BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #60 - 12/02/2005BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #60 - 12/02/2005
Click on an article to view OR scroll through the document:
Pastor Ake Green Acquitted of “Hate Speech” by Swedish Supreme Court!
Massachusetts turns in Two Times the Signatures needed to Repeal Gay “Marriage” on 2008 Ballot
Bill Gates Teams up with UNESCO: To globalize American schools?
TX Board of Education parts Ways with Nat'l Assoc. Over 'Liberal' Leanings
Bible Curriculum Demonstrates Public Schools Are End Time Battleground
Home Education Seen As Timely Solution to Failing Public Schools
Yes, Christmas Is Still Legal!! Brush Up On Your Facts Here!
President Bush Makes Desperate Attempt to Save Unpopular Plan: Granting Amnesty to Illegal Aliens
Planned Parenthood upset about Federal Funds earmarked for Pro-Life Groups in Texas
Demos Charges Evidence of Incompetence: hoodwinked or derelict?
One-Quarter of Self-Described Born Again Adults Rely On Means Other Than Grace to Get to Heaven
Nov. 21, 2005 Bill O'Reilly
A failure of will in the War on Terror: Writing in The Washington Times, former CIA agent Michael Scheuer says the USA does not have the will to win the War on Terror. Scheuer believes the American public is not prepared for a brutal war, is not educated enough to understand the danger, and will not demand action from timid politicians.
He's right. We, the people, are not accepting the fact that the war against Islamofascism will require great sacrifice on our parts and George Patton like leadership. We are simply not prepared for the fight.
Our leadership in Washington right now is bogged down in political bickering over Iraq and is neglecting national security. Every elected official should demand the border be secured, but few do.
We have the cut and run crowd. We have the ‘don't know what to do crowd.’ We have a president who wants to stay the course in Iraq, but a public that doesn't understand what the course is. What a mess.
The press is appalling, full of indignation about stuff that doesn't matter, like Valerie Plame. Who cares?! Who?
Lawyers for terrorists captured overseas — who cares if they get lawyers? And a laser like obsession with every military screw-up. Do you think the American media understands the war on terror, the danger we're all facing? Do you think the press has responsibly covered that?
Scheuer says the USA will be attacked by Al Qaeda using nuclear weapons obtained in Russia. Scheuer is sure this is going to happen.
A study by the Kennedy School at Harvard says 50 percent of the Soviet nuclear arsenal isn't secured. So anyone with money and know how can get the nukes. And as we all know, anyone can sneak across the Mexican border and get here. Have you seen that on the front page of The New York Times? Maybe they could squeeze it in next to their obsessive Abu Ghraib coverage.
All Americans must realize we are talking about potential massive destruction here. But there's no urgency on the part of politicians and the press, plenty of sniping and spinning and complaining, but no will to win the War on Terror, to do what must be done.
Unless we all unite and accept the fact that Muslim terrorists are looking to destroy this country, we will indeed suffer a catastrophe. We were warned on 9/11. And this "Talking Points" segment is trying to illuminate that warning. We need to toughen up and defeat the people who want to harm us, wherever they may be, even here.
Nov. 31 2005 Family Research Council
FRC's team of lawyers and policy experts lined up today outside the U.S. Supreme Court. They were there to hear oral arguments in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. At issue is whether New Hampshire can require that parents be notified before their minor daughter gets an abortion. Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion ring, is arguing for a "health exception" to New Hampshire's law. We know how Planned Parenthood defines "health." But isn't this the very case that cries out for parental involvement? What parents would not want to know if their daughter was seriously ill? Or, is it more likely that Planned Parenthood will "counsel" frightened, vulnerable young women that they won't have
to notify their parents if they say they are contemplating suicide? This case should be easy for any court to decide. After all, the law does not require parental consent, only notice. This shows how extreme Planned Parenthood really is. Overwhelming majorities of Americans favor parental notice. But the current court is balanced on a razor's edge on this particular issue. If the Justices want to cite precedent, they should rule for New Hampshire. Our team will be watching closely all members of the Supreme Court. This will be Chief Justice Roberts' first opinion on an abortion-related case.
Nov. 29 2005 Alliance Defense Fund
You Prayed and God Answered!
We just received word this AM that the Swedish Supreme Court – in an unanimous decision - has acquitted Pastor Ake Green of charges that he engaged in “hate speech” when he delivered a sermon on homosexual behavior to his small church.
This is a MAJOR victory for religious freedom worldwide, as a loss would not only have sentenced Pastor Green to jail, but also set an international precedent that radical advocates of homosexual behavior would have attempted to use to legally silence the uncensored preaching of the Gospel around the globe.
ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull (above with Pastor Green), who traveled to Sweden to advise Pastor Green and observe the trial, says: “This is a huge international victory for fundamental human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. Voicing one’s conscience is a fundamental human right. In this contest between religious freedom and the radical homosexual agenda, religious freedom prevailed. As David slew Goliath, Ake Green slew the radical homosexual agenda in this case. We can only hope that will deter other attempts to censor Christian ministers from delivering Bible-based messages against harmful homosexual conduct. Ake Green is a hero and we are grateful for his stand and his perseverance.”
ADF coordinated and funded the filing of friend-of-the-court briefs for the case as well as the translation of trial transcripts into English. Numerous international groups have used these transcripts to prepare their friend-of-the-court briefs on Green’s behalf.
Thank you for your prayers – which along with God’s grace – made this pivotal victory possible!
Nov. 31 2005 Family research Council
Pastor Ake Green has been acquitted by the Swedish Supreme Court of the charge of hate speech. Sweden's highest court ruled 5-0 that he had not violated laws against speech that "shows contempt" for homosexuals. The Pentecostal leader had delivered a sermon against homosexuality before his congregation. The case attracted international attention. Pastor Green's acquittal brought quick reactions.
The leader of the Swedish Christian Democratic Party said it is not the role of courts to decide how the Bible should be interpreted, but Liberal Member of Parliament Birgitta Rydberg replied that Ake Green would probably go to hell when he dies. "That's where you go if you call yourself a Christian and defy the Christian message of love," Rydberg said. Some defenders of Pastor Green called the verdict a "huge victory" for religious freedom.
While I'm pleased for the Pastor and proud of the legal team that championed him, I'm not as upbeat. Pastor Green has been dragged into court, threatened with imprisonment, and he says he will not preach on this topic again. "Everyone knows where I stand on that subject," Ake Green said. This is precisely what is meant by the phrase "a chilling effect." Johan Munck is Chairman of the Swedish Supreme Court. He warned others: "I don't believe this gives the green light for similar sermons." Left unclear by this ruling is whether any Swede who quotes, for example, the Vatican's latest directive against ordaining priests who are involved in the homosexual lifestyle would be prosecuted successfully under that country's hate crimes laws. We thank God that Pastor Green has been spared. But the light from Sweden to preachers around the world is flashing yellow.
November 29, 2005 Liberty Counsel
Liberty Counsel filed a petition requesting the entire Ninth Circuit to rehear the case
San Francisco, CA - On behalf of seven parents, Liberty Counsel filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside its ruling in the sex survey case and to rehear the matter before the full panel of judges.
In Fields v. Palmdale School District, the Ninth Circuit ruled that parental rights stop at the "threshold of the school door." Other than the prevention of treason, the court said that parents have no constitutional right to object to a sex survey given to children as young as seven. The survey required a "Yes" or "No" answer to questions such as: "Can't stop thinking about sex."
The petition describes the ruling as one of exceptional importance to parents and children. If the ruling stands, the petition states that public schools must come with a warning: "CAUTION! Your parental rights are severed when you drop your child off at school. You will have no input whatsoever or right to object to any instruction or materials, sexual or otherwise, presented to your child during the school day. With the exception of treason, the school has absolute authority to teach whatever it decides, no matter how objectionable or inappropriate, to any child, at any age, at any time, in any manner."
The petition also states: "No one believes when a child is dropped off at day care, soccer practice, or summer camp that parents cease being parents. Yet, the panel concluded that parents cease being parents during the school day. The panel made the PTA pointless. While parents may object to teaching seven-year-old Susie from a sex manual, as long as the school does not commit treason, the panel's decision says: "Parents - keep your mouth shut. Susie belongs to the school. So get lost!" The breadth of this decision is staggering. It presents an issue of exceptional importance."
Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "The Ninth Circuit's ruling strips parents of their constitutional rights to protect their children. We are hopeful that the full panel of judges will set aside this sex survey case and rehear the matter. Parental involvement in the education of their children should be encouraged, not punished. This ruling is an assault on every parent whose child attends public school. Parents do not cease being parents when their child walks through the schoolhouse gate."
There is no set timetable for the Ninth Circuit to rule on the petition for rehearing en banc.
Nov. 28, 2005 LifeSiteNews.com
BOSTON, A family advocacy coalition has submitted double the required number of signatures necessary to ensure voters have an opportunity to overturn a 2003 activist court decision by voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex “marriage” during the 2008 general election.
VoteOnMarriage.org collected over 120,000 signatures in time for the Wednesday deadline. “I credit this phenomenal effort to thousands of citizen volunteers and over 1,200 communities of faith – including Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim – who have worked tirelessly to give every citizen in the Commonwealth a voice in how marriage is defined in Massachusetts,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org.
Presently, 19 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Several more have “Defense of Marriage” laws that preclude their states from recognizing same sex marriages and/or civil unions performed in other states. Federally, the Defense of Marriage Law, passed by President Clinton, precludes the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages.
Having collected nearly double the necessary 65,825 signatures, VoteOnMarriage.org is highly confident that well over the required number of signatures will be certified by the Secretary of State. “What the citizens of Massachusetts have done is roll up their sleeves and assume their legal rights as citizens to have a voice in government,” Mineau added.
Presently, cities and towns are processing petitions and will continue to do so through December 5. On December 7, the final number of petitions will be tallied and will be brought to the office of the Secretary of State who has the responsibility of certification. With 65,825 certified signatures, the petition then must be approved by 25% of the legislature, or 50 members, in two successive sessions before it goes to the ballot in 2008. A simple majority of citizens voting in support of the referendum will make it an amendment to the state constitution.
The next question is whether Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who has gone on record saying that lawmakers must make sure that the issue of same-sex marriage “never, ever appears as a question on the ballot,” and others in the legislature, will take away the rights of Massachusetts citizens to vote on marriage.
“Citizens must insist that their elected representatives act honestly and ethically and allow this vote to occur. Then and only then will the matter of marriage be settled in Massachusetts,” Mineau concluded.
November 21, 2005 Melanie Hunter CNSNews.com Senior Editor
A new survey shows the majority of Americans think religion is "under attack" and "losing its influence" in American life.
According to the poll, American Attitudes Toward Religion In the Public Square, 64 percent agreed with the statement that "religion is under attack" in America, and 80 percent of those who identify themselves as fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, were in agreement.
"The findings suggest that American public opinion is starkly divided when it comes to the role of religion in the public square, and that our nation's proud tradition of church-state separation is threatened as never before," said Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham H. Foxman.
The poll of 800 adults was conducted between Oct. 25 and 30 and released by the Anti-Defamation League.
"Unfortunately, too many people believe that religion is under attack in America, when in fact according to all measurements, religion is stronger in the United States than in any other Western country," said Foxman.
The poll also found 53 percent of respondents believe that religion is "losing" influence in American life, while 35 percent said it is "increasing influence." Among those who think religion is "losing" influence, 60 percent are evangelical/fundamental/charismatic Christians, while 33 percent of that same group said religion is "increasing" in influence.
As far as Ten Commandment cases go, 64 percent of those polled agreed with the statement that "it is important that religious symbols like the Ten Commandments be displayed in public buildings such as court housed. Eighty-nine percent of fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians agreed.
On the topic of intelligent design, the theory that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher being, 56 percent favor the teaching of intelligent design or creationism, alongside the theory of evolution in public schools.
Among fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 70 percent favor creationism, compared to 28 percent who opposed it.
And 57 percent said "the Bible" was "a more likely explanation for the origins of human life on earth" instead of Darwin, compared to 31 percent who believe Darwin is a more likely explanation. Eighty-seven percent of evangelical/fundamentalist/charismatic Christians favored the Bible over Darwin as a better explanation of the origins of human life.
Nov. 17 2005 Family Research Council
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has released a study with horrific details of Christian persecution. In North Korea, a woman in her 20s was shot by firing squad. Her crime? She had a Bible. Five Christian leaders in North Korea were run over by a steamroller.
President Bush visited Asia this week. He'll be the first U.S. President to visit Outer Mongolia. He's literally traveling to the "ends of the earth," seeking support on combating terrorism, opening up trade, and even conferring with Asian leaders on avian flu. He has raised human rights issues in all his foreign trips.
Asia contains many countries cited by the USCIRF as "countries of particular concern." Just last week, another Christian schoolgirl in Indonesia was beheaded by jihadists. We urge the President to put religious persecution on the agenda wherever he goes. Religious freedom is the first freedom. When people are murdered for their faith, you can be sure that civil, political, and economic rights will be steamrolled as well.
Nov.30 2005 by Phyllis Schlafly
President Bill Clinton made a speech on January 22, 1997 to a suburban Chicago audience so friendly that it interrupted him with applause 29 times. One line in his speech, however, was greeted with stony silence: "We can no longer hide behind our love of local control of the schools."
Clinton is gone from the White House, but the federalization laws of his Administration — Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and Workforce Investment — are still in place. President George W. Bush, who says the federal government has "a role to play in education," has merely substituted labels more comforting to Republicans: standards, tests, and accountability.
Now we find that the process is no longer just federalization; it's globalization. Who would have guessed that UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) would be positioning itself to design curriculum for American schools?
President Reagan withdrew the United States from UNESCO on December 31, 1984 because it was corrupt, anti-Western, and a vehicle for far-left propaganda. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO in 2003.
UNESCO's efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to influence U.S. school curriculum were unsuccessful. But now UNESCO has found a new ‘money man.’
On November 17, 2004 at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft Corporation to develop a "master curriculum (Syllabus)" for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks, and assessment techniques. The Agreement states that the Syllabus will "form the basis for deriving training content to be delivered to teachers," and "UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development."
Bill Gates initialed every page in his own handwriting. You can read the Agreement at www.eagleforum.org/links but Microsoft has fixed it so you can't print it out.
Following the signing of the Agreement, UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura explained it in a speech. One of its goals, he said, is "fostering web-based communities of practice including content development and worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values." No doubt that is agreeable to Bill Gates because the Agreement states that "Microsoft supports the objectives of UNESCO as stipulated in UNESCO's Constitution."
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped to finance the National Governors Association plan in Idaho to train students to work in the global economy. Idaho is one of six states selected by the National Governors Association for pilot projects.
The National Governors Report of December 2004 (when Virginia Governor Mark Warner was chairman) makes clear that the purpose is to use the public schools to build a planned economy. The report speaks approvingly of "using schools to feed workers into selected corporations," "identifying their state's key industries and needs for skilled workers in order to define a common agenda between their workforce and economic development programs," "the integration of education, economic development, and workforce development policies," "seamless connections between the components of the [education] system and with the skill demands of the workplace," and "connecting workforce development to economic needs."
It's hard to see any difference between the 2004 National Governors Association plan and the earlier plans floated when Bill Clinton was President. The plan uses a lot of mumbo-jumbo to change America from free enterprise to a planned economy, and to turn public school students into a compliant workforce for multinational corporations.
The new buzzwords are "career pathways," "education pipeline," "redesigning high schools," "smaller learning communities," and "cluster-based economic development strategies." Recycled buzzwords from prior years include "school-to-work," "workforce development system reform," "business-education partnerships," and "meaningful outcome measures."
Six public hearings on the proposals were held in Idaho in October, and 500 people showed up at the Boise hearing. The reaction was overwhelmingly negative from both parents and teachers.
The Idaho Board of Education announced this month that after receiving "hundreds of comments," it has made "modifications to Idaho's plan to redesign high schools and middle schools," but those changes are minimal. The original plan would have required all 6th-grade students to select their learning plan for a specific career pathway and choose "career focused electives" to enter the workforce.
Under the revised plan, students will have to do this only by the 8th grade. But how many 8th graders do you know who can (or should) map out their career pathway and narrow their education options to meet that single goal?
And what about the colossal conceit of the politicians and businessmen who think they can predict the jobs that 8th graders can or will want to fill in their future years? Planned economies are always a failure, and students should be educated to reach their potential whatever it is
Oct. 2005 Christian Law Association
A federal court judge determined this summer that a Louisiana public school teacher did not violate a prior agreement between the Tangipahoa Parish School Board and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) when she held a before-school Bible club and led elementary school students in a silent prayer, following the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The ACLU had brought contempt charges against this teacher, claiming that the teacher's actions violated a legal agreement between the ACLU and the school board that was made after a previous ACLU lawsuit challenged religious expression at the school.
The U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the contempt charge against the teacher, but three other ACLU contempt charges remain to be decided in future legal action. In the agreement with the ACLU, the school board had agreed to ban official prayer at "any school-sponsored event." The ACLU is now considering filing a new lawsuit against the school district claiming that the teacher's actions violate First Amendment protections against the establishment of religion (the alleged "separation between church and state"). The dispute between the ACLU and the Tangipahoa Parish School District began ten years ago when the ACLU sued the school district for allowing teachers to issue a disclaimer when evolution was taught in classrooms. Since then, the school district has been sued, among other things, for allowing an outside speaker to give out free pizza while talking to students about religious topics, for allowing a student to pray before a school banquet, and for having prayer before school board meetings. The ACLU has won many of these court battles, but the legal war is ongoing as the school district continues to seek the right to represent the views of the majority of the community in its school program, while the ACLU is seeking the complete secularization of all public school education in America.
Please pray for this Louisiana school district and for all school districts in America as the battle continues over whether the legislative efforts of a school board or the decisions of a judge will control what occurs in America's public schools. If local cities and school districts are permitted to legislate the wishes of the majority of citizens (while protecting the rights of minorities to individually "opt out" of such legal requirements), it will be very important for Christians to let their voices be heard.
November 23, 2005 Jim Brown and Jody Brown Agape Press
The Texas State Board of Education has severed ties with the National Association of State School Boards whose policies, says the Texas group: "continue to gravitate to liberal left."
Last week, the Texas State Board of Education voted 10-5 to remove itself from membership in the National Association of State School Boards, or NASBE. The motion was put forth by board member Terri Leo of Spring, Texas. She believes many of NASBE's policies are out of touch with mainstream America.
For example, says Leo, NASBE holds to the notion that the phrase "separation of church and state" accurately summarizes the Bill of Rights -- even though the phrase does not appear in any founding American document and was used by Thomas Jefferson 11 years after the Bill of Rights was passed. Leo says the Texas Board of Education voted not be associated with an organization that chooses to perpetuate a myth. She says she disagrees with NASBE's continued promotion of "misinformation" and its lack of concern with the actual language found in the Bill of Rights and other First Amendment rights.
The state board member asks: "Why should we entrust NASBE with developing and funding a national curriculum on civics education when the editors of NASBE publication think that 'separation of church and state' is a proper condensation of what the Bill of Rights says?"
In addition, Leo says she and her nine Republican colleagues oppose NASBE's effort to encourage state boards to implement a bullying policy that has a special victim category for homosexuals.
"The October National Association of School Boards symposium ... reference[s] these policies, which are really no more than vehicles for social engineering that are promoted by the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered/Questioning lobby," says the Houston-area board member. "My position is that bullying is wrong, period -- and that all bullies should be punished equally, and all victims should be dealt with compassionately."
She contends NASBE's position violates the concept of equal protection under the law. "Elevating homosexuals by giving them special rights has been used to silence freedom of speech from teachers and students who respectfully disagree with homosexuality," she states.
Citing a third policy area of disagreement, Leo notes that NASBE supports comprehensive sex education -- while state law in Texas advocates abstinence-only sex education. On top of that, she says, "the Republicans on this board and the majority of Texans support" that law.
Leo says it makes no sense for the Texas board to continue shelling out more than $40,000 in annual NASBE dues and travel expenses to attend meetings "which promote positions with which we do not agree." Continuing to do that, she adds, "is not wise stewardship."
Terri Leo was first elected to the Texas State Board of Education in 2002. She is now serving her second term.
Nov. 30 2005 by Bill Wilson, Senior Analyst Christian Wire Service
Some say it's the start of teaching a one world religion, others say it's a harmless elective for high school students, but beginning next year, public schools will be offered a Bible curriculum developed under the influence of people who believe the needs of the citizenry should be subservient to the state, and whose standards are endorsed by such liberal organizations as the National Education Association and the National Association of Evangelicals.
According to the Supreme Court, the public schools cannot endorse religion by teaching it, but the Bible can be taught as a literary or historic curriculum as an elective. And the conservative National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools has been offering a King James Based-based curriculum, used in some 1,100 high schools in 37 states.
The National Council on Bible Curriculum, however, is now challenged by The Bible Literacy Project, who will offer a textbook-based curriculum in schools next year. Its standards are endorsed by the National Education Association, and the liberal National Association of Evangelicals. These standards were developed in part by Charles Haynes, who once worked for Americans United for Separation of Church and State and was on the advisory board of The Pluralism Project, comprised also of people like Wicca priestess Margot Adler. Haynes and others involved with the project are "communitarians", who believe individual needs and rights are secondary to the interests of the state.
Dr. Dennis Cuddy, a former Education Department official and currently a commentator on education issues, reviewed both curriculums. He describes the Bible Literacy Project's textbook as the liberal's answer to the Bible-based approach of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. He said the Bible Literacy Project's textbook could lead children to believe that parts of the Bible are mythology and cause them to question whether God is good. He said there are problems he has with the Bible Literacy Projects program that he does not have with that of the Council's.
First, Cuddy says, the BLP's textbook does not have a complete curriculum; second, he believes there are factual errors in the presentation of the Bible; and he strongly believes that the BLP's textbook does not teach the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
Sheila Weber, Vice President of Communications for the Bible Literacy Project, says the curriculum was developed with a broad based of ecumenical support. She said the textbook encourages children to read their own Bible and to use the Bible as a source. Weber said, "So we've built our textbook to satisfy the standards needed for public schools."
In the past generation since the Supreme Court erroneously ruled against prayer in public schools, there has been a precipitous decline in the moral culture within the schools and the children of America. Gang violence, teen pregnancy, abortion, drug abuse and homosexuality have permeated society, often originating in the public school system. America has seen the impact of the secular humanist manifesto and its resulting attack on "God and Country." There are so many, even those who proclaim Christianity, have bought in to the concept that children should be taught at an early age about sex, drugs and violence so they are able to do these things "responsibly."
What has been lacking, however, for nearly a generation is the companion textbook that would teach children the best way to live their lives, drug free and happy without the threat of unwanted pregnancy, the hate of gang violence, or the abomination of homosexuality--the Bible. The Bible, the very first textbook for the public school system under Thomas Jefferson, has been absent from school under a virtual ban until recent court systems clarifying that the "Good Book" can be taught as an elective from a historic and literary perspective.
You have heard the saying, "the devil is in the details." Such is the case with this public school Bible curriculum. The Bible Literacy Project does not use a Bible, but rather a textbook to teach the Bible. It calls into question whether God is good and it appears to be the liberal answer to getting god back into the public schools--a forerunner to a one-world religion being taught here in the United States to our children.
Jesus said in Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am [Christ]; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
These are days of great deception. Stay close to Christ that you may discern the times.
November 23, 2005 Bill Fancher Agape Press
An effort to double the number of home school students in the United States is off and running, and already the response has been positive. E. Roy Moore, the man behind the launch of the "Homeschooling Family to Family " project, believes the time is right to push home education.
"Christian faith home schooling is America has come of age," Moore says, "and it's time now to get on offense and become more outreach- and evangelistic-oriented in our presentations." He believes faith-based home schooling is an increasingly attractive option, especially since growing homosexual influence in public schools and the schools' anti-parent policies regarding sex education and abortion are raising the anxiety level of many parents today.
Also, the home education advocate notes, failing standards of education, social engineering in the classroom, and drugs and violence on school campuses have led to a surge in home schooling in recent years. Meanwhile, he points out, home schooling has experienced tremendous changes, growing from its early days of being viewed with suspicion and skepticism by government and education officials to now offering large state conventions and curriculum fairs and even exerting influence with state legislatures around the nation.
Homeschoolers were once outcasts, Moore asserts, "but the tide has turned, and now Christians who are public schooling their children are on defense." Now it is those parents with kids in government schools, he says, who must "give an explanation of why their doing such a terrible thing."
Homeschooling Family to Family is urging "seasoned" Christian home educators to extend the hand of fellowship as mentors, helping other families set aside personal fears to explore the home schooling option. The project encourages experienced Christian homeschoolers to assist at least one novice family per year by reaching out to relatives and friends and assisting them as they take their first steps into home schooling -- and also, as opportunities arise, sharing the gospel with these fledgling home educators as well.
Christian home education, Moore asserts, provides an answer for troubled moms and dads who are looking for a faith- and family values-affirming alternative to increasingly corrupt and failing public schools. The head of the Homeschooling Family to Family project says he hopes to see two million more children being home schooled over the next five to seven years as this increasingly popular educational option proves itself to be "one of the brightest spots for revival and renewal of our families and our churches in our nation."
Nov. 29 2005 NewsMax.Com
A Washington-based group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether Focus on the 
Family or its founder James Dobson violated IRS rules by electioneering.
James Bopp, an attorney for the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian group, said the group has fully complied with IRS code.
The complaint, filed Monday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also asked the IRS to investigate whether the tax-exempt status of Focus on the Family should be revoked. Tax-exempt organizations cannot participate in campaigns for or against candidates for public office.
The group alleges that news articles showed Dobson endorsed candidates for Congress before the organization officially formed its separate public policy arm, Focus on the Family Action, in July 2004.
| Quoteworthy: -The ‘brave new World’ where evil is defended and the good persecuted [has] rolled off its foundation, and must view the ‘Real World’ from an upside down position.- Howard Wilson 12/1/2005 |
Nov. 28 2005 American Family Foundation
Action by Federated Stores Shows The Results We Can Achieve!
Through this interesting survey we gathered advertising inserts from 11 different companies placed in two papers on Nov. 27 (Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal and Memphis Commercial Appeal.) Combined, the inserts totaled 280 pages.
Of the 11 companies, only one—McRae's/Belks—had a reference to "Christmas." They mentioned "Christmas" only two times. The other 10 companies did not mention "Christmas" a single time! While refusing to use "Christmas," they used the term "holiday" a total of 59 times in their 10 inserts.
The companies which refused to mention Christmas a single time in their 260 pages of insert promotions were Target, Kroger, Office Max, Walgreens, Sears, Staples, Lowe's, J.C. Penney, Dell and Best Buy.
Ask these companies why they banned "Christmas" in their in-store promotions and retail advertising and they will tell you they didn't want to offend anyone. They mean, of course, anyone except Christians.
These retailers are willing to use Christmas to secure about 20% of their yearly sales, but they absolutely refuse to mention the Reason for the season.
To see what we can achieve by working together, read the statement from Federated Stores. We boycotted them last year. Click here to see how they have changed.
Please sign our petition below. We are writing every national retailer which bans "Christmas" asking them to change their policy and letting them know how many have signed the petition. Thus far we have nearly 350,000. Our goal is 1,000,000. It is urgent that you sign the petition and forward it to your friends and family. We need numbers so that the national retailers will take notice!
If we will stick together and take action, next year we will see scores of retailers recognizing "Christmas" as a Christian holy day instead of a secular "holiday".
Please click here to sign our petition now!
Nov. 29 2005 Christian Wire Service
WASHINGTON, Concerned Women for America (CWA) applauds Federated Department Stores Inc., owners of Macy's, for acknowledging the "reason for the season" and allowing the celebration of Christmas back into their stores and advertisements.
Beginning last year, CWA joined with a California-based group, the Committee to Save Merry Christmas, to publicize Macy's refusal to acknowledge Christmas.
"Somebody at Macy's woke up, smelled the eggnog, and realized that embracing Christmas is good for business during the Christmas season," said Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture & Family Institute. "Given the obvious advantage of recognizing the reason for the season, one can only wonder why Target Corporation continues to approach Christmas with indifference or even hostility in the name of 'diversity.'
"Target has shown a blatant disregard for Christmas by banning the mention of Christmas by employees and in its ads, and by barring Salvation Army bell ringers and red kettles from their storefronts.
"If Target finds the mention of Jesus' name so offensive, perhaps we would not want to burden them with Christmas-gift-buying Christians in their stores," Knight continued. "Their very presence might offend one or two non-Christmas 'holiday' shoppers.
"Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has regained the respect of many Americans by continuing to allow the Salvation Army outside their stores, expanding the hours for the bell ringers and by increasing its company donation.
"Macy's has restored its traditional association with Christmas. And Wal-Mart has stepped up to the kettle, so to speak, in its support of the Salvation Army. Now it's time for Wal-Mart to permit and even encourage their employees to wish customers a Merry Christmas and to use the word Christmas in their ads and displays."
Nov. 27, 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
As the battle over Christmas continues across America this year, consumers are taking notice for themselves.
Banner at Lowe's store in Austin, Texas advertises "Holiday" trees in English, but "Christmas" trees in Spanish
In Austin, Texas, for instance, a banner was displayed this weekend at a ne w Lowe's home-improvement store.
In English, the sign reads: "Now Here! Fresh Cut Holiday Trees."
But in Spanish, the sign reads: "Now Here! Fresh Cut Christmas Trees."
"It's OK to offend all the English-speaking Christians, but no, not the Spanish speakers. They may be just visiting," a World Net Daily reader in Austin said.
"By the way," the reader noted, "they only had 'Christmas' tree stands for their fresh cut 'Holiday' trees. P.S. Merry Christmas!
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
One day after a World Net Daily story brought national exposure, the home-improvement retailer Lowe's dropped references to "Holiday Trees" in favor of "Christmas Trees" only. 2005 WorldNetDaily.com |
Nov. 30 2005 the Detroit News
Novi subdivision tells family to get baby Jesus off lawn; homeowners say Christ belongs in Christmas.
Novi Michigan, The multicolored nativity scene on the Samona family's front yard is under attack.
The Samonas' neighborhood association has ordered the Novi family to remove its seven-piece plastic display or face possible fines of $25 to $100 per week.
The family isn't budging and neither are its three wise men. The Samonas have vowed not only to keep the display, but also are threatening to enhance it. "If you take this out, it's not Christmas anymore," said Joe Samona, 16, as he reached down and scooped baby Jesus from the creche on his parents' front lawn.
A letter sent by the association to the Samonas has brought to their front yard the nation's latest skirmish over just how and where the Christianity of Christmas should be on display.
Already this year, religious groups have taken aim at retail giants such as Wal-Mart and Target for replacing Christmas with fuzzier "holiday" greetings, to say nothing of the annual battles over local governments building nativity scenes in the public square.
The dispute also reinvigorates the issue of what rights homeowners have to wear their beliefs on their front yards. When homeowners join neighborhood or condominium associations, Michigan courts have said they must abide by the rules the group sets. Early this year, for example, a judge said a Macomb Township veteran could not fly a Marine Corps flag from the front of his condominium because having it there violated association rules.
Last week, Joe's parents, Betty and Frank Samona, received a notice from the community association that sets regulations in their upscale Tollgate Woods subdivision. It said the family may be violating rules that prohibit lawn ornaments, statues or outdoor art from being placed on the lot without prior approval of the board of directors.
Then it simply says: "Please remove the nativity scene display from your front yard."
Joe, an outspoken high school student, said the family takes great pride in the holiday decorations it pulls out of the basement every year.
Yes, Christmas Is Still Legal!! Brush Up On Your Facts Here!
Nov. 30 2005 Myth/Fact Sheet Alliance Defense Fund
This Information is sheet is available at The Alliance Defense Fund
Myth #1: Students are not allowed to sing religious Christmas carols in public schools.
Fact: During school activities, such as choir, Christmas programs, and other events in public schools, students can sing such carols without offending the U.S. Constitution. Courts may look to whether the school has a secular purpose for initiating religious expression; for example, advancing students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage and the opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama.
Myth #2: It is unconstitutional for school officials to refer to a school break as a “Christmas Holiday.”
Fact: The Supreme Court has acknowledged the government’s long-standing recognition of holidays with religious significance, such as Christmas. Congress has proclaimed Christmas to be a legal public holiday.
Myth #3: It is unconstitutional for public schools to close on religious holidays, such as Christmas and Good Friday.
Fact: The Establishment Clause doesn’t prohibit state officials from choosing a religious day as the day for a legal holiday.
Myth #4: Public schools have to recognize all religious holidays if they recognize Christmas.
Fact: Government recognition of a holiday that coincides with a religious holiday is not unconstitutional. Although accommodation of religious holidays is constitutionally permissible, schools are not constitutionally obligated to observe every religious holiday.
Myth #5: It is constitutional for public schools to ban teachers and students from saying Merry Christmas.
Fact: The Supreme Court has stated that teachers and students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Guidelines issued by U.S. Secretary of Education Riley (under President Clinton) state “students therefore have the same right to engage in…religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity.” Teachers have the right to greet students with the words Merry Christmas, in spite of their role as agents of the state. Saying a simple greeting that people commonly use in December does not violate the Establishment Clause. (A teacher would have to use his/her authority to promote religion to students in order to violate the Establishment Clause.)
Myth #6: Public schools cannot have students study the religious origins of Christmas and read the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ.
Fact: The Supreme Court has stated that “the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.” The term “study” has been defined to include more than mere classroom instruction; public performance may be a legitimate part of secular study.
Myth #7: Public schools cannot display religious symbols.
Fact: The display of a nativity scene is constitutional if it is displayed for legitimate secular purposes, such as to celebrate the holiday and to depict the origins of the holiday. If a public school is concerned, it is free to display a nativity scene among other forms of religious and secular seasonal expression.
Myth #8: Students do not have a constitutional right to be exempt from activities with a religious component.
Fact: Without penalty, students can opt out of activities (such as a Christmas program or a concert with a religious song) that conflict with the individual beliefs of the students or their parents. The school may not force “any person to participate in an activity that offends his religious or nonreligious beliefs.” A student’s objection to a school activity containing religion does not empower the student to censor the expression or block the activity. The student can opt out but cannot silence others. This is the standard for other matters as well. For example, students are allowed to opt out of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Christian Law Association
Pray for the integrity of North Carolina courts as anti-Christian legal groups have commenced lawsuits to provide alternative scriptures for swearing in witnesses. Praise the Lord that CLA was able to legally protect bailiffs in another North Carolina county last year when a judge threatened them with jail time if they uttered the customary prayer at the beginning of the day: “God save this state and this honorable court.”
North Carolina law provides for witnesses to be sworn in using the Holy Scriptures or by a simple affirmation. The lawsuit is asking that the Koran be recognized as a holy scripture appropriate to use for swearing in witnesses. These sorts of lawsuits continue to tear away America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Non Christians already have the right to use an alternative means of affirming to give truthful testimony. There is concern that the real purpose of such lawsuits is to continue to tear away the Christian underpinnings of American law.
| QUOTEWORTHY: ------------ "Posterity -- you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." --John Quincy Adams |
The European Union has severely criticized Israeli policies in east Jerusalem, saying they demonstrate a clear intention to consolidate Israel’s annexation of the Arab half of the city. The criticisms are in a report presented to EU foreign ministers this week but not yet publicly released.
Israel expressed serious concerns about the report, which came as EU monitors prepare for the opening of a passenger terminal at Rafah on the Gaza-Egyptian border this weekend under a deal recently brokered by the US. It will give Gazans greater freedom of movement since the Israeli withdrawal earlier this year.
EU foreign ministers are set to discuss the report on December 12. It was prepared by British and EU representatives in Jerusalem and Ramallah. Britain currently holds the EU presidency.
Israel said the report amounted to an anti-Israel position.
It annexed east Jerusalem after capturing the territory in the 1967 war. Most western countries, including the US and EU members, have their embassies in Tel Aviv and consulates in Jerusalem.
Israel was particularly irritated by recommendations in the report that the EU should “organize political meetings with the PA [Palestinian Authority] in east Jerusalem, including meetings at the ministerial level” rather than in Ramallah as at present. Israel shut down Palestinian political institutions in east Jerusalem in 2001.
Some 200,000 Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as the capital of a future state. Few Israelis say they would relinquish control over the whole city, which they call their “undivided and eternal” capital.
But the EU report pointed to a number of Israeli policies it said “risked radicalizing the hitherto relatively quiescent Palestinian population of east Jerusalem”. These include: the barrier around east Jerusalem, expansion of Jewish settlements, demolition of Palestinian homes, stricter enforcement of rules separating Palestinian residents in east Jerusalem from those in the West Bank, including a reduction of work permits, and discriminatory taxation.
“Clear statements by the EU and quartet [US, Russia, the United Nations and EU] that Jerusalem remains an issue for negotiation by the two sides, and that Israel should desist from all measures designed to pre-empt such negotiations, would be timely,” the report said.
Nov. 28, 2005 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
President Bush spoke this afternoon in Arizona, trying, once again, to sell the idea of a massive illegal alien amnesty and the admission of millions of additional foreign “guest” workers as “immigration reform.” While the president’s address includes tougher-than-usual talk on border security and immigration enforcement, the administration’s continuing actions over the past several months reveal he has no intention of carrying through on his promises to the American public. Immigration reform organizations are calling on the White House to follow the lead of members of Congress who have shown they are serious about getting immigration laws enforced, pointing in particular to the Hunter-Goode immigration reform bill introduced last week.
Under the Bush proposal, the estimated 11 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. would be reclassified as “temporary workers,” and be allowed to remain here for up to six years. In addition, the president and top members of his administration have repeatedly called for the unlimited admission of additional foreign workers in an effort to “match willing workers in other countries with willing employers in this country,” at whatever wages the employer wishes to pay.
“This administration has a sustained track record of ignoring reality when it conflicts with what the corporate interests want it to do,” charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “The president’s plan is nothing more than a massive illegal alien amnesty on a six year time delay, while his temporary worker program which will be anything but temporary is the death knell for America’s middle class.”
Bowing to massive public pressure, the Bush administration is now talking about coupling amnesty and guest workers with a weak enforcement plan. The president and top administration officials have pledged enforcement at the border, the interior of the country and at the work site. “Don’t read their lips, watch what they do,” Stein responded. “The Department of Labor is actively working with the Mexican government to protect illegal alien workers in this country. Peter Accolla, a DOL spokesman told the Associated Press earlier this month, ‘It’s not the policy of the DOL to penalize and expose workers’ irrespective of their legal status in this country.
“Moreover, the administration’s idea of workplace enforcement is based on voluntary self-enforcement by employers,” Stein continued. “A recent Department of Homeland Security fact sheet states, ‘DHS will implement an employer self-compliance program that will link government and business in a united effort to reduce the employment of unauthorized aliens in specific industries.’ Translation: The administration is placing the foxes in charge of the henhouse.
“Unless the president throws his support behind genuine immigration enforcement, such as H.R. 4313, Duncan Hunter and Virgil Goode’s TRUE Enforcement Act, there is no reason to believe he is leveling with the American public,” said Stein. “The White House may have read some polls and reworked the president’s rhetoric, but the bottom line is that Mr. Bush is touting a plan that will be full of rewards for illegal aliens and employers, and full of empty promises for the American public.”
FAIR said the following three items should be administration priorities:
* Require employers to verify work eligibility and penalize non-compliance
* Integrate state-federal immigration law enforcement
* Cut overall levels of immigration
“Unless the American people see real, tangible immigration law enforcement in the interior, no one will believe there is a serious commitment from this president,” said Stein.
Nov. 28, 2005 Citizen Link
Abortion provider reportedly not happy some federal funds earmarked for pro-life groups in Texas.
Planned Parenthood, accustomed to a near-monopoly on federal family-planning money, is reportedly 
upset that some of the funds earmarked for Texas are being set aside for pro-life groups.
In the Lone Star State, up to $60 million a year goes to Planned Parenthood, but this year, lawmakers have set aside $5 million for pro-life efforts. Two groups have applied for the money, and they'll know by the middle of December if they qualify to receive it.
Carol Everett, president and founder of the Heidi Group, is one of those hoping to secure some of the money.
"We're very excited about this," she told Family News in Focus. "For the very first time, women will be able to hear the truth in the state of Texas and know there is another option."
Planned Parenthood of Texas did not return calls for comment, but reports indicate the group is not pleased that pregnancy resource centers are in line for money that traditionally has gone to abortion providers.
"Planned Parenthood resists any attempts to restrict abortion whatsoever," said Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life. "They have a for-profit, financial interest in promoting and advocating that abortion mindset because they make money off the sales of abortion."
Planned Parenthood, she added, is especially angry anytime it has to share government funding.
"Anytime they lose money, whether it's one dollar or five million dollars, they know they are losing potential income," Graham explained. "And anytime a woman chooses life, they have lost a client."
Everett is working to get federal family-planning money divided equally between pro-life and pro-choice groups in all 50 states, but said Planned Parenthood is doing what it can to counter the effort.
The Texas funds being offered to pro-life groups are based on a Pennsylvania model for family-planning funds.
Nov. 20 2005 Hal Lindsey
The Democrats thought that they had finally had something they could sink their teeth into with the indictment of Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby. They were bitterly disappointed that the special prosecutor was unable to indict Karl Rove or Dick Cheney for illegally revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent.
As it turned out, nobody was indicted for the crime under investigation, since it was known at the outset that Valerie Plame's CIA assignment wasn't "covert" under existing law so no crime was committed. But, since they had the grand jury all assembled and everything, they investigated anyway. After two years, they handed down an indictment against Libby for lying to investigators about his role.
Although disappointed, the Democrats tried to make the best of it, crowing that Libby's indictment "proved" what the Democrats had been saying all along – that this White House was corrupt. The indictment also rehabilitated perjury in the eyes of the Democrats as a serious crime whose commission undermined America's system of justice. (Until the Libby indictment, perjury was still OK – as long as it was about something personal – like adultery.)
Then (wouldn't you know it!) along comes Washington Post legend Bob Woodward, the reporter whose investigation brought down the Republican administration of Richard Nixon. It turns out that Valerie Plame had already been "outed" to Woodward months before Libby was alleged to have, from a different source.
Woodward also testified that he met with Libby and discussed Iraq policy as part of the research he was doing for a book on the Iraq war. Woodward said Libby didn't mention Plame. So, Libby's indictment for lying to the grand jury is about as solid as the original charge that Libby broke the law by mentioning Plame in the first place.
Seeing their windfall political capital beginning to evaporate, the Dems needed something to keep up the momentum. Having failed in their efforts to prove the Bush administration as corrupt as Clinton's was, they returned to the safety of alleging that the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence to bolster his case for removing Saddam. To accomplish this, the Democrats are cherry-picking intelligence and news reports, using 20-20 hindsight, to bolster their case that Bush cherry-picked intelligence to bolster his case.
At no time that I am aware of has anybody explained Bush's motive for inventing a new case for war when none was needed. Hans Blix' report to the United Nations provided all the evidence necessary to justify removing Saddam, even without any input from the Bush administration. Blix outlined a litany of deception and violations of existing U.N. resolutions against Iraq, even as he argued that UNMOVIC was beginning to get its act together.
He noted the discovery of 3,000 pages of documents in the home of an Iraqi scientist, "much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium," saying UNMOVIC believed such tactics were "deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
Blix's report escaped the Democratic National Committee's cherry-pickers. While using the war to slam Bush, the Democrats also needed to explain why 77 of them voted in favor of the Iraq war. They say it's because Bush had better intelligence than they did. The fact is, had any Democrat requested intelligence from the White House and was refused; it would certainly have caused a congressional catfight that would have been all over the news.
Instead, say the Dems, they simply accepted the Bush administration's assessments at face value, and that is why they voted in favor of war. It is the constitutional duty of the Congress to authorize war. That makes it the duty of every member of the authorizing body to fully investigate the reasons for war.
For the Democrats to argue that they didn't know what they were doing, but did it anyway, is an admission of utter incompetence, if not outright dereliction of duty.
The war with Saddam didn't begin on Sept. 11. It began in 1991. It continued for the entire decade, including a massive U.S. attack on Baghdad in 1998, codenamed 'Operation Desert Fox.' Regime change in Iraq was a U.S. policy articulated by Bill Clinton.
George Tenet, whom the Democrats allege cooked the intelligence for Bush, was hardly a Republican apparatchik. Tenet began his career as uber-liberal Sen. Pat Leahy's aide on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was appointed the Committee's staff director by Democrat David Boren. Tenet was appointed to his CIA post by Bill Clinton. Bush's role in Tenet's career amounted to not firing him when he took office. The 9-11 attacks took place nine months into Bush's presidency – under the noses of a director of central intelligence appointed by Democrats. The resolution authorizing war was passed at a time when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and senior federal appellate court judge Laurence Silberman concluded after a lengthy investigation that CIA analysts "universally assert[ed] that in no instance did political pressure cause them to change any of their analytical judgments."
The CIA's own ombudsman, "also found no evidence, based on numerous confidential interviews with the analysts involved, that political pressure had caused any analyst to change any judgments."
For Bush to have misled the nation into war, two things – for sure – would have to be unquestionable. The first is that Bush knew his "secret" intelligence sources (he didn't share with Congress) were 100 percent right and the CIA assessment was 100 percent wrong. Secondly, knowing the truth, Bush would have to have concealed this intelligence from his staff, the Pentagon and the Congress.
Perhaps this is a good time to point out that President Clinton couldn't conceal an affair he was having in the Oval Office bathroom. By definition, Clinton's affair began as a conspiracy of two. Within months, it was all over the front page.
To deliberately start a war based on false pretenses would be a lot more serious than a tasteless affair – it would be high treason. Anybody knowingly involved would therefore be part of a conspiracy to commit treason. And there would have to be a lot more than two conspirators. To argue that the White House could manage such a wide conspiracy – and keep a lid on it – is believable only to the politically naive.
In short, the Democrat's charges aren't even possible, let alone feasible, and those who are making those charges know it. The central charge is that the president is a liar. The more irresponsible among the loony left, including Howard Dean, have said so in so many words.
Here is the conundrum the Democrats have created for themselves: If Bush didn't lie then they are themselves liars for making the accusation without knowing that it is true. On the other hand, if Bush did lie, then they accuse themselves of incompetence at best, and dereliction of their constitutional duty at worst.
But nobody will hold the Democrats accountable for lying. It's only wrong when Republicans do it.
A book titled: Disinformation debunks some of the most pernicious lies that you have no doubt read or heard about, such as: No WMDs found in Iraq.
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction (WMD.)
The question is... WHY do they believe this lie? It’s because of one of the most powerful weapons of our time... "disinformation." It's a weapon that is used on all of us over and over every day of our lives. ------ Richard Miniter conservative Author of Disinformation.
November 29, 2005 the Barna Poll
(Ventura, CA) – When someone calls himself a Christian, what does he really mean? What does someone imply when they adopt the label “born again Christian?” A new national survey released by The Barna Group indicates that the terminology used by followers of Jesus Christ reflects a breadth of meanings. While the most widely-held description is simply “Christian,” that term represents a segment of adults who engage in less religious activity and possess less orthodox views than do people who associate themselves with other descriptions.
Four Ways of Viewing Faith
Overall, 80% of adults in the U.S. call themselves “Christian.” In comparison, the phrase “a committed Christian” is embraced by two out of every three adults (68%). The words “born again Christian” are adopted by just less than half of the population (45%). A two-part description of a person’s faith, in which they say they “have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important” in their life today, and in which they claim they will go to Heaven after they die because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, is also claimed by just less than half (44%). (This latter definition has been used by The Barna Group for nearly two decades to describe “born again” people without using the term “born again” in its surveys.)
The study showed some interesting relationships among these terms. For instance, one-quarter of those who call themselves born again did not meet the Barna Group criteria for born again – which generally meant they rely upon something other than God’s grace as their means to salvation. The “born again Christian” self-description tends to attract a greater percentage of blacks, people under 25, and people over 60 than does the Barna Group’s theologically-oriented descriptor. That two-part definition used by the research firm also attracts a larger share of upscale adults and more people who share their faith in Jesus Christ with other people.
Demographic Differences
The various religious descriptions had varied appeal across demographic segments. Age was related to these terms in some intriguing ways. Mosaics, the youngest adults (those 21 and younger) were comparatively comfortable with the terms “Christian” and “born again Christian” but were much less comfortable calling themselves committed Christians (just 29% did so, compared to a national norm of 68%). The preceding generation, the Baby Busters (now ages 22 through 40), were significantly below the national average in relation to all four of the terms tested, reflecting their relative distance from conventional organized religious groups and beliefs.
Blacks were the ethnic group that most deeply resonated with the term “born again” (75% embraced it to describe themselves, compared to only 31% of Hispanics and 44% of whites). Hispanics were comparatively likely to adopt the term “committed Christian” (58%).
Catholics, in general, were uncomfortable with the phrase “born again Christian.” Although just 14% said it described them accurately, 23% qualified as born again according The Barna Group’s definition.
Regionally, residents of the Northeast generally accepted the terms “Christian” (74%) and “committed Christian” (61%), but were far less likely to adopt the “born again Christian” phrase (29%) or to meet the Barna Group’s born again standard (29%). People living in the West had a similar portrait. Adults in the South were comparatively less likely than others to say they were a “committed Christian.” People in the Midwest were the most likely to claim to be a “committed Christian.”
The research also found that self-described conservatives were three times more likely than self-described liberals to embrace the “born again” label; blacks were two-and-a-half times more likely than Hispanics to do so; and people without any college education were almost 60% more likely than those with a college degree to stake a claim to being “born again.”
Only half of both of the “born again” segments (i.e., those self-described by the term and those defined by The Barna Group’s questions) had prayed to God, read from the Bible and attended a religious service in the past week. In comparison, nine out of ten “committed Christian” adults had done so and just one-third of those who said they are “Christian” engaged in the three behaviors.
Thoughts on Religious Language
The research suggests that phrases do not necessarily possess universally understood meaning. “Blacks, Catholics and young adults are groups who conjure up different images than do other people when terms such as ‘born again’ or ‘committed Christian’ are used,” noted George Barna, who conducted the research. “With more than 250 Protestant denominations in the United States, and the increasing diversity and customization within the spiritual realm, it’s not surprising that there is very limited common understanding with such language. The challenge,” he continued, “may be to avoid reliance on labels and brief adjectives as religious profiles. In our sound-bite society, with everyone moving quickly and making snap judgments, the temptation is to rely upon simple characterizations to provide a broad perspective on who a person is and what they represent. This is part of the challenge to churches: to know each person more deeply in order to serve them more meaningfully. Ideally, people of faith will recognize the value of genuine relationships in which we know each other at a deeper level and can therefore foster real connection and growth.”
Source of This Information
The data reported in this summary are based upon telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 1002 adults conducted in October 2005. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample in this survey is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All non-institutionalized adults in the 48 contiguous states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents in the survey sample corresponds to the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. The data were subjected to slight statistical weighting procedures to calibrate the survey base to national demographic proportions. Households selected for inclusion in the survey sample received multiple callbacks to increase the probability of obtaining a representative distribution of adults.
Howard Wilson hwilson@texasmoralaction.org
