BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #67 01/20/2006BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #67 01/20/2006
Click on an article to view OR scroll through the complete document:
1. A Major Rebuke to the ACLU and the So-Called “Separation of Church and State"
2. Pacific Justice Institute Submits Amicus Brief to Defend Pastor’s Free Speech Rights
4. New Poll Reveals Overwhelming Majority of Americans Want Greater Abortion Restrictions
5. Waco Based Pro-Life Ministry to Unveil 'Rachel's Park Memorial'
6. Bill limits federal courts Would stop judges from ruling on abortion, same-sex marriage cases
7. Hollywood ‘Homosexualizing’ America
9. Missionary Nate Saint Played by Gay Activist in the "End of the Spear" Movie
10. Alito Would Bring Judicial Restraint to the Bench
11. US Won't Talk to Hamas But Backs Its Participation in Elections
12. End-Times Expert: God's Peace Plan for Israel, Not Man's, Will Succeed
13. Operation Rescue: Supreme Court Decision is Good News and Bad News for Children
14. Supreme Court allows Oregon's Bitter Pill
15. CMA Doctors: Supreme Court Ruling a Move toward Ethical Mayhem
16. Congressional subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder (R-IN) defending Women's Lives
20. Study Shows Small Christian Colleges Becoming More Popular Choice
21. ACLU Supports Al Qaeda; Response to Lawsuit Over National Security Agency's Surveillance
22. Legislation Gives Unrestrained Power to State Superintendent Concerning Pro-Homosexual Curriculum
23. UK Orders Registry offices to remove All References to “Marriage” due to Civil Partnerships
24. Scotland Cardinal: Gay Adoption Makes Children “Guinea Pigs in Some Distorted Social Experiment”
25. State Legislatures Must Step up and Pass Legislation Banning In-car viewing of Obscene DVDs
A Major Rebuke to the ACLU and the So-Called “Separation of Church and State"
Jan. 17 2006 Alliance Defense Fund
You may have heard about the decision late last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in Mercer County, Kentucky (American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. Mercer County). In that decision, the court issued a stunning defeat to the ACLU, writing:
“The ACLU’s argument contains…fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
The court went on to note that the ACLU “erroneously-though perhaps intentionally” equates merely recognizing religion as government endorsement of religion.
We could have not said it better. In fact, ADF senior counsel Gary McCaleb says: “For years, the Alliance Defense Fund has argued against claims by the ACLU and its allies that their interpretation of the Establishment Clause is correct. The good news for Americans is that today’s ruling says the ACLU’s interpretation is outside the Constitution. This decision, in that circuit, is a dramatic rollback of the far-left’s misguided legal agenda.”
While ADF attorneys had no direct role in the appeal of this case from the lower court, ADF allied attorney Frank Manion, with the assistance of a friend-of-the-court brief funded by ADF, was successful in his efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed prior to the ACLU’s appeal of the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit. Other funding was provided for other lawyers in the case at earlier stages as well. You can read the Sixth Circuit decision at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ACLUvMCopinion.pdf.
We praise God for this tremendous victory – and we hope and pray that this decision can now be used as an effective legal precedent to blunt further attacks by the ACLU and its allies on our religious heritage!
Pacific Justice Institute Submits Amicus Brief to Defend Pastor’s Free Speech Rights
Jan. 18 2006 Pacific Justice Institute Contact: Attorney Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900
Sacramento, CA—Pacific Justice Institute has submitted an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief to the California Court of Appeals on behalf of a pastor who was arrested for playing Christian music in a public park.
Pastor Azim Shariat, originally from Iran, has lived in the United States for thirty years and is a U.S. citizen. In 1981, he converted from Islam to Christianity and is now a pastor who eagerly seeks to share his faith. A few years ago, Pastor Shariat attended a Persian New Year’s Festival in a public park in Orange County, California, along with tens of thousands of other celebrants. Pastor Shariat brought a portable radio/cassette player and played Christian music. Someone in the predominantly-Muslim atmosphere complained to the police. However, since many others in the park were playing other types of music, Pastor Shariat was shocked when the police arrested him for allegedly violating a county sound ordinance.
Following his humiliating, public arrest, as well as physical mistreatment, the county decided not to prosecute. To ensure it didn’t happen again, Pastor Shariat filed suit challenging the way this ordinance was applied. Several law enforcement officers testified with widely differing views of what the law required, and to whom they would apply it. Nevertheless, the trial court ruled in the county’s favor that the law was not vague. After reviewing the case at the request of Pastor Shariat’s attorneys, PJI became convinced that the pastor’s constitutional rights were violated. PJI has now submitted an amicus brief to the California Court of Appeals.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, “Religious intolerance is not confined to dark corners of the world like Iran—it is on the prowl in Orange County. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will heed the warning signs and vindicate Pastor Shariat.”
Jan. 18 2006 Family Research Council
Ever since last year's Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo case, people have been warning that not only are homes and businesses at risk, but in particular churches because they are exempt from taxation. That's because the Court's definition of "eminent domain" was expanded, dangerously I think. The Constitution does permit government "taking" of private property for "public use." Prior to last year, that was understood to mean uses like roads and bridges, schools and military bases. But in Kelo, the Court let the City of New London (Connecticut) take private homes and give them to private developers for the purpose of increasing the city's tax base. That shocking ruling provoked protests nationwide. Even some liberals were "mugged by reality" of a Court running rampant. Now, in Sand Spring, Oklahoma, we see a threat to take Centennial Baptist Church. The Church is directly in the path of the bulldozers. Tulsa County's "Vision 2025" plans may include a new Home Depot. "I guess saving souls isn't important," says Rev. Roosevelt Gildon, pastor of Centennial Baptist.
Additional Resources
Unholy Land Grab
New Poll Reveals Overwhelming Majority of Americans Want Greater Abortion Restrictions
Jan. 17 2006 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com
A new poll conducted by Angus Reid for CBS News has revealed that the overwhelming majority of Americans would like to see greater restrictions placed on abortion.
Thirty-three percent of respondents said that abortion should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman’s life; 17% said abortion should be allowed to save a woman’s life; 5% said abortion should not be permitted at all, while 15% said abortion should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. In total, 70% of respondents favor greater restrictions. Only 27% said that abortion’s availability should remain unchanged – permitted in all cases.
Angus-Reid interviewed 1,151 American adults by telephone, between January 4 and January 8.
Waco Based Pro-Life Ministry to Unveil 'Rachel's Park Memorial'
Jan. 18 2006 Christian Newswire
WACO, Texas, Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, director of Elijah Ministries, will be joined by Operation Save America's Rev. Flip Benham for a press conference in Waco, Texas, on Monday, January 23, one day after the memorial anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Press Conference Details---
When: Monday, January 23, 9 AM
Where: Rachel’s Park Memorial, 4720 N. 19th Street, Waco, Texas
To address this deadly wound, on January 22nd, in the year of our Lord, 2006, men and women of good will come together to mark the 33rd year of decriminalized abortion in the America. The purpose is to commemorate our fallen children and unveil the ministry of Rachel’s Park Memorial to the greater Waco community. The event is sponsored by Elijah Ministries, KBDE (American Family Radio), and local Waco Churches.
The event will feature the National Director of Operation Save America, Rev. Flip Benham, local pastors, and a woman’s testimony of God’s saving grace releasing her from the sin and crime of abortion. It will also feature for the very first time a mother honoring the loss of her child by placing a plaque with the child’s name on the Wall of Remembrance. This gathering of Christian/Pro-life believers will commence at 3 PM at Rachel’s Park Memorial located at 4720 N. 19th St. on Sunday, January 22nd, 2006.
The next day, Monday, January, 23rd, we will conduct a press conference at Rachel’s Park Memorial at 9 AM. Pastor Ronnie Holmes of Church of the Open Door, Nicole Holloway, and Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas will address the media. According to Rev. Thomas “We have received many testimonies of how the Lord has used Rachel’s Park Memorial to help heal the wound of abortion. The common theme expressed by many is ‘we had no place to go.’ Those days have ended and there is now a place for people to go and find the help they need.”
“Abortion has afflicted a deadly wound upon our children, motherhood, fatherhood, the family, the church, the government, the law, and our country. It has robbed our past, defiled our present, and laid claim to our future. The collapse of Social Security and illegal immigration are just two of the indicators that reveal these truths,” declared Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas of Elijah Ministries.
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS CONTACT: Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, (254) 836-1037, (254) 715-3134-Cell
Bill limits federal courts Would stop judges from ruling on abortion, same-sex marriage cases
Jan.13 2006 Ron Strom WorldNetDaily.com
A bill introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, promises to return to the states those issues federal courts, by their decisions, "have wrested from state and local governments." Call it the 10th Amendment Restoration Act.
H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, would remove from federal courts' jurisdiction any case involving religious liberty; sexual practices, orientation or reproduction; and same-sex marriage.
Paul's bill, most recently introduced Nov. 17, notes:
"Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts," and "Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make 'such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction."
To clarify jurisdictional issues, the bill states federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, are not prevented from "determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States."
To add to the impact of the legislation, Paul included a provision saying no past federal ruling dealing with the three prohibited areas should be considered as "binding precedent" on any state court. Also, the congressman's bill stipulates that any judge violating the law shall be impeached by Congress or removed by the president.
Paul explained his bill on the floor of the House of Representatives when it was introduced in the last Congress, in March 2004.
"Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty," Paul stated. "Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states."
Continued Paul: "In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. … Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas."
Paul's isn't the only bill pending in Congress that seeks to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. The Constitution Restoration Act, sponsored in the House by Rep Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., and in the Senate by Sen Richard Shelby, R-Ala., would prohibit federal courts from ruling in cases involving government officials who acknowledge God "as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government." The bill was birthed in the aftermath of the ouster of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was sanctioned by the courts for acknowledging God by way of a Ten Commandments monument in the state's judicial building.
We the People Act, which was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, has no co-sponsors. Wrote: columnist and Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin in reference to H.R. 4379: "If we had 218 congressmen such as Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, we could change the course of the country in short order."
Hollywood ‘Homosexualizing’ America
Jan. 18 2006 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com
HOLLYWOOD, This time, “Hollywood has gone way too far,” according to Stephen Bennett, Host of Straight Talk Radio, who is critical of Hollywood’s decision to award four Golden Globe awards to the homosexual cowboy movie, “Brokeback Mountain.”
“Hollywood has sunk to an all-time moral low,” Bennett emphasized. “I guess 2006 will be known as ‘The Year of the Homosexual’ in Hollywood. With ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ ‘TransAmerica’ and ‘Capote’ winning several major ‘gender-bender’ Golden Globes - Hollywood is no doubt ‘out’ on a mission to ‘homosexualize America.”
Felicity Huffman, a star in the television series Desperate Housewives, won best actress for her role as a male who undergoes a sex change operation in the movie Transamerica. Philip Seymour Hoffman won best actor for his portrayal of homosexual Truman Capote, author of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, in the movie Capote.
Bennett, a former homosexual of 11 years, along with his wife and co-host Irene, led the charge in sounding the alarm nationally on “Brokeback Mountain” upon its release this past December. He isn’t surprised at all about last night’s celebration of homosexuality and transsexuality at the Golden Globe, though. Bennett says in Hollywood today, anything other than heterosexuality is “chic.”
“When Hollywood is pumping out anti-family movies with sexually explicit, twisted and perverse themes that glorify homosexuality, transsexuality and every other kind of sexual immorality – then awards itself for doing so – middle America better take note.
Last night, Hollywood exposed its own corrupt agenda.” Bennett added. “With the Oscars just around the corner, don't be surprised this year if you see Hollywood’s elite walking down the ‘Pink Carpet.’”
“Conservatives and middle America are frankly sick of having the homosexual agenda continually shoved down our throats by the media,” Bennett said. His message to Hollywood: “Give it a break - a permanent one.”
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America commented on the awards: “Once again, the media elites are proving that their pet projects are more important than profit.”
Crouse explained that none of the three movies, Capote, Transamerica or Broke back Mountain, is a box office hit. “Brokeback Mountain has barely topped $25 million in ticket sales,” she said. “While it has recouped all the production costs, it is doubtful that receipts have covered the massive PR costs.”
Crouse concluded, “If America isn't watching these films, why are they winning the awards?”
Jan. 18 2006 Christian Newswire
On Jan. 13 Jason Janz at the blog located at www.sharperiron.org posted an article (below in part) stating his concerns that Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment cast a gay activist in the role of missionary Nate Saint in the upcoming movie, "The End of the Spear."
Since the article was posted, it has been viewed over 20,000 times. He asked concerned pastors to put their name on a letter to Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment expressing their concerns. The letter has been sent. Over 100 pastors signed the letter.
Missionary Nate Saint Played by Gay Activist in the "End of the Spear" Movie
Jan. 18 2006 Jason Janz Sharper Iron Fourm
his past weekend marked the fiftieth anniversary of the death of five missionaries in Ecuador: Ed McCully, Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Nate Saint, and Roger Youderian. They died after being speared by natives on a sandy beach along the Curaray River.
The story rocketed around the globe and landed on the front cover of Life magazine which included a ten-page article. If you talk to someone who was a believer at the time, it had the same effect as other events such as Kennedy’s assassination – people remember where they were when they heard the story. I heard someone at a mission's conference say that the greatest flood of American missionaries to land on foreign soil did so after the deaths of these young men.
The story is perhaps the most endearing, convicting, and popular story of American missions overseas over the last one hundred years. Who hasn’t heard Elliot’s motto, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose?” The story is near and dear to evangelical Christians the world over.
As a young boy, I read Through Gates of Splendor and as a youth pastor, I led a group of teens in performing Bridge of Blood, a play about the lives of these five missionaries and their wives. So, you can imagine the anticipation I felt as I heard that a theatrical movie was coming out in 2006 to mark the 50th anniversary of the deaths of these heroes.
I was given free tickets to a pastor’s preview a week ago and so on Thursday night my wife and I attended the showing. I was struggling in my spirit because my wife and I have battled thoughts of the mission field ever since our college days. We are still open to God’s leading in our lives in this regard. So, just like before a mission's conference, I was anxious. I knew that watching the sacrifice of these men would challenge my comfortable, American Christianity.
Well, I must say that I was severely disappointed. As the movie was concluding, I moved from disappointment to being upset. I was so upset at what I saw (or didn’t see) that I went up and shared some “devotional thoughts” with one of the heads of the promotional department for the film. He was a former Youth For Christ guy and now he’s working on promoting this film to the Christian community.
I’ve had a few days to process my thoughts, research the film, and think about what to do. I have narrowed down my concerns to two main areas. The first area is the content of the film – the average believer should be embarrassed at the dumbing down of the Gospel or anything Christian for that matter.
My second area of concern is the cast of the film – Every Tribe Entertainment chose Chad Allen, a gay activist, to play Nate Saint (Most people will remember Chad if they watched Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. Chad played Matthew Cooper, the oldest of the adopted children).
First of all, Chad Allen believes that this film will help bring the gay community and Christians together.
An interview with InLA magazine perhaps shows Allen’s true heart when it comes to his acting in a movie about evangelical missionaries. I provide the quote exactly as it appears in the interview. “Allen Having grown up in a Roman Catholic family, saw this project as a challenge he wanted to undertake. " There were a lot of people on both sides that weren't particularly interested in me doing this movie. I am from a Christian background, but I have a personal spirituality that spans the distance from Buddhism to Hindu philosophy to Native American beliefs. That aside, this movie is about the power of love. I knew it was an opportunity to bridge these two disparate communities that are believed to be enemies- the gay and the Christian communities."
I would be the first to say that I do not consider those who live in the gay community as enemies. I work with several such individuals in helping them to put that lifestyle behind them. However, when it comes to the gay agenda and gay activism, there is no doubt that they stand in complete opposition to the message of the Bible. So, discerning pastors must ask themselves the question, “If Chad Allen believes in the power of this film to bring the gay and Christian communities together, should we not be concerned about recommending the film to those in our congregations?” Are we not responsible to not just stay silent about it, but rather to warn people of the dangers of the film? Don’t get me wrong. I think there is much to recommend in the story, however, I think our church members need to be aware of the issues behind the film.
Personally, I have conflicting feelings about the viewing of the film. On the one hand, I do not want to send the message to Every Tribe Entertainment and the rest of the Christian film-making community that this is acceptable. This would make me lean towards discouraging anyone to view it in the theatre or to rent it on video. On the other hand, for those familiar with the story, the movie is powerful and could be edifying to the believer. (Don’t worry about it being a tool of evangelism. The Gospel is so hidden in the film that the chances of people getting saved are slim to none. To view the complete article, go to: www.sharperiron. org
Alito Would Bring Judicial Restraint to the Bench
Jan. 16 2006 Roberta Combs Christian Coalition: Commentary
Now that the Senate has begun consideration of Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court, the American public would do well to use this as an opportunity to consider the role of the judiciary in our society and the need for judges that will faithfully apply our Constitution, rather than make law from the bench.
Currently, the opposition to Judge Alito is doing everything possible to distort his record and incite fear among the American public. Some opponents are suggesting that he is anti-civil rights and anti-minority. They have said that he is opposed to the principle of "one man, one vote" and and that he is a religious radical. In short, that he is an extremist.
The facts fly in the face of these wild accusations. Judge Alito is eminently qualified for service on the Supreme Court. In fact, he has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in over 70 years, and has received unanimous confirmation from the US Senate on two previous occasions. Not something you would expect of an "extremist".
Some of his opponents have suggested that he would be the swing vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is patently untrue. Six of the currently sitting Justices, five if you subtract the retiring O'Connor, have previously voted to uphold Roe. Only two have openly voted to overturn the decision. The truth is that the misleading abortion rhetoric is actually less about Roe and more about the views of those who wish to keep the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion legal, right up until the moment of birth. On this Issue, Alito could well be a deciding vote.
Congress has acted on this issue twice, most recently with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed by President Bush in 2003. Each time, the majorities in favor of such a ban were high and bipartisan. The President has referred to the gruesome procedure as "violence against those inches from birth". There is no other way to describe it. Even now, the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to review a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of that legislation.
The primary source of opposition to Alito and other conservative jurists is the fact that liberals have sought to use the judiciary as a venue to advance their policy agenda for the past several generations. Any judge who opposes such usurpation of the Constitution or breach of the separation of powers poses a threat to their continued success.
Judge Alito has a proven track record as a judge that applies the law and the constitution, rather than trying to rewrite or reinterpret them. In his Senate questionnaire, Judge Alito wrote that "the federal courts must engage in a constant process of self-discipline to ensure that they respect the limits of their authority". Hardly an opinion you could label as "out of the mainstream".
Further, in his time on the bench he has demonstrated a sympathetic ear for issues involving religious _expression as well as the symbols of religion. In light of the judiciary's near outright hostility to religion, this would be a welcome addition to the high court.
For all of the talk of "mainstream", it would seem Judge Alito is decidedly so, while those who oppose him have demonstrated themselves to be decidedly "un-mainstream" when it comes to being in line with the majority of American public opinion. Every major poll conducted since his nomination has indicated that far more voters are of the opinion that Judge Alito should be confirmed than those who think otherwise.
Whether we like it or not, the judiciary has set itself up as the pivot point in our country on issues such as same-sex marriage, religious _expression, parental rights, abortion - even the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto, "In God We Trust". It was not meant to be so.
In recent elections the American people have spoken loud and clear in favor of judicial restraint - as well as for fair up or down votes for all judicial nominees. This was one of the cornerstones of President Bush's campaigns, as well as of many of the members of the current Senate majority. In fact, it could be well said that the issue of judicial restraint is greatly responsible for the existence of that majority. They should keep this in mind when the time comes to put down any efforts at obstruction.
What we need - and what Judge Alito represents - are judges that recognize and honor their proper constitutional role; who will apply and interpret the Constitution and our laws as written and not take it upon themselves to amend them via interpretation. With such judges, the issue of personal views or labels of "liberal" or "conservative" become irrelevant. This is how it should be.
US Won't Talk to Hamas But Backs Its Participation in Elections
Jan. 17 2006 Jerusalem Bureau Chief Julie Stahl CNSNews.com
The United States will not engage in dialogue with Hamas but nevertheless believes that the Palestinian terrorist group should be allowed to participate in upcoming Palestinian elections, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones said on Tuesday.
Israel vehemently opposed the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian elections scheduled to take place next week because it is a terrorist group that seeks to destroy the State of Israel.
Any group with such an ideology is banned from participating in Palestinian elections, according to the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993.
"We of course do not have relationship with Hamas. In fact, we consider Hamas a foreign terrorist organization," Jones said in a radio interview. "We have no dealings with Hamas. We will have no dealings with Hamas, but that does not mean that Hamas or people who support Hamas should be denied the participation in the election and I think we've made that pretty clear to people," he said.
Hamas is expected to make a strong showing in the elections. Israel already has been forced to talk with Hamas officials who have won elections in municipalities.
Meanwhile, Hamas vowed to retaliate for the Israeli army killing of a Hamas leader in the West Bank city of Tulkarem on Monday.
The Israeli army surrounded the building where Thabet Ayadi was holed up. He emerged with guns blazing in each hand and was promptly killed, the army said. An army spokesman said soldiers found explosives and bomb belts in various stages of assembly inside the building.
A spokesman for Hamas vowed to find the appropriate time to avenge the death of Ayadi, reports said.
End-Times Expert: God's Peace Plan for Israel, Not Man's, Will Succeed
January 16, 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press
Christian author, teacher, and lecturer James Goll says the recent stroke by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has put a spotlight on the volatility in the Israeli-Palestinian region and on the importance of the United States siding with Israel.
Goll has written a book called Praying for Israel's Destiny: Effective Intercession for God's Purposes in the Middle East. In the book, the author uses scripture to highlight God's plans for the Jewish people and their covenant land. According to him, God's plan and timetable for Israel will not be hindered by Sharon's replacement but will be carried out no matter who leads that nation.
The expert on the biblical account of the end times says, contrary to many people's opinion, the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not lie in the hands of the so-called superpowers. "I do not believe that it's going to be what's called 'the Quartet' of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations coming up with a contrived approach to try to bring peace," he explains. "The Oslo peace accord failed years ago. This is now another rendition of the same kind of philosophy, and it too will fail."
And yet, the sovereign will of the Lord will prevail in that volatile and difficult situation, Goll contends. Moreover, he adds, "God also, in His big plan, will use all of that to create crisis so as [to move people] eventually, out of pressure, to look to Himself and to cry out to the Lord for help."
The Christian writer and teacher encourages: every born-again believer to take seriously the Bible's admonition to pray over the events unfolding in the Holy Land. "Each of us as believers has a call to pray for God's purposes for Israel," he asserts. "It says in Isaiah 62 (verses 6-7), 'I have appointed watchmen' on the walls who will give themselves no rest, and give him no rest until God has established Jerusalem. It doesn't say Cairo, Washington, DC -- there is only one city that we are all commanded to pray for across the globe. We are to pray for Jerusalem."
Goll says man-made peace plans will not work in Israel, and it is important for Christians to realize that. He urges believers, according to scripture, to pray in line with God's purposes for Israel, as that is the design that will ultimately be carried out.
Operation Rescue: Supreme Court Decision is Good News and Bad News for Children
Jan. 18 2006 Christian Newswire
High Court Upholds Parental Notification But Encourages Loopholes
WICHITA, Kansas, The Supreme Court today validated the constitutionality of laws that require parental notification before minors may receive abortions. In a 10-page ruling authored by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court vacated a lower court’s ruling that the New Hampshire law was permanently unconstitutional but said that the lower court could enjoin the state from applying the law to cases where the life and health of the mother is threatened.
O’Connor said, “In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale. Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would prevent a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case, the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application.”
“This ruling is good news and bad news for us,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We are glad that the court has indicated that parental notification laws are indeed Constitutional, but we have found that the ‘life and health’ exceptions to these kinds of laws are loopholes that end up unnecessarily costing the innocent lives of pre-born babies. In that respect we are disappointed that O’Connor has encouraged loopholes that could make a life-saving law that protects parental rights nearly meaningless.”
“This decision emphasized the fact that we need a rapid vote on Judge Samuel Alito. We look forward to the day when both pro-abortion O’Connor and her ‘undue burden’ standard are gone.”
Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian organizations in the nation. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre- born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.
Supreme Court allows Oregon's Bitter Pill
Jan. 17 2006 Family Research Council
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling today in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon. The Bush administration had gone into federal court to challenge the use of federally controlled substances under Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregon law makes it legal to prescribe federally controlled substances not for healing, but for ending lives. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had argued that Oregon could not exempt state-licensed physicians from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The majority, in an opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued that the CSA was intended to prevent drug abuse and addiction. Obviously, therefore, Oregon's so-called Death with Dignity Act did not conflict with the CSA because its purpose was not to allow for abuse or addiction, but to end life. Justices Scalia and Thomas both wrote dissenting opinions, and Chief Justice Roberts signed on to Scalia's dissent (as did Thomas). Scalia argued that suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" within the meaning of 21 CFR '1306.04. Confusing killing with healing fatally compromises the physician's role and puts all patients at risk. FRC applauds the dissenters' opinions. This appalling ruling leads the land we love further down that slippery slope toward a culture of death.
CMA Doctors: Supreme Court Ruling a Move toward Ethical Mayhem
Jan. 17 2006 Christian Wire Service
"The ethical foundation of medicine is crumbling under the Court's jackhammer."-- Dr. David Steven
WASHINGTON, The nation's largest faith- based association of physicians today deplored the Supreme Court's ruling squelching the federal government's right to regulate controlled substances in Oregon, saying the Court's decision "moves the practice of medicine one step closer to ethical mayhem."
The ruling, which allows practitioners in Oregon to prescribe lethal drugs to patients for suicide, "severely undermines the rightful and crucial ability of the federal government to govern the use of lethal and dangerous drugs," said Dr. David Stevens, Executive Director of the 17,000-member Christian Medical Association.
"With narcotics free to be used for purposes that have no medical benefit whatsoever, the 'do no harm' requirement of medicine—a long-standing protection for patients—is lost. This lethal violation of medical ethics erases a prohibition that has protected patients since the time of Hippocrates. Before Hippocrates, patients couldn't know for sure if their doctor would heal them or kill them. This decision moves the practice of medicine one step closer to ethical mayhem.
"The ethical foundation of medicine is crumbling under the Court's jackhammer.
"Doctors are no longer required to only prescribe sedatives to comfort and heal; now they can prescribe them to kill. Assisted suicide does not give more power to the patient. It gives more power to the doctor—to be judge, jury and assistant executioner.
"As Oregon has already shown, the so-called safeguards don't work. With the patient dead and the doctor not talking, who knows what really happened?
"Killing is not a legitimate medical purpose. Legalized assisted suicide gives doctors the right to help kill, and in our money-driven healthcare system, that's dangerous. The cheapest form of medical care is always a handful of lethal drugs."
"What we need is not more power for doctors who use drugs to kill their patients, but more power for doctors who use drugs to heal and comfort their patients. Over time, the face of healthcare will change dramatically if doctors are granted the power to kill. It is a change we will regret."
Associate Executive Director Gene Rudd, MD added, "The Controlled Substances Act was designed to prevent using drugs for non-medical purposes in every state--not every state except Oregon. When a state or a doctor uses such drugs not to heal or to relieve pain, but simply to kill, that is not a medical purpose. Killing doesn't require medical training or compassion."
Congressional subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder (R-IN) defending Women's Lives
Jan. 16 2006 Family Research Council
Last year, the Food and Drug Administration announced that five North American women had died from septic shock while undergoing RU-486 (mifepristone or Mifeprex.) abortions. Now, a congressional subcommittee will probe the drug's safety. Chairman Mark Souder (R-IN) sent a letter of inquiry Dec. 21 to the acting head of the FDA, Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach. He wants information about these deaths. This is the first time a subcommittee chairman with oversight responsibility for the FDA jurisdiction will investigate RU-486 side effects. Souder is asking for detailed information (e.g., the types of specimens cultured in any FDA-CDC inquiry of these deaths). Clearly, he will not be satisfied with just the opinions of the FDA and Centers for Disease Control. Chairman Souder will be seeking independent expert analysis. The letter
also asks the FDA why Danco Laboratories, the distributor of RU-486 in America, waited until November 2004 to make a label change that warns women of life-threatening infection. Souder wants to know if abortion clinics are substituting their own patient agreement forms for those approved by FDA. Chairman Souder also asks how often FDA has audited RU-486 clinics to determine whether they are using the proper forms. He also wants to know, among other things, whether drug sponsors are permitted to substitute their own forms for FDA's. FRC supports Chairman Souder's effort to investigate RU-486 infection deaths. We hope that this letter will be but one of many sent from committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate on RU-486 safety. Now let's see what the FDA tells us in response.
Additional Resources
Letter from Chairman Mark Souder to FDA (December 21, 2005)
Missouri Human Cloning Deception on Trial; Bioethics Defense Fund to Expose Deceptive Cloning Ballot Initiative
Jan. 18 2006 Christian Newswire
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., In the wake of the South Korean cloning scam, and following two weeks of depositions, including Bioethics Defense Fund’s January 13 deposition of a well-known embryonic stem cell researcher who has applied for permission to create cloned human embryos for experiments at his Harvard lab, a Missouri judge will hear live testimony this Thursday on the issue of whether human cloning proponents are deceiving Missouri voters.
The court challenge involves a proposed Missouri ballot initiative, slated for November 2006 if enough signatures are garnered. The voter initiative would give constitutional protection to scientists who want to clone human embryos to extract embryonic stem cells (sometimes called “therapeutic cloning”), while banning cloning to produce children (“reproductive cloning”). The 100 word ballot summary that the Secretary of State must provide for voters gives the overbroad and deceptive statement that the initiative “bans human cloning.”
“The Secretary of State’s summary providing that the initiative ‘bans human cloning’ is an attempted deception on Missouri voters that does a disservice to both the objective nature of science and the principles of open honest public debate in the democratic process,” said Dorinda C. Bordlee, Esq., Executive Director and Senior Counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund. Bioethics Defense Fund is representing the plaintiffs “Missourians Against Human Cloning.”
Bordlee explained that “the plaintiffs are asking the court to amend the ballot summary to inform voters the initiative constitutionally protects scientists who clone human embryos for research, while banning human cloning to produce children.
“This case is about truth in the democratic process, which should not be sacrificed by those with financial incentives to change the meanings of words for political advantage,” said Bordlee. “Considering the cloned human embryo deception of Dr. Woo Suk Wang in South Korea, this further effort at deception by would-be cloners in the United States is not a surprise.”
The case is Missourians Against Human Cloning v. Carnahan, No. 05AC-CC001108
Jan. 13 2006 Christian Coalition of America
The resolution sponsored by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, (R-VA), is continuing to gain co-sponsors, a resolution which will ensure that "In God We Trust" remains on all U. S. coins and currency. Michael Newdown, known for his lawsuit to remove the words, "under God" from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, (affirmed by the extreme left-wing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco), is now trying to strip the motto "In God We Trust" from our coins and currency. Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis' bill, H. Con. Res. 302, now has a total of 32 co-sponsors so far (listed below with the date they became co-sponsors):
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 12/6/2005
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 12/6/2005
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 12/6/2005
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 12/14/2005
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 11/17/2005
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 11/17/2005
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 12/13/2005
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 12/13/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 11/17/2005
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 11/18/2005
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 11/17/2005
Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 12/13/2005
Rep Ford, Harold E ., Jr. [TN-9] - 12/6/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 12/16/2005
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 12/13/2005
Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 12/14/2005
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 12/6/2005
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 11/17/2005
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 12/6/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 12/14/2005
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 11/18/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 12/12/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 12/6/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 12/6/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 12/13/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 12/14/2005
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 12/12/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 12/8/2005
Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 12/8/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 11/18/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 12/6/2005
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 12/6/2005
Call your Congressman if they are not listed on the above list at 202-225-3121 or you can go to: http://www.cc.org/contactcongress.cfm and email them and urge them to co-sponsor the "Keep In God We Trust on U.S. currency resolution", H. Con Res. 302 authored by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.
Male sports are being eliminated on most college campuses except for Texas, USC and a few other places
Jan. 18, 2006 Phyllis Schlafly
Rose Bowl This year's spectacular Rose Bowl game attracted a phenomenal 35.6 million viewers because it featured what we want: rugged men playing football and attractive women cheering them on. Americans of every class, men and women, remained glued to their television sets and nearly 95,000 spectators watched from the stands.
The runaway success of this game proved again that stereotypical roles for men and women do not bother Americans one bit. Political correctness lost out as all-male teams battled and women cheered.
It's too bad that male sports are being eliminated on most college campuses. Except for Texas, USC, and a few other places, radical feminism rules in the athletic departments at the expense of popular male sports.
Feminists oppose anything that is all-male or all-female unless it's gay marriage. They won't be able to ban the Rose Bowl anytime soon, but the Feminist Majority Foundation posts this warning on its website: "By encouraging boys to become aggressive, violent athletes, and by encouraging girls to cheer for them, we perpetuate the cycle of male aggression and violence against women."
Meanwhile, the feminists are censoring out hundreds of traditional manly college sports teams. If your favorite college once had a wrestling, baseball or track team, check again: there's a good chance it has been eliminated.
Several years ago, Howard University Athletic Director Sondra Norrell-Thomas announced her elimination of both its wrestling and baseball teams on the same day. It should surprise no one that Howard University's male enrollment has dropped to only 34 percent compared to 66 percent female.
On June 2, 1997, the feminist National Women's Law Center announced that it would file a complaint against Boston University, the fourth largest private school in the nation, over its sports programs. Within months, BU ended the football team that had been in existence for 91 years.
It is no surprise that male enrollment at Boston University is now down to 40%. One transfer student expressed his dismay in the student newspaper upon learning that his new school has 16,000 undergraduates but no football team.
In the entire State of Washington, there is no longer a single major college wrestling team, despite wrestling's huge popularity in high schools. Wrestling is one of the least expensive sports, requiring almost no equipment and having a low risk of injury, but feminists are working to eliminate all masculine sports.
The few colleges that have held firm against feminist pressure continue to attract males. Penn State, for example, has kept its superb programs in football, wrestling, baseball and track, and enjoys a 55-45 percent male-to-female enrollment.
The mean-spirited feminists recently demanded the resignation of 79-year-old football coaching great Joe Paterno because he spoke in sympathy of an opposing team's player accused of sexual assault. There was nothing offensive in Paterno's comments and 89 percent in an online AOL poll sided with him, but just a few feminists with a fax machine will smear anyone in their war against football.
The lack of college sports teams and camaraderie makes many high school boys wonder, why bother going to college? Despite the bloated price of college tuition, college doesn't even offer the sports opportunities that they enjoyed in their poorer high schools.
The Rose Bowl proved that public demand is for all-male sports, not female contests. Boys do not want to go to a college that eliminates the macho sports, and that is true even if the boy does not expect to compete himself.
The effects of the feminists' attack on men's sports are now coming home to roost. By the time this year's college freshmen are seniors, the ratio will be 60 percent women to 40 percent men, and women are now crying that there are not enough college-educated men to marry.
China's brutal one-child policy has artificially created millions of young men for whom no wives are available. Right here at home, the feminists have created millions of college-educated women for whom no college-educated men are available, and the trend is getting steadily worse.
Part of the change in the ratio of male and female college students is due to the ruthless interpretation of Title IX by the radical feminist bureaucrats in the Carter and Clinton administrations. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige chickened out on their opportunity to remedy the mischief.
Congress should step into the gap and stop funding colleges that terminate men's sports to meet arbitrary feminist quotas. Congress should imitate its action in passing the Solomon Amendment that tells colleges they will lose federal funding if they discriminate against military recruiters.
Congress should tell colleges they will lose federal funding if they discriminate against men's sports. The American people clearly want male football, baseball, track and wrestling, and colleges that cut these sports should be cut out of the federal budget.
Study Shows Small Christian Colleges Becoming More Popular Choice
Jan. 11 2006 Jim Brown Agape Press
Statistics show a growing number of students are opting to attend small Christian colleges and 
universities instead of large public institutions.
Enrollment at the more than 100 evangelical schools belonging to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) has increased 71 percent since 1990, rising from 135,000 to 230,000. During that same time frame, public college enrollment increased by only 13 percent.
Council spokesman Nate Mouttet says students are looking for what he calls "a spiritual and academic greenhouse" that embraces their faith and offers it a place to grow. Referring to a study conducted by the University of California in Los Angeles, he notes that interest in spirituality in higher education is stronger than it has ever been.
According to the study, college students cite several reasons for this interest, Mouttet points out. Among them, he says, are "the quality of the campuses, this improving quality over the years; an area that we see as academic freedom; and then the faith, the unique aspect that our campuses embrace Christian faith. And that is something that's also being noted in general in higher education as something that's being sought after by students."
The CCCU spokesman says Christian students want to be in schools that encourage them along their path toward spiritual maturity and that allow them to look at life from a large perspective, an objective that can take many different forms for different students.
For instance, he explains, "That might mean that they can honestly challenge themselves to think about evolution in a science classroom and honestly challenge themselves to think about foreign affairs or world policy from several different perspectives rather than just kind of having a 'group-think' or [having to concede regarding certain ideas that] this is the way it is, and if you don't agree with it you're not academically sound or up to snuff."
Mouttet notes that in order to become a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, schools must be intentional about making the connection between faith and learning, and they must have hiring practices that require their faculty and staff to be Christians.
ACLU Supports Al Qaeda; Response to Lawsuit Over National Security Agency's Surveillance
Jan. 18 2006 Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, The ACLU along with several other organizations have filed a lawsuit against the President’s administration alleging that the National Security Agency must stop a surveillance program that has been in place since just after 9-11-01.
The facts are clear in this case. President Bush has initiated monitoring of phone calls from terrorists overseas who are calling people in the United States of America. President Clinton used the same exact wiretaps without warrants in cases where National Security was not involved. President Bush is using the same Clinton policy to protect our National Security.
Where were these attack dogs in the Clinton era?
Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America’s Values said, “This is one of the worst cases of the ACLU undermining America that I have ever seen. The ACLU has become the legal arm of Al Qaeda.”
“Let’s not forget about what the terrorists did to our nation on 9-11-01. We must never forget about their attacks upon our nation and the fact that they frequently attack us in other countries, according to Swarthout.
“America is at war and we had all better come to realize that fact. One of our top priorities should be to blunt the ACLU’s undermining the U.S. war on terrorism.” Swarthout said.
The plaintiffs include the ACLU, James Bamford, Christopher Hitchens, Tara McKelvey, Barnett Rubin and Larry Diamond. There is no evidence that the government has wire tapped their phone calls. This case is nothing more than a fishing expedition.
Advocacy groups the likes of Council on American Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and the NACDL are also leading this charge. These groups are people from which one could expect such an action.
Swarthout said, “This is a case of ACLU radicals undermining the security of 290 million Americans.”
“We must take a stand,” according to Swarthout.
“It is time for all real Americans to stand up and take their places in this all out battle for the land we love,” Swarthout said.
“The ACLU is as dangerous as any organization in America today. Christians Reviving America’s Values has written to most of our United States Congressmen and ALL of our United States Senators asking them to hold a Congressional Hearing into the activities and agenda of the ACLU. We must expose their dangerous agenda,” Swarthout concluded.
Legislation Gives Unrestrained Power to State Superintendent Concerning Pro-Homosexual Curriculum
Jan. 9 2006 Christian Newswire
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Last week AB 606 (D-Levine) was gutted and amended to permit the state superintendent to withhold state funds if a school district fails to create policies on how to combat discrimination and harassment against homosexuals.
The superintendent may also withhold funds if a school district fails to increase awareness, prevent, and ensure appropriate responses to incidences of discrimination or harassment.
AB 606 would also force school curriculum to contain pro-homosexual instruction. Current provisions in the law exempting pro-homosexual curriculum from the classroom would be repealed under AB 606.
"All violence on school campus is unacceptable, schools should be able to deal with specific incidences of violence without being required to indoctrinate children that homosexuality is acceptable," said Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute.
"It is outrageous that AB 606 would permit Jack O'Connell to arbitrarily withhold funds from a school district if he happens to think they are not adequately promoting pro-homosexual sentiment on a particular campus," said England. "This is too much power for one elected official. It should be up to the courts to determine whether the conduct of a school board is in compliance with state law. "
"Under AB 606, a school board's hands will be completely tied. They will have to either completely cater to the state superintendent's whim or decide to go without funding for education in order to fight for their policy."
Capitol Resource Institute is opposed to expanding pro-homosexual curriculum in our public schools because it infringes upon parental rights and the sincerely held religious convictions of both parents and students.
Read AB606 online at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_06010650/ab_606_bill_20060104_amended_asm.html
UK Orders Registry offices to remove All References to “Marriage” due to Civil Partnerships
Jan. 16 2006 Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com
UNITED KINGDOM, Registry offices in the UK are taking down all signs referring to “marriage.” The Government has advised regional councils to change sign wording in case gay couples are offended. Homosexual relationships can now be registered as Civil Partnerships, under the UK’s new legislation.
Religious leaders, who have been concerned over EU recommendations to override clergy’s rights to opt out of solemnizing gay unions, are alarmed at the wording changes.
Bishop John Hine, Chairman of the Bishop’s Committee for Marriage and Family Life, sees the move as yet another blow to the traditional concept of marriage.
“One of the arguments supporting the introduction of civil partnerships was that there would be no adverse implications for the stature of marriage, “ Bishop Hine told the Universe Catholic. “The alleged removal of all reference to marriage in registry offices rather knocks the bottom out of the government’s argument.”
Reverend Ron Curtis, of St Thomas's Church, Stourbridge, told the Express and Star he did not believe anyone would be offended by the word marriage in the register signs.
“So many people can be offended in so many different ways, I think care does have to be taken,” he said. “However, I am very surprised this has happened.”
The Government-issued Civil Partnership checklist, which contains the signage recommendations, also suggests registry offices change the heading of their stationary packages from “Your Wedding” to “Your Ceremony.”
Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said: "This is an extreme form of political correctness gone mad. Thankfully marriage is still a recognized activity and should be advertised as such."
The General Register Office of England and Wales say they have issued no guidance over the signs and it is entirely a matter for the local authorities.
Scotland Cardinal: Gay Adoption Makes Children “Guinea Pigs in Some Distorted Social Experiment”
Jan. 16 2006 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com
EDINBURGH, A decision by Scottish lawmakers to allow same-sex couples to adopt has been condemned by Roman Catholic prelate Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who warned that the measure would make Scotland’s orphans “guinea pigs in some distorted social experiment.”
The Cardinal has asked that Catholic adoption agencies be allowed a “conscience clause” to exempt them from the ruling, so as not to be forced to place children in homes with same-sex guardians. O’Brien is worried that Catholic adoption agencies would eventually be forced into placing children with same-sex couples.
Galloway Bishop John Cunningham, chair of the national committee for pastoral and social care, stated: “If the proposals go ahead as they stand, the bishops would certainly expect an exemption for faith-based adoption agencies,” according to a Times On Line report. “We are disappointed that the executive do not seem to have recognised the unique contribution that a stable married couple can make to the upbringing of children.
“We also have grave reservations concerning the ability of same-sex couples or unmarried heterosexual couples, however loving they might be, to provide the stability and the role models a married couple can,” he added.
The new law allows all unmarried couples – whether heterosexual or homosexual – the option of adoption. Earlier laws allowed one member of a non-married couple to apply to adopt a child, while the second member applied for a residency order. The UK outside of Scotland brought in a similar law allowing same-sex couples to adopt or foster a child in December.
State Legislatures Must Step up and Pass Legislation Banning In-car viewing of Obscene DVDs
Jan. 13 2006 Christian Coalition of America
As the obscenity complaints by Americans continue to increase throughout the United States regarding in-car viewing of obscenity on DVDs by some Americans, it is imperative that state legislatures finally act to ban su ch public obscenity. On December 26th, an off-duty state trooper and his wife in Spartanburg, South Carolina noticed on the DVD screens in the sport utility vehicle idling in front of their car, a hardcore pornographic film which was played on two rear screens. Police officers quickly caught up with the SUV and took the driver, Jerome Curtis Buckson to the Spartanburg County Detention Center and charged him with possession of an open container of alcohol.
Yet, because a South Carolina magistrate judge could not make up his mind as to whether or not the pornographic movie being played in the SUV, "Booty Talk 43" constituted dissemination of obscenity, Mr. Buckson was not charged for that crime. Thankfully, according to Solicitor Trey Gowdy, Mr. Buckson is expected to be indicted for dissemination of obscenity by the South Carolina State Attorney General. This so-called "drive-by porn" is expected to exponentially increase as more and more in-car DVD screens beco me larger and more popular. South Carolina does indeed have a law whereby a conviction of disseminating obscenity is a felony that can result in a 5-year prison term and a $10,000 fine. It is essential that other state legislatures follow the lead of South Carolina and ensure there are increasingly tougher laws resulting in prosecution of such "drive-by porn" cases.
Jan. 11 2006 Christian Coalition of America
As more Americans are alerted to the blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ on NBC's new television series, "The Book of Daniel", more of them are calling their local NBC affiliates demanding that they not air this tedious left-wing program. Several of NBC's local affiliates have already made the decision not to air the offending show. The drama's depiction of an Episcopal priest who pops pills, preaches that sinners should not beat themselves up for their sins and supports premarital sex has continued the television networks' decades-long disgraceful portrayal of Christianity. The show had an extremely low rating during the first showing, so protests by Christians are working. Christian Coalition of America supporters need to call their local NBC television affiliates to
urge them not to air the blasphemous "The Book of Daniel" series.
Highest Court Comes Down Hard on Pornography Business the Very Same Day Smut King Howard Stern's new Pornographic Show Begins on Satellite Radio
Jan. 13 2006 Christian Coalition of America
It is ironic that on the very same day the much-ballyhooed Howard Stern's new pornographic smut radio program began on the Syrius satellite radio network, the United States Supreme Court came down hard on the pornography business in general. On Monday, it refused to get involved in a case decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, which upheld the rights of Union Township in Ohio's Clermont County, allowing them to enforce anti-pornography ordinances regulating so-called "adult cabarets" in Union Township.
The Union Township's regulations required that these pornography clubs ("adult cabarets") apply for operating licenses and supply information about their employees, including their birth dates and job descriptions and to close by midnight in order to decrease problems with prostitution, vandalism, etc. But these smut clubs did not want to reveal such information -- specifically a chain of clubs called Deja Vu -- maintaining these regulations were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. In 1999, the Deja Vu chain of smut clubs sued the Union Township board of trustees and the case finally made its way to the Supreme Court today.
It is hard to believe -- considering the flood of left-wing decisions by federal tyrants during the past number of decades and accelerating during the first years of the 21st Century -- that 7 federal judges on the 6th Circuit Court in a 7-5 decision actually upheld these township regulations as constitutional. Specifically, what the Union Township ordinance did was require sex businesses like Deja Vu to close no later than midnight in order to deter drinking, prostitution and related problems. It also required such clubs to apply for a license and to provide names, dates of birth, and job descriptions for all employees. A license could be denied if there were public health concerns or if an employee was a convicted sex offender.
Monday's Supreme Court decision should come as a warning to smut talk show host, Howard Stern, and people like him, that the people's representatives can determine obscenity/decency standards in their communities, including that which goes over the broadcast airwaves and also on cable and satellite vehicles.
The United States Senate not only needs to follow the U.S. House of Representatives' lead in passing the Broadcast Decen cy Enforcement Act -- passed overwhelmingly 389-38 last year which increases fines that may be assessed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from $32,500 per violation of decency standards to $500,000 per offense and allows the FCC to take away licenses -- but the Senate needs to seek ways to apply the same standards to Howard Stern's new communications vehicle, the satellite radio industry such as Syrius. The good news this week from the Supreme Court, is that things will only get worse for the likes of Howard Stern and his ilk once Judge Samuel A. Alito is confirmed to the high court.
Howard Wilson hwilson@texasmoralaction.org