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."
Friday, January 19, 2007
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)