," the Arkansas mom notes, "so there's no educational
value in them outside of the fact that they're literary -- and I hesitate when I say 'works' -- but they're literary works that have been put into our library system to, in my opinion, desensitize and indoctrinate our kids to thinking that sex with whoever, whenever, whatever you want to is okay."
Taylor points out that, although the bulk of these books are actually in the middle school and above, in Fayetteville any child in the entire county -- which covers several school districts -- can access any book from the library. "And here's the terrible thing," she adds; after choosing a possibly inappropriate book from any of the libraries, boys and girls can "have it delivered to their home school without their parents' consent or knowledge."
So far, Taylor says, "irresponsible" Fayetteville school officials have refused to address the issue, at least until school resumes. The National Coalition Against Censorship and other left-wing groups have written a letter to Superintendent New and the school board, urging them to resist removing or imposing a parental consent requirement on the sexually explicit books.
Mental Health Expert Appalled by School Libraries' Explicit Literature
Grove City College professor and psychologist Dr. Warren Throckmorton says he, too, is appalled by the content of scores of books on human sexuality in Fayetteville's school libraries. After reviewing just a portion of literature, the noted sexual orientation researcher and mental health counselor says he found the literary value of many offensive books to be of insufficient weight to overlook their sexually explicit content.
"We're talking not just about descriptions of sexual thoughts or feelings," Throckmorton says, "and certainly we're not talking about any kind of sexual education material. What we're talking about are things that are problems in schools, such as adult-child sexual relationships."
The psychology expert notes one particularly egregious example in particular, a book called Doing It by Melvin Burgess. In it, he says, "there's a description of a boy who has a sexual relationship with his teacher. He doesn't tell the authorities."
Another book to which Throckmorton took especial offense was Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez, which features a threesome of boys who believe they are homosexuals. "One of them has unprotected sex with an adult that he met through a Gay-Straight Alliance [club]," the mental health counselor says. And these kinds of books, he points out, "are touted as being recommended books by groups like the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, or GLSEN. And they're in these libraries. I don't understand what educational purpose [books like] this could possibly have to be in a school library."
Dr. Throckmorton says it is important to remember, researchers warn that kids who are exposed to sexually explicit material -- whether it be in books or on television -- are more inclined to engage in sexual activity. He feels an audit should be made of the books currently included in the Fayetteville School Libraries, to be conducted by a broad committee of parents in the school system.
News from Agape Press
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Christianity Vanquished in Britain?
Believers in the U.K. Demand Changes from the Church
Feature by Ed Vitagliano
July 18, 2005
(AgapePress) - When Lord Bromley Betchworth returned to the United Kingdom (U.K.) after living in the U.S. for 12 years, he returned to a culture that had dramatically changed.
"I was shocked at how moral values had changed in such a short time and how church attendance in mainstream denominations was in free fall," he said. "Four out of five churches were either declining or simply static."
Betchworth wrote those words in the forward to a fascinating new report that seeks to explain the moral breakdown in a once vibrant Christian nation.
A Moral Collapse
In many ways, what has happened in the U.K. may be in the future for the U.S., because the two nations have had a similar religious past, according to Christie Davies, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Reading, England, and author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain.
"At the end of the 19th century, there were comparable levels of religiosity in Britain and the United States. The British lived in a culture in which the assumptions of Protestant Christianity were taken for granted," Davies wrote in The New Criterion.
But he said that, generally beginning after World War II, the nation's morality collapsed, and the U.K. saw dramatically worsening trends in illegitimacy, substance abuse, crime and other sorts of behavior that were once considered sinful.
In 2000, the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, also noted Britain's moral decline. "A tacit atheism prevails. Death is assumed to be the end of life. Our concentration on the here-and-now renders a thought of eternity irrelevant."
A year later, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who as archbishop of Westminster is the spiritual leader for more than four million Catholics in England and Wales, agreed. Quoted in The Times (London), he spoke of the rising popularity of New Age and occult beliefs, and to the growing tendency of people to find temporary happiness in alcohol, drugs, pornography, sex and consumerism.
"It does seem in our countries in Britain today, especially in England and Wales, that Christianity, as a sort of backdrop to people's lives and moral decisions -- and to the Government, the social life of the country -- has now almost been vanquished."
'Let the People Speak'
How did such a spiritual catastrophe occur? Some might be quick to point to the rise of secularism in the late 1800s and throughout the first half of the 20th century, which culminated in the U.K.'s acceptance of a welfare state after World War II.
However, secularism may be a result, and not a cause, of the death of religion in the U.K. In fact, Davies traces the first major evidences of Christianity's decline to the 1950s, when religious participation began to droop, especially as evidenced by Sunday School attendance.
In order to delve into these issues, the interdenominational Ecumenical Research Committee (ERC), convened in 2002, designed and executed a year-long survey of churchgoers "of every denomination and theological persuasion." More than 14,000 people responded to the questionnaire, which was designed with open-ended questions, instead of the more traditional "check box" format. This was done to allow respondents to elaborate on their feelings, rather than being steered to a limited number of options.
The report of the results, "Let the People Speak," noted that 91 percent of the responses expressed the same opinions.
"What was causing this erosion of values? Why were people turning away from the church? And more to the point, what can be done about it?" were the questions that the ERC's survey was attempting to answer, Betchworth said.
So, when the people spoke, what did they say? What were they looking for? The following are some of the answers found in the report:
Believing and Caring Shepherds. The failure of many ministers to defend the faith and responsibly carry out what parishioners expected of the clergy was a theme throughout the survey results.
For example, many respondents complained that their ministers hardly seemed to believe in Christianity themselves. Said one churchgoer: "Often clergy do little to try and convince us that God exists, let alone outline the logical reasons behind our belief in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection."
Ministers also came in for serious criticism when it came to conducting worship services. The report said many churchgoers complained about "shoddy services" and "ministers going through the motions," even to the point of virtually speed-reading through the sermon or preaching it in a voice that was "inaudible" or without any "real conviction or sincerity."
One middle-aged couple said, "We used to go to church expecting very little and came away with nothing. This has now changed to expecting nothing and coming away with even less .... [W]hat we want are services taken with a conviction and a passion for Christ."
Many people said they wanted clergy "to give greater priority to home visiting and pastoral care, in order to reflect God's love and concern for the individual."
That was something that most people couldn't get anywhere else. As one woman said, "It is a very uncaring world now, and the church should not be emulating this but rather standing out against it and being seen as a caring community."
However, due to organizational priorities in their denominations, parishioners said ministers were given so many administrative duties that they had no time to tend to the needs of the people beyond conducting services.
Solid Teaching. The report noted that there is "a spiritual hunger among congregations for a greater understanding of a wide range of relevant topics," and Christians think that hunger should be fed, at least to a large extent, during the sermon.
But they aren't getting that substance. Time and again, respondents complained that they were getting only "platitudes," "political and social sermons" or "matters of little spiritual significance."
A churchgoer declared, "I need help to grow in my faith and help to become the person Christ wants me to be."
"Tinkering around with service times or liturgy won't work if the message isn't there," said one churchgoer. "The heart of the matter is that congregations want to hear what the Bible says in a relevant way, with conviction and passion."
A Worshipping Community. "People want churches to give priority to the ministry of worship, satisfying all the various aspects worship involves," the survey report found.
As one might expect, there were thousands of responses dealing with the form, or style of worship in the service. While some called for more traditional liturgy, and others for a more modern approach, both sides conceded that a balance of styles would be fine. Almost all were in agreement, however, that services that "bordered on entertainment rather than worship" were the most disappointing.
Moreover, many of the respondents realized that their spiritual journey was not one to be taken alone, and so it is not surprising that "the sense of fellowship experienced" was also something that made a difference for churchgoers.
"They said that they derived pleasure from worshipping with others, it gave them a sense of belonging," the report said, " a sense of comradeship and a sense of being part of a 'spiritual family.'"
This sense of belonging to a spiritual family was made more critical because of the brokenness of relationships, marriages and families in the U.K.
A Prophetic Church. There was a real desire expressed in the survey responses for more teaching emphasis "on the nature of God's holiness and the implications this has for individuals and our two nations."
Many said this message had been missing from the church for decades, having been gradually replaced by a one-sided proclamation that God was "loving and nothing more."
Approximately 75 percent of respondents -- more than 10,000 in number -- saw the lack of a clarion call for holiness as a very real explanation for the decline of Christianity's influence in the U.K.
"Many who used to attend church are now filled with apathy," the report summarized. "They no longer see any point in attending, because the message they have been given is that 'God loves me anyway,' regardless of whether or not they attend church or change their lives, so why bother?"
This was one of the central laments of the Christians that answered the ERC questionnaire. People "are calling on churches to robustly defend moral values with conviction and courage and cease being 'silent' and 'lukewarm' in the face of moral collapse" in the U.K., the report said.
To accomplish this, the church must arise to its "divine calling" as a prophetic voice in the nation, because the church was given the task of "being the moral conscience of the [U.K.] and a proclaimer of the true character of God."
Defense of the Faith. In the face of an entrenched secularism in the U.K., many respondents said they wanted churches to "emphasize the many reasons why believing in God and Christianity makes sense and to challenge a doubting society."
This was a factor that was mentioned in 73 percent of the letters received. Said one churchgoer: "It is a myth to say that the people of this country have rejected Christianity; they simply haven't been told enough about it to either accept or reject it."
The lack of both a bold declaration of the Christian faith and a vigorous defense of Christian truths -- apologetics -- seems to have occasioned much discouragement among those Christians in the U.K. who remain true to the faith.
"If churches started defending these beleaguered [Christian] values, the effect would be profound, galvanizing and encouraging millions of ordinary decent people," Betchworth said.
Will the churches -- and especially the clergy -- listen to the thousands of Christians who responded to the ERC survey? Only time will tell, but the future of the United Kingdom may rest on that decision.
News from Agape Press
Feature by Ed Vitagliano
July 18, 2005
(AgapePress) - When Lord Bromley Betchworth returned to the United Kingdom (U.K.) after living in the U.S. for 12 years, he returned to a culture that had dramatically changed.
"I was shocked at how moral values had changed in such a short time and how church attendance in mainstream denominations was in free fall," he said. "Four out of five churches were either declining or simply static."
Betchworth wrote those words in the forward to a fascinating new report that seeks to explain the moral breakdown in a once vibrant Christian nation.
A Moral Collapse
In many ways, what has happened in the U.K. may be in the future for the U.S., because the two nations have had a similar religious past, according to Christie Davies, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Reading, England, and author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain.
"At the end of the 19th century, there were comparable levels of religiosity in Britain and the United States. The British lived in a culture in which the assumptions of Protestant Christianity were taken for granted," Davies wrote in The New Criterion.
But he said that, generally beginning after World War II, the nation's morality collapsed, and the U.K. saw dramatically worsening trends in illegitimacy, substance abuse, crime and other sorts of behavior that were once considered sinful.
In 2000, the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, also noted Britain's moral decline. "A tacit atheism prevails. Death is assumed to be the end of life. Our concentration on the here-and-now renders a thought of eternity irrelevant."
A year later, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who as archbishop of Westminster is the spiritual leader for more than four million Catholics in England and Wales, agreed. Quoted in The Times (London), he spoke of the rising popularity of New Age and occult beliefs, and to the growing tendency of people to find temporary happiness in alcohol, drugs, pornography, sex and consumerism.
"It does seem in our countries in Britain today, especially in England and Wales, that Christianity, as a sort of backdrop to people's lives and moral decisions -- and to the Government, the social life of the country -- has now almost been vanquished."
'Let the People Speak'
How did such a spiritual catastrophe occur? Some might be quick to point to the rise of secularism in the late 1800s and throughout the first half of the 20th century, which culminated in the U.K.'s acceptance of a welfare state after World War II.
However, secularism may be a result, and not a cause, of the death of religion in the U.K. In fact, Davies traces the first major evidences of Christianity's decline to the 1950s, when religious participation began to droop, especially as evidenced by Sunday School attendance.
In order to delve into these issues, the interdenominational Ecumenical Research Committee (ERC), convened in 2002, designed and executed a year-long survey of churchgoers "of every denomination and theological persuasion." More than 14,000 people responded to the questionnaire, which was designed with open-ended questions, instead of the more traditional "check box" format. This was done to allow respondents to elaborate on their feelings, rather than being steered to a limited number of options.
The report of the results, "Let the People Speak," noted that 91 percent of the responses expressed the same opinions.
"What was causing this erosion of values? Why were people turning away from the church? And more to the point, what can be done about it?" were the questions that the ERC's survey was attempting to answer, Betchworth said.
So, when the people spoke, what did they say? What were they looking for? The following are some of the answers found in the report:
Believing and Caring Shepherds. The failure of many ministers to defend the faith and responsibly carry out what parishioners expected of the clergy was a theme throughout the survey results.
For example, many respondents complained that their ministers hardly seemed to believe in Christianity themselves. Said one churchgoer: "Often clergy do little to try and convince us that God exists, let alone outline the logical reasons behind our belief in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection."
Ministers also came in for serious criticism when it came to conducting worship services. The report said many churchgoers complained about "shoddy services" and "ministers going through the motions," even to the point of virtually speed-reading through the sermon or preaching it in a voice that was "inaudible" or without any "real conviction or sincerity."
One middle-aged couple said, "We used to go to church expecting very little and came away with nothing. This has now changed to expecting nothing and coming away with even less .... [W]hat we want are services taken with a conviction and a passion for Christ."
Many people said they wanted clergy "to give greater priority to home visiting and pastoral care, in order to reflect God's love and concern for the individual."
That was something that most people couldn't get anywhere else. As one woman said, "It is a very uncaring world now, and the church should not be emulating this but rather standing out against it and being seen as a caring community."
However, due to organizational priorities in their denominations, parishioners said ministers were given so many administrative duties that they had no time to tend to the needs of the people beyond conducting services.
Solid Teaching. The report noted that there is "a spiritual hunger among congregations for a greater understanding of a wide range of relevant topics," and Christians think that hunger should be fed, at least to a large extent, during the sermon.
But they aren't getting that substance. Time and again, respondents complained that they were getting only "platitudes," "political and social sermons" or "matters of little spiritual significance."
A churchgoer declared, "I need help to grow in my faith and help to become the person Christ wants me to be."
"Tinkering around with service times or liturgy won't work if the message isn't there," said one churchgoer. "The heart of the matter is that congregations want to hear what the Bible says in a relevant way, with conviction and passion."
A Worshipping Community. "People want churches to give priority to the ministry of worship, satisfying all the various aspects worship involves," the survey report found.
As one might expect, there were thousands of responses dealing with the form, or style of worship in the service. While some called for more traditional liturgy, and others for a more modern approach, both sides conceded that a balance of styles would be fine. Almost all were in agreement, however, that services that "bordered on entertainment rather than worship" were the most disappointing.
Moreover, many of the respondents realized that their spiritual journey was not one to be taken alone, and so it is not surprising that "the sense of fellowship experienced" was also something that made a difference for churchgoers.
"They said that they derived pleasure from worshipping with others, it gave them a sense of belonging," the report said, " a sense of comradeship and a sense of being part of a 'spiritual family.'"
This sense of belonging to a spiritual family was made more critical because of the brokenness of relationships, marriages and families in the U.K.
A Prophetic Church. There was a real desire expressed in the survey responses for more teaching emphasis "on the nature of God's holiness and the implications this has for individuals and our two nations."
Many said this message had been missing from the church for decades, having been gradually replaced by a one-sided proclamation that God was "loving and nothing more."
Approximately 75 percent of respondents -- more than 10,000 in number -- saw the lack of a clarion call for holiness as a very real explanation for the decline of Christianity's influence in the U.K.
"Many who used to attend church are now filled with apathy," the report summarized. "They no longer see any point in attending, because the message they have been given is that 'God loves me anyway,' regardless of whether or not they attend church or change their lives, so why bother?"
This was one of the central laments of the Christians that answered the ERC questionnaire. People "are calling on churches to robustly defend moral values with conviction and courage and cease being 'silent' and 'lukewarm' in the face of moral collapse" in the U.K., the report said.
To accomplish this, the church must arise to its "divine calling" as a prophetic voice in the nation, because the church was given the task of "being the moral conscience of the [U.K.] and a proclaimer of the true character of God."
Defense of the Faith. In the face of an entrenched secularism in the U.K., many respondents said they wanted churches to "emphasize the many reasons why believing in God and Christianity makes sense and to challenge a doubting society."
This was a factor that was mentioned in 73 percent of the letters received. Said one churchgoer: "It is a myth to say that the people of this country have rejected Christianity; they simply haven't been told enough about it to either accept or reject it."
The lack of both a bold declaration of the Christian faith and a vigorous defense of Christian truths -- apologetics -- seems to have occasioned much discouragement among those Christians in the U.K. who remain true to the faith.
"If churches started defending these beleaguered [Christian] values, the effect would be profound, galvanizing and encouraging millions of ordinary decent people," Betchworth said.
Will the churches -- and especially the clergy -- listen to the thousands of Christians who responded to the ERC survey? Only time will tell, but the future of the United Kingdom may rest on that decision.
News from Agape Press
Rudolph prefers Nietzsche to the Bible
July 19, 2005
Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist?
Eric Rudolph is certainly a terrorist. But did he inflict terror in the name of Jesus? Quoting from letters to his mother, this CNN story suggests that it is more likely that he is an atheist:
...In another he refers to people who send him money and books.
"Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame," he wrote.
"I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."
Doesn't the media-pushed conventional wisdom of Eric Rudolph suggest that he is a "Christian" and that his "faith" inspired his heinous acts?
Why am I not surprised that this aspect of the Rudolph story hasn't been covered by the "objective" MSM?
Stones Cry Out: Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist?
Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist?
Eric Rudolph is certainly a terrorist. But did he inflict terror in the name of Jesus? Quoting from letters to his mother, this CNN story suggests that it is more likely that he is an atheist:
...In another he refers to people who send him money and books.
"Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame," he wrote.
"I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."
Doesn't the media-pushed conventional wisdom of Eric Rudolph suggest that he is a "Christian" and that his "faith" inspired his heinous acts?
Why am I not surprised that this aspect of the Rudolph story hasn't been covered by the "objective" MSM?
Stones Cry Out: Eric Rudolph: Christian Terrorist?
Science rightly interpreted is consistent with the Bible
Speakers to tackle Darwin's theories
Ron Brown
July 16, 2005
Organizers of the 2005 Creation Mega Conference at Liberty University next week will attempt to prove that teachers of evolution are all about monkey business.
With 27 Christian speakers, many of them with doctorate degrees, the conference will battle the theories of Charles Darwin with science, not religion, organizers say.
Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution, believed that human beings evolved from lesser organisms over many generations.
Darwin’s theory, not creationism, is taught in most public schools.
“We’ll be able to show people the mounting scientific evidence that supports creationism,” said David DeWitt, the director of Liberty University’s Center for Creation Studies. “There is so much propaganda out there depicting Creationists as ignorant. We’re not a bunch of flat Earthers.”
LU is co-hosting the conference with Answers in Genesis, a group headed by Ken Ham, who is one of the chief creationist proponents in America.
“This will be our annual national meeting,” said Mark Looy, vice president of outreach and co-founder of Answers in Genesis. “This will be our biggest conference of the year.”
Evening sessions of the conference will be open to the public. The sessions will be held at LU’s Vines Center.
About 1,100 people had registered for the conference by Friday and more are expected to register Sunday.
The conference will run from Sunday through Friday.
LU was selected as the site for the conference because Answers in Genesis personnel have come to know many LU professors, Looy said.
DeWitt, who is a biology professor at the school, will make a presentation on the molecular evidence of creation.
He says DNA science is consistent with the teachings of the Bible.
Proponents of evolution have used only about 1 percent of the DNA markers in supporting their assertions that human beings are the product of evolution, he said.
Genetic codes for molecules that make up organisms typically have about 3,000 markers, DeWitt said.
“They excluded major portions of the DNA letters and ignore major regions of the DNA where there are significant differences,” DeWitt said. “By looking at the full range of DNA letters, I will show important anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are designed to walk on four legs.”
The molecular evidence is only one area that will be explored during the conference.
The overriding theme of the conference is to debunk secular theory and to show a creator’s hand in the development of the universe.
“Science rightly interpreted is consistent with the Bible,” DeWitt said. “The speakers all believe in the Biblical account of creation.”
NewsAdvance.com | Speakers to tackle Darwin's theories
Ron Brown
July 16, 2005
Organizers of the 2005 Creation Mega Conference at Liberty University next week will attempt to prove that teachers of evolution are all about monkey business.
With 27 Christian speakers, many of them with doctorate degrees, the conference will battle the theories of Charles Darwin with science, not religion, organizers say.
Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution, believed that human beings evolved from lesser organisms over many generations.
Darwin’s theory, not creationism, is taught in most public schools.
“We’ll be able to show people the mounting scientific evidence that supports creationism,” said David DeWitt, the director of Liberty University’s Center for Creation Studies. “There is so much propaganda out there depicting Creationists as ignorant. We’re not a bunch of flat Earthers.”
LU is co-hosting the conference with Answers in Genesis, a group headed by Ken Ham, who is one of the chief creationist proponents in America.
“This will be our annual national meeting,” said Mark Looy, vice president of outreach and co-founder of Answers in Genesis. “This will be our biggest conference of the year.”
Evening sessions of the conference will be open to the public. The sessions will be held at LU’s Vines Center.
About 1,100 people had registered for the conference by Friday and more are expected to register Sunday.
The conference will run from Sunday through Friday.
LU was selected as the site for the conference because Answers in Genesis personnel have come to know many LU professors, Looy said.
DeWitt, who is a biology professor at the school, will make a presentation on the molecular evidence of creation.
He says DNA science is consistent with the teachings of the Bible.
Proponents of evolution have used only about 1 percent of the DNA markers in supporting their assertions that human beings are the product of evolution, he said.
Genetic codes for molecules that make up organisms typically have about 3,000 markers, DeWitt said.
“They excluded major portions of the DNA letters and ignore major regions of the DNA where there are significant differences,” DeWitt said. “By looking at the full range of DNA letters, I will show important anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are designed to walk on four legs.”
The molecular evidence is only one area that will be explored during the conference.
The overriding theme of the conference is to debunk secular theory and to show a creator’s hand in the development of the universe.
“Science rightly interpreted is consistent with the Bible,” DeWitt said. “The speakers all believe in the Biblical account of creation.”
NewsAdvance.com | Speakers to tackle Darwin's theories
Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far
Michael Gaynor
July 19, 2005
Fiorello LaGuardia, the legendary New York City mayor, acknowledged that when he made a mistake, it was "a whopper."
The same is true of the United States Supreme Court.
Which, unfortunately, as an institution, has been loathe to admit its monumental mistakes: ruling "separate but equal" to be constitutional, creating a constitutional right to abortion, and elevating itself above God in what is supposed to be "one nation, under God" that trusts "in God," by misruling that the United States and the States must be neutral as between religion and irreligion and refrain from supporting "all religions."
Plainly, the United States Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, grossly exceeded the institutional separation between church and state in a way that the religious men of various denominations who drafted and ratified the United States Constitution never envisioned.
Travesties of justice in the name of separation of church and state that would outrage the people who founded the United States of America, drafted its Constitution and adopted its Bill of Rights have followed, from the banning of voluntary nondenominational prayer in public schools to Ten Commandments displays in courthouses.
Did the United States Constitution really require complete separation of church and state, prevent the United States government from acknowledging God and supporting religion generally, and compel the United States government and state governments to be strictly neutral as between religion and "irreligion"?
The answer is no.
The contrary claims are secular extremist myths that need to be exposed.
In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court disregarded history and misconstrued the Constitution at the urging of the secular extremist minority and the expense of the overhwehelming religious majority in ruling that neither federal nor state governments "can pass laws which aid...all religions...."
In so ruling, the Court presumptuously substituted its personal view for the views of those who founded the United States, wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and adopted the First Amendment and misued a much-quoted letter in which Thomas Jefferson had described the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between church and state."
The First Amendment did not create a wall between church and state. It prohibited Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The kind of separation that was intended is suggested by Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President of the Constitutional Convention and then President of the United States, then commissioned L'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. That plan included a church "intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open to all." The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from supporting religion generally to please a tiny Godless minority.
Traditional nonsectarian acknowledgements of God by federal or state government, including the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on United States currency, the recitation of a voluntary nondenominational prayer in a public school, and the display of a Ten Commandments monument in both federal and state courthouses, were intended to be constitutionally permissible, and coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a religion or prohibit or penalize the free exercise of religion (or personal choice NOT to be religious) were intended to be unconstitutional.
'Construing the Constitution'
In 1823, Thomas Jefferson opined in a private letter how constitutional meaning should be ascertained: "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it passed."
The initial United States Supreme Court decisions adopted the same approach.
In M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819), Jefferson's cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall, noted that the United States government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers," but that "there is no phrase in [the Constitution] which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described."
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Marshall endorsed natural construction of the Constitution, since "the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said."
In Ogden v. Saunders (1827), Marshall noted that "the intention of the instrument must prevail" and "be collected from its words," "its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended," and "its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them nor contemplated by its framers...."
'Contemplation of the Framers'
The Founding Fathers were Christians, not secular humanists. John Adams wrote in 1813 that "[t]he general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity . . . ." America's greatest chief justice, John Marshall, proclaimed in 1833: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it." Marshall's statement was not literally true, of course; Americans were not even then entirely Christian. But Marshall's point was that Americans were a people of faith and their government should recognize it.
When Jesus spoke of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and rendering unto God that which is God's, He was identifying separate obligations of individuals in society, not requiring complete separation of church and state or absolving states of their duty to God.
This was generally understood and accepted. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution each recognized God and the Articles and Constitution were dated "in the year of our Lord."
'Scope of First Amendment'
The First Amendment did not prohibit government from acknowledging God or supporting religion generally. Only coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a particular faith or prohibit the free exercise of any faith were barred. And Jefferson's "wall" was to keep government from interfering with that religious expression without excluding religious expression from public life.
Justice William Douglas put it well in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), in upholding a public school "released time" program: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."
Now Chief Justice William Rehnquist rightly asserted in dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) that the establishment clause was intended only to stop the federal government from establishing a national church or preferring one sect over another, and certainly not to require governmental neutrality between religion and "irreligion."
Justices Scalia and Thomas agree.
So did the leading legal commentators of the nineteenth century.
Thomas Cooley, in Constitutional Limitations, stated that recognition of God and general support for religion were governmental prerogatives: "[T]he American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires. . . . Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws."
Cooley concluded, "No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures; or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation."
Cooley emphasized that government needs to "foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." "Public recognition of religious worship," he wrote, is based on "the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction."
This attitude prevailed when the first Congress passed both the First Amendment and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which explicitly integrated religion and public education. Article III of the ordinance states: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Two years later George Washington warned, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."
The signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Framers of the Constitution, and the members of the first Congress and the state legislatures that enacted and ratified the First Amendment humbly recognized their dependence upon God. In lamenting the absence of daily prayers during the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin asked: "[H]ow has it happened . . . that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? . . . [H]ave we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. . . . We have been assured . . . in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' "
The Declaration humbly appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and proclaims "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence," as well as referring to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and a "Creator" who endowed "all men . . . with certain inalienable Rights."
The Constitution not only refers to "the Blessings of Liberty" in its preamble, but excludes Sundays in calculating the time in which a presidential veto must be issued. Further, it deliberately integrates religion into public affairs, while not compelling the unreligious to practice faith, by providing for oaths or affirmations. If the Framers had intended to separate church and state completely and embrace secularism, then they would have provided only for affirmations.
The First Amendment was adopted to afford atheists a right to not recognize God, to be sure, but not to give them a right to preclude government from doing so or from supporting religion generally — as the seminal Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story show.
Justice Story explained that the First Amendment's object was "to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment...." "[T]he duty of supporting religion," Story emphasized, was "very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner which, they believe, their accountability to him requires."
Story conceived of governmental support for religion as a responsibility, rather than a prerogative, and not less important than respect for private religious beliefs. In his words, "it is the especial duty of government to foster" religion, and this duty is "wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."
The current notion that public recognition of God and support for religion generally must yield to "the right of private judgment" surely would have been absurd to Justice Story. In his view, "the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice."
According to Justice Story, "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it . . . , the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship," and that "an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."
'The Supreme Court's Egregious Error'
This generally unappreciated historical record reveals the error of the Supreme Court's ways. In its zeal to purge the public square of endorsements and even accommodations of religion, the Court has construed the Constitution's ban on "an establishment of religion" much too broadly and thereby paved the way for lower courts to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance and to order the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of an Alabama courthouse (while leaving undisturbed the United States Supreme Court's own Ten Commandments display).
After World War II, the United States Supreme Court arbitrarily extended the First Amendment's establishment clause, by judicial invention, to separate church and state in a way that inhibits the free exercise of religion required by the First Amendment's free exercise clause but provides freedom from religion to the unreligious minority. THAT surely was not contemplated by the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution and the First Amendment, and would not have been comprehensible to them.
America was not conceived of by those men as a theocracy or a secular state, but as "one nation, under God." The notion that under the Constitution the United States government cannot acknowledge God and instead must maintain a strict neutrality between religion and irreligion would have been considered absurd by virtually all the Founders, Framers, members of the First Congress and members of the state legislatures that ratified the First Amendment.
As Justice Stanley Reed related in rejecting the overbroad meaning given to the "Establishment Clause":
"When the First Amendment was pending in Congress in substantially its present form, 'Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.'"
To be sure, the Constitution explicitly proscribed any religious test as a requirement for holding an office or a position of public trust under the United States government. But the Constitution was framed by Christian men who recognized the dependence upon religion of the government created by the Constitution as well as God. Rightly or wrongly, these people strongly believed that religion was essential to good government. As President John Adams put it:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Framer Gouvernor Morris explained why: "Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible Support of free governments." On that basis, Morris called for education to "teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man to God."
The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1777. They went into effect in 1781. Article II specified that Congress obtained only those powers and rights "expressly delegated" to it. The only express reference to religion was in Article III, which bound the Confederation to defend any state attacked "on account of religion...." But the Articles did state that "it has pleased the Great Governor of the world [God] to incline the hearts of the legislatures [represented by the drafters] to approve of, and to authorize [them] to ratify the said Articles...."
Notwithstanding the absence of express authority to concern itself with religion, the Continental/Confederation Congress did so without objection. It promoted a nondenominational Christianity. In 1777 the Congress ordered 20,000 Holy Bibles for distribution among the states. It appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces (in a manner designed to prevent any denomination from monopolizing government patronage), granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians, and periodically proclaimed national days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting and prayer" as the Revolutionary War proceeded. In 1776, it called for the people, "by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, to appease [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits of Jesus Christ, [to] obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Six years later, it issued a Thanksgiving proclamation calling on the people "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness." Earlier that year, it had officially recommended a Bible edition prepared by Robert Aitken (the first English language Bible published in North America) "to the inhabitants of the United States."
The First Congress envisioned an institutional separation of church and state, but it did not expect complete separation of church and state. The state was not to interfere with religion, but religion was expected to be part of public life. The First Congress resolved that the chaplain policy of the prior Congress be continued. It approved the First Amendment's religious clauses to prohibit the establishment of a national church or the disestablishment of any church and to protect the right of conscience of all individuals, not to turn away from God and embrace secular humanism.
In 1789 the First Congress also re-passed the Northwest Ordinance, originally adopted two years earlier under the Articles of Confederation. The first article of that ordinance set forth the guarantee of religious freedom that was intended under the First Amendment as well: "No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory." The third article expressly encouraged public schools, because "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and to the happiness of mankind." Patently, religious freedom was conceived of as a shield for all peaceful people and not as a sword for any minority to use to block the government from recognizing God and supporting religion generally.
In the mid nineteenth century, Congress rejected a secular extremist challenge to the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy. After careful study, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report explaining the establishment clause:
"The clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.' What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided...."
The report further stated that the Founders were "utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience" and therefore they opposed the establishment of a religion in the same manner that the church of England was established. But, the Founders "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people....They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of 'atheistic apathy.' Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted."
A similar House Judiciary Committee report explained that "an establishment of religion" was a term of art with a specific meaning:
"What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rights and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive, and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an establishment of religion without all these."
'Washington's First Thanksgiving Proclamation'
The person most likely to know what the First Amendment was intended to mean probably was George Washington, the Father of the Country, President of the Constitutional Convention and first President of the United States under the Constitution.
In 1789, at the urging of Congress, President Washington issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation. It stated that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." There was no caveat to the effect that there was a higher duty to refrain if an atheist claimed that his or her sensibilities would be offended by such actions and he or she would feel like a second-class citizen.
The joint purpose of Washington and the First Congress was "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" The Pledge of Allegiance had not yet been written, but Washington and the First Congress obviously perceived the United States as a nation "under God."
Accordingly, Washington designated a day for devotion to God, acknowledged God as "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be," and called upon all Americans to "unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been able to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
Washington and the First Congress would have been incredulous to learn that their actions ever would be considered to be unconstitutional. After all, the Constitution had been established to secure "the Blessings of Liberty" and the federal government was calling upon all Americans to "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations" for the purpose of having God "pardon our national and other transgressions," "enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually," and "render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed" as well as "to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show[n] kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."
'Thomas Jefferson'
In misinterpreting the establishment clause, the United States Supreme Court misused a statement by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to a Baptist group that "the whole American people...declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson's much quoted statement has been misinterpreted as a prohibition against government acknowledging God and supporting religion generally instead of only a protection of churches from governmental interference. But the "wall of separation" that Jefferson contemplated was a wall that keeps government from interfering with religious freedom, not a wall that keeps any religious expression out of schools, courthouses and other public places. Jefferson's own preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom explicitly acknowledged "Almighty God" as "the Holy Author of our religion" and "Lord both of body and mind."
Jefferson did not envision that the institutional separation he had in mind would ever be expanded to prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms. Jefferson's own actions as President demonstrate that his words were misinterpreted. As President, Jefferson attended voluntary and nondiscriminatory religious services held at the Capitol (as did President Madison). In 1803, Jefferson called on Congress to approve a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that provided for the United States to pay a Catholic missionary priest $100 a year. It was not an oversight. Jefferson later recommended two other Indian treaties with similar provisions. Jefferson also extended three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands "[f]or the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethen missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." If the United States Supreme Court was right, then Jefferson himself repeatedly violated the establishment clause. But, as the House Judiciary Committee report set forth in detail, "an establishment of religion" requires much more.
The Adamses of Massachusets knew what they were talking about.
John Adams declared that America's independence "ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.
"You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means; that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we (may regret) it, which I trust in God we shall not."
Samuel Adams was more succinct, but equally enthusiastic and devout:
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come."
And John Quincey Adams, on July 4, 1837, the 61st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, showed that he too expected religious values to inform public policy and religious expression to be welcome in the public square:
"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
"Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
"That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before."
The faithful Founders and Framers probably would revolt against the faithless United States Supreme Court majority if it were within their power!
But there is another solution: President Bush and his successors should nominate judges who are faithful to the Constitution instead of faithless secular extremists who shamelessly claim the mainstream for themselves and ignore the will of the vast majority of Americans.
The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far
July 19, 2005
Fiorello LaGuardia, the legendary New York City mayor, acknowledged that when he made a mistake, it was "a whopper."
The same is true of the United States Supreme Court.
Which, unfortunately, as an institution, has been loathe to admit its monumental mistakes: ruling "separate but equal" to be constitutional, creating a constitutional right to abortion, and elevating itself above God in what is supposed to be "one nation, under God" that trusts "in God," by misruling that the United States and the States must be neutral as between religion and irreligion and refrain from supporting "all religions."
Plainly, the United States Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, grossly exceeded the institutional separation between church and state in a way that the religious men of various denominations who drafted and ratified the United States Constitution never envisioned.
Travesties of justice in the name of separation of church and state that would outrage the people who founded the United States of America, drafted its Constitution and adopted its Bill of Rights have followed, from the banning of voluntary nondenominational prayer in public schools to Ten Commandments displays in courthouses.
Did the United States Constitution really require complete separation of church and state, prevent the United States government from acknowledging God and supporting religion generally, and compel the United States government and state governments to be strictly neutral as between religion and "irreligion"?
The answer is no.
The contrary claims are secular extremist myths that need to be exposed.
In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court disregarded history and misconstrued the Constitution at the urging of the secular extremist minority and the expense of the overhwehelming religious majority in ruling that neither federal nor state governments "can pass laws which aid...all religions...."
In so ruling, the Court presumptuously substituted its personal view for the views of those who founded the United States, wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and adopted the First Amendment and misued a much-quoted letter in which Thomas Jefferson had described the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between church and state."
The First Amendment did not create a wall between church and state. It prohibited Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The kind of separation that was intended is suggested by Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President of the Constitutional Convention and then President of the United States, then commissioned L'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. That plan included a church "intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open to all." The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from supporting religion generally to please a tiny Godless minority.
Traditional nonsectarian acknowledgements of God by federal or state government, including the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on United States currency, the recitation of a voluntary nondenominational prayer in a public school, and the display of a Ten Commandments monument in both federal and state courthouses, were intended to be constitutionally permissible, and coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a religion or prohibit or penalize the free exercise of religion (or personal choice NOT to be religious) were intended to be unconstitutional.
'Construing the Constitution'
In 1823, Thomas Jefferson opined in a private letter how constitutional meaning should be ascertained: "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it passed."
The initial United States Supreme Court decisions adopted the same approach.
In M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819), Jefferson's cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall, noted that the United States government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers," but that "there is no phrase in [the Constitution] which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described."
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Marshall endorsed natural construction of the Constitution, since "the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said."
In Ogden v. Saunders (1827), Marshall noted that "the intention of the instrument must prevail" and "be collected from its words," "its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended," and "its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them nor contemplated by its framers...."
'Contemplation of the Framers'
The Founding Fathers were Christians, not secular humanists. John Adams wrote in 1813 that "[t]he general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity . . . ." America's greatest chief justice, John Marshall, proclaimed in 1833: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it." Marshall's statement was not literally true, of course; Americans were not even then entirely Christian. But Marshall's point was that Americans were a people of faith and their government should recognize it.
When Jesus spoke of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and rendering unto God that which is God's, He was identifying separate obligations of individuals in society, not requiring complete separation of church and state or absolving states of their duty to God.
This was generally understood and accepted. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution each recognized God and the Articles and Constitution were dated "in the year of our Lord."
'Scope of First Amendment'
The First Amendment did not prohibit government from acknowledging God or supporting religion generally. Only coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a particular faith or prohibit the free exercise of any faith were barred. And Jefferson's "wall" was to keep government from interfering with that religious expression without excluding religious expression from public life.
Justice William Douglas put it well in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), in upholding a public school "released time" program: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."
Now Chief Justice William Rehnquist rightly asserted in dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) that the establishment clause was intended only to stop the federal government from establishing a national church or preferring one sect over another, and certainly not to require governmental neutrality between religion and "irreligion."
Justices Scalia and Thomas agree.
So did the leading legal commentators of the nineteenth century.
Thomas Cooley, in Constitutional Limitations, stated that recognition of God and general support for religion were governmental prerogatives: "[T]he American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires. . . . Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws."
Cooley concluded, "No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures; or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation."
Cooley emphasized that government needs to "foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." "Public recognition of religious worship," he wrote, is based on "the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction."
This attitude prevailed when the first Congress passed both the First Amendment and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which explicitly integrated religion and public education. Article III of the ordinance states: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Two years later George Washington warned, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."
The signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Framers of the Constitution, and the members of the first Congress and the state legislatures that enacted and ratified the First Amendment humbly recognized their dependence upon God. In lamenting the absence of daily prayers during the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin asked: "[H]ow has it happened . . . that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? . . . [H]ave we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. . . . We have been assured . . . in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' "
The Declaration humbly appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and proclaims "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence," as well as referring to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and a "Creator" who endowed "all men . . . with certain inalienable Rights."
The Constitution not only refers to "the Blessings of Liberty" in its preamble, but excludes Sundays in calculating the time in which a presidential veto must be issued. Further, it deliberately integrates religion into public affairs, while not compelling the unreligious to practice faith, by providing for oaths or affirmations. If the Framers had intended to separate church and state completely and embrace secularism, then they would have provided only for affirmations.
The First Amendment was adopted to afford atheists a right to not recognize God, to be sure, but not to give them a right to preclude government from doing so or from supporting religion generally — as the seminal Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story show.
Justice Story explained that the First Amendment's object was "to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment...." "[T]he duty of supporting religion," Story emphasized, was "very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner which, they believe, their accountability to him requires."
Story conceived of governmental support for religion as a responsibility, rather than a prerogative, and not less important than respect for private religious beliefs. In his words, "it is the especial duty of government to foster" religion, and this duty is "wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."
The current notion that public recognition of God and support for religion generally must yield to "the right of private judgment" surely would have been absurd to Justice Story. In his view, "the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice."
According to Justice Story, "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it . . . , the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship," and that "an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."
'The Supreme Court's Egregious Error'
This generally unappreciated historical record reveals the error of the Supreme Court's ways. In its zeal to purge the public square of endorsements and even accommodations of religion, the Court has construed the Constitution's ban on "an establishment of religion" much too broadly and thereby paved the way for lower courts to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance and to order the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of an Alabama courthouse (while leaving undisturbed the United States Supreme Court's own Ten Commandments display).
After World War II, the United States Supreme Court arbitrarily extended the First Amendment's establishment clause, by judicial invention, to separate church and state in a way that inhibits the free exercise of religion required by the First Amendment's free exercise clause but provides freedom from religion to the unreligious minority. THAT surely was not contemplated by the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution and the First Amendment, and would not have been comprehensible to them.
America was not conceived of by those men as a theocracy or a secular state, but as "one nation, under God." The notion that under the Constitution the United States government cannot acknowledge God and instead must maintain a strict neutrality between religion and irreligion would have been considered absurd by virtually all the Founders, Framers, members of the First Congress and members of the state legislatures that ratified the First Amendment.
As Justice Stanley Reed related in rejecting the overbroad meaning given to the "Establishment Clause":
"When the First Amendment was pending in Congress in substantially its present form, 'Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.'"
To be sure, the Constitution explicitly proscribed any religious test as a requirement for holding an office or a position of public trust under the United States government. But the Constitution was framed by Christian men who recognized the dependence upon religion of the government created by the Constitution as well as God. Rightly or wrongly, these people strongly believed that religion was essential to good government. As President John Adams put it:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Framer Gouvernor Morris explained why: "Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible Support of free governments." On that basis, Morris called for education to "teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man to God."
The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1777. They went into effect in 1781. Article II specified that Congress obtained only those powers and rights "expressly delegated" to it. The only express reference to religion was in Article III, which bound the Confederation to defend any state attacked "on account of religion...." But the Articles did state that "it has pleased the Great Governor of the world [God] to incline the hearts of the legislatures [represented by the drafters] to approve of, and to authorize [them] to ratify the said Articles...."
Notwithstanding the absence of express authority to concern itself with religion, the Continental/Confederation Congress did so without objection. It promoted a nondenominational Christianity. In 1777 the Congress ordered 20,000 Holy Bibles for distribution among the states. It appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces (in a manner designed to prevent any denomination from monopolizing government patronage), granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians, and periodically proclaimed national days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting and prayer" as the Revolutionary War proceeded. In 1776, it called for the people, "by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, to appease [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits of Jesus Christ, [to] obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Six years later, it issued a Thanksgiving proclamation calling on the people "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness." Earlier that year, it had officially recommended a Bible edition prepared by Robert Aitken (the first English language Bible published in North America) "to the inhabitants of the United States."
The First Congress envisioned an institutional separation of church and state, but it did not expect complete separation of church and state. The state was not to interfere with religion, but religion was expected to be part of public life. The First Congress resolved that the chaplain policy of the prior Congress be continued. It approved the First Amendment's religious clauses to prohibit the establishment of a national church or the disestablishment of any church and to protect the right of conscience of all individuals, not to turn away from God and embrace secular humanism.
In 1789 the First Congress also re-passed the Northwest Ordinance, originally adopted two years earlier under the Articles of Confederation. The first article of that ordinance set forth the guarantee of religious freedom that was intended under the First Amendment as well: "No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory." The third article expressly encouraged public schools, because "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and to the happiness of mankind." Patently, religious freedom was conceived of as a shield for all peaceful people and not as a sword for any minority to use to block the government from recognizing God and supporting religion generally.
In the mid nineteenth century, Congress rejected a secular extremist challenge to the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy. After careful study, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report explaining the establishment clause:
"The clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.' What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided...."
The report further stated that the Founders were "utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience" and therefore they opposed the establishment of a religion in the same manner that the church of England was established. But, the Founders "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people....They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of 'atheistic apathy.' Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted."
A similar House Judiciary Committee report explained that "an establishment of religion" was a term of art with a specific meaning:
"What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rights and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive, and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an establishment of religion without all these."
'Washington's First Thanksgiving Proclamation'
The person most likely to know what the First Amendment was intended to mean probably was George Washington, the Father of the Country, President of the Constitutional Convention and first President of the United States under the Constitution.
In 1789, at the urging of Congress, President Washington issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation. It stated that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." There was no caveat to the effect that there was a higher duty to refrain if an atheist claimed that his or her sensibilities would be offended by such actions and he or she would feel like a second-class citizen.
The joint purpose of Washington and the First Congress was "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" The Pledge of Allegiance had not yet been written, but Washington and the First Congress obviously perceived the United States as a nation "under God."
Accordingly, Washington designated a day for devotion to God, acknowledged God as "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be," and called upon all Americans to "unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been able to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
Washington and the First Congress would have been incredulous to learn that their actions ever would be considered to be unconstitutional. After all, the Constitution had been established to secure "the Blessings of Liberty" and the federal government was calling upon all Americans to "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations" for the purpose of having God "pardon our national and other transgressions," "enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually," and "render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed" as well as "to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show[n] kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."
'Thomas Jefferson'
In misinterpreting the establishment clause, the United States Supreme Court misused a statement by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to a Baptist group that "the whole American people...declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson's much quoted statement has been misinterpreted as a prohibition against government acknowledging God and supporting religion generally instead of only a protection of churches from governmental interference. But the "wall of separation" that Jefferson contemplated was a wall that keeps government from interfering with religious freedom, not a wall that keeps any religious expression out of schools, courthouses and other public places. Jefferson's own preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom explicitly acknowledged "Almighty God" as "the Holy Author of our religion" and "Lord both of body and mind."
Jefferson did not envision that the institutional separation he had in mind would ever be expanded to prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms. Jefferson's own actions as President demonstrate that his words were misinterpreted. As President, Jefferson attended voluntary and nondiscriminatory religious services held at the Capitol (as did President Madison). In 1803, Jefferson called on Congress to approve a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that provided for the United States to pay a Catholic missionary priest $100 a year. It was not an oversight. Jefferson later recommended two other Indian treaties with similar provisions. Jefferson also extended three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands "[f]or the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethen missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." If the United States Supreme Court was right, then Jefferson himself repeatedly violated the establishment clause. But, as the House Judiciary Committee report set forth in detail, "an establishment of religion" requires much more.
The Adamses of Massachusets knew what they were talking about.
John Adams declared that America's independence "ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.
"You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means; that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we (may regret) it, which I trust in God we shall not."
Samuel Adams was more succinct, but equally enthusiastic and devout:
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come."
And John Quincey Adams, on July 4, 1837, the 61st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, showed that he too expected religious values to inform public policy and religious expression to be welcome in the public square:
"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
"Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
"That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before."
The faithful Founders and Framers probably would revolt against the faithless United States Supreme Court majority if it were within their power!
But there is another solution: President Bush and his successors should nominate judges who are faithful to the Constitution instead of faithless secular extremists who shamelessly claim the mainstream for themselves and ignore the will of the vast majority of Americans.
The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)