(May 4, 2005)
Western New York and the world are waiting to find out more about the miraculous recovery of former Buffalo firefighter Don Herbert. He's communicating after years of brain damaged silence.
Since his stunning awakening, doctors have been devising a plan for rehabilitation, as news of his progresss spreads well beyond Western New York.
Neil Keane: "I can't think of a better word than a miracle. It's astounding, absolutely astounding."
From Florida, former Buffalo fire commissioner Neil Keane appeared on CNN Tuesday night to talk about the possible medical breakthrough involving Buffalo firefighter Donald Herbert.
Keane said, "Although I prayed like firefighters and other family members, I never though he'd ever come out of it, it was so devastating an injury."
Wednesday, the amazing awakening of Donald Herbert continues to dominate headlines worldwide.
He was severely injured in a house fire in 1995, somewhat able to walk a year later, but then not at all.
After nearly ten year's silence, the 43 year old father of four astounded the folks at Father Baker Manor Nursing Home Saturday when he started talking for hours.
Herbert's uncle Simon Manka said, "The conversation and memories were talking to family, how boys were and where they were at, things of that nature."
Herbert is believed to have gone without oxygen for six minutes. He was in a coma for two months and for the past nine years could hardly communicate until this past weekend.
Retired Fire Lt. Pat Coghlan visited him on Sunday.
Pat Coghlan said, "At the end of visit, I shook hands. He still had a strong handshake."
"For a guy to go from condition he's in not being able to talk and then be able to be understood... It's a miracle. It's amazing."
WIVB TV4 Buffalo, NY - Possible Miracle Catches Eye of the World
Thursday, May 05, 2005
One-Way Tolerance Is Tyranny
Calif. School Backs Down After Censoring Student's Views on Homosexuality
Head of Legal Defense Group: 'One-Way Tolerance Is Tyranny'
By Jim Brown
May 4, 2005
(AgapePress) - A high school in Rancho Cucamonga, California, recently attempted to bar a student from wearing a T-shirt that read: 'Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing,' and 'Truth is truth -- homosexuality is wrong.'
Senior Lindy Daniels was yanked from her classroom at Los Osos High School, sent to the principal's office, and told she must either change the shirt or leave school. Shortly afterward, her parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a non-profit legal defense organization that specializes in defending religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
One of PJI's attorneys immediately called the school and faxed a letter the same day, explaining how students have First Amendment rights that follow them when they step onto a school campus. The legal group informed Los Ossos High School officials that the school was trampling Daniels' free-speech rights, and that she would continue to wear the shirt and other shirts expressing her values and beliefs at her own discretion.
The school asserted that the censorship was based on concerns over "tolerance" and "diversity." A Los Ossos High official explained that homosexuals would be offended by a shirt bearing a message like the one Daniels' wore. But PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider says the school was engaging in anti-Christian bigotry -- and not for the first time.
"Regrettably, I have come to learn that this school has a history of antagonism towards people who take a given position on the morality of homosexuality and who celebrate traditional marriage," Snider notes. But after PJI intervened on Daniels' behalf, the school backed down, deciding not to punish the student, and has since stopped harassing her.
According to Snider, school officials cannot legally deny students their right to religious speech. "What schools should remember," the attorney says, "is that students have a right to voice their opinion on social, moral, and religious issues, and this is perfectly legal. It should be encouraged within the realm of civil debate."
Commenting on the case, PJI president Brad Dacus observed, "One-way tolerance is not tolerance, but tyranny." He says intolerance against students because of their religious or moral convictions has no place in public education.
News from Agape Press
Head of Legal Defense Group: 'One-Way Tolerance Is Tyranny'
By Jim Brown
May 4, 2005
(AgapePress) - A high school in Rancho Cucamonga, California, recently attempted to bar a student from wearing a T-shirt that read: 'Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing,' and 'Truth is truth -- homosexuality is wrong.'
Senior Lindy Daniels was yanked from her classroom at Los Osos High School, sent to the principal's office, and told she must either change the shirt or leave school. Shortly afterward, her parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a non-profit legal defense organization that specializes in defending religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
One of PJI's attorneys immediately called the school and faxed a letter the same day, explaining how students have First Amendment rights that follow them when they step onto a school campus. The legal group informed Los Ossos High School officials that the school was trampling Daniels' free-speech rights, and that she would continue to wear the shirt and other shirts expressing her values and beliefs at her own discretion.
The school asserted that the censorship was based on concerns over "tolerance" and "diversity." A Los Ossos High official explained that homosexuals would be offended by a shirt bearing a message like the one Daniels' wore. But PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider says the school was engaging in anti-Christian bigotry -- and not for the first time.
"Regrettably, I have come to learn that this school has a history of antagonism towards people who take a given position on the morality of homosexuality and who celebrate traditional marriage," Snider notes. But after PJI intervened on Daniels' behalf, the school backed down, deciding not to punish the student, and has since stopped harassing her.
According to Snider, school officials cannot legally deny students their right to religious speech. "What schools should remember," the attorney says, "is that students have a right to voice their opinion on social, moral, and religious issues, and this is perfectly legal. It should be encouraged within the realm of civil debate."
Commenting on the case, PJI president Brad Dacus observed, "One-way tolerance is not tolerance, but tyranny." He says intolerance against students because of their religious or moral convictions has no place in public education.
News from Agape Press
Disagrees with intolerant Christian agenda
Think about it ... week after disheartening week we open the newspapers or turn on the TV news only to rediscover that increased numbers of rabid, bigoted and intolerant Christians are plotting the overthrow and takeover of the U.S. Government.
Their objective: to force every man, woman, boy, girl and trans-gendered individual to either convert to Christianity or face severe consequences. Just what those consequences will look like, we can only imagine as we bite our collective fingernails to the quick.
These crazed Christians apparently have been running loose, uncontrolled, sharing their faith with neighbors in need, the sick in hospitals, co-workers under stress, fellow-students struggling with hopelessness, and vulnerable senior citizens abandoned in nursing homes by their loving families. Where will it end?
Repeatedly, despite stern warnings from the ACLU, these religious "pests" continue to mention the name of Jesus in their graduation speeches (shudder, shudder). They pray over their meals in public without any sense of decent shame. They have even outright refused to halt their annoying habit of praying before school board meetings!
Often they can be seen reading their New Testaments on their lunch hours, where any unsuspecting passerby may be exposed to scripture. Tenaciously, they work at keeping the Ten Commandments displayed in the public square, courthouses, and schools without any regard for the well-being of those who desire to actively forget they were born with a conscience.
Opposing the entitlement all homosexuals have to be considered a severely abused people's group, these detractors appear to be fixated on preserving the traditional family, even at the cost of their own characters being drawn and quartered in the Red Square media. What is especially alarming is the passionate, almost maniacal obsession they have to stop the systematic dismemberment and torture of helpless babies (a clear prerogative of every pregnant woman), and the dehydration/starvation of incapacitated people, even at the insistence of estranged husbands and by judicial decree.
God (if we believed in Him) only knows to what extremes these rabble rousers will go to shove their goodness, compassion, and ever-lasting life down our throats. Many of them are flawed, and that is to our advantage. But strangely enough, they persist in running to this Lord of theirs for forgiveness.
Another area of grave concern are the inroads they've made in persuading others that there is literal spiritual war going on. They maintain that Jesus' enemy, Satan, knowing his time is short before the Lord's return, is portraying Christianity as the enemy, when in reality it is the hope of the world. All of this is extremely vexing.
As we all know, the myth of 'separation of church and state' makes it absolutely plain in some letter Thomas Jefferson wrote that the state must be protected from the church (not that the church must be protected from the state). These religious malcontents' have no business expecting the Constitution to be enforced. Nor do they have the right to assume the first amendment applies to them as well as to us.
Thank heaven (if we believed in it) for the leadership of our very own Senator Joe Biden, along with that pillar of integrity, Senator Ted Kennedy (Mary Jo's friend). They have truly led the way in supporting legislation to impose elitist views on the majority.
In order to assure that America deteriorates just as rapidly as possible - morally, socially, politically, educationally and judicially - we must persevere in our resolve to think first and foremost of ourselves. Except we remain vigilant in this regard, Christians may just succeed in turning 'our' country around into the God-honoring, family-oriented, law-abiding democratic republic it once was.
A prime example of this groups audacity in challenging our out-of-the-mainstream agenda, is the upcoming National Day of Prayer, Thursday, May 5. The motto is "God, shed Your grace on thee." At noon in The Circle at Georgetown, at 6 p.m. in the Cape Henlopen High School, and at numerous locations all over the state, these few, sold-out, praying radicals will congregate in order to intercede in our nation's behalf. They may even pray for us without asking permission.
The point is this: Should Christians ever stand in one accord for longer than a day, we're in a heap of trouble. Hoping this wake-up call does not fall upon deaf ears ...
Bunni Casey
Milton
Originally published Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Disagrees with intolerant Christian agenda - Delaware Wave - delmarvanow.com
Their objective: to force every man, woman, boy, girl and trans-gendered individual to either convert to Christianity or face severe consequences. Just what those consequences will look like, we can only imagine as we bite our collective fingernails to the quick.
These crazed Christians apparently have been running loose, uncontrolled, sharing their faith with neighbors in need, the sick in hospitals, co-workers under stress, fellow-students struggling with hopelessness, and vulnerable senior citizens abandoned in nursing homes by their loving families. Where will it end?
Repeatedly, despite stern warnings from the ACLU, these religious "pests" continue to mention the name of Jesus in their graduation speeches (shudder, shudder). They pray over their meals in public without any sense of decent shame. They have even outright refused to halt their annoying habit of praying before school board meetings!
Often they can be seen reading their New Testaments on their lunch hours, where any unsuspecting passerby may be exposed to scripture. Tenaciously, they work at keeping the Ten Commandments displayed in the public square, courthouses, and schools without any regard for the well-being of those who desire to actively forget they were born with a conscience.
Opposing the entitlement all homosexuals have to be considered a severely abused people's group, these detractors appear to be fixated on preserving the traditional family, even at the cost of their own characters being drawn and quartered in the Red Square media. What is especially alarming is the passionate, almost maniacal obsession they have to stop the systematic dismemberment and torture of helpless babies (a clear prerogative of every pregnant woman), and the dehydration/starvation of incapacitated people, even at the insistence of estranged husbands and by judicial decree.
God (if we believed in Him) only knows to what extremes these rabble rousers will go to shove their goodness, compassion, and ever-lasting life down our throats. Many of them are flawed, and that is to our advantage. But strangely enough, they persist in running to this Lord of theirs for forgiveness.
Another area of grave concern are the inroads they've made in persuading others that there is literal spiritual war going on. They maintain that Jesus' enemy, Satan, knowing his time is short before the Lord's return, is portraying Christianity as the enemy, when in reality it is the hope of the world. All of this is extremely vexing.
As we all know, the myth of 'separation of church and state' makes it absolutely plain in some letter Thomas Jefferson wrote that the state must be protected from the church (not that the church must be protected from the state). These religious malcontents' have no business expecting the Constitution to be enforced. Nor do they have the right to assume the first amendment applies to them as well as to us.
Thank heaven (if we believed in it) for the leadership of our very own Senator Joe Biden, along with that pillar of integrity, Senator Ted Kennedy (Mary Jo's friend). They have truly led the way in supporting legislation to impose elitist views on the majority.
In order to assure that America deteriorates just as rapidly as possible - morally, socially, politically, educationally and judicially - we must persevere in our resolve to think first and foremost of ourselves. Except we remain vigilant in this regard, Christians may just succeed in turning 'our' country around into the God-honoring, family-oriented, law-abiding democratic republic it once was.
A prime example of this groups audacity in challenging our out-of-the-mainstream agenda, is the upcoming National Day of Prayer, Thursday, May 5. The motto is "God, shed Your grace on thee." At noon in The Circle at Georgetown, at 6 p.m. in the Cape Henlopen High School, and at numerous locations all over the state, these few, sold-out, praying radicals will congregate in order to intercede in our nation's behalf. They may even pray for us without asking permission.
The point is this: Should Christians ever stand in one accord for longer than a day, we're in a heap of trouble. Hoping this wake-up call does not fall upon deaf ears ...
Bunni Casey
Milton
Originally published Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Disagrees with intolerant Christian agenda - Delaware Wave - delmarvanow.com
Intelligent design theory argues for a designer behind life
BY BILL TAMMEUS AND ALAN BAVLEY
Knight Ridder Newspapers
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - (KRT) - A central question in the growing debate over the intelligent design movement is this:
What's religion got to do with it?
As is often the case when science and religion clash, some of the answers, though offered with certainty, are polar opposites.
"This is all about Christian theology," says Niall Shanks, author of "God, the Devil and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory."
Not so, says John Calvert, a managing director of the Kansas City-based Intelligent Design Network Inc. "What we (intelligent design advocates) are doing is taking religion out of science."
Proponents of modern theories of evolution propose that something as microscopic as a single cell has evolved over billions of years in a completely unguided way into something as complex as, say, a human being.
Instead supporters of intelligent design say that some things in the universe - things even as tiny as that single cell - are far too complex in design to be the result of time and random chance. They say such design required thoughtful engineering.
To demonstrate this, they often refer to something called the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum, which can be seen only with an electron microscope, appears to be a long tail that helps bacteria move about.
Upon examination, it looks like a biological machine with a high-speed rotary motor made up of at least 40 interlocking components. Intelligent design backers believe these tails were present in the very earliest bacteria, billions of years ago. They also contend these tails won't work unless all parts are present at once.
They refer to the tail and its multipart motor as an example of what they call "irreducible complexity." The presence of all these parts, they conclude, means the tail couldn't have assembled by accident but must have been designed.
Such complexity suggests that from its earliest origins, life results from a guided process, these advocates say, and scientists can discover this irreducible complexity by looking for patterns in nature that aren't likely to happen by chance.
"The argument I present is based completely on physical data," says Michael Behe, a leading intelligent design proponent and a Lehigh University biochemist. "It's based on the structures of things we find in the cell and on pretty straightforward logic of how we recognize design. It's not based on any dogma."
While some advocates of intelligent design say outright that the "designer" will turn out to be the God of Christianity, the theory itself does not say who or what the designer may be.
A basic tenet of science is that the validity of theories must be testable through experiments and observations.
If theorists of intelligent design are being accused of trying to sneak God into the lab, they criticize Darwinian evolutionists for trying to keep out the idea of an intelligent designer.
"Science has to be theoretical," Calvert says. "Religion is dogmatic. It's doctrinaire. And when you move from the theoretical to the doctrinaire, you're putting religion into science."
That's what Calvert and other intelligent design backers say traditional evolutionary biology has done, though they describe biology's religion as nontheistic, or without a god. And they insist that when the scientific establishment refuses to consider the possibility of intelligent design, it's following its own godless religion.
"Evolution clearly furthers an atheistic, materialistic worldview, and that's every bit as religious as Christianity and any other theistic faith," says William A. Dembski, a leading intelligent design advocate and Baylor University mathematician.
Calvert adds: "In origin science, we're addressing questions fundamental to religion - where did we come from? So they (evolutionary biologists) say, `OK, we're going to do that science with a (no-design) bias.'
"I think the institutions of science (such as universities, peer-review journals and scientific organizations) are wrong when they say that we have to ignore that (design) hypothesis."
The intelligent design movement, however, insists it is different from the various forms of scientific creationism and their explicitly religious pleadings. That's because most creationists look for scientific evidence that backs the Genesis creation accounts, whereas intelligent design proponents say they are unable, through their science, to answer who the intelligent designer is.
The commission mentioned critics of Darwinism who "point to evidence of design" and then seemed to support the charge of intelligent design proponents that some evolutionary biologists are biased. It said "neo-Darwinians" who conclude that "evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science."
Proponents of the design theory say they're in for the long haul.
Intelligent design is "perceived as being strong enough to be dealt with by the scientific establishment," Behe says. "I'm encouraged by that. I'm very optimistic that the progress of science itself will continue to throw up more evidence pointing toward design. Things are not getting simpler, they're getting much more elegant."
Dembski says parents and school boards "are tired of being bullied. I think these issues are not going to go away. If anything, they'll be intensified."
KRT Wire | 05/04/2005 | Intelligent design theory argues for a designer behind life
Knight Ridder Newspapers
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - (KRT) - A central question in the growing debate over the intelligent design movement is this:
What's religion got to do with it?
As is often the case when science and religion clash, some of the answers, though offered with certainty, are polar opposites.
"This is all about Christian theology," says Niall Shanks, author of "God, the Devil and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory."
Not so, says John Calvert, a managing director of the Kansas City-based Intelligent Design Network Inc. "What we (intelligent design advocates) are doing is taking religion out of science."
Proponents of modern theories of evolution propose that something as microscopic as a single cell has evolved over billions of years in a completely unguided way into something as complex as, say, a human being.
Instead supporters of intelligent design say that some things in the universe - things even as tiny as that single cell - are far too complex in design to be the result of time and random chance. They say such design required thoughtful engineering.
To demonstrate this, they often refer to something called the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum, which can be seen only with an electron microscope, appears to be a long tail that helps bacteria move about.
Upon examination, it looks like a biological machine with a high-speed rotary motor made up of at least 40 interlocking components. Intelligent design backers believe these tails were present in the very earliest bacteria, billions of years ago. They also contend these tails won't work unless all parts are present at once.
They refer to the tail and its multipart motor as an example of what they call "irreducible complexity." The presence of all these parts, they conclude, means the tail couldn't have assembled by accident but must have been designed.
Such complexity suggests that from its earliest origins, life results from a guided process, these advocates say, and scientists can discover this irreducible complexity by looking for patterns in nature that aren't likely to happen by chance.
"The argument I present is based completely on physical data," says Michael Behe, a leading intelligent design proponent and a Lehigh University biochemist. "It's based on the structures of things we find in the cell and on pretty straightforward logic of how we recognize design. It's not based on any dogma."
While some advocates of intelligent design say outright that the "designer" will turn out to be the God of Christianity, the theory itself does not say who or what the designer may be.
A basic tenet of science is that the validity of theories must be testable through experiments and observations.
If theorists of intelligent design are being accused of trying to sneak God into the lab, they criticize Darwinian evolutionists for trying to keep out the idea of an intelligent designer.
"Science has to be theoretical," Calvert says. "Religion is dogmatic. It's doctrinaire. And when you move from the theoretical to the doctrinaire, you're putting religion into science."
That's what Calvert and other intelligent design backers say traditional evolutionary biology has done, though they describe biology's religion as nontheistic, or without a god. And they insist that when the scientific establishment refuses to consider the possibility of intelligent design, it's following its own godless religion.
"Evolution clearly furthers an atheistic, materialistic worldview, and that's every bit as religious as Christianity and any other theistic faith," says William A. Dembski, a leading intelligent design advocate and Baylor University mathematician.
Calvert adds: "In origin science, we're addressing questions fundamental to religion - where did we come from? So they (evolutionary biologists) say, `OK, we're going to do that science with a (no-design) bias.'
"I think the institutions of science (such as universities, peer-review journals and scientific organizations) are wrong when they say that we have to ignore that (design) hypothesis."
The intelligent design movement, however, insists it is different from the various forms of scientific creationism and their explicitly religious pleadings. That's because most creationists look for scientific evidence that backs the Genesis creation accounts, whereas intelligent design proponents say they are unable, through their science, to answer who the intelligent designer is.
The commission mentioned critics of Darwinism who "point to evidence of design" and then seemed to support the charge of intelligent design proponents that some evolutionary biologists are biased. It said "neo-Darwinians" who conclude that "evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science."
Proponents of the design theory say they're in for the long haul.
Intelligent design is "perceived as being strong enough to be dealt with by the scientific establishment," Behe says. "I'm encouraged by that. I'm very optimistic that the progress of science itself will continue to throw up more evidence pointing toward design. Things are not getting simpler, they're getting much more elegant."
Dembski says parents and school boards "are tired of being bullied. I think these issues are not going to go away. If anything, they'll be intensified."
KRT Wire | 05/04/2005 | Intelligent design theory argues for a designer behind life
Kingdom of Heaven, another attempt to alter history?
May 04, 2005
Watson: 'Kingdom of Heaven', another attempt to alter history?
DC Watson takes aim at the PC flick Kingdom of Heaven:
Some Muslims are upset, now there’s a surprise. Not about something that happened yesterday, last week, or last year, but about events that occurred nine centuries ago. They’re still angry about history. It would be alarming to learn that intelligent, refined Muslims were still upset, but then, they aren’t the focus of this column.
Since film director Ridley Scott, whose film “Kingdom of Heaven” is set for release on May 6th, and is reported to have portrayed Christians as villains and Muslims as victims, the reason for the Christian Crusades should be reiterated.
According to a column written in the Ottawa Citizen, Scott wants the film to show that “religious fanaticism destroyed the balance of peace.”
Why, yes it did, Mr. Scott.
For anyone planning to see this film, please know that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) attended a private screening of “Kingdom of Heaven”, and summed it up this way. Rabiah Ahmed concluded that “the Muslim filmgoer could leave the theatre feeling good about the portrayal of Islam. And part of that, aside from the removal of the scenes flagged by Mr. Abou El Fadl as inflammatory, was the portrayal of Saladin as a humane and complex individual.”
Is this what life’s all about? Making Muslims who are still angry about something that happened centuries ago feel good about themselves? Attempting to make changes to history in order to avoid hurting their fragile feelings? Is this not how spoiled children are treated in an attempt to stop their screaming and whining? While we’re at it, should we hand these crybabies a bottle of warm milk and a blankey?
“Scenes flagged as inflammatory by Mr. Abou El Fadl.” This would be Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, who was “concerned and angered” after a reporter handed him an advance copy of the script.
The scenes removed from the film included one of victorious Muslim soldiers spitting on the Christian relic known as the True Cross and several scenes in which a Muslim cleric, in contrast to his reasonable and more secularized Christian counterpart, is portrayed as "a raving lunatic."
A Muslim cleric a raving lunatic? The chances of that are better than average. Abu Hamza suddenly comes to mind. However, since scenes such as these were removed from the film, it appears more likely that moviegoers will see Christians playing the role of the raving lunatics.
"For Muslims, the Crusades represent a very painful memory, akin to the memory of the Holocaust for Jews. Millions of Muslims were killed in repeated invasions," said Mr. Abou El Fadl, who points to the immediate Muslim outcry against U.S. President George W. Bush's use of the word "crusade."
The difference is, Mr. Abou El Fadl, the Jews hadn’t invaded Germany and slaughtered millions of innocent Germans, forcing religious conversion onto the survivors. The Holocaust was an offensive campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, comparable to the one going on in Sudan today, perpetrated by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed. The Crusades were a defensive campaign against Muslim onslaught. Brutal, but defensive nonetheless, not to mention necessary. Is it not true that Islam wasn’t even in existence until centuries after the death of Christ? Is it not true that Muslims initiated the first attacks?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6981/defense.htm
Since the film reportedly portrays Saladin, the Muslim who in 1187 captured Jerusalem as a humane and complex individual, we’ll have to wait and see if he demands ransoms for prisoners, sells them as slaves, or orders mass beheadings sometime during the movie, as he did in true history.
Some Christian groups in the U.S. have said they were offended by the portrayal of Christians, said Mr. Abou El Fadl. He finds comfort in that. It shows that there's balance, he said. Balance? Christian groups being offended by distorted portrayals of their history and Muslim groups being offended by the truth of their own religion being exposed can hardly be categorized as balance.
Many argue that if it weren’t for the Christian Crusades, the entire world would be Islamic today. Is this why they’re so angry? Because they were stood up to? They had better get used to that. Is it not time for them to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their shortcomings? Some of them, instead of changing a light bulb, would rather blame the Christians and Jews for having to sit in the dark.
If the Crusades, after nine centuries are still an open wound for some Muslims, is it not appropriate to question their ability to leave history alone and move forward with efforts of peace, not continued rage over historical events that none of us can do anything about? Perhaps someday, someone in Hollywood will produce a film that reveals entire story about the Christian Crusades, which will include the Muslim aggression that prompted them. However, if they do, they should expect Muslim groups to protest. After all, Scott’s watered down version brought on anger from Muslims until the scenes portraying Muslims as barbaric were removed.
Perhaps Ridley Scott is just playing it safe, knowing that if you criticize Muslims in your movie, there’s a chance you could end up like Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was shot and stabbed to death last November, being nearly decapitated by a Muslim whacko for making a film entitled “Submission”, which was critical of how women are treated in Islam. After all, how pleasant could it be for your killer to attach a note declaring Islamic holy war to your body by ramming a knife through the note into your chest?
No matter, Christians and Westerners can simply turn on their television set to see that not much has changed in many parts of the Islamic world over the past fourteen hundred years. The oppression of women, persecution of non-Muslims, rapes, limb amputations, stonings, and beheadings continue to this day. This is not opinion, it is documented fact.
Fellow Christians and Americans, and our Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist friends, please take into account that the facade has already been exposed, no matter what the militant Muslim hyenas attempt to hide at every turn.
It’s quite amazing in itself, how Islamic organizations have so conveniently portrayed Muslims and themselves as victims of bigotry. What’s more amazing, and absolutely pathetic, is the fact that they compare their alleged victimization to the Holocaust, Japanese internment, and to everything African-Americans have endured. Their routine has become tiresome and stale. Many Muslims, including the ones I know personally, think of these organizations as another pothole in the road to peace.
Have they been forced into ovens, moved into internment camps located in one section of the country, or sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, and completely segregated from American society? No. Therefore, they ought to stop playing off of true atrocities and placing themselves on some phony “endangered species” list.
Remember, it was our ancestors who were loyal to America that built this nation that we’ve inherited. It wasn’t passed down to us so it could be handed over to two-bit, immigrant bully wannabes who have no interest in co-existence. You don’t honestly believe that you were put on earth for the purpose of being accused of bigotry because you want peace and safety for you and your loved ones in your own homeland do you?
Remember your faith, and your heritage. The lettuce heads in Hollywood cannot rewrite true history, they can only present their distorted views of how they would’ve liked things to have gone down. Speak freely, American brothers and sisters. Speak your mind. And if they don’t like it, speak louder. You have that right, let no circus clowns attempt to take it from you.
Dhimmi Watch: Watson: 'Kingdom of Heaven', another attempt to alter history?
Watson: 'Kingdom of Heaven', another attempt to alter history?
DC Watson takes aim at the PC flick Kingdom of Heaven:
Some Muslims are upset, now there’s a surprise. Not about something that happened yesterday, last week, or last year, but about events that occurred nine centuries ago. They’re still angry about history. It would be alarming to learn that intelligent, refined Muslims were still upset, but then, they aren’t the focus of this column.
Since film director Ridley Scott, whose film “Kingdom of Heaven” is set for release on May 6th, and is reported to have portrayed Christians as villains and Muslims as victims, the reason for the Christian Crusades should be reiterated.
According to a column written in the Ottawa Citizen, Scott wants the film to show that “religious fanaticism destroyed the balance of peace.”
Why, yes it did, Mr. Scott.
For anyone planning to see this film, please know that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) attended a private screening of “Kingdom of Heaven”, and summed it up this way. Rabiah Ahmed concluded that “the Muslim filmgoer could leave the theatre feeling good about the portrayal of Islam. And part of that, aside from the removal of the scenes flagged by Mr. Abou El Fadl as inflammatory, was the portrayal of Saladin as a humane and complex individual.”
Is this what life’s all about? Making Muslims who are still angry about something that happened centuries ago feel good about themselves? Attempting to make changes to history in order to avoid hurting their fragile feelings? Is this not how spoiled children are treated in an attempt to stop their screaming and whining? While we’re at it, should we hand these crybabies a bottle of warm milk and a blankey?
“Scenes flagged as inflammatory by Mr. Abou El Fadl.” This would be Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, who was “concerned and angered” after a reporter handed him an advance copy of the script.
The scenes removed from the film included one of victorious Muslim soldiers spitting on the Christian relic known as the True Cross and several scenes in which a Muslim cleric, in contrast to his reasonable and more secularized Christian counterpart, is portrayed as "a raving lunatic."
A Muslim cleric a raving lunatic? The chances of that are better than average. Abu Hamza suddenly comes to mind. However, since scenes such as these were removed from the film, it appears more likely that moviegoers will see Christians playing the role of the raving lunatics.
"For Muslims, the Crusades represent a very painful memory, akin to the memory of the Holocaust for Jews. Millions of Muslims were killed in repeated invasions," said Mr. Abou El Fadl, who points to the immediate Muslim outcry against U.S. President George W. Bush's use of the word "crusade."
The difference is, Mr. Abou El Fadl, the Jews hadn’t invaded Germany and slaughtered millions of innocent Germans, forcing religious conversion onto the survivors. The Holocaust was an offensive campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, comparable to the one going on in Sudan today, perpetrated by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed. The Crusades were a defensive campaign against Muslim onslaught. Brutal, but defensive nonetheless, not to mention necessary. Is it not true that Islam wasn’t even in existence until centuries after the death of Christ? Is it not true that Muslims initiated the first attacks?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6981/defense.htm
Since the film reportedly portrays Saladin, the Muslim who in 1187 captured Jerusalem as a humane and complex individual, we’ll have to wait and see if he demands ransoms for prisoners, sells them as slaves, or orders mass beheadings sometime during the movie, as he did in true history.
Some Christian groups in the U.S. have said they were offended by the portrayal of Christians, said Mr. Abou El Fadl. He finds comfort in that. It shows that there's balance, he said. Balance? Christian groups being offended by distorted portrayals of their history and Muslim groups being offended by the truth of their own religion being exposed can hardly be categorized as balance.
Many argue that if it weren’t for the Christian Crusades, the entire world would be Islamic today. Is this why they’re so angry? Because they were stood up to? They had better get used to that. Is it not time for them to stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their shortcomings? Some of them, instead of changing a light bulb, would rather blame the Christians and Jews for having to sit in the dark.
If the Crusades, after nine centuries are still an open wound for some Muslims, is it not appropriate to question their ability to leave history alone and move forward with efforts of peace, not continued rage over historical events that none of us can do anything about? Perhaps someday, someone in Hollywood will produce a film that reveals entire story about the Christian Crusades, which will include the Muslim aggression that prompted them. However, if they do, they should expect Muslim groups to protest. After all, Scott’s watered down version brought on anger from Muslims until the scenes portraying Muslims as barbaric were removed.
Perhaps Ridley Scott is just playing it safe, knowing that if you criticize Muslims in your movie, there’s a chance you could end up like Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was shot and stabbed to death last November, being nearly decapitated by a Muslim whacko for making a film entitled “Submission”, which was critical of how women are treated in Islam. After all, how pleasant could it be for your killer to attach a note declaring Islamic holy war to your body by ramming a knife through the note into your chest?
No matter, Christians and Westerners can simply turn on their television set to see that not much has changed in many parts of the Islamic world over the past fourteen hundred years. The oppression of women, persecution of non-Muslims, rapes, limb amputations, stonings, and beheadings continue to this day. This is not opinion, it is documented fact.
Fellow Christians and Americans, and our Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist friends, please take into account that the facade has already been exposed, no matter what the militant Muslim hyenas attempt to hide at every turn.
It’s quite amazing in itself, how Islamic organizations have so conveniently portrayed Muslims and themselves as victims of bigotry. What’s more amazing, and absolutely pathetic, is the fact that they compare their alleged victimization to the Holocaust, Japanese internment, and to everything African-Americans have endured. Their routine has become tiresome and stale. Many Muslims, including the ones I know personally, think of these organizations as another pothole in the road to peace.
Have they been forced into ovens, moved into internment camps located in one section of the country, or sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, and completely segregated from American society? No. Therefore, they ought to stop playing off of true atrocities and placing themselves on some phony “endangered species” list.
Remember, it was our ancestors who were loyal to America that built this nation that we’ve inherited. It wasn’t passed down to us so it could be handed over to two-bit, immigrant bully wannabes who have no interest in co-existence. You don’t honestly believe that you were put on earth for the purpose of being accused of bigotry because you want peace and safety for you and your loved ones in your own homeland do you?
Remember your faith, and your heritage. The lettuce heads in Hollywood cannot rewrite true history, they can only present their distorted views of how they would’ve liked things to have gone down. Speak freely, American brothers and sisters. Speak your mind. And if they don’t like it, speak louder. You have that right, let no circus clowns attempt to take it from you.
Dhimmi Watch: Watson: 'Kingdom of Heaven', another attempt to alter history?
Crusading Against History
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com
May 3, 2005
'It;s not like a stupid Hollywood movie,' said French actress Eva Green about the English director Sir Ridley Scott's Crusades flick, Kingdom of Heaven.
That’s true. It’s, like, a stupid English movie.
The Crusades are hot, and Ridley Scott (director of Alien) is about to make them hotter. “Muslims,” gushed the New York Times after an advance showing of the new blockbuster, “are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe.” Sir Ridley, according to the Times, “said he hoped to demonstrate that Christians, Muslims and Jews could live together in harmony — if only fanaticism were kept at bay.” Or, as Green put it, the movie is intended to move people “to be more tolerant, more open towards the Arab people.”
Bent on coexistence, eh? That’s right: the Kingdom of Heaven script invents a group called the “Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians.” A publicist for the film elaborated: “They were working together. It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them.” Ah yes, everything was all right until those “Christian extremists” spoiled everything.
Kingdom of Heaven is designed to be a dream movie for those guilt-ridden creatures who believe that all the trouble between the Islamic world and the West has been caused by Western imperialism, racism, and colonialism, and that the glorious paradigm of Islamic tolerance, which was once a beacon to the world, could be reestablished if only the nasty white men of America and Europe would back off. A dream movie for the PC establishment, except for one little detail: it isn’t true.
Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, author of A Short History of the Crusades and one of the world’s leading historians of the period, called the movie “rubbish,” explaining that “it’s not historically accurate at all” as it “depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” Oh, and “there was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense.”
Professor Jonathan Philips, author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, also dismissed the film as history and took issue with its portrayal of the Crusader Knights Templars as villains: “The Templars as ‘baddies’ is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and ‘baddies’ is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land.”
Nor does Kingdom of Heaven take any notice of the historical realities of Christians and Jews who lived under Muslim rule. They were never treated as equals or accorded full rights as citizens, and always suffered under various forms of institutionalized discrimination and harassment.
The Muslim warrior Saladin, who captured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, is, according to a film publicist, a “hero of the piece.” He is one of the most legendary figures of the Crusades and in our age he has become PC as well: Saladin has become the prototype of the tolerant, magnanimous Muslim warrior, historical proof of the nobility of Islam and even of its superiority to wicked, Western, colonialist Christianity. In The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf portrays the Crusaders as little more than savages, even gorging themselves on the flesh of those they have murdered. But Saladin! “He was always affable with visitors, insisting that they stay to eat, treating them with full honours, even if they were infidels, and satisfying all their requests. He could not bear to let someone who had come to him depart disappointed, and there were those who did not hesitate to take advantage of this quality. One day, during a truce with the Franj [Franks], the ‘Brins,’ lord of Antioch, arrived unexpectedly at Saladin’s tent and asked him to return a district that the sultan had taken four years earlier. And he agreed!” The lovable lug! If asked, he might have given away the entire Holy Land!
However, as I explain in my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (Regnery), the real Saladin was not the proto-multiculturalist and early version of Nelson Mandela that he is made out to be by modern-day PC myth. Much is made of the fact that when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslims in October 1187, he treated the Christians with magnanimity — in sharp contrast to the behavior of the Crusaders in 1099. But Saladin was no stranger to massacre: when his forces decisively defeated the Crusaders at Hattin on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of his Christian opponents. According to his secretary, Imad ed-Din, Saladin “ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.”
Also, when Saladin and his men entered Jerusalem later that year, their magnanimity was actually pragmatism. He had initially planned to put to death all the Christians in the city. However, when the Christian commander inside Jerusalem, Balian of Ibelin, threatened in turn to destroy the city and kill all the Muslims there before Saladin could get inside, Saladin relented — although once inside the city he did enslave many of the Christians who could not afford to buy their way out of town.
Yet despite Kingdom of Heaven’s numerous whitewashes of history and strenuous efforts to portray the Muslims of the Crusader era in a favorable light, Islamic apologist Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, is in a froth about the film: “In my view,” he raged, “it is inevitable – I’m willing to risk my reputation on this – that after this movie is released there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it. People will go see it on a weekend and decide to teach some turbanhead a lesson.” Of course, this is less an indictment of the film than of the American people. I think it very likely that there will be no hate crimes against Muslims committed because of this film — and I hope that in that event Dr. Abou El Fadl’s reputation will be accorded the treatment it deserves.
In any event, Kingdom of Heaven cost over $150 million to make, features an all-star cast, and is being touted as “a fascinating history lesson.” Fascinating, maybe — but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves.
FrontPage magazine.com :: Crusading Against History by Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com
May 3, 2005
'It;s not like a stupid Hollywood movie,' said French actress Eva Green about the English director Sir Ridley Scott's Crusades flick, Kingdom of Heaven.
That’s true. It’s, like, a stupid English movie.
The Crusades are hot, and Ridley Scott (director of Alien) is about to make them hotter. “Muslims,” gushed the New York Times after an advance showing of the new blockbuster, “are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give them safe conduct to return to Europe.” Sir Ridley, according to the Times, “said he hoped to demonstrate that Christians, Muslims and Jews could live together in harmony — if only fanaticism were kept at bay.” Or, as Green put it, the movie is intended to move people “to be more tolerant, more open towards the Arab people.”
Bent on coexistence, eh? That’s right: the Kingdom of Heaven script invents a group called the “Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians.” A publicist for the film elaborated: “They were working together. It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them.” Ah yes, everything was all right until those “Christian extremists” spoiled everything.
Kingdom of Heaven is designed to be a dream movie for those guilt-ridden creatures who believe that all the trouble between the Islamic world and the West has been caused by Western imperialism, racism, and colonialism, and that the glorious paradigm of Islamic tolerance, which was once a beacon to the world, could be reestablished if only the nasty white men of America and Europe would back off. A dream movie for the PC establishment, except for one little detail: it isn’t true.
Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, author of A Short History of the Crusades and one of the world’s leading historians of the period, called the movie “rubbish,” explaining that “it’s not historically accurate at all” as it “depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” Oh, and “there was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense.”
Professor Jonathan Philips, author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, also dismissed the film as history and took issue with its portrayal of the Crusader Knights Templars as villains: “The Templars as ‘baddies’ is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and ‘baddies’ is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land.”
Nor does Kingdom of Heaven take any notice of the historical realities of Christians and Jews who lived under Muslim rule. They were never treated as equals or accorded full rights as citizens, and always suffered under various forms of institutionalized discrimination and harassment.
The Muslim warrior Saladin, who captured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, is, according to a film publicist, a “hero of the piece.” He is one of the most legendary figures of the Crusades and in our age he has become PC as well: Saladin has become the prototype of the tolerant, magnanimous Muslim warrior, historical proof of the nobility of Islam and even of its superiority to wicked, Western, colonialist Christianity. In The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf portrays the Crusaders as little more than savages, even gorging themselves on the flesh of those they have murdered. But Saladin! “He was always affable with visitors, insisting that they stay to eat, treating them with full honours, even if they were infidels, and satisfying all their requests. He could not bear to let someone who had come to him depart disappointed, and there were those who did not hesitate to take advantage of this quality. One day, during a truce with the Franj [Franks], the ‘Brins,’ lord of Antioch, arrived unexpectedly at Saladin’s tent and asked him to return a district that the sultan had taken four years earlier. And he agreed!” The lovable lug! If asked, he might have given away the entire Holy Land!
However, as I explain in my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (Regnery), the real Saladin was not the proto-multiculturalist and early version of Nelson Mandela that he is made out to be by modern-day PC myth. Much is made of the fact that when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslims in October 1187, he treated the Christians with magnanimity — in sharp contrast to the behavior of the Crusaders in 1099. But Saladin was no stranger to massacre: when his forces decisively defeated the Crusaders at Hattin on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of his Christian opponents. According to his secretary, Imad ed-Din, Saladin “ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.”
Also, when Saladin and his men entered Jerusalem later that year, their magnanimity was actually pragmatism. He had initially planned to put to death all the Christians in the city. However, when the Christian commander inside Jerusalem, Balian of Ibelin, threatened in turn to destroy the city and kill all the Muslims there before Saladin could get inside, Saladin relented — although once inside the city he did enslave many of the Christians who could not afford to buy their way out of town.
Yet despite Kingdom of Heaven’s numerous whitewashes of history and strenuous efforts to portray the Muslims of the Crusader era in a favorable light, Islamic apologist Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at the University of California, is in a froth about the film: “In my view,” he raged, “it is inevitable – I’m willing to risk my reputation on this – that after this movie is released there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it. People will go see it on a weekend and decide to teach some turbanhead a lesson.” Of course, this is less an indictment of the film than of the American people. I think it very likely that there will be no hate crimes against Muslims committed because of this film — and I hope that in that event Dr. Abou El Fadl’s reputation will be accorded the treatment it deserves.
In any event, Kingdom of Heaven cost over $150 million to make, features an all-star cast, and is being touted as “a fascinating history lesson.” Fascinating, maybe — but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves.
FrontPage magazine.com :: Crusading Against History by Robert Spencer
Parental Advisory: Check Kids' Video Game Magazines
Parental Advisory: Check Kids' Video Game Magazines
By AFA Journal
May 5, 2005
(AgapePress) - Video games are one of the most popular pastimes for children and teens. But if parents are tempted to assume that the magazines that promote these games are harmless, they are mistaken.
Because of some parental complaints received by the American Family Association, the AFA Journal -- a monthly publication of the pro-family group -- made random purchases of some popular video game magazines to see what's inside the covers. The magazines -- GamePro, Electronic Gaming, GameStar and Surge -- were eye-opening, to say the least.
Here are some things for parents to be aware of when it comes to the magazines promoting the video gaming industry:
Inappropriate Advertising
Sometimes game magazines contain advertisements -- apart from ads for the games themselves -- that are highly sexualized. Electronic Gaming, for example, carried an ad for a website that allows visitors to download computer "wallpaper" with nude women.
Inappropriate Demo Discs
Some magazines contain a free demo CD-ROM inside, with demonstrations of (usually) new or upcoming video game releases. The intent, of course, is to encourage interested gamers to spend money on the real thing.
The current issue of GameStar provided such a demo, but some of its content would certainly be problematic for many parents.
A child or teen playing the demo would have been exposed to <>.
A parent should no more allow their child to preview a free demo than they would allow them to watch a PG-13 movie without supervision.
Inappropriate Artwork
All of the game magazines reviewed by AFA Journal contained artwork that was inappropriate -- although some magazines were worse than others. (GameStar contained photos that were pornographic.)
Images and text were sometimes sexual in nature, gory, demonic or occultic, or just downright weird. Parents should at least leaf through any magazines that their child wants to purchase, to check the artwork.
Inappropriate Advice
GamePro gave readers tips on how to search the Internet and find free pornography. While it is not all that difficult to find porn by accident, one wonders why a magazine devoted to playing video games is giving hints on a much more dangerous game.
Complaining to the magazines that carry such things, or to the store that carries the magazines themselves, certainly has its place. But putting the "genie" of explicit content back into the bottle will take time -- or may not happen, period.
That means parents who want to protect their children will have to be alert to the spiritual poisons found on movie screens, television, and magazine shelves.
News from Agape Press
By AFA Journal
May 5, 2005
(AgapePress) - Video games are one of the most popular pastimes for children and teens. But if parents are tempted to assume that the magazines that promote these games are harmless, they are mistaken.
Because of some parental complaints received by the American Family Association, the AFA Journal -- a monthly publication of the pro-family group -- made random purchases of some popular video game magazines to see what's inside the covers. The magazines -- GamePro, Electronic Gaming, GameStar and Surge -- were eye-opening, to say the least.
Here are some things for parents to be aware of when it comes to the magazines promoting the video gaming industry:
Inappropriate Advertising
Sometimes game magazines contain advertisements -- apart from ads for the games themselves -- that are highly sexualized. Electronic Gaming, for example, carried an ad for a website that allows visitors to download computer "wallpaper" with nude women.
Inappropriate Demo Discs
Some magazines contain a free demo CD-ROM inside, with demonstrations of (usually) new or upcoming video game releases. The intent, of course, is to encourage interested gamers to spend money on the real thing.
The current issue of GameStar provided such a demo, but some of its content would certainly be problematic for many parents.
A child or teen playing the demo would have been exposed to <
A parent should no more allow their child to preview a free demo than they would allow them to watch a PG-13 movie without supervision.
Inappropriate Artwork
All of the game magazines reviewed by AFA Journal contained artwork that was inappropriate -- although some magazines were worse than others. (GameStar contained photos that were pornographic.)
Images and text were sometimes sexual in nature, gory, demonic or occultic, or just downright weird. Parents should at least leaf through any magazines that their child wants to purchase, to check the artwork.
Inappropriate Advice
GamePro gave readers tips on how to search the Internet and find free pornography. While it is not all that difficult to find porn by accident, one wonders why a magazine devoted to playing video games is giving hints on a much more dangerous game.
Complaining to the magazines that carry such things, or to the store that carries the magazines themselves, certainly has its place. But putting the "genie" of explicit content back into the bottle will take time -- or may not happen, period.
That means parents who want to protect their children will have to be alert to the spiritual poisons found on movie screens, television, and magazine shelves.
News from Agape Press
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Concerned Parent Arrested at Son's School
Rally Planned in Support of Concerned Parent Arrested at Son's School
By Jim Brown
May 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Massachusetts pro-family group is planning to hold a statewide rally in support of a Christian parent who was recently arrested and hauled off to jail after raising objections to pro-homosexual curriculum and discussions in his son's kindergarten class.
Lexington parent David Parker had scheduled a meeting with the principal of Estabrook Elementary School and the town's director of education. His reason for the meeting was to once again ask that his six-year-old son be opted out of classroom discussions and curriculum endorsing homosexual "marriage." When the school officials told Parker they did not have the authority to grant him that parental right, he said he would not leave until the request was granted.
Parker was then handcuffed and arrested by Lexington police, and forced to spend a night in jail. Brian Camenker, who heads the Article 8 Alliance, was with Parker at the time of the arrest.
"To watch a man go through this in America is a very, very frightening thing," Camenker states. "There is some bad stuff going on, and this [incident] is a direct result of the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts."
Arrest and incarceration, says Camenker, were only the beginning. He says Parker was also unjustly banned from the campus by the superintendent of Lexington schools.
"He's not only charged with trespassing, but [the superintendent has] given official notice that [Parker] may not go on any school property in the entire town -- even to pick up his kid in emergencies," the Alliance spokesman says. Camenker explains that if Parker is found on any school property, he will be arrested immediately. "You know, they're very arrogant and hostile about this," he adds.
Chapter 71, Section 32A of the General Laws of Massachusetts state that parents or guardians shall have the right to exempt their children from curriculum that involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues by making such a request in writing to the school principal. Parker had requested such numerous times via e-mail before the meeting at which he was arrested.
Camenker's group plans to hold a statewide rally in support of Parker on May 15. His attorney, Harvey Silvergate, maintains Parker's son was subjected to "coercive indoctrination" by being required to remain in the classroom. There is a difference, the attorney says, between "academic education" and "socialization or indoctrination."
News from Agape Press
By Jim Brown
May 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - A Massachusetts pro-family group is planning to hold a statewide rally in support of a Christian parent who was recently arrested and hauled off to jail after raising objections to pro-homosexual curriculum and discussions in his son's kindergarten class.
Lexington parent David Parker had scheduled a meeting with the principal of Estabrook Elementary School and the town's director of education. His reason for the meeting was to once again ask that his six-year-old son be opted out of classroom discussions and curriculum endorsing homosexual "marriage." When the school officials told Parker they did not have the authority to grant him that parental right, he said he would not leave until the request was granted.
Parker was then handcuffed and arrested by Lexington police, and forced to spend a night in jail. Brian Camenker, who heads the Article 8 Alliance, was with Parker at the time of the arrest.
"To watch a man go through this in America is a very, very frightening thing," Camenker states. "There is some bad stuff going on, and this [incident] is a direct result of the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts."
Arrest and incarceration, says Camenker, were only the beginning. He says Parker was also unjustly banned from the campus by the superintendent of Lexington schools.
"He's not only charged with trespassing, but [the superintendent has] given official notice that [Parker] may not go on any school property in the entire town -- even to pick up his kid in emergencies," the Alliance spokesman says. Camenker explains that if Parker is found on any school property, he will be arrested immediately. "You know, they're very arrogant and hostile about this," he adds.
Chapter 71, Section 32A of the General Laws of Massachusetts state that parents or guardians shall have the right to exempt their children from curriculum that involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues by making such a request in writing to the school principal. Parker had requested such numerous times via e-mail before the meeting at which he was arrested.
Camenker's group plans to hold a statewide rally in support of Parker on May 15. His attorney, Harvey Silvergate, maintains Parker's son was subjected to "coercive indoctrination" by being required to remain in the classroom. There is a difference, the attorney says, between "academic education" and "socialization or indoctrination."
News from Agape Press
'Option Ultrasound' Helps Many Women See Alternative to Abortion
By Mary Rettig
May 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - Focus on the Family is in its second year of a six-year project to bring ultrasound technology to crisis pregnancy centers. The FOTF Pregnancy Resource Ministry director says 'Option Ultrasound' will help place equipment in centers nationwide and may help to save many babies' lives.
Dr. Julie Parton says abortion clinics do have ultrasound machines, but these facilities often discourage women who want to look at the screen. She says many women who have had abortions say they were told by abortion clinic staff that there was really nothing there, and to look would only make the abortion harder.
And according to Parton, that is exactly the point, because many times the first look at the ultrasound is when many women first truly realize there is a baby inside of them. "It's one thing to just see a video of somebody else's ultrasound," she says, "but when you can actually see your own baby there on the screen, it really brings reality to the situation."
The ultrasound often gives a woman her first opportunity to bond with the baby, the Pregnancy Resource Ministry director says. "That, in and of itself, really reiterates that this is a living human being that exists inside her," she adds. Hence, the technology becomes a powerful tool for encouraging more women not to terminate their pregnancy.
Parton says statistical and anecdotal evidence suggest that seeing an ultrasound image of an unborn child is a powerful deterrent for women considering abortion. A recent survey conducted by FOTF found 79 percent of pregnancy resource center clients (and a median of 90 percent) decide to carry their babies to term after viewing an ultrasound.
"Oftentimes, too, if their partner is with them, it really has an impact on the guy as well," the FOTF spokeswoman notes, "because guys are so visual. And seeing something really always seems to impact a fellow even more than it does a girl; so they are also very [deeply affected] by this."
Since the Option Ultrasound program began last year, Parton says there have been nearly 100 ultrasound machines placed in crisis pregnancy centers across the United States. And already, the doctor points out, she has been getting feedback from grateful mothers who decided not to have abortions.
News from Agape Press
May 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - Focus on the Family is in its second year of a six-year project to bring ultrasound technology to crisis pregnancy centers. The FOTF Pregnancy Resource Ministry director says 'Option Ultrasound' will help place equipment in centers nationwide and may help to save many babies' lives.
Dr. Julie Parton says abortion clinics do have ultrasound machines, but these facilities often discourage women who want to look at the screen. She says many women who have had abortions say they were told by abortion clinic staff that there was really nothing there, and to look would only make the abortion harder.
And according to Parton, that is exactly the point, because many times the first look at the ultrasound is when many women first truly realize there is a baby inside of them. "It's one thing to just see a video of somebody else's ultrasound," she says, "but when you can actually see your own baby there on the screen, it really brings reality to the situation."
The ultrasound often gives a woman her first opportunity to bond with the baby, the Pregnancy Resource Ministry director says. "That, in and of itself, really reiterates that this is a living human being that exists inside her," she adds. Hence, the technology becomes a powerful tool for encouraging more women not to terminate their pregnancy.
Parton says statistical and anecdotal evidence suggest that seeing an ultrasound image of an unborn child is a powerful deterrent for women considering abortion. A recent survey conducted by FOTF found 79 percent of pregnancy resource center clients (and a median of 90 percent) decide to carry their babies to term after viewing an ultrasound.
"Oftentimes, too, if their partner is with them, it really has an impact on the guy as well," the FOTF spokeswoman notes, "because guys are so visual. And seeing something really always seems to impact a fellow even more than it does a girl; so they are also very [deeply affected] by this."
Since the Option Ultrasound program began last year, Parton says there have been nearly 100 ultrasound machines placed in crisis pregnancy centers across the United States. And already, the doctor points out, she has been getting feedback from grateful mothers who decided not to have abortions.
News from Agape Press
Freedom of Speech! (Except for Pro-Lifers)
Commentary by Erik Whittington
May 3, 2005
You wouldn’t think in some of the most pro-life, pro-family states in America that public school students would have their free-speech rights trampled for wearing T-shirts with a message about abortion – but it has happened. Yes, it has happened for three years running now since American Life League first introduced its National Pro-life T-shirt Day. Last week, students across the country were forced to remove pro-life T-shirts, cover them with jackets, sweatshirts or duct tape, or face disciplinary action. Sound like a bad dream? Nope. It’s the scary truth.
American Life League marked its third annual National Pro-life T-shirt Day on Tuesday, April 26. Tens of thousands of students and adults wore shirts with pro-life messages to their high schools and colleges. Unfortunately, many young people saw for the first time how their rights as American citizens can be infringed upon by overzealous school administrators.
The calls to American Life League’s office began early Tuesday morning. “I was removed from class today and asked by my principal to turn my shirt inside-out, remove it or go home and change shirts. What should I do?” asked one pro-life student. This was the unthinkable question that was continually asked throughout the day.
Knowing that teenagers like to be teenagers, and knowing what some of the current fashion statements are, one might ask if other students were told to change shirts that read, “Porn Star” or “Playboy Bunny.” Or, one might ask if students were told to change their clothing because it was small, skimpy and revealing. Apparently not. The shirts that students were asked to remove displayed a picture of a living baby in the womb with the words, “She smiles, hears, kicks and feels pain. Abortion kills kids.” The message is simple, blunt and truthful.
Certain school administrators took it upon themselves to rewrite the Constitution regarding free speech, conveniently ignoring one simple fact. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, students do not “shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” That landmark case protected students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. One would suspect that many on the faculty and staff that demanded those students lose their pro-life T-shirts can remember their own days of protesting the Vietnam War. Students who stand up for the rights of preborn children today feel just as passionately as those students in the 60s who protested the war. Likewise, today’s students deserve the same rights that the war protestors were granted. I guess some administrators just need to go back to school and read their history books.
Yes, you wouldn’t think that a T-shirt with a baby and a simple message would cause such a controversy, but it has. Here is just a sampling:
Students say administrators at a high school in Massachusetts pulled 35 students from their classes and instructed them to immediately change their shirts, cover the picture and message, or turn them inside out. One girl gladly removed her shirt, which proudly revealed another T-shirt underneath which read “Abortion Is Homicide.” She was told that the same rules applied to her second shirt as well.
Two young girls in a Virginia middle school say they were brought to the principal’s office and informed that their shirts caused a disruption and needed to be covered, removed or turned inside out. When the girls’ mother was apprised of the situation, she was far from happy. After pressing the principal, the mother learned that her daughter had not caused any problems, but other students started a lively conversation in first period class about abortion and the teacher felt that she couldn’t control the situation. (Call the police, quick! Students are thinking about and discussing important issues in school… this must be stopped!). The teacher then decided to send the peaceful wearer of the life-promoting shirt to the principal’s office instead of those students who were supposedly causing a disruption in the classroom. Thankfully, Mom has decided to challenge the school. Ironically, the two other children in that family, one in the same middle school and the other in a nearby high school, had no problems wearing their pro-life shirts to school that day. Where is the logic?
Three middle school students in Texas say they were also forced by their teachers to conceal the pro-life message on their shirts because of the “disruption” they were causing. Amazingly, when one of the courageous pro-life students questioned, “What about our right to free speech?” the teacher arrogantly responded, “Freedom of speech does not apply at school!” Oh really? Texas is in the United States, right? Of course the parents of these students were livid at the situation and challenged the school. After being informed by one of the assistant principals that the pro-life shirt was causing other students to act disruptively, the parent asked, “So what disciplinary actions were taken against the disruptive students?” Fuming, the assistant principal quickly avoided the question and informed the parent that if his daughter did not change or cover her T-shirt, she would be suspended. Again, this brave, pro-life trooper told her assistant principal that she would not remove the shirt, and her father stuck by her. Two hours later the school principal called the parent to apologize then informed him that his daughter had a right to wear the T-shirt. I'm guessing he looked up the term “freedom of speech” in the dictionary.
Finally, the real doozy of all the stories came from Iowa. Tamera and her sister Brittany say they were instructed to — well you know the story — cover, turn inside out or remove the shirt because of the disruption they were causing. Tamera, worried about her graduation just around the corner, decided to comply. Her younger sister was another story. Brittany was upset, but refused to change. However, she says the school strong-armed her into changing the T-shirt by telling her that if she didn’t comply, both she AND her older sister could be suspended and her sister could miss her graduation. That’s nice — a young girl reporting that her school used threatening tactics because she was simply standing up for her Constitutional rights. Tamera and Brittany’s parents say they are now considering legal action against the school.
Have you heard enough? Fortunately for these and other students, organizations such as the Thomas More Law Center have committed to reviewing these situations and coming to the aid of harassed students. In past cases when the Thomas More Law Center has gotten involved, public school administrators changed their tune when it was pointed out that students have the right to free expression.
Young people are truly at the center of a cultural storm today. Schools are battlegrounds of ideas and students should be allowed to peacefully present their thoughts and beliefs without the threat of disciplinary action. Pro-life T-shirts carry a powerful message that so many young people need to see. We will never know just how many babies are alive today thanks to the simple message on a T-shirt. The bottom line is this: the right to free speech is everyone’s right. Shouldn’t the right to life be everyone’s right, too?
The Washington Dispatch
May 3, 2005
You wouldn’t think in some of the most pro-life, pro-family states in America that public school students would have their free-speech rights trampled for wearing T-shirts with a message about abortion – but it has happened. Yes, it has happened for three years running now since American Life League first introduced its National Pro-life T-shirt Day. Last week, students across the country were forced to remove pro-life T-shirts, cover them with jackets, sweatshirts or duct tape, or face disciplinary action. Sound like a bad dream? Nope. It’s the scary truth.
American Life League marked its third annual National Pro-life T-shirt Day on Tuesday, April 26. Tens of thousands of students and adults wore shirts with pro-life messages to their high schools and colleges. Unfortunately, many young people saw for the first time how their rights as American citizens can be infringed upon by overzealous school administrators.
The calls to American Life League’s office began early Tuesday morning. “I was removed from class today and asked by my principal to turn my shirt inside-out, remove it or go home and change shirts. What should I do?” asked one pro-life student. This was the unthinkable question that was continually asked throughout the day.
Knowing that teenagers like to be teenagers, and knowing what some of the current fashion statements are, one might ask if other students were told to change shirts that read, “Porn Star” or “Playboy Bunny.” Or, one might ask if students were told to change their clothing because it was small, skimpy and revealing. Apparently not. The shirts that students were asked to remove displayed a picture of a living baby in the womb with the words, “She smiles, hears, kicks and feels pain. Abortion kills kids.” The message is simple, blunt and truthful.
Certain school administrators took it upon themselves to rewrite the Constitution regarding free speech, conveniently ignoring one simple fact. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, students do not “shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” That landmark case protected students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. One would suspect that many on the faculty and staff that demanded those students lose their pro-life T-shirts can remember their own days of protesting the Vietnam War. Students who stand up for the rights of preborn children today feel just as passionately as those students in the 60s who protested the war. Likewise, today’s students deserve the same rights that the war protestors were granted. I guess some administrators just need to go back to school and read their history books.
Yes, you wouldn’t think that a T-shirt with a baby and a simple message would cause such a controversy, but it has. Here is just a sampling:
Students say administrators at a high school in Massachusetts pulled 35 students from their classes and instructed them to immediately change their shirts, cover the picture and message, or turn them inside out. One girl gladly removed her shirt, which proudly revealed another T-shirt underneath which read “Abortion Is Homicide.” She was told that the same rules applied to her second shirt as well.
Two young girls in a Virginia middle school say they were brought to the principal’s office and informed that their shirts caused a disruption and needed to be covered, removed or turned inside out. When the girls’ mother was apprised of the situation, she was far from happy. After pressing the principal, the mother learned that her daughter had not caused any problems, but other students started a lively conversation in first period class about abortion and the teacher felt that she couldn’t control the situation. (Call the police, quick! Students are thinking about and discussing important issues in school… this must be stopped!). The teacher then decided to send the peaceful wearer of the life-promoting shirt to the principal’s office instead of those students who were supposedly causing a disruption in the classroom. Thankfully, Mom has decided to challenge the school. Ironically, the two other children in that family, one in the same middle school and the other in a nearby high school, had no problems wearing their pro-life shirts to school that day. Where is the logic?
Three middle school students in Texas say they were also forced by their teachers to conceal the pro-life message on their shirts because of the “disruption” they were causing. Amazingly, when one of the courageous pro-life students questioned, “What about our right to free speech?” the teacher arrogantly responded, “Freedom of speech does not apply at school!” Oh really? Texas is in the United States, right? Of course the parents of these students were livid at the situation and challenged the school. After being informed by one of the assistant principals that the pro-life shirt was causing other students to act disruptively, the parent asked, “So what disciplinary actions were taken against the disruptive students?” Fuming, the assistant principal quickly avoided the question and informed the parent that if his daughter did not change or cover her T-shirt, she would be suspended. Again, this brave, pro-life trooper told her assistant principal that she would not remove the shirt, and her father stuck by her. Two hours later the school principal called the parent to apologize then informed him that his daughter had a right to wear the T-shirt. I'm guessing he looked up the term “freedom of speech” in the dictionary.
Finally, the real doozy of all the stories came from Iowa. Tamera and her sister Brittany say they were instructed to — well you know the story — cover, turn inside out or remove the shirt because of the disruption they were causing. Tamera, worried about her graduation just around the corner, decided to comply. Her younger sister was another story. Brittany was upset, but refused to change. However, she says the school strong-armed her into changing the T-shirt by telling her that if she didn’t comply, both she AND her older sister could be suspended and her sister could miss her graduation. That’s nice — a young girl reporting that her school used threatening tactics because she was simply standing up for her Constitutional rights. Tamera and Brittany’s parents say they are now considering legal action against the school.
Have you heard enough? Fortunately for these and other students, organizations such as the Thomas More Law Center have committed to reviewing these situations and coming to the aid of harassed students. In past cases when the Thomas More Law Center has gotten involved, public school administrators changed their tune when it was pointed out that students have the right to free expression.
Young people are truly at the center of a cultural storm today. Schools are battlegrounds of ideas and students should be allowed to peacefully present their thoughts and beliefs without the threat of disciplinary action. Pro-life T-shirts carry a powerful message that so many young people need to see. We will never know just how many babies are alive today thanks to the simple message on a T-shirt. The bottom line is this: the right to free speech is everyone’s right. Shouldn’t the right to life be everyone’s right, too?
The Washington Dispatch
Public Schools and the Gay Agenda
Battleground: Public Schools and the Gay Agenda
By Paul Strand
CWNews.org
April 22, 2005
On issues ranging from sex education to AIDS prevention, homosexual and other groups are pursuing an agenda they like to call 'tolerance.'
Here in the U.S., public schools have become battlegrounds over that agenda. Lawsuits between parents and school boards are on the rise. In some cases students are forced to learn about homosexuality in school.
Some parents in Maryland are worried that their children's school system may adopt a new curriculum: one which stresses to students that homosexuality is normal, healthy, and that people are born that way. The course is called "Family Life and Human Sexuality."
Students are introduced to homosexual terms and encouraged to develop their so-called ‘individual sexual identity.’
The course has sparked outrage from many parents.
Carolyn Black is a Maryland mother. She said, “I do not believe in homosexuality and I believe the subject of homosexuality should be taught at home. It has no place and no business in the public school system, being taught and forced on our children. In the public school system, it just has no place!”
Because of issues like this, Barry Sullivan has chosen to bypass the public schools and home school his children. Sullivan said, “Are we really going to teach our kids that this is normal behavior? If some kid stands up and says, ‘I got a brother and he is attracted to young boys’. Is the teacher really going to say, ‘I don’t want to be judgmental, so, well he‘s just born that way’?”
Across the country, from California to small town mid-America, teaching homosexuality has become the norm in many schools—sometimes, without parental consent.
One case is playing out in a Santa Cruz, California public school. A group of lesbian teachers has put up posters in classrooms that promote the gay lifestyle and refer students who question their sexuality to homosexual and bisexual groups.
Parents are suing to change the posters to represent all differences among students. In this case, the homosexuals believe they should have exclusive rights.
In Kentucky, students are being forced into ‘diversity training’, where they're told homosexuals cannot change their behavior.
Opting out of these courses is a choice some parents make for their kids. This Maryland mother tells us how her child was ridiculed. Bunny Galladora is President of the WCTU of Maryland. She related how, “He was called up to the front of the class and the teacher said, ‘Your mother will not allow you to take this class’ and sent him to the library, and he was made fun of by the kids.”
Some Christian parents say the schools have no right to usurp the parental role in teaching about sex. Bob Grey is a concerned parent, he said, “It used to be I was good enough, dad was good enough, mom was good enough. Now they say it takes degree after degree, people sitting around a big table telling us what our kids should hear.”
One of the most influential groups promoting the homosexual agenda is GLSEN, the gay, lesbian, straight education network. It has promoted projects such as "no name calling week," and has designated so-called "safe places" in schools, where students can go in private to talk about same-sex feelings.
Linda Wall is a former lesbian. She says the methods used by the gay lobby to get into schools is often very subtle.
Linda Wall, because of her personal experiences while in homosexuality, is now a Conservative Activist. She told us, “They’ve chosen very clever terminology to use, for example ‘safe schools’. They get in to administrators and say, ‘Oh, we just want to make your school safe.’ So they paint this picture, when there really is nothing safe about homosexuality at all.”
CBN News obtained home video of a ‘school safe place’ from a concerned parent. These so-called safe places are signified by pink or rainbow colored triangles—well known symbols in the gay community.
In these private rooms, in the school’s building, teachers and guidance counselors can talk with students about their sexual feelings—but parents are not informed.
An organization called GLSEN, aids with this. Glsen's website also has a step by step guide for students and educators to create what it calls an “allies program" for students ‘struggling with their sexual identity.’
CBN News asked Glsen for an interview, but the group refused unless it could see our script first.
Recently, homosexual rights groups carried out an April 13th Day of Silence in the schools. But Christian students gathered the next day, April 14th, for what they termed a Day of Truth. They'll wear special t-shirts that said, in part...
“I believe in loving my neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning detrimental personal and social behavior. I believe by boldly proclaiming the truth, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.”
Despite the legal and political roadblocks, a number of parents and other activists are determined to fight the spread of the homosexual agenda.
Bob Knight of Concerned Women For America says parents need to get active.
Knight advised, “Fight city hall. Go to your school and find out what they’re teaching. Make it clear you’re watching. When parents are watching they can get away with a lot less.
Battleground: Public Schools and the Gay Agenda
By Paul Strand
CWNews.org
April 22, 2005
On issues ranging from sex education to AIDS prevention, homosexual and other groups are pursuing an agenda they like to call 'tolerance.'
Here in the U.S., public schools have become battlegrounds over that agenda. Lawsuits between parents and school boards are on the rise. In some cases students are forced to learn about homosexuality in school.
Some parents in Maryland are worried that their children's school system may adopt a new curriculum: one which stresses to students that homosexuality is normal, healthy, and that people are born that way. The course is called "Family Life and Human Sexuality."
Students are introduced to homosexual terms and encouraged to develop their so-called ‘individual sexual identity.’
The course has sparked outrage from many parents.
Carolyn Black is a Maryland mother. She said, “I do not believe in homosexuality and I believe the subject of homosexuality should be taught at home. It has no place and no business in the public school system, being taught and forced on our children. In the public school system, it just has no place!”
Because of issues like this, Barry Sullivan has chosen to bypass the public schools and home school his children. Sullivan said, “Are we really going to teach our kids that this is normal behavior? If some kid stands up and says, ‘I got a brother and he is attracted to young boys’. Is the teacher really going to say, ‘I don’t want to be judgmental, so, well he‘s just born that way’?”
Across the country, from California to small town mid-America, teaching homosexuality has become the norm in many schools—sometimes, without parental consent.
One case is playing out in a Santa Cruz, California public school. A group of lesbian teachers has put up posters in classrooms that promote the gay lifestyle and refer students who question their sexuality to homosexual and bisexual groups.
Parents are suing to change the posters to represent all differences among students. In this case, the homosexuals believe they should have exclusive rights.
In Kentucky, students are being forced into ‘diversity training’, where they're told homosexuals cannot change their behavior.
Opting out of these courses is a choice some parents make for their kids. This Maryland mother tells us how her child was ridiculed. Bunny Galladora is President of the WCTU of Maryland. She related how, “He was called up to the front of the class and the teacher said, ‘Your mother will not allow you to take this class’ and sent him to the library, and he was made fun of by the kids.”
Some Christian parents say the schools have no right to usurp the parental role in teaching about sex. Bob Grey is a concerned parent, he said, “It used to be I was good enough, dad was good enough, mom was good enough. Now they say it takes degree after degree, people sitting around a big table telling us what our kids should hear.”
One of the most influential groups promoting the homosexual agenda is GLSEN, the gay, lesbian, straight education network. It has promoted projects such as "no name calling week," and has designated so-called "safe places" in schools, where students can go in private to talk about same-sex feelings.
Linda Wall is a former lesbian. She says the methods used by the gay lobby to get into schools is often very subtle.
Linda Wall, because of her personal experiences while in homosexuality, is now a Conservative Activist. She told us, “They’ve chosen very clever terminology to use, for example ‘safe schools’. They get in to administrators and say, ‘Oh, we just want to make your school safe.’ So they paint this picture, when there really is nothing safe about homosexuality at all.”
CBN News obtained home video of a ‘school safe place’ from a concerned parent. These so-called safe places are signified by pink or rainbow colored triangles—well known symbols in the gay community.
In these private rooms, in the school’s building, teachers and guidance counselors can talk with students about their sexual feelings—but parents are not informed.
An organization called GLSEN, aids with this. Glsen's website also has a step by step guide for students and educators to create what it calls an “allies program" for students ‘struggling with their sexual identity.’
CBN News asked Glsen for an interview, but the group refused unless it could see our script first.
Recently, homosexual rights groups carried out an April 13th Day of Silence in the schools. But Christian students gathered the next day, April 14th, for what they termed a Day of Truth. They'll wear special t-shirts that said, in part...
“I believe in loving my neighbor, but part of that love means not condoning detrimental personal and social behavior. I believe by boldly proclaiming the truth, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.”
Despite the legal and political roadblocks, a number of parents and other activists are determined to fight the spread of the homosexual agenda.
Bob Knight of Concerned Women For America says parents need to get active.
Knight advised, “Fight city hall. Go to your school and find out what they’re teaching. Make it clear you’re watching. When parents are watching they can get away with a lot less.
Battleground: Public Schools and the Gay Agenda
Faith Speech = Hate Speech? Laws Target Christians
By Gary Lane
CWNews
April 29, 2005
CWNews.org - Two Pastors in Australia face sentencing for speaking out about Islam. In Western nations hate speech laws are being enacted and used to protect religious minorities. But often these laws are being used to punish Christians for sharing their faith.
A high profile case in Australia is rallying Christians there against hate speech laws.
Melbourne, Australia is known to sports fans around the world as the home of the Australia Open Tennis Championship. It’s also known as the city of diverse cultures, with an easygoing, permissive attitude.
Yet Christians now see it as a restrictive society, where political correctness has run amok. One where speaking openly about one’s Christian faith may send you to court or worse—to jail.
Bill Muehlenberg is spokesman for the Australia Family Association. Though he’s American, he’s an outspoken voice in Melbourne urging lawmakers to do away with a portion of Victoria 's racial and religious tolerance act.
Muehlenberg said, "It seems to be open season on Christianity—there's a double standard here. We should tolerate all world views, all religions, yet Christianity is taking a hammering."
The law protects citizens from ‘vilification’ of their race or religion—speech deemed offensive by complainants. Those found guilty face hefty fines and jail time.
Muehlenberg suggests Christians are the most likely targets of this law. Because: "To simply proclaim the truth claims of Christianity,” Muehlenberg said, “the Bible tells us that will offend those who do not accept the claims of the Gospel.”
He went on, “We cannot help that [their choice]. But when governments get into the business of telling us which beliefs we can believe and which we cannot, when they get in the business of being judges of religious questions and opinions—we're all going to be in trouble for it."
Among those sued are two Pastors: Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries and Daniel Scott, a Pakistani Evangelist.
A tribunal judge found the men guilty of vilifying Islam following a lengthy trial that ended late last December. A complaint was filed against them by the Islamic Council of Victoria State after 3 Muslims said statements made by Daniel Scott offended them. The Muslims attended a church seminar on Islam conducted by Scott, sponsored by Catch the Fire Ministries in March 2002.
Pastor Danny Nalliah says the seminar featured a comparison of verses from the Bible with verses from the Koran.
The complainants said they especially felt vilified by a discussion concerning jihad—or holy war. Nalliah says he and Scott were not allowed to read verses from the Koran as evidence at their trial.
Nalliah said, "Our question to the judge was, ‘Your Honor, how can I vilify a Muslim when I read from his own text’?”
Then, the barrister reminded the judge, ‘Your Honor, truth is not a defense in this law.’ And that was taken into consideration. Even if you speak the truth, and someone is offended, you are guilty and they are not."
Muehlenberg said, "It's bad law and bad law should not be in place. The terms are ambiguous. What is it to offend somebody? Nothing’s clearly defined. So, everybody's really at jeopardy, at risk, under the law, not knowing if they are guilty."
The Islamic Council of Victoria refused to grant CBN News an interview about the two men's case or the vilification law.
Some Christian leaders with several of Australia 's mainline denominations initially supported the vilification law because it protects against racial hate speech.
But some, like Anglican Archbishop Peter Watson, now feel the law needs changing.
Watson said, "Not everything that is offensive or upsetting to us should be outlawed."
Presbyterian leader Allan Harmon complains that, "The law mixes racial and religious vilification and they are not the same.
Again Archbishop Watson: "Churches should have examined the law more closely whether the act was an unnecessary curb on free speech."
Australians, like Americans, value expressing their opinions—whether it's in newspaper editorial columns or on talk radio. In The United States, our Constitution guarantees us the right to free speech. So, isn't this religious vilification really an issue of free speech? Here in Australia there’s no guarantee.
Nalliah said, "Our constitution in itself has an implied notion of free speech, but does not have a specific clause for free speech. And this case has now caused all politicians and government leaders to rethink about where we are heading as a nation."
The vilification law definitely caused Rob Wilson to rethink his state government's commitment to free speech.
He's the former Mayor of Casey—a large suburb of Melbourne . A complaint was filed against him by a transexual witch, Olivia Watts—a former police officer—appearing on Australian channel 10. She said she was vilified by Wilson when he implied in a June 2003 press release that she was a Satanist.
Watts said, "Unless these ignorant and untrue words like those put forward by this counselor are challenged, they are stereotypes people will believe." The case was resolved late last summer when Wilson issued a written statement acknowledging that Ms. Watts was not a Satanist.
Wilson told CBN News, under the vilification law, he was considered guilty before his side of the dispute was presented to the tribunal judge.
Wilson said, "You're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. It really goes against the natural British Justice which is that you're innocent until you are proven guilty.
What is happening is: people are going to be afraid to speak."
Pastors say, under the religious vilification law, if they give a sermon against sorcery denouncing witchcraft and a witch is sitting unannounced in the congregation, the Pastor and church could have a vilification case filed against them.
A growing number of Christians and civil libertarians are joining a petition drive urging the Victoria State government to rescind the religious vilification portion of the racial and religious intolerance act.
Lawmakers in the Australian states of southern and western Australia have already voted to exclude religious vilification from their hate speech laws. Legislation resembling the Victoria racial and religious intolerance act was recently dropped in Great Britain . Christians there expect it to be re-introduced in Parliament if the Labor Party retains its majority after new elections in May.
Muehlenberg said, "This is simply the whole secular-humanist agenda being promoted throughout the Western World. I mean, these people are quite clear—they do want to clamp down on the preaching of the Gospel. They do not want the Christian faith to be proclaimed."
Nalliah and Scott have appealed the tribunal's guilty verdict against them.
Wilson warns that similar religious vilification legislation could be coming soon to a state government near you. He said, "Lawmakers across the world look at different models of new laws that come in. And say, ‘Yeah, we could do that’ and I would say to the American people--stand up for your freedom of speech and don't allow any racial and religious intolerance act to come into America .
Faith Speech = Hate Speech? Laws Target Christians
CWNews
April 29, 2005
CWNews.org - Two Pastors in Australia face sentencing for speaking out about Islam. In Western nations hate speech laws are being enacted and used to protect religious minorities. But often these laws are being used to punish Christians for sharing their faith.
A high profile case in Australia is rallying Christians there against hate speech laws.
Melbourne, Australia is known to sports fans around the world as the home of the Australia Open Tennis Championship. It’s also known as the city of diverse cultures, with an easygoing, permissive attitude.
Yet Christians now see it as a restrictive society, where political correctness has run amok. One where speaking openly about one’s Christian faith may send you to court or worse—to jail.
Bill Muehlenberg is spokesman for the Australia Family Association. Though he’s American, he’s an outspoken voice in Melbourne urging lawmakers to do away with a portion of Victoria 's racial and religious tolerance act.
Muehlenberg said, "It seems to be open season on Christianity—there's a double standard here. We should tolerate all world views, all religions, yet Christianity is taking a hammering."
The law protects citizens from ‘vilification’ of their race or religion—speech deemed offensive by complainants. Those found guilty face hefty fines and jail time.
Muehlenberg suggests Christians are the most likely targets of this law. Because: "To simply proclaim the truth claims of Christianity,” Muehlenberg said, “the Bible tells us that will offend those who do not accept the claims of the Gospel.”
He went on, “We cannot help that [their choice]. But when governments get into the business of telling us which beliefs we can believe and which we cannot, when they get in the business of being judges of religious questions and opinions—we're all going to be in trouble for it."
Among those sued are two Pastors: Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries and Daniel Scott, a Pakistani Evangelist.
A tribunal judge found the men guilty of vilifying Islam following a lengthy trial that ended late last December. A complaint was filed against them by the Islamic Council of Victoria State after 3 Muslims said statements made by Daniel Scott offended them. The Muslims attended a church seminar on Islam conducted by Scott, sponsored by Catch the Fire Ministries in March 2002.
Pastor Danny Nalliah says the seminar featured a comparison of verses from the Bible with verses from the Koran.
The complainants said they especially felt vilified by a discussion concerning jihad—or holy war. Nalliah says he and Scott were not allowed to read verses from the Koran as evidence at their trial.
Nalliah said, "Our question to the judge was, ‘Your Honor, how can I vilify a Muslim when I read from his own text’?”
Then, the barrister reminded the judge, ‘Your Honor, truth is not a defense in this law.’ And that was taken into consideration. Even if you speak the truth, and someone is offended, you are guilty and they are not."
Muehlenberg said, "It's bad law and bad law should not be in place. The terms are ambiguous. What is it to offend somebody? Nothing’s clearly defined. So, everybody's really at jeopardy, at risk, under the law, not knowing if they are guilty."
The Islamic Council of Victoria refused to grant CBN News an interview about the two men's case or the vilification law.
Some Christian leaders with several of Australia 's mainline denominations initially supported the vilification law because it protects against racial hate speech.
But some, like Anglican Archbishop Peter Watson, now feel the law needs changing.
Watson said, "Not everything that is offensive or upsetting to us should be outlawed."
Presbyterian leader Allan Harmon complains that, "The law mixes racial and religious vilification and they are not the same.
Again Archbishop Watson: "Churches should have examined the law more closely whether the act was an unnecessary curb on free speech."
Australians, like Americans, value expressing their opinions—whether it's in newspaper editorial columns or on talk radio. In The United States, our Constitution guarantees us the right to free speech. So, isn't this religious vilification really an issue of free speech? Here in Australia there’s no guarantee.
Nalliah said, "Our constitution in itself has an implied notion of free speech, but does not have a specific clause for free speech. And this case has now caused all politicians and government leaders to rethink about where we are heading as a nation."
The vilification law definitely caused Rob Wilson to rethink his state government's commitment to free speech.
He's the former Mayor of Casey—a large suburb of Melbourne . A complaint was filed against him by a transexual witch, Olivia Watts—a former police officer—appearing on Australian channel 10. She said she was vilified by Wilson when he implied in a June 2003 press release that she was a Satanist.
Watts said, "Unless these ignorant and untrue words like those put forward by this counselor are challenged, they are stereotypes people will believe." The case was resolved late last summer when Wilson issued a written statement acknowledging that Ms. Watts was not a Satanist.
Wilson told CBN News, under the vilification law, he was considered guilty before his side of the dispute was presented to the tribunal judge.
Wilson said, "You're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. It really goes against the natural British Justice which is that you're innocent until you are proven guilty.
What is happening is: people are going to be afraid to speak."
Pastors say, under the religious vilification law, if they give a sermon against sorcery denouncing witchcraft and a witch is sitting unannounced in the congregation, the Pastor and church could have a vilification case filed against them.
A growing number of Christians and civil libertarians are joining a petition drive urging the Victoria State government to rescind the religious vilification portion of the racial and religious intolerance act.
Lawmakers in the Australian states of southern and western Australia have already voted to exclude religious vilification from their hate speech laws. Legislation resembling the Victoria racial and religious intolerance act was recently dropped in Great Britain . Christians there expect it to be re-introduced in Parliament if the Labor Party retains its majority after new elections in May.
Muehlenberg said, "This is simply the whole secular-humanist agenda being promoted throughout the Western World. I mean, these people are quite clear—they do want to clamp down on the preaching of the Gospel. They do not want the Christian faith to be proclaimed."
Nalliah and Scott have appealed the tribunal's guilty verdict against them.
Wilson warns that similar religious vilification legislation could be coming soon to a state government near you. He said, "Lawmakers across the world look at different models of new laws that come in. And say, ‘Yeah, we could do that’ and I would say to the American people--stand up for your freedom of speech and don't allow any racial and religious intolerance act to come into America .
Faith Speech = Hate Speech? Laws Target Christians
Monday, May 02, 2005
40 Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia
40 Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Religious Activity By Saudi Religious Police: 'For Trying to Spread the Poison and their Beliefs'
On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian religious activity. The following are excerpts from the reports:
The Saudi daily Al-Jazirah reported that 40 men, women, and children with Pakistani citizenship were arrested on April 21, 2005 after performing Christian religious rites in an apartment in the Thaharat Al-Badi'a neighborhood in western Riyadh. The arrest was part of a sweeping police operation by the Riyadh District Police, at the order of Riyadh Governor Prince Salman bin Abd Al-'Aziz.
The paper reported that the operation came after Saudi religious police – known as the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice [1] – followed and collected information on the activity of the 40, who listened to a proselytizing lecture by a Pakistani minister.
The paper also noted that during the police operation, which lasted nearly 10 hours, a cross and a large number of proselytizing books and cassettes were found [in the apartment]. The detainees themselves stated that they had come to listen to lectures by the minister. One of the detainees was a Muslim Pakistani, who acknowledged that he had been influenced by the Christian ideology. [2]
The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh said that the detainees had set up a church in the apartment, equipped with crosses, pictures, and statues. Likewise, it was said that during their religious activity, one of them was found praying, as the others present repeated their words, and one of the women arrested was listing the people's confessions and distributing writs of absolution. The Al-Riyadh report included a photo of the detainees and of a large cross and the group which was arrested.
A Saudi religious police source explained the reason for the arrest: "These people tried to spread the poison and their beliefs to others, by means of distributing pamphlets and [missionary] publications." He said that all the detainees "had been transferred to the relevant bodies for investigation." [3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For more information on The Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Preventation of Vice See MEMRI Special Dispatch Series No. 504, "Saudi Religious Police Launch Website," May 13, 2002; Inquiry and Analysis Series – No. 158, "The Saudi Media Debates Flogging by the Saudi Reliogus Police," January 08, 2004.
[2] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), April 23, 2005.
[3] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), April 23, 2005.
MEMRI:
On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian religious activity. The following are excerpts from the reports:
The Saudi daily Al-Jazirah reported that 40 men, women, and children with Pakistani citizenship were arrested on April 21, 2005 after performing Christian religious rites in an apartment in the Thaharat Al-Badi'a neighborhood in western Riyadh. The arrest was part of a sweeping police operation by the Riyadh District Police, at the order of Riyadh Governor Prince Salman bin Abd Al-'Aziz.
The paper reported that the operation came after Saudi religious police – known as the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice [1] – followed and collected information on the activity of the 40, who listened to a proselytizing lecture by a Pakistani minister.
The paper also noted that during the police operation, which lasted nearly 10 hours, a cross and a large number of proselytizing books and cassettes were found [in the apartment]. The detainees themselves stated that they had come to listen to lectures by the minister. One of the detainees was a Muslim Pakistani, who acknowledged that he had been influenced by the Christian ideology. [2]
The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh said that the detainees had set up a church in the apartment, equipped with crosses, pictures, and statues. Likewise, it was said that during their religious activity, one of them was found praying, as the others present repeated their words, and one of the women arrested was listing the people's confessions and distributing writs of absolution. The Al-Riyadh report included a photo of the detainees and of a large cross and the group which was arrested.
A Saudi religious police source explained the reason for the arrest: "These people tried to spread the poison and their beliefs to others, by means of distributing pamphlets and [missionary] publications." He said that all the detainees "had been transferred to the relevant bodies for investigation." [3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For more information on The Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Preventation of Vice See MEMRI Special Dispatch Series No. 504, "Saudi Religious Police Launch Website," May 13, 2002; Inquiry and Analysis Series – No. 158, "The Saudi Media Debates Flogging by the Saudi Reliogus Police," January 08, 2004.
[2] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), April 23, 2005.
[3] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), April 23, 2005.
MEMRI:
Kingdom of Heaven: 'It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history'
May 02, 2005
Kingdom of Heaven: 'It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history'
The new blockbuster movie Kingdom of Heaven is looking more and more like a dhimmi whitewash of history. I have written a column about the film that appeared in Human Events last week; a longer version is slated to show up in FrontPage tomorrow or Wednesday. Meanwhile, tomorrow or Wednesday also I hope to finish, and send off to the publisher (Regnery), my new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which should be out this summer. In it, I plan to discuss the historical errors of the film in detail.
In the meantime, however, ZombieTime (thanks to LGF) has assembled a large amount of evidence showing that this is a propaganda film.
And this article, "Kingdom of Heaven ignites debate," from the South African Press Agency (SAPA) and Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) quotes the renowned historian of the Crusades Jonathan Riley-Smith and me to show what the film really is. I am honored to be in Dr. Riley-Smith's company, and I think his remark about the film being "Osama bin Laden's version of history" is the only thing one needs to know about this movie: it is yet another example of the suicidal Western tendency to see the world in terms of oppressed and oppressors, with the "White Man" ever cast as the oppressor and the "Brown Man" as the oppressed.
Khaled Abou el-Fadl, a renowned Islamic jurist at the University of California in Los Angeles, said he believes the film promotes the idea of "a civilisational showdown between Islamic and Christian culture".
"In my view, it is inevitable that there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it," he told Scotland's Herald newspaper.
Remember that statement.
But Scott said he made every effort to give the film the opposite message. He even invented a mythical order in which Jews, Christians and Muslims co-operated.
"The characters portrayed in the film are so important in Muslim culture that I knew we had to do it absolutely properly and correctly," he said. "Saladin fights battles, but he also enters into dialogue. We want to show that dialogue can be much better than war."...
Saladin was not this proto-Nelson Mandela figure at all. Watch for the real Saladin in my book.
"It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history," said Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, a British academic and expert on the Crusades. "It depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."
"Kingdom of Heaven is being touted as a fascinating history lesson," said Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. "Fascinating, maybe - but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves."
Dhimmi Watch: Kingdom of Heaven: "It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history"
Kingdom of Heaven: 'It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history'
The new blockbuster movie Kingdom of Heaven is looking more and more like a dhimmi whitewash of history. I have written a column about the film that appeared in Human Events last week; a longer version is slated to show up in FrontPage tomorrow or Wednesday. Meanwhile, tomorrow or Wednesday also I hope to finish, and send off to the publisher (Regnery), my new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which should be out this summer. In it, I plan to discuss the historical errors of the film in detail.
In the meantime, however, ZombieTime (thanks to LGF) has assembled a large amount of evidence showing that this is a propaganda film.
And this article, "Kingdom of Heaven ignites debate," from the South African Press Agency (SAPA) and Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) quotes the renowned historian of the Crusades Jonathan Riley-Smith and me to show what the film really is. I am honored to be in Dr. Riley-Smith's company, and I think his remark about the film being "Osama bin Laden's version of history" is the only thing one needs to know about this movie: it is yet another example of the suicidal Western tendency to see the world in terms of oppressed and oppressors, with the "White Man" ever cast as the oppressor and the "Brown Man" as the oppressed.
Khaled Abou el-Fadl, a renowned Islamic jurist at the University of California in Los Angeles, said he believes the film promotes the idea of "a civilisational showdown between Islamic and Christian culture".
"In my view, it is inevitable that there will be hate crimes committed directly because of it," he told Scotland's Herald newspaper.
Remember that statement.
But Scott said he made every effort to give the film the opposite message. He even invented a mythical order in which Jews, Christians and Muslims co-operated.
"The characters portrayed in the film are so important in Muslim culture that I knew we had to do it absolutely properly and correctly," he said. "Saladin fights battles, but he also enters into dialogue. We want to show that dialogue can be much better than war."...
Saladin was not this proto-Nelson Mandela figure at all. Watch for the real Saladin in my book.
"It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history," said Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, a British academic and expert on the Crusades. "It depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."
"Kingdom of Heaven is being touted as a fascinating history lesson," said Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. "Fascinating, maybe - but only as evidence of the lengths to which modern Westerners are willing to go to delude themselves."
Dhimmi Watch: Kingdom of Heaven: "It's basically Osama bin Laden's version of history"
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith
April 06, 2005
Monte Kuligowski
The debate over the theory of Darwinian evolution vs. the revived theory of intelligent design is predictably causing an emotional big bang in scientific and academic circles. Darwinism begins with the premise that God doesn’t exist or the idea of an intelligent Creator isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry (Never mind some of history’s greatest scientists believed in God). The Darwinist begins with the assumption that God had nothing to do with the creation of the worlds and of life itself. Everything must be explained by natural process because the supernatural doesn’t exist. Darwinism rests upon faith in a blind chance phenomenon which is capable of producing and sustaining life. Proponents of the theory of intelligent design point to observable laws, like entropy, and to the complexities of life and conclude that creation and life were designed by a higher power.
The AP recently quoted Barbara Forest, a university philosophy professor and leading critic of intelligent design, as saying, “It is at its bottom a Christian religious movement.” Every Christian, of course, believes, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1: 1). So does every religious Jew. And countless citizens who are neither Christians nor Jews also believe that God is the author of life. Intelligent design is more than a Christian religious movement; it is at the very constitution of what makes us a nation. If it’s a movement, it’s certainly not a new one.
Consider the words of our Declaration of Independence. The parchment might be old and frail, but it still contains the bedrock faith of our great nation. When breaking away from Great Britain, the old guys in knickers and wigs understood that the laws of nature were given by “Nature’s God.” They felt justified in declaring independence because they based their quest upon something objective and superseding, not upon an impersonal cold, material world. Nature wasn’t their God; rather, nature was subject to God. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” The framers of our country pledged their lives “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence . . . .” The creators of our country relied on the Creator of the universe.
Our founders certainly didn’t rely on the theory of Darwinian evolution for their protection (even though evolutionary theory had been around since ancient Greek philosophy and Darwin’s grandfather also promoted the theory). The theory can protect no one.
The only “natural laws” enacted in its congress of chaos are laws of a purposeless universe and life. Its maxim, “survival of the fittest,” has lead to unmitigated cruelty by calloused individuals believing they will escape judgment. The unborn, the weak, the infirm and the elderly are vulnerable impediments in the hands of those who have run to the theory’s natural consequence: the subjective value of human life.
The theory of evolution has wreaked more havoc upon Western civilization than any other dogma of man. It replaced moral absolutes with moral relativism; purpose with emptiness; accountability with a false freedom; self control with self seeking; hope with despair; true freedom with an oligarchy; spiritualism with materialism; biblical authority with human authority (humanism); and the dignity of men with the abasement of animals. That such a contrary theory has come to reign as king in the academic world should cause us to pause; because the ramifications are far-reaching – and disastrous.
Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln aptly noted that the philosophy in the schoolhouse in one generation will become the philosophy of the culture in the next. The engine of our society was never meant to run on an empty philosophy disguised as science. John Adams said that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Darwinism attempts to tear down religion and to the degree that it has, it has torn down the pillars of our culture.
No matter how you slice it, theories of origin require faith, not scientific proof. No one was there to see non-life evolve into life by a blind material process or to see God create the worlds and all living things by the power of his word. And insufficient evidence exists to produce an objective finding through the scientific method. The problem for Darwinism is that the limited observable evidence (and common sense) doesn’t lead people to the scientific conclusion that Darwinian evolution is true. For many scientists, the evidence tends to show that the theory is false. That’s why some have abandoned the corroding shipwreck of Darwinian “science,” realizing that much more faith is required for this theory than for the theory of intelligent design.
So long as theories over the important question of origin require faith, scientists would do well to accept and promote a theory that is actually compatible and able to support our free society by providing hope, purpose and accountability for the citizenry (including the school children who are forced to learn it).
Darwinism excludes the supernatural realm and then looks to unintelligible, lifeless matter for understanding. Intelligent design acknowledges the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. If the Creator is able to create and sustain all things, it stands to reason that he is able to protect and bless our land. What also follows is the fact which makes Darwinists cringe: men are accountable to God.
OpinionEditorials.com Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Kuligowski
Monte Kuligowski
The debate over the theory of Darwinian evolution vs. the revived theory of intelligent design is predictably causing an emotional big bang in scientific and academic circles. Darwinism begins with the premise that God doesn’t exist or the idea of an intelligent Creator isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry (Never mind some of history’s greatest scientists believed in God). The Darwinist begins with the assumption that God had nothing to do with the creation of the worlds and of life itself. Everything must be explained by natural process because the supernatural doesn’t exist. Darwinism rests upon faith in a blind chance phenomenon which is capable of producing and sustaining life. Proponents of the theory of intelligent design point to observable laws, like entropy, and to the complexities of life and conclude that creation and life were designed by a higher power.
The AP recently quoted Barbara Forest, a university philosophy professor and leading critic of intelligent design, as saying, “It is at its bottom a Christian religious movement.” Every Christian, of course, believes, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1: 1). So does every religious Jew. And countless citizens who are neither Christians nor Jews also believe that God is the author of life. Intelligent design is more than a Christian religious movement; it is at the very constitution of what makes us a nation. If it’s a movement, it’s certainly not a new one.
Consider the words of our Declaration of Independence. The parchment might be old and frail, but it still contains the bedrock faith of our great nation. When breaking away from Great Britain, the old guys in knickers and wigs understood that the laws of nature were given by “Nature’s God.” They felt justified in declaring independence because they based their quest upon something objective and superseding, not upon an impersonal cold, material world. Nature wasn’t their God; rather, nature was subject to God. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” The framers of our country pledged their lives “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence . . . .” The creators of our country relied on the Creator of the universe.
Our founders certainly didn’t rely on the theory of Darwinian evolution for their protection (even though evolutionary theory had been around since ancient Greek philosophy and Darwin’s grandfather also promoted the theory). The theory can protect no one.
The only “natural laws” enacted in its congress of chaos are laws of a purposeless universe and life. Its maxim, “survival of the fittest,” has lead to unmitigated cruelty by calloused individuals believing they will escape judgment. The unborn, the weak, the infirm and the elderly are vulnerable impediments in the hands of those who have run to the theory’s natural consequence: the subjective value of human life.
The theory of evolution has wreaked more havoc upon Western civilization than any other dogma of man. It replaced moral absolutes with moral relativism; purpose with emptiness; accountability with a false freedom; self control with self seeking; hope with despair; true freedom with an oligarchy; spiritualism with materialism; biblical authority with human authority (humanism); and the dignity of men with the abasement of animals. That such a contrary theory has come to reign as king in the academic world should cause us to pause; because the ramifications are far-reaching – and disastrous.
Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln aptly noted that the philosophy in the schoolhouse in one generation will become the philosophy of the culture in the next. The engine of our society was never meant to run on an empty philosophy disguised as science. John Adams said that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Darwinism attempts to tear down religion and to the degree that it has, it has torn down the pillars of our culture.
No matter how you slice it, theories of origin require faith, not scientific proof. No one was there to see non-life evolve into life by a blind material process or to see God create the worlds and all living things by the power of his word. And insufficient evidence exists to produce an objective finding through the scientific method. The problem for Darwinism is that the limited observable evidence (and common sense) doesn’t lead people to the scientific conclusion that Darwinian evolution is true. For many scientists, the evidence tends to show that the theory is false. That’s why some have abandoned the corroding shipwreck of Darwinian “science,” realizing that much more faith is required for this theory than for the theory of intelligent design.
So long as theories over the important question of origin require faith, scientists would do well to accept and promote a theory that is actually compatible and able to support our free society by providing hope, purpose and accountability for the citizenry (including the school children who are forced to learn it).
Darwinism excludes the supernatural realm and then looks to unintelligible, lifeless matter for understanding. Intelligent design acknowledges the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. If the Creator is able to create and sustain all things, it stands to reason that he is able to protect and bless our land. What also follows is the fact which makes Darwinists cringe: men are accountable to God.
OpinionEditorials.com Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Kuligowski
Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Part 2
April 27, 2005
Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Part 2
Monte Kuligowski
My last column generated such a firestorm of email criticism from those who oppose creation science and intelligent design that I’ve decided to present the following to see if my understanding has evolved.
First, my article, “Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith,” was not written as a scientific treatise; but as a layman’s prose, pointing to the horrific social consequences of evolutionary theory.
Nevertheless, my beloved opponents were quick to point to my heresy of stating that Darwinism begins with the premise that either God doesn’t exist or he isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry. Here’s how one writer put it: “Evolution, being a BIOLOGICAL theory, doesn’t address the creation of the worlds. Also, it doesn’t address the creation of life! Evolution only begins to take place after the creation of life, in whatever way that occurred.”
(It’s sort of interesting that those so strongly opposed to creation science can’t help but use the word “creation” when referring to the appearance of the worlds and of life.)
The editor of the New Humanist magazine guards his words a little better: “Darwinism, if such a thing exists . . . merely point[s] to all the available evidence supporting the theories of evolution and natural selection. What happened before the existence of the first organism is not something Darwin or his followers spent much time on . . . they were looking merely at the development of organisms, not their initial creation.”
So Darwin and his followers were looking merely at the development of organisms. Notice that he didn’t say they were looking at one genus of species evolving into another. Evolutionists have never seen this happen and they remain unable to objectively prove their claim. They don’t really know whether life first appeared instantly and completely (as microscopic life, seed bearing vegetation, male and female fish, birds, cows, bugs, man, etc.); rather than as a “single” primordial organism. No one saw the elusive “first lone organism;” but some believe the theory is true. Likewise, no one saw God create the earth and impart life; but many believe that he did. No one saw “natural selection” create an ear to hear; neither did anyone see God breathe life into Adam after he formed him from the dust of the earth.
Another authority on evolution says that, “science says nothing about God. It does not include the concept of god in any assumptions. Also, the creation of planets and the origin of life has [sic] nothing to do with the theory of evolution.”
Guess what? Science says nothing about natural selection. Natural selection is nothing more than a mythological deity, possessing unsearchable creative abilities and a mysterious intellect. It took a while, but it turned a little slime blob into a breathing evolutionist.
The “enlightened” evolutionist ignores his own faith, focusing instead on the faith of others: “Intelligent Design is a religious doctrine because it makes the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claim that God guided the development or creation of life. Evolutionary theory . . . is an evidence-based theory which makes no claims . . . about god. This is why evolution belongs in a classroom, and ‘intelligent design’ does not.”
Let’s read that quote again, except this time swapping “intelligent design” and “evolution;” and “God” and “natural selection”: “‘Evolution’ is a religious doctrine because it makes the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claim that ‘natural selection’ guided the development . . . of life. ‘Intelligent design’ is an evidence-based theory which makes no claims about ‘natural selection.’ This is why ‘intelligent design’ belongs in a classroom, and ‘evolution’ does not.”
I think I now understand evolutionary theory a little better. It makes no assumptions about God (which makes it true science); it only begins after the non-biological evolution or creation of the planets, at the point of earthly life, and then looks to the development (observable changes “within” a species) of present organisms which leads an educated (or indoctrinated) person to the conclusion that all food producing trees and plants, animals, amphibians, reptiles, insects and man (and every other living thing) have evolved into their present state from a first organism (of which no assumptions are made) by the marvel of natural selection (of which no assumptions are made) over millions and millions of years with consecutive and consistent conditions for life (enough water, light, oxygen, food, temperature, etc. – of which no assumptions are made).
In theory, the theory of evolution begins with no assumptions of God’s existence. In practice, how many evolutionists are completely closed-minded to the “repulsive” thought of the God of the Bible being the creator and sustainer of all life? The theory conveniently provides a foundation (of sand) for atheists, humanists and secularists, etc., to build upon toward the creation of an illusionary world where there is no objective right or wrong nor final accountability to God.
“Well, no, that’s not accurate,” one might say, because even Darwin saw no conflict with believing in God and some people who ascribe to the theory do believe in God. After all, the theory makes no assumptions about God. On one hand, God is left out of the equation; on the other, one may believe in God and still be a macro-evolutionist. But oh, dear evolutionist, what kind of god does the theory support?
Would the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob need millions and millions of years to create his beloved treasure called man, made a little lower than the angels but crowned with glory and honor? Of course not. He is the God who spoke the galaxies into existence by the power of his word. He said, “Let there be light: and there was light.” He speaks and it happens – instantly. Whether he is creating life; parting the sea; pushing down the walls of Jericho; turning water into wine; multiplying a few loaves to feed thousands; healing lepers or raising the dead – he is the all knowing, all seeing God. He is the Almighty.
Evolution is not the work of an omnipotent Creator, but an impotent fairy. Number him among the ancient Baals and Asherahs; he is a thing of human imagination, as worthless as a totem pole or bronze idol. He is as blind as the fairy tale of natural selection, groping in the dark waiting for his eyes to fully evolve. When was man created in his own image? When he existed in the form of a salmon or an ape? What was this god doing when his poor beast was evolving from monkey to Neanderthal? Did he take pleasure in his grotesque creature crawling in the mud, and then hunching around trying to walk upright? Or is the god of evolution to be pitied because of his utter inability to intervene?
At what point did man become accountable to this god? Or does he have any basis to hold men accountable? Is his only precept the law of “survival of the fittest?”
The imaginary past pain and suffering (during the eons of evolutionary process) can’t be explained by the consequences of sin because protozoans and animals can’t be held to moral standards. And likewise, the real pain and suffering in the world can’t be attributed honestly to Adam’s sin if the story of creation is just an allegorical fairy tale.
Hence, we see the problem for the (perhaps unsuspecting) religious evolutionist and the delight of the atheist: there are no definitive answers to our deepest questions (like, “why is there suffering in the world?”). When the Bible is not interpreted plainly, objective moral truth is replaced with subjective interpretation.
So I ask, is there any good reason for anyone to interpret the Bible allegorically, yielding to the doctrine of the mysteriously moving slime that needed to evolve? Of course not – that involves much more faith than God requires. Instead, exercise intelligent faith – trust your Creator and believe his word. If the pillars of creation and original sin are rejected, then the biblical truths which follow come crumbling down (in the mind of the unbeliever). At that point, God is not to be trusted and obeyed, but questioned.
Submitting to the rule of God is not something men naturally select. And that basic truth is not subject to evolution.
Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain:
God is his own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
– William Cowper (1731-1800)
OpinionEditorials.com Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Part 2 - Kuligowski
Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Part 2
Monte Kuligowski
My last column generated such a firestorm of email criticism from those who oppose creation science and intelligent design that I’ve decided to present the following to see if my understanding has evolved.
First, my article, “Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith,” was not written as a scientific treatise; but as a layman’s prose, pointing to the horrific social consequences of evolutionary theory.
Nevertheless, my beloved opponents were quick to point to my heresy of stating that Darwinism begins with the premise that either God doesn’t exist or he isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry. Here’s how one writer put it: “Evolution, being a BIOLOGICAL theory, doesn’t address the creation of the worlds. Also, it doesn’t address the creation of life! Evolution only begins to take place after the creation of life, in whatever way that occurred.”
(It’s sort of interesting that those so strongly opposed to creation science can’t help but use the word “creation” when referring to the appearance of the worlds and of life.)
The editor of the New Humanist magazine guards his words a little better: “Darwinism, if such a thing exists . . . merely point[s] to all the available evidence supporting the theories of evolution and natural selection. What happened before the existence of the first organism is not something Darwin or his followers spent much time on . . . they were looking merely at the development of organisms, not their initial creation.”
So Darwin and his followers were looking merely at the development of organisms. Notice that he didn’t say they were looking at one genus of species evolving into another. Evolutionists have never seen this happen and they remain unable to objectively prove their claim. They don’t really know whether life first appeared instantly and completely (as microscopic life, seed bearing vegetation, male and female fish, birds, cows, bugs, man, etc.); rather than as a “single” primordial organism. No one saw the elusive “first lone organism;” but some believe the theory is true. Likewise, no one saw God create the earth and impart life; but many believe that he did. No one saw “natural selection” create an ear to hear; neither did anyone see God breathe life into Adam after he formed him from the dust of the earth.
Another authority on evolution says that, “science says nothing about God. It does not include the concept of god in any assumptions. Also, the creation of planets and the origin of life has [sic] nothing to do with the theory of evolution.”
Guess what? Science says nothing about natural selection. Natural selection is nothing more than a mythological deity, possessing unsearchable creative abilities and a mysterious intellect. It took a while, but it turned a little slime blob into a breathing evolutionist.
The “enlightened” evolutionist ignores his own faith, focusing instead on the faith of others: “Intelligent Design is a religious doctrine because it makes the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claim that God guided the development or creation of life. Evolutionary theory . . . is an evidence-based theory which makes no claims . . . about god. This is why evolution belongs in a classroom, and ‘intelligent design’ does not.”
Let’s read that quote again, except this time swapping “intelligent design” and “evolution;” and “God” and “natural selection”: “‘Evolution’ is a religious doctrine because it makes the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claim that ‘natural selection’ guided the development . . . of life. ‘Intelligent design’ is an evidence-based theory which makes no claims about ‘natural selection.’ This is why ‘intelligent design’ belongs in a classroom, and ‘evolution’ does not.”
I think I now understand evolutionary theory a little better. It makes no assumptions about God (which makes it true science); it only begins after the non-biological evolution or creation of the planets, at the point of earthly life, and then looks to the development (observable changes “within” a species) of present organisms which leads an educated (or indoctrinated) person to the conclusion that all food producing trees and plants, animals, amphibians, reptiles, insects and man (and every other living thing) have evolved into their present state from a first organism (of which no assumptions are made) by the marvel of natural selection (of which no assumptions are made) over millions and millions of years with consecutive and consistent conditions for life (enough water, light, oxygen, food, temperature, etc. – of which no assumptions are made).
In theory, the theory of evolution begins with no assumptions of God’s existence. In practice, how many evolutionists are completely closed-minded to the “repulsive” thought of the God of the Bible being the creator and sustainer of all life? The theory conveniently provides a foundation (of sand) for atheists, humanists and secularists, etc., to build upon toward the creation of an illusionary world where there is no objective right or wrong nor final accountability to God.
“Well, no, that’s not accurate,” one might say, because even Darwin saw no conflict with believing in God and some people who ascribe to the theory do believe in God. After all, the theory makes no assumptions about God. On one hand, God is left out of the equation; on the other, one may believe in God and still be a macro-evolutionist. But oh, dear evolutionist, what kind of god does the theory support?
Would the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob need millions and millions of years to create his beloved treasure called man, made a little lower than the angels but crowned with glory and honor? Of course not. He is the God who spoke the galaxies into existence by the power of his word. He said, “Let there be light: and there was light.” He speaks and it happens – instantly. Whether he is creating life; parting the sea; pushing down the walls of Jericho; turning water into wine; multiplying a few loaves to feed thousands; healing lepers or raising the dead – he is the all knowing, all seeing God. He is the Almighty.
Evolution is not the work of an omnipotent Creator, but an impotent fairy. Number him among the ancient Baals and Asherahs; he is a thing of human imagination, as worthless as a totem pole or bronze idol. He is as blind as the fairy tale of natural selection, groping in the dark waiting for his eyes to fully evolve. When was man created in his own image? When he existed in the form of a salmon or an ape? What was this god doing when his poor beast was evolving from monkey to Neanderthal? Did he take pleasure in his grotesque creature crawling in the mud, and then hunching around trying to walk upright? Or is the god of evolution to be pitied because of his utter inability to intervene?
At what point did man become accountable to this god? Or does he have any basis to hold men accountable? Is his only precept the law of “survival of the fittest?”
The imaginary past pain and suffering (during the eons of evolutionary process) can’t be explained by the consequences of sin because protozoans and animals can’t be held to moral standards. And likewise, the real pain and suffering in the world can’t be attributed honestly to Adam’s sin if the story of creation is just an allegorical fairy tale.
Hence, we see the problem for the (perhaps unsuspecting) religious evolutionist and the delight of the atheist: there are no definitive answers to our deepest questions (like, “why is there suffering in the world?”). When the Bible is not interpreted plainly, objective moral truth is replaced with subjective interpretation.
So I ask, is there any good reason for anyone to interpret the Bible allegorically, yielding to the doctrine of the mysteriously moving slime that needed to evolve? Of course not – that involves much more faith than God requires. Instead, exercise intelligent faith – trust your Creator and believe his word. If the pillars of creation and original sin are rejected, then the biblical truths which follow come crumbling down (in the mind of the unbeliever). At that point, God is not to be trusted and obeyed, but questioned.
Submitting to the rule of God is not something men naturally select. And that basic truth is not subject to evolution.
Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain:
God is his own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
– William Cowper (1731-1800)
OpinionEditorials.com Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith - Part 2 - Kuligowski
Houston Community Newspapers Online - The Villager - 04/29/2005 - Challenge Accepted
Challenge Accepted
By: PASTOR FRANK MOORE, OAK RIDGE
04/29/2005
When I returned to my office last Thursday, I had a voice mail from a stranger offering encouragement for my article on Terri Schiavo (April 7).
Frankly, I was surprised and appreciative, but I did not understand until I received my copy of The Villager that evening. When I began to read the editorial howls I knew I had struck a nerve. My reason for responding is not to defend, but to challenge those writers to search out the truth.
The first writer chided me for not understanding that the theory of evolution was similar to the "theory" of gravity. Sir, gravity is a demonstratable fact, not a theory.
I just think it is amusing that it took Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, until the 17th century to recognize it. Every object has gravity. It is determined by mass. It is calculable. NASA has to figure it in each time the shuttle takes off. My junior high science teacher at Marble Falls, Texas, demonstrated it to us in 1964 when he dropped a rock off the top of the building and had us time it.
Objects on planet earth fall at a rate of 32 feet per second, per second unless other factors like density and resistance affect that fall. Evolution, on the other hand, is a foundless bankrupt system of unbelief; man's effort to explain the creation without a creator.
That gentleman went on to state "we know the age of the earth is about 3 billion years because we can date the rocks. Sir, I invite you to dig deeper. The unscientific circular argument you refer to goes like this: "We know that rocks are old because they contain fossils, and we know that fossils are old because of the rock they are found in." Sir, the fact is no one but God knows how old the earth is.
Then another writer somehow compared the article I wrote about Terri Schiavo to radical Moslem clerics that prohibit "listening to music or even dancing in public." For the life of me I have no idea how he got from A to B on that. He seemed to infer that I am against research or progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love the sciences. In addition to teaching Life, Earth, and Physical Science, I have also taught chemistry and biology. My own children have asked me, "Dad, why aren't you a scientist since you love it so much?"
I will challenge his statement about "an originally tolerant religion such as Islam." Sir, you need to dust off your world history book. In the sixth and seventh century AD, radical Islam overran North Africa, Asia Minor, pushed into Mongolia and India, and much of Europe as they evangelized by the sword. Muslim warriors would have overrun France were it not for the narrow victory of the Franks in the Battle of Tours in 732. It took King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella until the end of the 15th Century to drive them out of Spain.
And finally, one writer pointed out that the Nazi's had practiced "forced selection" rather than "natural selection." Certainly, that is understood. P. Hoffman, in Hitler's Personal Security wrote, "Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle ... and even after his defeat in April, 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the fittest and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."
True science is based on observation. Evolution is not. Actually, scientists belie their calling when they support evolution in the absence of any proof.
Both Bob Jones and ABEKA science curricula, used at most Christian schools, teaches our students about the laws that govern science; laws that fly in the face of evolution. For example, the first law of Biogenesis states that "all living cells come from pre-existing cells." Cells replicate according to their DNA blueprints. God has said in His word, that living things will reproduce "after their own kind." That is a limit He has placed on nature that protects us from the chaos of evolution.
Evolution leads us to believe that things are evolving upward, from simple to complex; from primordial goop to man. However, the Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running down, like a great clock. An honest glance around us reveals that our planet is deteriorating, my office moves from order to disorder, the sun is expending its energy and will someday burn out. What we observe is contrary to evolution.
Let me simply close by challenging those that would know the truth -- you need to read. Louis Pasteur wrote, "a little science leads men away from God, but much science will lead them back to Him."
In addition to reading the Bible, I would invite you to get a copy of The Collapse of Evolution by Dr. Scott Muse, or The Evolution of a Creationist by Dr. Jobe Martin, or Darwin on Trial by Dr. Phillip Johnson. Two excellent Web sites for inquiring minds are Institute for Creation Research, WWW.ICR.org and WWW.Livingwaters.com.
More and more of the scientific community are distancing themselves from evolution because of its failure to produce any evidence. As I reflected on the printed responses to my original article, I was reminded again that the issue of evolution versus creation is a belief issue. Many people read my article and followed the reason and said, "He's right." For others, no amount of evidence or proof will ever be enough.
Houston Community Newspapers Online - The Villager - 04/29/2005 - Challenge Accepted
By: PASTOR FRANK MOORE, OAK RIDGE
04/29/2005
When I returned to my office last Thursday, I had a voice mail from a stranger offering encouragement for my article on Terri Schiavo (April 7).
Frankly, I was surprised and appreciative, but I did not understand until I received my copy of The Villager that evening. When I began to read the editorial howls I knew I had struck a nerve. My reason for responding is not to defend, but to challenge those writers to search out the truth.
The first writer chided me for not understanding that the theory of evolution was similar to the "theory" of gravity. Sir, gravity is a demonstratable fact, not a theory.
I just think it is amusing that it took Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, until the 17th century to recognize it. Every object has gravity. It is determined by mass. It is calculable. NASA has to figure it in each time the shuttle takes off. My junior high science teacher at Marble Falls, Texas, demonstrated it to us in 1964 when he dropped a rock off the top of the building and had us time it.
Objects on planet earth fall at a rate of 32 feet per second, per second unless other factors like density and resistance affect that fall. Evolution, on the other hand, is a foundless bankrupt system of unbelief; man's effort to explain the creation without a creator.
That gentleman went on to state "we know the age of the earth is about 3 billion years because we can date the rocks. Sir, I invite you to dig deeper. The unscientific circular argument you refer to goes like this: "We know that rocks are old because they contain fossils, and we know that fossils are old because of the rock they are found in." Sir, the fact is no one but God knows how old the earth is.
Then another writer somehow compared the article I wrote about Terri Schiavo to radical Moslem clerics that prohibit "listening to music or even dancing in public." For the life of me I have no idea how he got from A to B on that. He seemed to infer that I am against research or progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love the sciences. In addition to teaching Life, Earth, and Physical Science, I have also taught chemistry and biology. My own children have asked me, "Dad, why aren't you a scientist since you love it so much?"
I will challenge his statement about "an originally tolerant religion such as Islam." Sir, you need to dust off your world history book. In the sixth and seventh century AD, radical Islam overran North Africa, Asia Minor, pushed into Mongolia and India, and much of Europe as they evangelized by the sword. Muslim warriors would have overrun France were it not for the narrow victory of the Franks in the Battle of Tours in 732. It took King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella until the end of the 15th Century to drive them out of Spain.
And finally, one writer pointed out that the Nazi's had practiced "forced selection" rather than "natural selection." Certainly, that is understood. P. Hoffman, in Hitler's Personal Security wrote, "Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle ... and even after his defeat in April, 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the fittest and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."
True science is based on observation. Evolution is not. Actually, scientists belie their calling when they support evolution in the absence of any proof.
Both Bob Jones and ABEKA science curricula, used at most Christian schools, teaches our students about the laws that govern science; laws that fly in the face of evolution. For example, the first law of Biogenesis states that "all living cells come from pre-existing cells." Cells replicate according to their DNA blueprints. God has said in His word, that living things will reproduce "after their own kind." That is a limit He has placed on nature that protects us from the chaos of evolution.
Evolution leads us to believe that things are evolving upward, from simple to complex; from primordial goop to man. However, the Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running down, like a great clock. An honest glance around us reveals that our planet is deteriorating, my office moves from order to disorder, the sun is expending its energy and will someday burn out. What we observe is contrary to evolution.
Let me simply close by challenging those that would know the truth -- you need to read. Louis Pasteur wrote, "a little science leads men away from God, but much science will lead them back to Him."
In addition to reading the Bible, I would invite you to get a copy of The Collapse of Evolution by Dr. Scott Muse, or The Evolution of a Creationist by Dr. Jobe Martin, or Darwin on Trial by Dr. Phillip Johnson. Two excellent Web sites for inquiring minds are Institute for Creation Research, WWW.ICR.org and WWW.Livingwaters.com.
More and more of the scientific community are distancing themselves from evolution because of its failure to produce any evidence. As I reflected on the printed responses to my original article, I was reminded again that the issue of evolution versus creation is a belief issue. Many people read my article and followed the reason and said, "He's right." For others, no amount of evidence or proof will ever be enough.
Houston Community Newspapers Online - The Villager - 04/29/2005 - Challenge Accepted
The Many Mysteries of Stem Cells
The different Tulane "factions" ... seem to agree that adult stem cells are superior to embryonic stem cells because they don't increase the risk of cancer later in a person's life.
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
FRIDAY, April 29 (HealthDay News) -- At its most basic, the hope of stem cell research is to make human beings more like salamanders.
When chopped into bits, salamanders regenerate.
Humans don't.
By exploiting an elegant natural process -- the body's ability to heal itself with stem cells -- scientists are hoping to find therapies or cures for a long list of conditions including spinal cord paralysis, heart failure and Alzheimer's.
"Humans have a mechanism that sort of dampens down that ability. Infusions of stem cells are basically overcoming the damping-down mechanism," said Dr. Brian Butcher, associate director of the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy in New Orleans.
The center is the only National Institutes of Health-sponsored organization to distribute adult stem cells to other academic researchers around the world.
"Stem cells have the potential to completely change medicine and public health," added Dr. Paul Whelton, senior vice president for health sciences at Tulane University.
And that has already begun, even though most of the "breakthroughs" in stem cell research thus far have occurred in the laboratory. These include tantalizing possibilities that stem cells can reverse damage from heart attacks or spur the growth of new brain cells. One landmark study in the 1990s used stem cells from siblings' bone marrow to help children with brittle bone condition.
But even as the science progresses, albeit haltingly, attempts to regulate and codify this new field have been less than elegant.
Earlier this week, in what some saw as an attempt to fill a vacuum left by the federal government, the National Academy of Sciences issued a proposal for guidelines to govern research with human embryonic stem cells, the most controversial type of stem cell.
Among other things, the guidelines called for establishing Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) committees, to review research; requiring the consent of anonymous sperm donors when embryos from IVF clinics are used; restricting the creation of chimeras, which result when human cells are mixed with animal cells; prohibiting the breeding of any animals that contain human embryonic stem cells, and restricting any payments to donors beyond reimbursement of direct expenses.
"Our hope is that this will provide an ethical foundation in which stem cell research can continue," said Dr. Bruce Albert, president of the National Academy of Sciences.
"There are no federal regulations governing stem cell research and no system for oversight," said Richard O. Hynes, co-chairman of the committee that prepared the guidelines. "This has led to a great deal of uncertainty in the public . . . and concern on the part of scientists who would like to do research appropriately. These guidelines aim to encourage responsible practices in embryonic stem cell research, regardless of the source of funding, the derivation or the use."
But while many uncertainties are of an ethical nature, at least as many are of a scientific nature. Just ask Tulane University researchers.
Tulane has circumvented many of the ethical issues by dealing only in adult stem cells and, when dealing with actual patients, only in autologous infusions. That means the stem cells come from one patient and go back to the same patient, reducing the likelihood of rejection.
But that still leaves a vast domain of unanswered questions.
For research, the center relies on donations of bone marrow: A person can donate once every two months and be compensated $220 for giving marrow from both hips, a procedure that takes about 15 minutes.
A teaspoon of bone marrow, cultured delicately, can yield about 300 million stem cells in two weeks.
But there's debate about how best to grow these stem cells.
At Tulane, experts say they get the best results by not crowding the cells, hence they have 50 cells per centimeter squared versus 5,000 at many other facilities. "We need to pamper cells," said Radhika Pochampally, research instructor at the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy. "They don't like crowds. They need a lot of nutrients. We have to change the culture conditions according to the donor."
Tulane's Gene Therapy Center is betting on adult stem cells from bone marrow for a clinical trial on spinal cord paralysis they plan to begin within the next year.
In the next building on Tulane Avenue, other scientists are betting on the future of adult stem cells drawn from fat.
The most potent stem cells are not likely to be from bone marrow, said Dr. Eckhard Alt, a professor of medicine at Tulane School of Medicine. "The renewal force is local and associated with vessels," he explained.
In other words, when the body needs to renew itself, it is unlikely to go to the remote regions of bone marrow. It is more likely to get stem cells from somewhere close and accessible, Alt said.
Alt and his colleagues are hoping their research will one day lead to a trials using fat stem cells to combat heart failure.
The different Tulane "factions," at least, seem to agree that adult stem cells are superior to embryonic stem cells because they don't increase the risk of cancer later in a person's life. (There has been one report of adult stem cells increasing the risk of cancer, but it was only one and happened in a Petri dish, not a person.) And adult stem cells grow quickly without needing feeder cells.
But then there's the widely acknowledged point that embryonic stem cells have a greater capacity to differentiate into more tissue than adult stem cells.
There's also the issue of placental or cord blood stem cells, as well as the issue of which stem cells might be best for lung repair or for heart repair.
"There's not one snake oil for all," said Dr. Darwin Prockop, director of the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy.
There are also questions about whether all bone marrow stem cells are created equal. In fact, there may be as many as 10 different types of stem cells in the bone marrow, Prockop pointed out. "We may be using different cells without knowing it," he noted.
There are questions about how stem cells, when left to their own devices, manage to find tissues that are damaged. And questions about when a stem cell is an embryonic stem cell and when it is an adult stem cell.
For all the pages of guidelines developed by the National Academy of Sciences, or the billions of dollars being devoted by states to cultivate stem cell research, the most basic processes of the human body remain a mystery to even the most trained and enlightened.
"This research is still somewhere between science and art," Prockop said.
- Forbes.com
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
FRIDAY, April 29 (HealthDay News) -- At its most basic, the hope of stem cell research is to make human beings more like salamanders.
When chopped into bits, salamanders regenerate.
Humans don't.
By exploiting an elegant natural process -- the body's ability to heal itself with stem cells -- scientists are hoping to find therapies or cures for a long list of conditions including spinal cord paralysis, heart failure and Alzheimer's.
"Humans have a mechanism that sort of dampens down that ability. Infusions of stem cells are basically overcoming the damping-down mechanism," said Dr. Brian Butcher, associate director of the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy in New Orleans.
The center is the only National Institutes of Health-sponsored organization to distribute adult stem cells to other academic researchers around the world.
"Stem cells have the potential to completely change medicine and public health," added Dr. Paul Whelton, senior vice president for health sciences at Tulane University.
And that has already begun, even though most of the "breakthroughs" in stem cell research thus far have occurred in the laboratory. These include tantalizing possibilities that stem cells can reverse damage from heart attacks or spur the growth of new brain cells. One landmark study in the 1990s used stem cells from siblings' bone marrow to help children with brittle bone condition.
But even as the science progresses, albeit haltingly, attempts to regulate and codify this new field have been less than elegant.
Earlier this week, in what some saw as an attempt to fill a vacuum left by the federal government, the National Academy of Sciences issued a proposal for guidelines to govern research with human embryonic stem cells, the most controversial type of stem cell.
Among other things, the guidelines called for establishing Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) committees, to review research; requiring the consent of anonymous sperm donors when embryos from IVF clinics are used; restricting the creation of chimeras, which result when human cells are mixed with animal cells; prohibiting the breeding of any animals that contain human embryonic stem cells, and restricting any payments to donors beyond reimbursement of direct expenses.
"Our hope is that this will provide an ethical foundation in which stem cell research can continue," said Dr. Bruce Albert, president of the National Academy of Sciences.
"There are no federal regulations governing stem cell research and no system for oversight," said Richard O. Hynes, co-chairman of the committee that prepared the guidelines. "This has led to a great deal of uncertainty in the public . . . and concern on the part of scientists who would like to do research appropriately. These guidelines aim to encourage responsible practices in embryonic stem cell research, regardless of the source of funding, the derivation or the use."
But while many uncertainties are of an ethical nature, at least as many are of a scientific nature. Just ask Tulane University researchers.
Tulane has circumvented many of the ethical issues by dealing only in adult stem cells and, when dealing with actual patients, only in autologous infusions. That means the stem cells come from one patient and go back to the same patient, reducing the likelihood of rejection.
But that still leaves a vast domain of unanswered questions.
For research, the center relies on donations of bone marrow: A person can donate once every two months and be compensated $220 for giving marrow from both hips, a procedure that takes about 15 minutes.
A teaspoon of bone marrow, cultured delicately, can yield about 300 million stem cells in two weeks.
But there's debate about how best to grow these stem cells.
At Tulane, experts say they get the best results by not crowding the cells, hence they have 50 cells per centimeter squared versus 5,000 at many other facilities. "We need to pamper cells," said Radhika Pochampally, research instructor at the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy. "They don't like crowds. They need a lot of nutrients. We have to change the culture conditions according to the donor."
Tulane's Gene Therapy Center is betting on adult stem cells from bone marrow for a clinical trial on spinal cord paralysis they plan to begin within the next year.
In the next building on Tulane Avenue, other scientists are betting on the future of adult stem cells drawn from fat.
The most potent stem cells are not likely to be from bone marrow, said Dr. Eckhard Alt, a professor of medicine at Tulane School of Medicine. "The renewal force is local and associated with vessels," he explained.
In other words, when the body needs to renew itself, it is unlikely to go to the remote regions of bone marrow. It is more likely to get stem cells from somewhere close and accessible, Alt said.
Alt and his colleagues are hoping their research will one day lead to a trials using fat stem cells to combat heart failure.
The different Tulane "factions," at least, seem to agree that adult stem cells are superior to embryonic stem cells because they don't increase the risk of cancer later in a person's life. (There has been one report of adult stem cells increasing the risk of cancer, but it was only one and happened in a Petri dish, not a person.) And adult stem cells grow quickly without needing feeder cells.
But then there's the widely acknowledged point that embryonic stem cells have a greater capacity to differentiate into more tissue than adult stem cells.
There's also the issue of placental or cord blood stem cells, as well as the issue of which stem cells might be best for lung repair or for heart repair.
"There's not one snake oil for all," said Dr. Darwin Prockop, director of the Tulane Center for Gene Therapy.
There are also questions about whether all bone marrow stem cells are created equal. In fact, there may be as many as 10 different types of stem cells in the bone marrow, Prockop pointed out. "We may be using different cells without knowing it," he noted.
There are questions about how stem cells, when left to their own devices, manage to find tissues that are damaged. And questions about when a stem cell is an embryonic stem cell and when it is an adult stem cell.
For all the pages of guidelines developed by the National Academy of Sciences, or the billions of dollars being devoted by states to cultivate stem cell research, the most basic processes of the human body remain a mystery to even the most trained and enlightened.
"This research is still somewhere between science and art," Prockop said.
- Forbes.com
Escalating Persecution of Hmong Christians
Freedom Houses Center for Religious Freedom reports that the government of Vietnam is stepping up its persecution of minority Christians
Saturday, Apr. 30, 2005 Posted: 6:58:35AM EST
The government of Vietnam is stepping up its persecution of minority Christians, according to detailed accounts received recently by Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom.
“Sources in Vietnam have provided the Center with new accounts of persecution against Hmong Christians, including recent death threats which have prompted many to leave the country in recent months,” the Washington, D.C.-based human rights group said in a statement released Friday.
According to the reports, more than 100 Hmong Christians have fled the country over the last two months. The new evidence consists of tape recorded interviews, handwritten testimony of Hmong leaders, and documentation identifying the names and positions of many of the Vietnamese officials implicated in the persecution.
The emergence of the new evidence coincides with the 30th anniversary on Saturday, Apr. 30, of the fall of Saigon to communist North Vietnamese forces.
“Thirty years after the fall of Saigon, the intensity of the persecution of Hmong ethnic minority Christians clearly indicates that the communist government maintains its hostility to people of faith,” said Center for Religious Freedom Director Nina Shea. “Whatever recent legislative changes Vietnam has announced, they appear to provide no improvement at all for the majority of Vietnam’s Protestants who are ethnic minorities in the northwest provinces and Central Highlands.”
The Center reports that Hmong Christians have suffered from discrimination at the hands of the Vietnamese government for over two decades. The persecution is characterized by beatings, torture, arrests, brutality against women and children, and now death threats.
Last September, the United States government designated Vietnam a “Country of Particular Concern” for egregious religious persecution under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998 that requires that the President not only name countries of particular concern, but also take specific policy actions within 90 days. The statute also allows for a 90-day extension, which expired on Mar. 15. The U.S. has yet to take any action.
The Center is urging the U.S. State Department to “take concrete action in accordance with its obligations under IRFA, thereby signaling that the United States is committed to the promotion of religious freedom in Vietnam and elsewhere.”
Christian News - The Christian Post | Freedom House Reports on Escalating Persecution of Hmong Christians
Saturday, Apr. 30, 2005 Posted: 6:58:35AM EST
The government of Vietnam is stepping up its persecution of minority Christians, according to detailed accounts received recently by Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom.
“Sources in Vietnam have provided the Center with new accounts of persecution against Hmong Christians, including recent death threats which have prompted many to leave the country in recent months,” the Washington, D.C.-based human rights group said in a statement released Friday.
According to the reports, more than 100 Hmong Christians have fled the country over the last two months. The new evidence consists of tape recorded interviews, handwritten testimony of Hmong leaders, and documentation identifying the names and positions of many of the Vietnamese officials implicated in the persecution.
The emergence of the new evidence coincides with the 30th anniversary on Saturday, Apr. 30, of the fall of Saigon to communist North Vietnamese forces.
“Thirty years after the fall of Saigon, the intensity of the persecution of Hmong ethnic minority Christians clearly indicates that the communist government maintains its hostility to people of faith,” said Center for Religious Freedom Director Nina Shea. “Whatever recent legislative changes Vietnam has announced, they appear to provide no improvement at all for the majority of Vietnam’s Protestants who are ethnic minorities in the northwest provinces and Central Highlands.”
The Center reports that Hmong Christians have suffered from discrimination at the hands of the Vietnamese government for over two decades. The persecution is characterized by beatings, torture, arrests, brutality against women and children, and now death threats.
Last September, the United States government designated Vietnam a “Country of Particular Concern” for egregious religious persecution under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998 that requires that the President not only name countries of particular concern, but also take specific policy actions within 90 days. The statute also allows for a 90-day extension, which expired on Mar. 15. The U.S. has yet to take any action.
The Center is urging the U.S. State Department to “take concrete action in accordance with its obligations under IRFA, thereby signaling that the United States is committed to the promotion of religious freedom in Vietnam and elsewhere.”
Christian News - The Christian Post | Freedom House Reports on Escalating Persecution of Hmong Christians
The Arabization of Europe
Apr. 28, 2005 22:49 | Updated Apr. 30, 2005 3:03
By MORDECHAI NISAN
How is it that ten percent of France is Muslim, 15% of Denmark is Muslim and close to half of the births in the next generation will be Muslim? Imperious mosques and lawless Muslim neighborhoods dot the landscape of major European cities. And Spain willingly and meekly chose to acknowledge its Islamic past, and that pro-Arab opinion is rampant and anti-Israeli sentiment vitriolic.
European appeasement apparently did not end in Munich in 1938.
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or is a definitive work for the early 21st century. Its very title and subtitle brim with insight and controversy: that Europe is merging with Arabism and, with Arabia, constitutes a bellicose and anti-democratic force.
In her earlier books, Bat Ye'or surveyed, documented and exposed the phenomenon of Jewish and Christian dhimmi subjugation under Islam in the lands of the Middle East and beyond. This aspect of Muslim/non-Muslim relations, largely concealed by intent and ignorance, evoked interest and debate.
Now this new work, 270 pages accompanied by eight documentary appendices, extends the examination of dhimmitude into the heart of Europe itself.
Central to this book is a sweeping political conception and moral indictment. The evolving ties between Europe and Muslim North Africa/Arab Middle East, within the nexus of bureaucratic machinations in Brussels and various European capitals, have transformed Europe into an appendix of the Arab-Muslim world.
Europe, manifesting anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and an anti-Israel bias, has succumbed to Arab policy dictates. The former European Commission and now the EU has opened its media, schools and parliaments to singularly Arab views, whereby a Euro-Mediterranean partnership provides the political umbrella for dhimmitude in Europe.
The former European imperialism in Muslim lands has been replaced by Muslim colonization and political domination of Europe. A critical sign of the latter development was Europe's cultivation of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization beginning in the 1970s, and its demonization of Israel's existence and policies as the Jewish state faced savage Palestinian warfare.
For Bat Ye'or, Islamic jihad denies dhimmis their dignity and right to self-defense. A mental process evolves with the internalization of self-degradation by the dhimmi victims who, over time, deny themselves the right to even criticize Islam and Muslim policies. Instead, the dhimmis – European countries like France – symbolically pay the poll tax (jizya) in the currency of investments in the Arab world, diplomatic support for the Arab world, and by turning a blind eye to Islamic and Palestinian terrorism. In return for which Europe expects to be rewarded with security, business contracts and oil, while spared the wrath of Islam.
The newest development is that Christians are humiliated and physically harmed not only in Muslim lands, as in Iraq and Egypt, but also in their own European countries. Meanwhile, the persistent abuse by Palestinian Muslims of Christians in Bethlehem has aroused neither moral protest nor political intervention from Europe.
Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World
By MORDECHAI NISAN
How is it that ten percent of France is Muslim, 15% of Denmark is Muslim and close to half of the births in the next generation will be Muslim? Imperious mosques and lawless Muslim neighborhoods dot the landscape of major European cities. And Spain willingly and meekly chose to acknowledge its Islamic past, and that pro-Arab opinion is rampant and anti-Israeli sentiment vitriolic.
European appeasement apparently did not end in Munich in 1938.
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or is a definitive work for the early 21st century. Its very title and subtitle brim with insight and controversy: that Europe is merging with Arabism and, with Arabia, constitutes a bellicose and anti-democratic force.
In her earlier books, Bat Ye'or surveyed, documented and exposed the phenomenon of Jewish and Christian dhimmi subjugation under Islam in the lands of the Middle East and beyond. This aspect of Muslim/non-Muslim relations, largely concealed by intent and ignorance, evoked interest and debate.
Now this new work, 270 pages accompanied by eight documentary appendices, extends the examination of dhimmitude into the heart of Europe itself.
Central to this book is a sweeping political conception and moral indictment. The evolving ties between Europe and Muslim North Africa/Arab Middle East, within the nexus of bureaucratic machinations in Brussels and various European capitals, have transformed Europe into an appendix of the Arab-Muslim world.
Europe, manifesting anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and an anti-Israel bias, has succumbed to Arab policy dictates. The former European Commission and now the EU has opened its media, schools and parliaments to singularly Arab views, whereby a Euro-Mediterranean partnership provides the political umbrella for dhimmitude in Europe.
The former European imperialism in Muslim lands has been replaced by Muslim colonization and political domination of Europe. A critical sign of the latter development was Europe's cultivation of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization beginning in the 1970s, and its demonization of Israel's existence and policies as the Jewish state faced savage Palestinian warfare.
For Bat Ye'or, Islamic jihad denies dhimmis their dignity and right to self-defense. A mental process evolves with the internalization of self-degradation by the dhimmi victims who, over time, deny themselves the right to even criticize Islam and Muslim policies. Instead, the dhimmis – European countries like France – symbolically pay the poll tax (jizya) in the currency of investments in the Arab world, diplomatic support for the Arab world, and by turning a blind eye to Islamic and Palestinian terrorism. In return for which Europe expects to be rewarded with security, business contracts and oil, while spared the wrath of Islam.
The newest development is that Christians are humiliated and physically harmed not only in Muslim lands, as in Iraq and Egypt, but also in their own European countries. Meanwhile, the persistent abuse by Palestinian Muslims of Christians in Bethlehem has aroused neither moral protest nor political intervention from Europe.
Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)