Perspectives: Does The Golden Compass point to a new atheism?
Rebecca Grace - Guest Columnist
OneNewsNow.com
October 29, 2007
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/perspectives_does_the_golden_c.php
It all started with a phone call I received several months ago. A concerned mother called to tell me about The Golden Compass, an upcoming film from New Line Cinema. Several more phone calls followed the first one as did a plethora of emails expressing disgust over this movie -- and rightly so.
I plan to review the movie, but I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet. So, in the meantime, here is some information that will help you understand why the film has the potential to be extremely dark and dangerous.
According to CNSNews.com, leading atheist writers and intellectuals are engaged in a "scientific" quest to ultimately destroy organized religion, particularly Christianity. Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris and journalist Christopher Hitchens are some of the big names leading this "new atheism" initiative. Evidence of their agenda is seen in efforts such as the Out Campaign and the Blasphemy Challenge.
CNSNews.com defines the Out Campaign as "a movement started by Dawkins to encourage Americans to proudly display their atheism."
ABC News describes the Blasphemy Challenge as a way "to challenge people to make videos of themselves denying, denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube." ABC News also calls it "the cutting edge of a new and emboldened wave of atheism."
The Blasphemy Challenge targets teens while an upcoming movie that may have a similar agenda is likely to appeal to families, especially children.
The Golden Compass is a film from New Line Cinema based on the first book of a series, His Dark Materials, written by English atheist Philip Pullman. It is set to release December 7 in theaters nationwide. From watching the trailer, it's easy to see that the film has a C. S. Lewis/Narnia feel to it, but don't be deceived.
Pullman's book trilogy is the story of "a battle against the church and a fight to overthrow God," BBC News reported. The Guardian, a British newspaper, goes even further to describe the books as "metaphysical fantasies encompassing parallel worlds, the death of God and the fall of man ...."
"I don't know whether there's a God or not. Nobody does, no matter what they say," Pullman said in an interview posted on his website.
Therefore, without yet seeing the film, at least one pro-family group -- the American Family Association -- is alerting Christians to the potential dangers of The Golden Compass. Because of Pullman's clearly articulated anti-Christian motives, AFA is warning all viewers to run from the film.
The Golden Compass is set in an alternative world with a sinister Magisterium. It is about a girl named Lyra who sets out to rescue her friend Roger who has been kidnapped by an organization known as the Gobblers. Roger's rescue turns into an epic quest to save two different worlds -- one in which people's souls manifest themselves as animals. These manifestations are known as "daemons," and Pullman says they help a person grow toward wisdom.
In addition, the movie website allows visitors to answer a set of questions and create their own daemons that journey alongside them in life.
"One of the [book] series' main themes -- the rejection of organized religion and in particular the abuse of power within the Catholic Church -- is to be watered down," according to the Telegraph, a newspaper in the U.K.
"But when the film is released in December the Magisterium will be shown as a critique of all dogmatic organizations, thereby avoiding a religious backlash."
Although the film has supposedly been stripped of the books' key denunciation of religion to prevent offending Catholic audiences, that doesn't appease the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. The Catholic League still views The Golden Compass as bait for Pullman's books, which the group says are representative of the author's two-fold agenda "to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity. To kids."
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Baby's 1st steps ... at 12 weeks in the womb
June 29, 2004: Vivid 3D images, produced by new ultrasound technology, go far beyond the grainy pictures shown to proud parents-to-be in the doctor's office.Scans pioneered by a London professor reveal complex behavior in unborn children from an early stage of development – some of which was thought only to occur much later.
The advanced imagery has captured a 12-week-old baby "walking" in the womb and others apparently yawning and rubbing their eyes.
A whole range of typical baby behavior and moods can be observed beginning at 26 weeks, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccuping and sucking.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
More cases of terrorists 'baking' children cited
More headlines about the 'religion of peace'
Researchers say Muslim history includes cooking human victims
Posted: July 19, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Although the recent WND report of al-Qaida terrorists allegedly baking a young boy and serving him as a meal to his relatives was too horrific for some to believe, a major Christian ministry is citing another example – and also claims such a practice has its roots in the historical stories of Islam.
The issue has come into focus following a report from Michael Yon, a Special Forces soldier now in Iraq to report on the successes there. He told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt he was inspired by a "news cycle that seems to pander toward the terrorists."
Yon, who has earned widespread respect as an independent journalist, reported that Iraqi officials told him about al-Qaida terrorists baking children and serving them to their families.
He confirmed independently to WND that an Iraqi official had recounted for him instances in which the terrorists would bake a young boy, then invite his family to have lunch, with the baked child as the main course.
Officials with the Barnabas Fund, an international Christian group working to help persecuted Christians, particularly those in Muslim-majority contexts, then confirmed Yon's report aligns with one of their own reports about such an atrocity.
And a researcher for the Barnabas Fund cites what he says is the foundation for such barbarism.
The researcher said the story is common to history books that include the story of Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre, a contemporary of Muhammad. The connections are these: Mohammad ibn Abu Bekre was the son of Abu Bekre, the first adult male to believe in Muhammad. Mohammad ibn Abu Bekre also is the brother of Aisha, Muhammad's 9-year-old wife.
The history stories recount, according to the Barnabas Fund researcher: "When Abu Bekre divorced the mother of his son Mohammed, Ali (the fourth Caliph) took her as a wife. Later Ali as Caliph appointed his stepson and the son of Abu Bekre, the brother of Aisha, the beloved wife of the prophet, as the governor of Egypt."
However, after five months, a rival Caliph army invaded Egypt to take it back from Ali, and they killed Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre, the history books say.
"Then they put his body (corpse) in a dead donkey, then they roasted the donkey and sent it as a gift to Aisha," the history books say. "From that day on Aisha never ate roasted food."
The researcher said this specific information comes from Ibn Kathir's history book, "al Bidayah wa-Nihaya," but the story is common to Islamic history books if they include a reference to Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre.
A Christian website, Muslim Hope, also documents the story with minor variations. In this version, Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre was executed, and the body then was put "in the carcass of a donkey, and then burned."
Robert Spencer of JihadWatch told WND the account is from Islamic tradition.
"He was put in the skin of a dead donkey and burned," he said. "It is absolutely true [that the events are part of Islamic history]."
The Barnabas Fund said its sources inside Iraq confirmed "a toddler was kidnapped in Baghdad in October 2006. The mother could not afford to pay the ransom, and so the kidnappers killed the child. They returned the body to the mother. The little child had been beheaded, roasted and was served on a mound of rice."
"We received a number of inquiries about its veracity," the organization told WND about its December 2006 report. "More questions followed when a reporter at the [London] Telegraph blogged about it on their website on March 31 of this year."
"A few sites on the web not only openly doubted it, but also published statements saying that we surely invented it for purposes of fundraising and/or because of Islamophobia," the group continued.
However, the organization stood by its sources, and, "After seeing Michael Yon's report, we hope such horrific incidents will indeed be reported upon and recognized as the dark works of jihadists, not ours and others' imagination."
A spokesman for the organization, Marshall Sana, told WND the Barnabas Fund works directly with local Christian leaders wherever it can reach them throughout Iraq, and its report came from two different parties.
"We heard this story from two separate sources, both of them senior Christian leaders in the region, one of them with direct pastoral responsibility for the family involved," he said. "We were offered a photo, but the UK office [of Barnabas Fund] said we did not want to see it. The family has some relatives living in the UK."
The report from Yon came while he was covering the war – and al-Qaida's involvement – in Baqubah, and he was listening to statements from an Iraqi official who asked that his name not be reported.
"Speaking through an American interpreter, Lt. David Wallach, who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al-Qaida united these gangs who then became absorbed into 'al-Qaida.' They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al-Qaida. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people," said Yon's dispatch, "Bless the Beasts and Children."
"At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al-Qaida directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al-Qaida invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old," Yon continued.
"As Lt. David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, 'What did he say?' Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al-Qaida served the boy to his family."
One of the groups that has far more knowledge about torture and atrocities than it would prefer is International Christian Concern.
Policy Analyst Jeremy Sewall calls such reports "pretty extreme." But he also said with the documentation of various other tortures that have come out, "Your report wouldn't surprise me."
"I'm just thinking of a report about two Muslims who approached a Christian boy at a work at a mechanic's shop. They said, 'Are you a Christian.' He said, "Yes.' And they beheaded him on the spot," he said.
He also cited the recently confirmed report from Turkey, where Muslims martyred three Christians in an attack that was most accurately described as "gruesome."
In that case, "various body parts were chopped off," he confirmed. "It was terrible."
As WND reported, Tilman Geske, a German citizen, and two Turkish Christians were martyred – allegedly by five Muslims who met the three victims at a Christian publishing company for a Bible study, according to Voice of the Martyrs.
According to the reports, Geske, 46, Pastor Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel were killed with hundreds of stab wounds, "they were disemboweled and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes."
Yon told WND he reported what he was told – no more or less. "Perhaps it's urban legend. I have no idea. But my reporting was spot on. ... I quoted someone and offered zero opinion," he said.
But he, also, said he'd witnessed the results of atrocities, such as the unearthing of the heads of decapitated children, that convinced him al-Qaida certainly was capable of such a heinous crime.
"Al-Qaida: the organization that gleefully bragged about murdering roughly 3,000 people by smashing jets full of civilians into buildings and earth. Al-Qaida in Iraq: who proudly broadcast their penchant for sawing off the heads of living breathing people, and in such a manner as to ensure lots of spurting blood and gurgles of final pain, in some cases with the added flourish of the executioner raising up the severed head and squealing excitedly," he said.
"People at home might find it incredible, improbable, even impossible. Yet here in combat with al-Qaida, the idea is no more improbable-sounding than someone saying 'The chicken crossed the road.' Maybe the chicken crossed the road. Maybe not. The veterans I've been talking with here have no difficulty imagining the chicken crossing the road, or al-Qaida roasting kids. Sickening, yes. Improbable, no," he said.
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the concept of "passing children through fire" dates back to the Old Testament, when the god Moloch appeared.
"The chief feature of Moloch's worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was 'to pass through the fire', a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death," the reference says.
"The prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God," it continues. "The offerings by fire ... have suggested to many that Moloch was a fire- or sun-god."
The Old Testament, in Leviticus, also specifies the death penalty for someone who gives children to Moloch: "He shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
Jeremiah called the practice an "abomination."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56643
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56723
Researchers say Muslim history includes cooking human victims
Posted: July 19, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Although the recent WND report of al-Qaida terrorists allegedly baking a young boy and serving him as a meal to his relatives was too horrific for some to believe, a major Christian ministry is citing another example – and also claims such a practice has its roots in the historical stories of Islam.
The issue has come into focus following a report from Michael Yon, a Special Forces soldier now in Iraq to report on the successes there. He told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt he was inspired by a "news cycle that seems to pander toward the terrorists."
Yon, who has earned widespread respect as an independent journalist, reported that Iraqi officials told him about al-Qaida terrorists baking children and serving them to their families.
He confirmed independently to WND that an Iraqi official had recounted for him instances in which the terrorists would bake a young boy, then invite his family to have lunch, with the baked child as the main course.
Officials with the Barnabas Fund, an international Christian group working to help persecuted Christians, particularly those in Muslim-majority contexts, then confirmed Yon's report aligns with one of their own reports about such an atrocity.
And a researcher for the Barnabas Fund cites what he says is the foundation for such barbarism.
The researcher said the story is common to history books that include the story of Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre, a contemporary of Muhammad. The connections are these: Mohammad ibn Abu Bekre was the son of Abu Bekre, the first adult male to believe in Muhammad. Mohammad ibn Abu Bekre also is the brother of Aisha, Muhammad's 9-year-old wife.
The history stories recount, according to the Barnabas Fund researcher: "When Abu Bekre divorced the mother of his son Mohammed, Ali (the fourth Caliph) took her as a wife. Later Ali as Caliph appointed his stepson and the son of Abu Bekre, the brother of Aisha, the beloved wife of the prophet, as the governor of Egypt."
However, after five months, a rival Caliph army invaded Egypt to take it back from Ali, and they killed Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre, the history books say.
"Then they put his body (corpse) in a dead donkey, then they roasted the donkey and sent it as a gift to Aisha," the history books say. "From that day on Aisha never ate roasted food."
The researcher said this specific information comes from Ibn Kathir's history book, "al Bidayah wa-Nihaya," but the story is common to Islamic history books if they include a reference to Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre.
A Christian website, Muslim Hope, also documents the story with minor variations. In this version, Mohammed ibn Abu Bekre was executed, and the body then was put "in the carcass of a donkey, and then burned."
Robert Spencer of JihadWatch told WND the account is from Islamic tradition.
"He was put in the skin of a dead donkey and burned," he said. "It is absolutely true [that the events are part of Islamic history]."
The Barnabas Fund said its sources inside Iraq confirmed "a toddler was kidnapped in Baghdad in October 2006. The mother could not afford to pay the ransom, and so the kidnappers killed the child. They returned the body to the mother. The little child had been beheaded, roasted and was served on a mound of rice."
"We received a number of inquiries about its veracity," the organization told WND about its December 2006 report. "More questions followed when a reporter at the [London] Telegraph blogged about it on their website on March 31 of this year."
"A few sites on the web not only openly doubted it, but also published statements saying that we surely invented it for purposes of fundraising and/or because of Islamophobia," the group continued.
However, the organization stood by its sources, and, "After seeing Michael Yon's report, we hope such horrific incidents will indeed be reported upon and recognized as the dark works of jihadists, not ours and others' imagination."
A spokesman for the organization, Marshall Sana, told WND the Barnabas Fund works directly with local Christian leaders wherever it can reach them throughout Iraq, and its report came from two different parties.
"We heard this story from two separate sources, both of them senior Christian leaders in the region, one of them with direct pastoral responsibility for the family involved," he said. "We were offered a photo, but the UK office [of Barnabas Fund] said we did not want to see it. The family has some relatives living in the UK."
The report from Yon came while he was covering the war – and al-Qaida's involvement – in Baqubah, and he was listening to statements from an Iraqi official who asked that his name not be reported.
"Speaking through an American interpreter, Lt. David Wallach, who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al-Qaida united these gangs who then became absorbed into 'al-Qaida.' They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al-Qaida. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people," said Yon's dispatch, "Bless the Beasts and Children."
"At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al-Qaida directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al-Qaida invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old," Yon continued.
"As Lt. David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, 'What did he say?' Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al-Qaida served the boy to his family."
One of the groups that has far more knowledge about torture and atrocities than it would prefer is International Christian Concern.
Policy Analyst Jeremy Sewall calls such reports "pretty extreme." But he also said with the documentation of various other tortures that have come out, "Your report wouldn't surprise me."
"I'm just thinking of a report about two Muslims who approached a Christian boy at a work at a mechanic's shop. They said, 'Are you a Christian.' He said, "Yes.' And they beheaded him on the spot," he said.
He also cited the recently confirmed report from Turkey, where Muslims martyred three Christians in an attack that was most accurately described as "gruesome."
In that case, "various body parts were chopped off," he confirmed. "It was terrible."
As WND reported, Tilman Geske, a German citizen, and two Turkish Christians were martyred – allegedly by five Muslims who met the three victims at a Christian publishing company for a Bible study, according to Voice of the Martyrs.
According to the reports, Geske, 46, Pastor Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel were killed with hundreds of stab wounds, "they were disemboweled and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes."
Yon told WND he reported what he was told – no more or less. "Perhaps it's urban legend. I have no idea. But my reporting was spot on. ... I quoted someone and offered zero opinion," he said.
But he, also, said he'd witnessed the results of atrocities, such as the unearthing of the heads of decapitated children, that convinced him al-Qaida certainly was capable of such a heinous crime.
"Al-Qaida: the organization that gleefully bragged about murdering roughly 3,000 people by smashing jets full of civilians into buildings and earth. Al-Qaida in Iraq: who proudly broadcast their penchant for sawing off the heads of living breathing people, and in such a manner as to ensure lots of spurting blood and gurgles of final pain, in some cases with the added flourish of the executioner raising up the severed head and squealing excitedly," he said.
"People at home might find it incredible, improbable, even impossible. Yet here in combat with al-Qaida, the idea is no more improbable-sounding than someone saying 'The chicken crossed the road.' Maybe the chicken crossed the road. Maybe not. The veterans I've been talking with here have no difficulty imagining the chicken crossing the road, or al-Qaida roasting kids. Sickening, yes. Improbable, no," he said.
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the concept of "passing children through fire" dates back to the Old Testament, when the god Moloch appeared.
"The chief feature of Moloch's worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was 'to pass through the fire', a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death," the reference says.
"The prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God," it continues. "The offerings by fire ... have suggested to many that Moloch was a fire- or sun-god."
The Old Testament, in Leviticus, also specifies the death penalty for someone who gives children to Moloch: "He shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
Jeremiah called the practice an "abomination."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56643
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56723
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Tablet linked to obscure O.T. figure found
Posted on Jul 17, 2007 | by Staff LONDON (BP)
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26084
It's doubtful that many Christians remember the name "Nebo-Sarsekim" from reading the Old Testament, but thanks to an archaeological discovery at the British Museum, they may in the future.
British Museum officials announced recently the discovery of a two-inch-wide, 2,500-year-old cuneiform tablet that contains details of a financial transaction by a "Nabu-sharrussu-ukin," who is called in the tablet the "chief eunuch" of Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar.
That's the same person mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 -- although spelled differently in different translations -- as the chief officer of Nebuchadnezzar who was in Jerusalem when the Babylonians overtook the city around 587 B.C.
Conservative biblical scholars say it's another affirmation that the Bible is true -- even in the smallest of details, such as names.
Babylonian names notoriously are difficult to translate. The Holman Christian Standard and the New King James Version call him "Sarsechim." The New International Version calls him "Nebo-Sarsekim"
The small tablet is one of more than 100,000 inscribed tablets housed at the British Museum, The Times newspaper reported July 11, and was acquired in 1920. It was unearthed about a mile from modern-day Baghdad, Iraq, the newspaper said. But because of the painstaking effort to translate them and often to piece them together, it wasn't seen as having a biblical connection until recently. Michael Jursa, a professor from the University of Vienna, made the connection.
"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," the British Museum's Irving Finkel said, according to The London Telegraph. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."
The New International Version of the Bible translates Jeremiah 39:3 thusly:
"Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon."
That verse immediately follows a verse describing the Babylonians breaking through Jerusalem's walls. Various translations also call Nebo-Sarsekim a "Rabsaris," which can be translated "chief official" or "chief eunuch."
The tablet actually dates to 595 B.C., several years prior to the siege of Jerusalem. It would have been made by pressing an object into clay. The tablet reads, according to the Telegraph: "(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon."
Said Jursa, the scholar who discovered the tablet, "Finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date, is quite extraordinary."
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26084
It's doubtful that many Christians remember the name "Nebo-Sarsekim" from reading the Old Testament, but thanks to an archaeological discovery at the British Museum, they may in the future.
British Museum officials announced recently the discovery of a two-inch-wide, 2,500-year-old cuneiform tablet that contains details of a financial transaction by a "Nabu-sharrussu-ukin," who is called in the tablet the "chief eunuch" of Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar.
That's the same person mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 -- although spelled differently in different translations -- as the chief officer of Nebuchadnezzar who was in Jerusalem when the Babylonians overtook the city around 587 B.C.
Conservative biblical scholars say it's another affirmation that the Bible is true -- even in the smallest of details, such as names.
Babylonian names notoriously are difficult to translate. The Holman Christian Standard and the New King James Version call him "Sarsechim." The New International Version calls him "Nebo-Sarsekim"
The small tablet is one of more than 100,000 inscribed tablets housed at the British Museum, The Times newspaper reported July 11, and was acquired in 1920. It was unearthed about a mile from modern-day Baghdad, Iraq, the newspaper said. But because of the painstaking effort to translate them and often to piece them together, it wasn't seen as having a biblical connection until recently. Michael Jursa, a professor from the University of Vienna, made the connection.
"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," the British Museum's Irving Finkel said, according to The London Telegraph. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."
The New International Version of the Bible translates Jeremiah 39:3 thusly:
"Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon."
That verse immediately follows a verse describing the Babylonians breaking through Jerusalem's walls. Various translations also call Nebo-Sarsekim a "Rabsaris," which can be translated "chief official" or "chief eunuch."
The tablet actually dates to 595 B.C., several years prior to the siege of Jerusalem. It would have been made by pressing an object into clay. The tablet reads, according to the Telegraph: "(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon."
Said Jursa, the scholar who discovered the tablet, "Finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date, is quite extraordinary."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Media Undermining 'American values'
It's a matter of what sells and what can be produced cheeply to get the biggest bang for the buck.
It is very costly to hire really good and talented writers for shows.
Whereas, it is does not take any talent or thought to appeal to the viewer's fleshly appetites. The more base, racy, and "edgy" a program, the more attention a program will get.
In a very competitive marketplace, programmers know that they have to keep pushing the envelope to keep getting people's attention.
This sets up a self-perpetuating spiral where the media pushes the "edge" (translated: lowers the values), viewers are "hardened" and their values lowered, then the media has to go down to the next level, and so on...
The majority of viewers just want to sit, turn off their mind, and absorb whatever garbage happens to be spewing out of the TV at the time.
It is our job as Christians to be salt and light and do everything we can to break this sprial.
First and foremost by not participating in this spiral in the first place.
Next, by shining the light of truth and calling people's attention to the fact that what is wrong and immoral is, well, wrong and immoral.
What we can also do is vote with our dollars and support family-friendly programming anywhere we can find it.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Praying gets 7 Christians arrested
Now praying gets 7 Christians arrested
Cops call holding Bibles while lying prostrate 'disturbing peace'
Posted: July 7, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Christians have been arrested recently at "gay" festivals for nothing more than having a protest sign that is "wider than their torso," but now police have gone even further, targeting Bible-carrying ministers for praying on public property and for standing on a public sidewalk near a "gay" festival.
One of the new cases comes from Elmira, N.Y., where police arrested seven Christians who went into a public park where a "gay" fest was beginning and started to pray, faces down, while holding their Bibles.
They were cited for "disturbing the peace," and Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the seven are accused of a "combination" of allegations under that statute, which includes the "intent" to cause a public inconvenience, any "disturbance" of a meeting of persons, obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or taking part in "any act that serves no legitimate purpose."
Pastor Mark Holick being arrested for being on sidewalk at Wichita "gay" fest
The second such case arose in Wichita, Kan., where police arrested Spirit One Christian Center Pastor Mark Holick, who had received permission earlier from officers to be on the public sidewalk adjacent to the park where the festival was occurring but then was arrested doing exactly that.
Julian Raven, a street preacher, told WND his group of seven assembled to pray for three hours the night before Elmira's recent "pride" festival in promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
"We have a legal right to be at an event held in a public square. We're not a hate group," he said. "We're Christians and we're going to be there to pray."
He said he contacted police, who told him he had no free speech rights in the public park.
"The female officer, she said, 'You're not going to cross the street. You're not going to enter the park and you're not going to share your religion with anybody in this park,'" he told WND.
"When she said that, for the first time in my life as a Christian, I felt now my freedom of speech is threatened or challenged," he said. "I was being told I could not share my religion with anybody in that park."
Raven said he told the officer "she was violating the Constitution that she had sworn to uphold, and she was very agitated and adamant, and couldn't look me straight in the eye."
Raven asked for the justification for such a threat and was not given a response.
He said his team of Christians then went into the park, holding Bibles over their heads to signify their subservience to God's Word, and lay on their faces to pray.
Within three minutes, police officers had put handcuffs on the seven, to the cheers of the homosexual crowd, he said.
He said a court date is pending for the seven July 23.
"I have the highest respect for the police officers. They have a very difficult job to do. But we were treated unfairly in a public setting. This was a hasty show of force. It was not called for," he said.
He said if the situation is left unchallenged, the city of Elmira will be in the position of being able to control the content of people's messages in a lawful assembly – or even thoughts if they are nearby.
"We didn't say boo to a goose, still we were arrested," he said.
The local newspaper reported the arrests came just "moments" after Elmira Mayor John Tonello delivered a speech "celebrating diversity."
And the actions prompted some immediate criticism from newspaper readers.
"I was appalled and disgusted by the gay stories strewn through the … paper. … What was even more disturbing was the way the city acted. Since when is it illegal to sit on the ground in a public park and recite Bible verses? Are they not protected by the same Constitution that allows gay people to have their gay pride event. These Bible thumpers had their constitutional right to free speech and assembly trampled on by the city. They should not have been arrested," said Kevin Raznoff.
Robertson told WND the Christians "certainly" have a right to assemble, but not on public property when there's an "organized" event there. Asked repeatedly about how the "disturbance" statute relates to First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, he did not answer.
"Obviously, they caused a disruption to an event that was taking place," he said.
But Raven confirmed to WND the seven Christians did not approach a single person, did not speak to anyone and did not even make any audible statements until after they were arrested.
Pastor Holick's case in Wichita was even more drastic. He had gone, with a team from his church, to pass out flyers and pray at a recent "pride" festival held there.
He had checked with the police department and was told, "The sidewalk is your friend."
"Upon arriving we began to set up," he said. "Immediately, I was approached by WPD and told that we could not go into the park (a public park mind you where everyone else – except the Christians – was allowed in) and that we could not be on the sidewalk on that side of the street but that we could go to the other side of the street.
"In other words, one side of the street is open to Christians but the public park and the public sidewalk next to the park is not," he said.
But then Holick was arrested within about four minutes of his arrival.
"It is obvious that the WPD did not keep their word and that they wanted to arrest as quickly as possible. The First Amendment … was cast aside like so much garbage," he said.
"The sin is 'coming out' further and further and the church is now being pushed further and further back inside the four walls of the church building; we are the ones that are seen as 'the trouble makers.' The police arrest the Christians and allow all manner of perversion to flaunt itself in the streets of Wichita. And we the church … well … I'm not sure we care," he said.
Police alleged that they asked Holick five times to "leave" the festival, even though he never purchased the required admission fee or went in.
As WND reported , Holick already had been targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for the moral statements he posted on the church's sign.
The notice he got from the IRS warned him about putting his Christian beliefs on the sign, and he responded that he would continue to preach the Word of God.
Just a week earlier, WND reported police in St. Petersburg, Fla., arrested five Christians for carrying signs "wider than their torsos" outside an officially designated protest area at that city's homosexual festival.
Pastor Billy Ball, Assistant Pastor Doug Pitts, Frankie Primavera and Josh Pettigrew, all of Faith Baptist Church in Primrose, Ga., were arrested after leaving a small area set aside by city officials for protest activities. Bill Holt, of Lighthouse Baptist Church in Jefferson, Ga., was also taken into custody.
According to Lighthouse Pastor Kevin Whitman, the five men were told by police their signs were not allowed outside the protest area because they were wider than their torsos. When the men refused to put them away, they were arrested for violating a controversial city ordinance that governs permitted events.
As WND reported, St. Petersburg officials, following disturbances at a previous homosexual pride festival, implemented rules governing outdoor events that set aside "free speech zones," where protesters are allowed.
The resulting ordinance came under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance Defense Fund for being too broad. It allows the city to create prior restraints of speech on an event-by-event basis, with virtually no predictable limits. It also criminalizes certain free speech behavior around public events and authorizes the police to enforce breaches of permits – the penalty for such breaches being arrest.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56544
Cops call holding Bibles while lying prostrate 'disturbing peace'
Posted: July 7, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Christians have been arrested recently at "gay" festivals for nothing more than having a protest sign that is "wider than their torso," but now police have gone even further, targeting Bible-carrying ministers for praying on public property and for standing on a public sidewalk near a "gay" festival.
One of the new cases comes from Elmira, N.Y., where police arrested seven Christians who went into a public park where a "gay" fest was beginning and started to pray, faces down, while holding their Bibles.
They were cited for "disturbing the peace," and Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the seven are accused of a "combination" of allegations under that statute, which includes the "intent" to cause a public inconvenience, any "disturbance" of a meeting of persons, obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or taking part in "any act that serves no legitimate purpose."
Pastor Mark Holick being arrested for being on sidewalk at Wichita "gay" fest
The second such case arose in Wichita, Kan., where police arrested Spirit One Christian Center Pastor Mark Holick, who had received permission earlier from officers to be on the public sidewalk adjacent to the park where the festival was occurring but then was arrested doing exactly that.
Julian Raven, a street preacher, told WND his group of seven assembled to pray for three hours the night before Elmira's recent "pride" festival in promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
"We have a legal right to be at an event held in a public square. We're not a hate group," he said. "We're Christians and we're going to be there to pray."
He said he contacted police, who told him he had no free speech rights in the public park.
"The female officer, she said, 'You're not going to cross the street. You're not going to enter the park and you're not going to share your religion with anybody in this park,'" he told WND.
"When she said that, for the first time in my life as a Christian, I felt now my freedom of speech is threatened or challenged," he said. "I was being told I could not share my religion with anybody in that park."
Raven said he told the officer "she was violating the Constitution that she had sworn to uphold, and she was very agitated and adamant, and couldn't look me straight in the eye."
Raven asked for the justification for such a threat and was not given a response.
He said his team of Christians then went into the park, holding Bibles over their heads to signify their subservience to God's Word, and lay on their faces to pray.
Within three minutes, police officers had put handcuffs on the seven, to the cheers of the homosexual crowd, he said.
He said a court date is pending for the seven July 23.
"I have the highest respect for the police officers. They have a very difficult job to do. But we were treated unfairly in a public setting. This was a hasty show of force. It was not called for," he said.
He said if the situation is left unchallenged, the city of Elmira will be in the position of being able to control the content of people's messages in a lawful assembly – or even thoughts if they are nearby.
"We didn't say boo to a goose, still we were arrested," he said.
The local newspaper reported the arrests came just "moments" after Elmira Mayor John Tonello delivered a speech "celebrating diversity."
And the actions prompted some immediate criticism from newspaper readers.
"I was appalled and disgusted by the gay stories strewn through the … paper. … What was even more disturbing was the way the city acted. Since when is it illegal to sit on the ground in a public park and recite Bible verses? Are they not protected by the same Constitution that allows gay people to have their gay pride event. These Bible thumpers had their constitutional right to free speech and assembly trampled on by the city. They should not have been arrested," said Kevin Raznoff.
Robertson told WND the Christians "certainly" have a right to assemble, but not on public property when there's an "organized" event there. Asked repeatedly about how the "disturbance" statute relates to First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, he did not answer.
"Obviously, they caused a disruption to an event that was taking place," he said.
But Raven confirmed to WND the seven Christians did not approach a single person, did not speak to anyone and did not even make any audible statements until after they were arrested.
Pastor Holick's case in Wichita was even more drastic. He had gone, with a team from his church, to pass out flyers and pray at a recent "pride" festival held there.
He had checked with the police department and was told, "The sidewalk is your friend."
"Upon arriving we began to set up," he said. "Immediately, I was approached by WPD and told that we could not go into the park (a public park mind you where everyone else – except the Christians – was allowed in) and that we could not be on the sidewalk on that side of the street but that we could go to the other side of the street.
"In other words, one side of the street is open to Christians but the public park and the public sidewalk next to the park is not," he said.
But then Holick was arrested within about four minutes of his arrival.
"It is obvious that the WPD did not keep their word and that they wanted to arrest as quickly as possible. The First Amendment … was cast aside like so much garbage," he said.
"The sin is 'coming out' further and further and the church is now being pushed further and further back inside the four walls of the church building; we are the ones that are seen as 'the trouble makers.' The police arrest the Christians and allow all manner of perversion to flaunt itself in the streets of Wichita. And we the church … well … I'm not sure we care," he said.
Police alleged that they asked Holick five times to "leave" the festival, even though he never purchased the required admission fee or went in.
As WND reported , Holick already had been targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for the moral statements he posted on the church's sign.
The notice he got from the IRS warned him about putting his Christian beliefs on the sign, and he responded that he would continue to preach the Word of God.
Just a week earlier, WND reported police in St. Petersburg, Fla., arrested five Christians for carrying signs "wider than their torsos" outside an officially designated protest area at that city's homosexual festival.
Pastor Billy Ball, Assistant Pastor Doug Pitts, Frankie Primavera and Josh Pettigrew, all of Faith Baptist Church in Primrose, Ga., were arrested after leaving a small area set aside by city officials for protest activities. Bill Holt, of Lighthouse Baptist Church in Jefferson, Ga., was also taken into custody.
According to Lighthouse Pastor Kevin Whitman, the five men were told by police their signs were not allowed outside the protest area because they were wider than their torsos. When the men refused to put them away, they were arrested for violating a controversial city ordinance that governs permitted events.
As WND reported, St. Petersburg officials, following disturbances at a previous homosexual pride festival, implemented rules governing outdoor events that set aside "free speech zones," where protesters are allowed.
The resulting ordinance came under fire by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Alliance Defense Fund for being too broad. It allows the city to create prior restraints of speech on an event-by-event basis, with virtually no predictable limits. It also criminalizes certain free speech behavior around public events and authorizes the police to enforce breaches of permits – the penalty for such breaches being arrest.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56544
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Feminism turned me into lesbian
Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into lesbian
'I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men'
Posted: July 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in feminist causes "changed" her into a lesbian.
Sue Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband had been a good one.
But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young professor became involved with the British Psychological Society.
A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in feminist causes "changed" her into a lesbian.
Sue Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband had been a good one.
But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young professor became involved with the British Psychological Society.
"I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts," said Wilkinson.
"Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women's organizations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity."
Wilkinson divorced her husband and has lived with her partner, Prof. Celia Kitzinger of York University, for the past 17 years.
"I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men," she said. "My husband took it very badly."
In 2003, the two women married in Vancouver, Canada, where same-sex unions are legal. A change in UK law in 2005 recognized their Canadian ceremony as a civil union, but not marriage.
Wilkinson and Kitzinger sued, arguing that foreign heterosexual unions would automatically be recognized as valid marriages, and the law, as constituted, was "a breach of our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."
Last year, the court ruled against their claim of marriage and violation of human rights, granting them the right to appeal, but ordering them to pay $50,000 toward the government's legal costs.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458
'I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men'
Posted: July 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in feminist causes "changed" her into a lesbian.
Sue Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband had been a good one.
But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young professor became involved with the British Psychological Society.
A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in feminist causes "changed" her into a lesbian.
Sue Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband had been a good one.
But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young professor became involved with the British Psychological Society.
"I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts," said Wilkinson.
"Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women's organizations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity."
Wilkinson divorced her husband and has lived with her partner, Prof. Celia Kitzinger of York University, for the past 17 years.
"I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men," she said. "My husband took it very badly."
In 2003, the two women married in Vancouver, Canada, where same-sex unions are legal. A change in UK law in 2005 recognized their Canadian ceremony as a civil union, but not marriage.
Wilkinson and Kitzinger sued, arguing that foreign heterosexual unions would automatically be recognized as valid marriages, and the law, as constituted, was "a breach of our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."
Last year, the court ruled against their claim of marriage and violation of human rights, granting them the right to appeal, but ordering them to pay $50,000 toward the government's legal costs.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Federal judge asked to allow Gideons scripture distribution
Federal judge asked to allow Gideons scripture distribution
Allie Martin
OneNewsNow.com
June 25, 2007
An attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund says a policy in one Florida city that bans the distribution of Christian literature makes believers out to be second-class citizens. Now a federal judge has now been asked to review and strike the policy that was used earlier this year to intimidate Christians who were handing out Bibles near a public school.
In January, Thomas Gray, a member of Gideons International, was threatened with arrest if he did not stop distributing Bibles within 500 feet of Key Largo School. Gray was told that he had "no right" to be there. Gray, as well as other Gideons, were on a public sidewalk and had notified authorities of the plans. Prior to the distribution, both school officials and the Monroe County Sheriff's Office had said the activity was permissible.
But during the distribution, Gray learned that two of his fellow Gideons had been arrested. After being threatened himself with arrest, Gray contacted the Alliance Defense Fund -- and as spokesman Jeremy Tedesco says, a federal judge has been asked to review the case. Tedesco says the ruling could have a big impact.
"The First Amendment knows no second-class citizen," Tedesco notes. "And more importantly, it protects the right of anybody to use the public sidewalk, to be present on a public sidewalk and to be engaged in speech. And the state certainly can't get away with telling religious people they can't be there, but permitting others to be there."
ADF attorneys have asked for the statute, which could ultimately affect every public school in the Sunshine State, to be struck down.
"You're talking probably thousands of schools," exclaims Tedesco. "They are literally speech-free zones around each one of those schools [under this statute]. All day, every day, people -- including the Gideons -- could be hauled off to jail and prosecuted for engaging in protected First Amendment expression. So this statute needs to be stricken as a violation of the First Amendment."
A decision on the preliminary injunction request could come later this year. The case is Gray v. Kohl.
Allie Martin
OneNewsNow.com
June 25, 2007
An attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund says a policy in one Florida city that bans the distribution of Christian literature makes believers out to be second-class citizens. Now a federal judge has now been asked to review and strike the policy that was used earlier this year to intimidate Christians who were handing out Bibles near a public school.
In January, Thomas Gray, a member of Gideons International, was threatened with arrest if he did not stop distributing Bibles within 500 feet of Key Largo School. Gray was told that he had "no right" to be there. Gray, as well as other Gideons, were on a public sidewalk and had notified authorities of the plans. Prior to the distribution, both school officials and the Monroe County Sheriff's Office had said the activity was permissible.
But during the distribution, Gray learned that two of his fellow Gideons had been arrested. After being threatened himself with arrest, Gray contacted the Alliance Defense Fund -- and as spokesman Jeremy Tedesco says, a federal judge has been asked to review the case. Tedesco says the ruling could have a big impact.
"The First Amendment knows no second-class citizen," Tedesco notes. "And more importantly, it protects the right of anybody to use the public sidewalk, to be present on a public sidewalk and to be engaged in speech. And the state certainly can't get away with telling religious people they can't be there, but permitting others to be there."
ADF attorneys have asked for the statute, which could ultimately affect every public school in the Sunshine State, to be struck down.
"You're talking probably thousands of schools," exclaims Tedesco. "They are literally speech-free zones around each one of those schools [under this statute]. All day, every day, people -- including the Gideons -- could be hauled off to jail and prosecuted for engaging in protected First Amendment expression. So this statute needs to be stricken as a violation of the First Amendment."
A decision on the preliminary injunction request could come later this year. The case is Gray v. Kohl.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Angry Mob Assaults Peaceful Christians
Dan Musick’s testimony:
I went to the parade armed with 500+ tracts and my camera. My prayer was for God to show me what He wanted me to do. Before the parade I passed out some tracts. At the parade I took lots of pictures and video, and passed out a few tracts. The sidewalk and area behind the barriers was packed.
After the parade there was a steady flow of crowd traffic so I started passing out the “I Was Gay” tracts. I did this for about an hour, and passed out about 300. Many ended up on the sidewalk.
I experienced every form of mockery you could imagine, but only from one or two at a time at the most. At one point two lesbians were circling me and warning others not to take my tracts. One tore up a tract and threw it at me. Another knocked the tracts out of my hand.
Overall the response was excellent. For every negative there had to be at least three positives — those who came up from behind me when I was turned a different direction to ask for a tract, and many who seemed desperate for some kind of hope as they took the tracts. I saw one or two people bend over to pick up the tracts off the sidewalk.
Several engaged me in serious conversation; there were several opportunities to lay out the gospel. Others just wanted to argue and prove I was wrong.
One man came up and asked what I was doing. I explained I was offering good news for homosexuals by the gospel of Christ and I laid out the gospel for him. I asked if he believed it. He said, “Yes,” and asked if he could join me. He said it was better for him to work with someone and that another person with whom he had teamed up with did not work out.
I stopped, removed my hat and we prayed together, acknowledging that God’s Word would never return void.
He proceeded to unroll a big banner and to strap it to a pole with bungee cords. It was a telescoping pole, and suddenly he lifted the banner up into the sky another 6 feet. It was huge.
He started preaching from a format I had learned called the ”Way of the Master,” a series with Ray Comfort. This stresses the importance of preaching Law before Grace ….
Joe’s approach was loving, clear and direct — a model presentation of the Gospel, beginning with the law and the reality that we have all sinned.
The mood of the place changed suddenly. First a small crowd gathered around us. Joe continued preaching and the crowd grew in size.
Then several things started happening all at once.
First, I remember a bright lady coming up to me and started telling me that what we were doing was wrong. Gays can’t help being who they are; that’s the way God made them; when you call their actions sin you are condemning them. She had the air of a Pharisee — I suspect in hindsight she was a pastor from one of the churches that defends homosexuality as good.
While talking to her, several things began to occur. First, I remember the most sinister laughter, mocking and jeering I have ever heard. The crowd despised Joe’s preaching. People from the crowd were yelling out at us and moving closer to us. Someone from a balcony up above us threw some kind of bottle — I think it was plastic - and hit Joe on his left shoulder. Another man came up and tried to light the banner with his cigarette lighter. While trying to do this someone sprayed beer on both of us and another man poured beer on Joe. At about this point it crossed my mind that we might just be casting our pearls before swine.
I also remembered one point when people were taking pictures of the humiliation they were trying to impose [on us]. One guy stuck up his middle finger in front of the banner and I held up the tract next to him so that would be in the picture as well.
Then one of the men got behind Joe and started to make sexual gestures like he wanted to have anal sex. Then He reached for Joe’s pants to try to take them off.
At this point I abandoned my conversation with the lady to pull the man away from Joe. It was at about that time that someone knocked the tracts out of my hand. Some one else tried to take the pole and banner away from Joe, and I told him to be strong.
At this point it turned into a wrestling match for the banner. The crowd had evolved into a mob. Several hands were grasping the pole supporting the banner. Then those who did not want us there began pulling the banner and us with it into a recessed area or an alley.
At this point I called 911 … I couldn’t remember where we were, just that we were just north of Belmont. Within a minute or so the police were there and shortly thereafter there were 20-40 police.
We got our banner back. I asked the police to defend our free speech rights. He said, “Let’s be practical. There are 400,000 of them and only a handful of us.” He said the banner was inflammatory and that the police could not control the crowd if Joe continued preaching. If he continued preaching he would have to arrest us. I think he was thinking of his duty to protect us.
I told Joe the police had a good point. I was willing to go to jail but I couldn’t see what would be gained by it. It was time to shake the dust off our sandals; they had not received our message. Joe couldn’t see anything to be gained, either, so we agreed to leave.
We thanked the senior officer for his help. I told him, “Sometimes God sends His angels to help us; sometimes He sends the police.” He chuckled, we shook hands, and we left on good terms.
The mob clearly ruled the police at this point; our free speech rights were trampled. But that was a peripheral issue for us at this time. Joe’s passion and concern, which he also expressed to the police, was that those who had mistreated him were going to hell; that was his motivation for wanting to continue preaching to a hostile mob. It was well past my time to reconnect with [other Americans For Truth volunteers] and I felt my time for evangelizing was finished. The thought of evangelizing to assert my free speech rights never occurred to me, and it is, at best, a twisted motive for evangelizing.
Joe and I walked a couple blocks until he had to go a different direction. I thanked him for letting me share in the experience we had there and I hugged him. Suffering together for the Gospel creates a bond that is not easily broken.
This is my story.
Dan Musick
http://www.americansfortruth.org/contact.php
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Christopherson's Testimony:
I Was Attacked By a Homosexual Mob!
I went into Chicago today, to preach the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ at the gay pride parade. After finally finding a good place to park, I made my way down the parade route. The parade was done there but there were thousands of people in the streets.
I walked down the route and met up with and joined a brother [Dan Musick] passing out gospel tracts. I unfurled a fairly new 4-by-6 foot banner I have which says, “Lied, Stolen, Lusted? Homosexual, Fornicator, Drunkard? Repent and call on the Lord Jesus to Escape Hell” (at the bottom is the website: burningheartsoutreach.com). Then I started open-air preaching.
It must have been about 10 to 20 minutes, and a violent crowd formed around us. They were cursing at me like mad dogs. And before it was all over I was basically molested – they handled me in vile ways – trying to pull my pants off (thank God I wear a belt). They tried to burn my banner, steal my banner; my banner and I were soaked with various alcoholic drinks that were hurled at me. They spit and threw something. They bent and tried to steal my banner pole.
A bunch of police showed up and rescued us from the mob. I was assaulted by the crowd but the police threatened me with arrest if I did not leave. Absolutely incredible. It was like Sodom and Gomorrah. “They loved darkness and hated the light.” [John 3:19] I prayed that this sin be not laid to their charge.
Please pray that God will save these lost souls bound in perversion. Jesus is their only hope. I rejoice in the Lord that I was counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. [See Matthew 5:11-13] I only got a couple of scratches so I really didn’t suffer that much at all. Thank You Jesus for your divine protection. And this weekend [I will be preaching at] the “Taste of Chicago.” Thousands to preach to and a much, much less violent crowd; please pray for me and for souls to be won to Christ. Thank you.
In the harvest,
Joe Christopherson, http://www.burningheartsoutreach.com/
I went to the parade armed with 500+ tracts and my camera. My prayer was for God to show me what He wanted me to do. Before the parade I passed out some tracts. At the parade I took lots of pictures and video, and passed out a few tracts. The sidewalk and area behind the barriers was packed.
After the parade there was a steady flow of crowd traffic so I started passing out the “I Was Gay” tracts. I did this for about an hour, and passed out about 300. Many ended up on the sidewalk.
I experienced every form of mockery you could imagine, but only from one or two at a time at the most. At one point two lesbians were circling me and warning others not to take my tracts. One tore up a tract and threw it at me. Another knocked the tracts out of my hand.
Overall the response was excellent. For every negative there had to be at least three positives — those who came up from behind me when I was turned a different direction to ask for a tract, and many who seemed desperate for some kind of hope as they took the tracts. I saw one or two people bend over to pick up the tracts off the sidewalk.
Several engaged me in serious conversation; there were several opportunities to lay out the gospel. Others just wanted to argue and prove I was wrong.
One man came up and asked what I was doing. I explained I was offering good news for homosexuals by the gospel of Christ and I laid out the gospel for him. I asked if he believed it. He said, “Yes,” and asked if he could join me. He said it was better for him to work with someone and that another person with whom he had teamed up with did not work out.
I stopped, removed my hat and we prayed together, acknowledging that God’s Word would never return void.
He proceeded to unroll a big banner and to strap it to a pole with bungee cords. It was a telescoping pole, and suddenly he lifted the banner up into the sky another 6 feet. It was huge.
He started preaching from a format I had learned called the ”Way of the Master,” a series with Ray Comfort. This stresses the importance of preaching Law before Grace ….
Joe’s approach was loving, clear and direct — a model presentation of the Gospel, beginning with the law and the reality that we have all sinned.
The mood of the place changed suddenly. First a small crowd gathered around us. Joe continued preaching and the crowd grew in size.
Then several things started happening all at once.
First, I remember a bright lady coming up to me and started telling me that what we were doing was wrong. Gays can’t help being who they are; that’s the way God made them; when you call their actions sin you are condemning them. She had the air of a Pharisee — I suspect in hindsight she was a pastor from one of the churches that defends homosexuality as good.
While talking to her, several things began to occur. First, I remember the most sinister laughter, mocking and jeering I have ever heard. The crowd despised Joe’s preaching. People from the crowd were yelling out at us and moving closer to us. Someone from a balcony up above us threw some kind of bottle — I think it was plastic - and hit Joe on his left shoulder. Another man came up and tried to light the banner with his cigarette lighter. While trying to do this someone sprayed beer on both of us and another man poured beer on Joe. At about this point it crossed my mind that we might just be casting our pearls before swine.
I also remembered one point when people were taking pictures of the humiliation they were trying to impose [on us]. One guy stuck up his middle finger in front of the banner and I held up the tract next to him so that would be in the picture as well.
Then one of the men got behind Joe and started to make sexual gestures like he wanted to have anal sex. Then He reached for Joe’s pants to try to take them off.
At this point I abandoned my conversation with the lady to pull the man away from Joe. It was at about that time that someone knocked the tracts out of my hand. Some one else tried to take the pole and banner away from Joe, and I told him to be strong.
At this point it turned into a wrestling match for the banner. The crowd had evolved into a mob. Several hands were grasping the pole supporting the banner. Then those who did not want us there began pulling the banner and us with it into a recessed area or an alley.
At this point I called 911 … I couldn’t remember where we were, just that we were just north of Belmont. Within a minute or so the police were there and shortly thereafter there were 20-40 police.
We got our banner back. I asked the police to defend our free speech rights. He said, “Let’s be practical. There are 400,000 of them and only a handful of us.” He said the banner was inflammatory and that the police could not control the crowd if Joe continued preaching. If he continued preaching he would have to arrest us. I think he was thinking of his duty to protect us.
I told Joe the police had a good point. I was willing to go to jail but I couldn’t see what would be gained by it. It was time to shake the dust off our sandals; they had not received our message. Joe couldn’t see anything to be gained, either, so we agreed to leave.
We thanked the senior officer for his help. I told him, “Sometimes God sends His angels to help us; sometimes He sends the police.” He chuckled, we shook hands, and we left on good terms.
The mob clearly ruled the police at this point; our free speech rights were trampled. But that was a peripheral issue for us at this time. Joe’s passion and concern, which he also expressed to the police, was that those who had mistreated him were going to hell; that was his motivation for wanting to continue preaching to a hostile mob. It was well past my time to reconnect with [other Americans For Truth volunteers] and I felt my time for evangelizing was finished. The thought of evangelizing to assert my free speech rights never occurred to me, and it is, at best, a twisted motive for evangelizing.
Joe and I walked a couple blocks until he had to go a different direction. I thanked him for letting me share in the experience we had there and I hugged him. Suffering together for the Gospel creates a bond that is not easily broken.
This is my story.
Dan Musick
http://www.americansfortruth.org/contact.php
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Christopherson's Testimony:
I Was Attacked By a Homosexual Mob!
I went into Chicago today, to preach the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ at the gay pride parade. After finally finding a good place to park, I made my way down the parade route. The parade was done there but there were thousands of people in the streets.
I walked down the route and met up with and joined a brother [Dan Musick] passing out gospel tracts. I unfurled a fairly new 4-by-6 foot banner I have which says, “Lied, Stolen, Lusted? Homosexual, Fornicator, Drunkard? Repent and call on the Lord Jesus to Escape Hell” (at the bottom is the website: burningheartsoutreach.com). Then I started open-air preaching.
It must have been about 10 to 20 minutes, and a violent crowd formed around us. They were cursing at me like mad dogs. And before it was all over I was basically molested – they handled me in vile ways – trying to pull my pants off (thank God I wear a belt). They tried to burn my banner, steal my banner; my banner and I were soaked with various alcoholic drinks that were hurled at me. They spit and threw something. They bent and tried to steal my banner pole.
A bunch of police showed up and rescued us from the mob. I was assaulted by the crowd but the police threatened me with arrest if I did not leave. Absolutely incredible. It was like Sodom and Gomorrah. “They loved darkness and hated the light.” [John 3:19] I prayed that this sin be not laid to their charge.
Please pray that God will save these lost souls bound in perversion. Jesus is their only hope. I rejoice in the Lord that I was counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. [See Matthew 5:11-13] I only got a couple of scratches so I really didn’t suffer that much at all. Thank You Jesus for your divine protection. And this weekend [I will be preaching at] the “Taste of Chicago.” Thousands to preach to and a much, much less violent crowd; please pray for me and for souls to be won to Christ. Thank you.
In the harvest,
Joe Christopherson, http://www.burningheartsoutreach.com/
Friday, May 25, 2007
The High Cost of Free Love
By Heather Sells
CBN News
May 18, 2007
CBN News
May 18, 2007
CBNNews.com - The old-fashioned romance associated with Valentine's Day is no longer a reality for many young people. That's because casual sex, known as "hooking up," is in.
But at least one campus doctor is worried about the medical and emotional downsides of such activity.
Here is more on the doctor’s concerns, and the politically charged field of sexual health.
Social advocates on both sides of the issue can agree -- our habits and understanding of sex changed profoundly 40 years ago.
Educator Pam Stenzel notes, "In the 1960s, we could do whatever we wanted. Sex was free. It was no big deal."
With the Sexual Revolution, many began to think of sex as a recreational event, with no consequences.
But today, the costs are clear.
Each year, 19-million Americans become infected with a sexually transmitted disease, or STD.
Almost half of them are between the ages of 15 and 24.
Just 40 years ago, only two sexually transmitted diseases existed. Today, there are 25.
There are young people who choose abstinence.
But research shows 47 percent of high school students have had sex, paving the way for a variety of "relationships" in college.
"They're having multiple-partner sex completely indiscriminately," said Stenzel. "It's hooking up. It's friends with benefits. It's something we do cause we're bored on a Friday night. It has nothing to do with intimacy."
With STDs, other problems can come -- like cervical cancer, infertility and depression.
But while it's OK to talk about the mechanics of sex with young people, frank discussion of the medical and emotional downsides has become rare.
And that's why Dr. Miriam Grossman is speaking up.
Her new book Unprotected explains how political correctness has invaded today's university health centers.
As an Ivy-League-trained campus psychiatrist herself, she says health providers can give plenty of information and caution about other risky behaviors -- such as smoking, drinking and overeating.
But when it comes to sex -- risky behaviors are not discouraged.
Her conclusion?
Ideology-driven health care is misinforming, and putting the health of millions of students at risk.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/104261.aspx?option=printWednesday, May 23, 2007
Importing a Slave Class
- We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up
on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate
for servants that now they're importing an underclass
to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This
vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new
form of slavery.
- The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans
won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled
immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to
strike generous, humanitarian poses with other
people's lives.
- The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is
supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we
must grant amnesty to illegal aliens -- and fast!
We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty
to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists
living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws?
Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up
everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we
can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What
we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not
"amnesty" -- we'll ask them to pay a small fine.
- Noticeably, the biggest proponents of the
government's policy of importing a huge underclass of
unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled
workers.
The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled
immigrants isn't going to hardworking Americans who
hang drywall or clean hotel rooms -- and who are
having trouble getting jobs, now that they're forced
to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers
who don't pay taxes.
The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking
immigrants -- unlike you lazy Americans -- are the
wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the
rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food
and health care.
Ann Coulter
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20855
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Why would they ever want to come back?
by Bob Yandian
Psalm 116:15: Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
I ministered from this verse at the memorial service for Chip this week. This verse has been a blessing to me when a Christian dies and goes to be with the Lord. This verse did not say it was precious to us, but to the Lord. In our sight, death is a time for grieving and sorrow. Rightfully so. God commanded Israel to take time to grieve for the death of Moses. And throughout the Word we are given permission to mourn for the absence, the hole that will exist, when our friends and loved ones are gone. But we are also told not to grieve as those who have no hope. Our grieving only lasts for a short time before it is overtaken by the eternal joy inside of us. Our hope is in Jesus and in the fact that we will see the person again.
The death of a saint is precious in the sight of the Lord. We stand on one side of the door and see an exit. God stands on the other side of the door and sees an entrance. Our friends exited this life and entered eternity. From God’s side, it was a glorious event. True success in the Christian life comes from looking at our lives from God’s viewpoint, not ours. We are to set our affection (minds) on things above and not on things of the earth. The mind of Christ, which should guide us daily, tells us that the person is far better off in God’s presence than they ever were on earth. We often ask, “Why would that person want to leave us?” We should be asking, “Why would they ever want to come back?”
http://www.gracetulsa.com/blog_0705.asp#050107Friday, January 19, 2007
Newspaper Skews Marriage Facts
by Wendy Cloyd
citizenlink.org
The New York Times compared apples to oranges in pronouncing that marriage is headed for extinction.
An article in The New York Times Monday reported that married women are now a minority, but marriage and family experts say that’s a distortion of U.S. Census data.
According to the Times report, 51 percent of American women are single, compared to 35 percent of women in 1950.
But included in that number were girls as young as 15 and women whose husbands work out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized.
"This is simply another brazen attempt by The New York Times to advance an ultra-liberal social agenda," said Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family.
Dr. Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, said women are marrying at a later age -- the median is now 26 -- which can radically skew marriage statistics.
"You can look at how many are married by age 40 in any particular era and you get a little more precise way to do it," he said. Marriage is less common than it used to be, “but the number of people who want to be married and have it work out well is still extraordinarily high.”
Maier said the Times article also failed to mention that married women have better physical and emotional health than unmarried women.
“They live longer, enjoy a much higher standard of living, report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and are less likely to be victims of violence," he said.
The New York Times seems intent on disparaging marriage and discouraging young women from even considering it, Maier said.
"Marriage as an institution is suffering in our country," he added. "We should do everything we can to promote healthy, stable marital relationships, because those relationships remain the bedrock of our society."
citizenlink.org
The New York Times compared apples to oranges in pronouncing that marriage is headed for extinction.
An article in The New York Times Monday reported that married women are now a minority, but marriage and family experts say that’s a distortion of U.S. Census data.
According to the Times report, 51 percent of American women are single, compared to 35 percent of women in 1950.
But included in that number were girls as young as 15 and women whose husbands work out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized.
"This is simply another brazen attempt by The New York Times to advance an ultra-liberal social agenda," said Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family.
Dr. Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, said women are marrying at a later age -- the median is now 26 -- which can radically skew marriage statistics.
"You can look at how many are married by age 40 in any particular era and you get a little more precise way to do it," he said. Marriage is less common than it used to be, “but the number of people who want to be married and have it work out well is still extraordinarily high.”
Maier said the Times article also failed to mention that married women have better physical and emotional health than unmarried women.
“They live longer, enjoy a much higher standard of living, report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and are less likely to be victims of violence," he said.
The New York Times seems intent on disparaging marriage and discouraging young women from even considering it, Maier said.
"Marriage as an institution is suffering in our country," he added. "We should do everything we can to promote healthy, stable marital relationships, because those relationships remain the bedrock of our society."
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Religious Freedom Day, 2007
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
On Religious Freedom Day, we commemorate the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson, and we celebrate the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom.
Across the centuries, people have come to America seeking to worship the Almighty freely. Today, our citizens profess many different faiths, and we welcome every religion. Yet people in many countries live without the freedom to worship as they choose and some face persecution for their beliefs. My Administration is working with our friends and allies around the globe to advance common values and spread the blessings of liberty to every corner of the world. Freedom is a gift from the Almighty, written in the heart and soul of every man, woman, and child, and we must continue to promote the importance of religious freedom at home and abroad.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2007, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to reflect on the great blessing of religious liberty, endeavor to preserve this freedom for future generations, and commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities in their schools, places of worship, neighborhoods, and homes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Friday, January 12, 2007
NBC's Conan O'Brien mocks Jesus and Christianity
Posted: January 12, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
NBC has plummeted to the level of CBS, with a late-night skit that blatantly mocks Christianity by portraying Jesus as a homosexual voyeur, a stunt that would have been instantly condemned nationwide if it had focused on any subject other than Christianity, according to a pro-life leader.
Full article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53739
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
NBC has plummeted to the level of CBS, with a late-night skit that blatantly mocks Christianity by portraying Jesus as a homosexual voyeur, a stunt that would have been instantly condemned nationwide if it had focused on any subject other than Christianity, according to a pro-life leader.
Full article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53739
Navy dismisses chaplain who prayed 'in Jesus' name'
'We are homeless, jobless, and we are in God's hands'
January 12, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A U.S. Navy chaplain who prayed "in Jesus' name" as his conscience dictated is being ejected from the military service "in retaliation" for his victorious battle to change Navy policy that required religious rites be "non-sectarian."
"This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again."
Klingenschmitt has fought an extended battle with the Navy over its restrictions on religious expression by its chaplains. He appeared and delivered a public prayer "in Jesus' name" at a White House rally last winter and was court-martialed for that. The Navy convicted him of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus' name."
He's also launched a legal battle that he said he hopes eventually will result in his reinstatement, alleging the Navy assembled a "civic religion" by ordering its chaplains to pray in a certain way.
Full article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53731
January 12, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A U.S. Navy chaplain who prayed "in Jesus' name" as his conscience dictated is being ejected from the military service "in retaliation" for his victorious battle to change Navy policy that required religious rites be "non-sectarian."
"This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again."
Klingenschmitt has fought an extended battle with the Navy over its restrictions on religious expression by its chaplains. He appeared and delivered a public prayer "in Jesus' name" at a White House rally last winter and was court-martialed for that. The Navy convicted him of failing to follow a lawful order because his superior didn't want him praying "in Jesus' name."
He's also launched a legal battle that he said he hopes eventually will result in his reinstatement, alleging the Navy assembled a "civic religion" by ordering its chaplains to pray in a certain way.
Full article: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53731
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
New Stem-Cell Study Proves Embryos Need Not Be Killed
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Scientists -- and family advocates -- say the House should consider the new research before voting to expand funding for destructive stem-cell science.
Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research rejoiced today at news that scientists from Wake Forest and Harvard have discovered a new source of stem cells that doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos -- and have used the source to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory.
"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, senior researcher and director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, said the research is very exciting news, indeed.
"They found that they could get adult-type stem cells from amniotic fluid -- the liquid that cushions the baby as it's developing -- and from the placenta, the afterbirth," said Prentice, a former university biology professor.
"The exciting thing is that these cells show all of the positives that people are looking for: They are so flexible in being able to form virtually any tissue of the body; you can keep them growing for a long time in the laboratory; they don't form tumors -- it looks like they might not even cause transplant rejection."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, was also encouraged by the news.
"This is one of a number of studies in recent years showing versatility and promise from using live-birth products -- amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and placenta," she said.
"It's ironic that while some members of Congress and scientists are fixated on destroying human embryos for research, we continue to see that young humans are more valuable to science alive than dead."
Researcher Atala said a stem-cell bank with 100,000 specimens could theoretically supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with "perfect genetic matches" of organs for transplantation.
The news is all the more poignant because on Thursday, the newly reorganized House of Representatives will consider a bill to expand federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos.
Sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., H.R. 3 would dramatically increase the number of stem-cell lines eligible for federally funded research grants. In 2001, President Bush approved federal funding for research on only a very limited number of stem-cell lines left over from in-vitro fertilization -- and already scheduled for destruction.
Earll predicted the amniotic research will be talked about on Capitol Hill over the next three days.
"This will cause a ripple preceding the vote on Thursday -- and will put some pressure on some members of the House to take a good hard look at whether destroying human embryos is necessary," she said.
One new congressman, Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., agreed.
Roskam, who was elected last November to succeed longtime pro-life stalwart Henry Hyde, said the new amniotic research is exactly what Congress should be considering Thursday -- not research that destroys human embryos.
"There's a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle -- and on both sides of the life issue -- for pursuing other types of stem-cell research, such as adult and cord-blood research, which has been receiving federal funding since 2001," Roskam told CitizenLink.
"I think the Democrats had an opportunity to frame the debate and concentrate on some bread-and-butter issues -- taxes, spending, and so forth -- and yet, here they go; they get the majority and jump right in and move some very controversial legislation. There's no doubt that embryonic stem-cell research is moral quicksand -- and is a very difficult issue to discuss clearly."
As the bill stands now, Roskam plans to vote no. Some of his House colleagues will be in a quandary, he said.
"I think there's going to be a lot of Democrats, who described themselves in their campaigns as pro-life and won, who are going to be in a very difficult situation -- either voting their pro-life constituency, or voting with their Democratic leaders," he said.
The congressman said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have decreed that no amendments or changes can be added to the stem-cell bill -- or to any of the bills Democrats hope to pass in the first 100 hours of Congress.
Last May, the House voted 238-194 to approve the DeGette bill, but President Bush vetoed the measure in July. Would he do so again if it makes it to his desk a second time? Bush adviser Tim Goeglein didn't say exactly, but made his boss's position on the issue clear.
"President Bush has welcomed snowflake children (adopted human embryos who grow up and become children) and their parents to the White House twice," Goeglein told CitizenLink. "Those visits underscore his commitment to the culture of life. He has been proactive on a stem-cell policy that underscores human dignity."
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003573.cfm
Scientists -- and family advocates -- say the House should consider the new research before voting to expand funding for destructive stem-cell science.
Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research rejoiced today at news that scientists from Wake Forest and Harvard have discovered a new source of stem cells that doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos -- and have used the source to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory.
"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, senior researcher and director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, said the research is very exciting news, indeed.
"They found that they could get adult-type stem cells from amniotic fluid -- the liquid that cushions the baby as it's developing -- and from the placenta, the afterbirth," said Prentice, a former university biology professor.
"The exciting thing is that these cells show all of the positives that people are looking for: They are so flexible in being able to form virtually any tissue of the body; you can keep them growing for a long time in the laboratory; they don't form tumors -- it looks like they might not even cause transplant rejection."
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, was also encouraged by the news.
"This is one of a number of studies in recent years showing versatility and promise from using live-birth products -- amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood and placenta," she said.
"It's ironic that while some members of Congress and scientists are fixated on destroying human embryos for research, we continue to see that young humans are more valuable to science alive than dead."
Researcher Atala said a stem-cell bank with 100,000 specimens could theoretically supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with "perfect genetic matches" of organs for transplantation.
The news is all the more poignant because on Thursday, the newly reorganized House of Representatives will consider a bill to expand federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos.
Sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., H.R. 3 would dramatically increase the number of stem-cell lines eligible for federally funded research grants. In 2001, President Bush approved federal funding for research on only a very limited number of stem-cell lines left over from in-vitro fertilization -- and already scheduled for destruction.
Earll predicted the amniotic research will be talked about on Capitol Hill over the next three days.
"This will cause a ripple preceding the vote on Thursday -- and will put some pressure on some members of the House to take a good hard look at whether destroying human embryos is necessary," she said.
One new congressman, Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., agreed.
Roskam, who was elected last November to succeed longtime pro-life stalwart Henry Hyde, said the new amniotic research is exactly what Congress should be considering Thursday -- not research that destroys human embryos.
"There's a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle -- and on both sides of the life issue -- for pursuing other types of stem-cell research, such as adult and cord-blood research, which has been receiving federal funding since 2001," Roskam told CitizenLink.
"I think the Democrats had an opportunity to frame the debate and concentrate on some bread-and-butter issues -- taxes, spending, and so forth -- and yet, here they go; they get the majority and jump right in and move some very controversial legislation. There's no doubt that embryonic stem-cell research is moral quicksand -- and is a very difficult issue to discuss clearly."
As the bill stands now, Roskam plans to vote no. Some of his House colleagues will be in a quandary, he said.
"I think there's going to be a lot of Democrats, who described themselves in their campaigns as pro-life and won, who are going to be in a very difficult situation -- either voting their pro-life constituency, or voting with their Democratic leaders," he said.
The congressman said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., have decreed that no amendments or changes can be added to the stem-cell bill -- or to any of the bills Democrats hope to pass in the first 100 hours of Congress.
Last May, the House voted 238-194 to approve the DeGette bill, but President Bush vetoed the measure in July. Would he do so again if it makes it to his desk a second time? Bush adviser Tim Goeglein didn't say exactly, but made his boss's position on the issue clear.
"President Bush has welcomed snowflake children (adopted human embryos who grow up and become children) and their parents to the White House twice," Goeglein told CitizenLink. "Those visits underscore his commitment to the culture of life. He has been proactive on a stem-cell policy that underscores human dignity."
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003573.cfm
Friday, January 05, 2007
The Intolerance of Tolerance
by Greg Koukl
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America’s noblest virtues has been so distorted it’s become a vice.
There’s one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is “intolerant.”
The modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.
The Tolerance Trick
As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the “passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Let me give you a real life example.
Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:
“All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.”
All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:
“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him.”
Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”
“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”
“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.
I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They all agreed.
Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them.
They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.
If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.
Escaping the Trap“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “You must reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classic view.”
Then I wrote these two principles on the board (This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College.):
Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.
…Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
…Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
…To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue…
Topsy-Turvy
The modern definition of tolerance turns the classical formula for tolerance on its head:
Be egalitarian regarding ideas.
Be elitist regarding persons.
If you reject another’s ideas, you’re automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did with me). On this new view of tolerance no idea or behavior can be opposed—even if done graciously—without inviting the charge of incivility.
To say I’m intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. Ironically, it results in elitism regarding persons. If I think my ideas are better than another’s, I can be ill-treated as a person, publicly marginalized and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent and—can you believe it—intolerant. Sometimes I can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.
Tolerance has thus gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but don’t tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception with those beliefs. Contrary opinions are labeled as “imposing your view on others” and quickly silenced.
This is nonsense and should be abandoned. The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable “Catch-22,” because each person in any debate has a point of view he thinks is correct.
Catch-22
Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice that we can’t truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement (elitism regarding ideas)—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat him.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet saying so brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.
Intellectual Cowardice
Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—”you intolerant bigot”—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it.
In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.
Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about his own views. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind of tolerance is a myth.
Full article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_intolerance_of_tolerance&ns=GregKoukl&dt=12/14/2006&page=full&comments=true
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America’s noblest virtues has been so distorted it’s become a vice.
There’s one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is “intolerant.”
The modern notion of tolerance is seriously misguided.
The Tolerance Trick
As it turns out, by the modern definition of tolerance no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Francis Beckwith calls the “passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” Returning to the classic understanding of tolerance is the only way to restore any useful meaning to the word. Let me give you a real life example.
Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:
“All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.”
All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:
“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him.”
Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”
“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”
“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.
I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They all agreed.
Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them.
They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.
If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.
Escaping the Trap“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “You must reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classic view.”
Then I wrote these two principles on the board (This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft of Boston College.):
Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.
…Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
…Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
…To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue…
Topsy-Turvy
The modern definition of tolerance turns the classical formula for tolerance on its head:
Be egalitarian regarding ideas.
Be elitist regarding persons.
If you reject another’s ideas, you’re automatically accused of disrespecting the person (as the coed did with me). On this new view of tolerance no idea or behavior can be opposed—even if done graciously—without inviting the charge of incivility.
To say I’m intolerant of the person because I disagree with his ideas is confused. Ironically, it results in elitism regarding persons. If I think my ideas are better than another’s, I can be ill-treated as a person, publicly marginalized and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, indecent and—can you believe it—intolerant. Sometimes I can even be sued, punished by law, or forced to attend re-education programs.
Tolerance has thus gone topsy-turvy: Tolerate most beliefs, but don’t tolerate (show respect for) those who take exception with those beliefs. Contrary opinions are labeled as “imposing your view on others” and quickly silenced.
This is nonsense and should be abandoned. The myth of tolerance forces everyone into an inevitable “Catch-22,” because each person in any debate has a point of view he thinks is correct.
Catch-22
Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice that we can’t truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance—disagreement (elitism regarding ideas)—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat him.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet saying so brings the accusation of intolerance. It’s a “Catch-22.” According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.
Intellectual Cowardice
Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views or grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—”you intolerant bigot”—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it.
In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.
Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition. When tolerance means neutrality, that all views are equally valid and true, then no one is ever tolerant because no one is ever neutral about his own views. Point out the contradiction built into the new definition. Point out that this kind of tolerance is a myth.
Full article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_intolerance_of_tolerance&ns=GregKoukl&dt=12/14/2006&page=full&comments=true
Growing up too fast
- Tween-targeted toys and fashions are prime examples of marketing attempts to make young girls, even those under the age of eight, grow up much too fast.
- Marketing aimed at children from ages eight to twelve, a group commonly called "tweens," now targets them with advertising previously pointed at teenagers.
- This past Christmas season's top-selling dolls for girls, the Bratz line, illustrate the pressure tween girls are under because of this type of marketing.
- The difficulty trying to buy an age-appropriate doll this past Christmas revealed the abundance of "highly sexualized" dolls now being produced for tweens and even younger girls.
- It's important for us to remember that the toys that we give to our children send messages to them about our perceptions of society, value, and beauty.
- When you give a Bratz doll to a little girl, you're saying this is what women should look like, this is what girls should look like -- this is what they should aspire to.
- These popular dolls, which now outsell even Barbie, present an image problem for girls who are, at an early age, already feeling pressured to meet a standard that has no basis in reality
- The Bratz are a highly sexualized, male fantasy, or a stereotyped male fantasy, of what girls and women should look like.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42007b.asp
- Marketing aimed at children from ages eight to twelve, a group commonly called "tweens," now targets them with advertising previously pointed at teenagers.
- This past Christmas season's top-selling dolls for girls, the Bratz line, illustrate the pressure tween girls are under because of this type of marketing.
- The difficulty trying to buy an age-appropriate doll this past Christmas revealed the abundance of "highly sexualized" dolls now being produced for tweens and even younger girls.
- It's important for us to remember that the toys that we give to our children send messages to them about our perceptions of society, value, and beauty.
- When you give a Bratz doll to a little girl, you're saying this is what women should look like, this is what girls should look like -- this is what they should aspire to.
- These popular dolls, which now outsell even Barbie, present an image problem for girls who are, at an early age, already feeling pressured to meet a standard that has no basis in reality
- The Bratz are a highly sexualized, male fantasy, or a stereotyped male fantasy, of what girls and women should look like.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42007b.asp
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Top Ten Persecutors of Christians
(January 3, 2007) The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) www.persecution.org has just released its annual Hall of Shame Awards. This list details the world’s top ten persecutors of Christians.
This report calls attention to a growing trend that shows the source of Christian persecution shifting from nations with Communist governments to Islamic nations.
The first example of this trend is Iraq. One of the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq was to bring more pressure on the Christian communities there. Much of the media attention has focused on bloodshed between Sunni and Shiite, but hardly any coverage has been given to the disproportionately large number of brutal attacks on the small Christian minority. Therefore, ICC has ranked Iraq as the second-worst persecutor of Christians.
In addition, radical Islam has gained a foothold in the Horn of Africa through the anarchy in Somalia. This has contributed to a sharp rise in violence against Christians in Somalia and Ethiopia. It remains to be seen what effect the recent defeat of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia will have on the region.
ICC’s President Jeff King said, “Persecution must and can be fought. Religious persecution must be named and shamed on an international level. Journalists need to speak out about Islam’s mistreatment of other religions, while concerned individuals should get involved in the fight by contacting their elected representatives and by calling embassies and requesting fair treatment for Christians overseas.”
In order, ICC has ranked the world’s worst persecutors as: North Korea, Iraq, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, China, Vietnam, and Pakistan.
The report is in PDF format, and can be found on the ICC website www.persecution.org, or it can be accessed directly at Hall of Shame 2007
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/pdfs/HallofShame2007.pdf
This report calls attention to a growing trend that shows the source of Christian persecution shifting from nations with Communist governments to Islamic nations.
The first example of this trend is Iraq. One of the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq was to bring more pressure on the Christian communities there. Much of the media attention has focused on bloodshed between Sunni and Shiite, but hardly any coverage has been given to the disproportionately large number of brutal attacks on the small Christian minority. Therefore, ICC has ranked Iraq as the second-worst persecutor of Christians.
In addition, radical Islam has gained a foothold in the Horn of Africa through the anarchy in Somalia. This has contributed to a sharp rise in violence against Christians in Somalia and Ethiopia. It remains to be seen what effect the recent defeat of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia will have on the region.
ICC’s President Jeff King said, “Persecution must and can be fought. Religious persecution must be named and shamed on an international level. Journalists need to speak out about Islam’s mistreatment of other religions, while concerned individuals should get involved in the fight by contacting their elected representatives and by calling embassies and requesting fair treatment for Christians overseas.”
In order, ICC has ranked the world’s worst persecutors as: North Korea, Iraq, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, China, Vietnam, and Pakistan.
The report is in PDF format, and can be found on the ICC website www.persecution.org, or it can be accessed directly at Hall of Shame 2007
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/pdfs/HallofShame2007.pdf
Human Rights and Pluralism: Conflicting Values?
Living in a democracy, we often hear the terms human rights and pluralism, but we don’t often stop to think about what they really mean or how they’re related.
In its recent decision in the case of Konrad v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the German government could outlaw homeschooling based on its determination that homeschooling hindered the promotion of pluralism in that country. This ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of both rights and pluralism and places these two at odds. Properly defined, pluralism and human rights are compatible goals.
In an operational sense, pluralism means that people of different races, religions, and views should live together with mutual respect and as equal citizens.
A government may promote pluralism. But if pluralism and human rights are to mean anything, they must mean that a person may not be compelled by the government to give up his or her individual views in the name of making a pluralistic society. In fact, coerced pluralism is a self-defeating objective. At the core, any theory of human rights views the decisions of individuals for their own lives to be presumptively superior to government authority. Of course, there are limits to this theory, and not all things claimed to be a human right survive logical analysis. But there’s something about the right of private judgment that’s fundamental to the idea of human rights.
One of the most important applications of this right of private judgment is the right of parents to decide how their children should be educated. Parents should have a prior right to make such decisions that’s superior to any claim of any government.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/hshb/72/hshb7207.asp
In its recent decision in the case of Konrad v. Germany, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the German government could outlaw homeschooling based on its determination that homeschooling hindered the promotion of pluralism in that country. This ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of both rights and pluralism and places these two at odds. Properly defined, pluralism and human rights are compatible goals.
In an operational sense, pluralism means that people of different races, religions, and views should live together with mutual respect and as equal citizens.
A government may promote pluralism. But if pluralism and human rights are to mean anything, they must mean that a person may not be compelled by the government to give up his or her individual views in the name of making a pluralistic society. In fact, coerced pluralism is a self-defeating objective. At the core, any theory of human rights views the decisions of individuals for their own lives to be presumptively superior to government authority. Of course, there are limits to this theory, and not all things claimed to be a human right survive logical analysis. But there’s something about the right of private judgment that’s fundamental to the idea of human rights.
One of the most important applications of this right of private judgment is the right of parents to decide how their children should be educated. Parents should have a prior right to make such decisions that’s superior to any claim of any government.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/hshb/72/hshb7207.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)