Watchman #77

WASHINGTON, “Throughout the entire struggle to save Terri’s life and to this very day, the Schindler family has been a profound example of Christian familial love,” stated Stephen G. Peroutka, Esq., chairman of the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC)—the uncompromising voice of pro-life America on Capitol Hill. “After the tragic loss of their daughter, no one would have blamed the Schindler family if they had just wanted to quietly recess into the shadows to mourn. Instead, they continue to be an inspiration to the world by continuing their work on behalf of the disabled and the infirmed, and we thank them for that.”

On the eve of the first anniversary of Terri’s death by dehydration, the Schindler family is officially launching the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation with the release of their book, “A Life That Matters: The Legacy of Terri Schiavo–A Lesson for Us All” (Warner Books, 2006). “We must never forget the horrible, painful and undignified way in which Terri was put to death by order of an activist Florida judge who had clearly been corrupted by a culture-of- death mindset,” observed Paul Chaim Schenck, director of NPLAC. “Every single life does matter. Life is a precious gift with infinite value, and the intrinsic dignity of the human person cannot be negotiated down based on one’s physical or mental health, so- called quality of life, or other false pretense perpetuated by death advocates.”

As part of the launch, NPLAC has purchased 600 copies of “A Life That Matters,” which will be delivered to every member of the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives and key members of the Bush Administration, including the president and the vice president.

“It is our sincere hope by putting this book into the hands of lawmakers that it will inspire them to take the appropriate actions to ensure that a tragedy, such as Terri Schiavo’s, will never happen again,” Peroutka said. “This book is a fitting tribute to Terri from those who loved her most. It tells Terri’s story so that the world can dispel the myth that this was ‘mercy,’ and recognize it for what it was— murder—and recognize what she was—a life that matters.”

Back

Christians Urged to Prepare for Sharing the Truth about the 'Da Vinci' Code

Mar. 29 2006 Prophecy News Watch

The impending release of a movie version of the blockbuster novel The Da Vinci Code is stirring debate in Christian circles. To many, the release represents an attack on the Christian faith. Many others also see in it a door opener for sharing the gospel. The resulting impact will depend on how prepared Christians are to respond effectively.

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown combines a murder mystery with a conspiracy theory that challenges the foundations of Christianity. In this fictional story, Brown's protagonists discover that the Holy Grail is actually Mary Magdalene. According to their sources, Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, the mother of Jesus' child, and the chosen leader of Jesus' church. This information has been kept from the world through a plot instigated by Emperor Constantine to hijack early Christianity for his own purposes. The conspirators commissioned a revised set of gospels promoting the deity of Christ while destroying more accurate documents portraying Jesus as only a great moral teacher. As one of Brown's fictional 'experts' states, "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false."

The Da Vinci Code movie, directed by Ron Howard (Opie Taylor/of the Andy Griffith show) and starring Tom Hanks, is scheduled for a May 19 release. Its release will introduce a broader audience to the disturbing claims of the novel. Should Christians ignore the movie, picket the movie, or encourage people to see the movie? Each of these positions is being espoused by at least one well known Christian. Whatever position one takes on viewing the movie, it is clear that Christians should be prepared to respond to the public reaction it for the following reasons:

Impact on Culture. The novel has sold over 30 million copies and the movie will be a major media event. According to research by the Barna Group, "Nearly one-third of adults (29%) contend that movies have had a substantial impact on the development of their personal morals, values and religious beliefs."

Challenge to Our Faith. Many Christians who are not well grounded in apologetics were influenced by the book, says Barna. "... 53% of a national sample of adults who have read The Da Vinci Code from cover to cover stated that the book had been helpful in their 'personal spiritual growth and understanding.'"

An opportunity for the Gospel. The novel/movie creates a natural bridge to eternally important topics. The ease with which these conspiracy theories can be unmasked as flimsy fictions can move the Christian into an authority role adding weight to their testimony.

Materials and events are being produced to prepare Christians for the release of the movie. Some of the organizations offering material include:

- Campus Crusade -- The Da Vinci Code: A Companion Guide to the Movie, a 20-page mini-magazine

- Church Communication Network -- two satellite conferences, one for evangelism training and one as an outreach event timed to the release of the movie

- Josh McDowell / Beyond Belief -- The Da Vinci Code: A Quest for Answers, a paperback with on-line study guide

- Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer -- The Da Vinci Deception Experience, a DVD-based group study with sermon aids

- Probe Ministries and EvanTell -- Redeeming The Da Vinci Code, a DVD-based small group study toolkit combining apologetics, evangelism training, and outreach materials

- Lee Strobel and Gary Poole -- Discussing The Da Vinci Code, a DVD-based group study filmed at locations mentioned in the novel

Churches and other Christian organizations should check out these resources to see what best fits their equipping needs.

Back

The Beltway vs. the Heartland over Immigration

Mar. 29 2006 Gary Bauer American Values

That’s how the immigration debate in Congress is shaping up, according to Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times and a former top advisor to ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. There is no question that this is a divisive issue, and it is creating some strange alliances in Washington. For example, Ted Kennedy is working with the Chamber of Commerce in support of a guest-worker program that is opposed by the AFL-CIO.

Kennedy got his way Monday when the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that included a guest-worker program. Montebello Calif. High school flagpole when protesters were done with it.

Joining the minority Democrats in support of this proposal were conservative Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback, along with moderates Mike DeWine and Arlen Specter. But, as Blankley notes in his column today, “The Senate Judiciary Committeemen – and probably a majority of the Senate – are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them.”

Just consider these recent polling numbers confronting the politicians on this issue: 80% of the public wants stricter enforcement of our immigration laws; 75% favor stiffer penalties for businesses that hire illegal aliens; 72% do not believe illegal aliens should be able to get drivers’ licenses; 62% oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens; and 59% of the public opposes guest-worker programs.

As the Judiciary Committee vote demonstrated, the divisions over immigration reform are deepest among Republicans and the issue plays into the hands of liberals, who are desperate to regain control of Congress. It goes without saying that incumbent members of the majority party will bear the brunt of any backlash at the ballot box for the passage of legislation opposed by nearly 60% of the people!

Even worse, there are storm clouds on the horizon. There are more major protests by “immigrants’ rights” groups being planned, which will surely inflame passions even further if these demonstrators are seen waving foreign flags, flouting our laws, and demanding social services at the expense of American taxpayers.

Back

What is Amnesty? What is Punishment?

Mar. 29 2006 Bobby Eberle

Imagine just a few short years ago if you were to talk to the average grassroots conservative and ask him or her what the chances are for having a national debate on immigration reform. After the surprised look disappeared, the person would probably say there was no chance of it occurring in a million years. My how times have changed! Now, the debate is in full swing, and it is important to address the heart of the debate and the sticking point: What is amnesty, and what is punishment?

First, an update… The Washington Times is reporting that House Majority Leader John Boehner “refused yesterday to rule out compromising with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program or provisions that opponents call ‘amnesty.’” According to the Times, “the Senate appears headed toward approving immigration legislation that strengthens border security some while creating a new guest-worker program and providing a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal aliens already in the country.”

On Monday, Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama said that the Senate Judiciary Committee “let the American people down” by passing what he describes as a “a blanket amnesty bill.”

“There was a real opportunity to take the steps necessary to fix our failed immigration enforcement system and while progress was made, we did not get there. The proper approach is to first fix the enforcement system and then to undertake a national discussion about immigration, considering how to justly handle those here illegally and what rules should govern future immigration levels. We also have not effectively dealt with the national security issues.”

Sen. John Cornyn from Texas, who voted against the plan passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he voted no because the plan “rewards illegal immigrants and will be considered an amnesty by Americans.”

“It will encourage further disrespect for our laws, and will undercut our efforts to shore up homeland security. There is a better way to address this national security concern, and several of those who voted for the committee bill — including the chairman — did so with reservations.”

Sen. Cornyn hit the nail on the head when he said that the current Senate committee plan would be “considered an amnesty by Americans.” The American people respect the rule of law, and the main problem being expressed by outraged grassroots activists across the country (the e-mail has not stopped flooding my inbox) is that these illegal immigrants are BREAKING THE LAW. They are here illegally, and thus should be punished. We set a terrible example as Americans, as legislators, and even as parents if we send the message that illegal behavior will be rewarded rather than punished.

The key to moving this debate forward and the strategy that should be adopted by our legislators is not “what is amnesty?” but rather “what is punishment?’ Yes, there are those out there who believe that the only appropriate punishment for illegal aliens is deportation. However, the estimated price tag of: $40 billion a year, mustering the resources, factoring in the economic and political impact, and so on, make this option all but unattainable.

Both House and Senate plans address the need for increased border security. More border patrol agents, more barriers both physical and electronic, and better enforcement of existing laws are all part of the equation. So, the real debate comes to a head in determining what the appropriate level of punishment is. Comparing the Senate proposals, as compiled by Numbers USA, the McCain-Kennedy bill would impose a $1,000 fine on the illegal alien, and then after working for six years, the person would pay another $1,000 fine. The bill backed by the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee would impose the two $1,000 fines plus require the payment of back taxes. On the House side, the Sensenbrenner bill which was passed in December would make illegal immigration a felony, calls for deportation and fines, and increases penalties on those who employ illegal immigrants.

Key features of the bills prepared by the Associated Press can be seen at the Houston Chronicle.

Is that enough? A $1,000 fine? Is that the best the Senate can offer? I don’t think so. I still feel the best approach is to address this in two phases as advocated by Rep. Tom Tancredo and others. Let’s address the security issue first — tightening security along the borders, enforcing existing immigration laws, clamping down on human smugglers, etc. Then, we can address the issue of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the country.

As it currently stands, the push by the administration and the Senate is to have an all-in-one bill, and if that is the case, legislators need to come together on what is the appropriate level of punishment for someone engaging in illegal activity. A $1,000 fine is a joke. Deportation of 12 million people is practically impossible. Somewhere out there is the answer, and the result must be real, strong, enforced, and send a message that illegal activity is illegal. It’s a simple concept. Now, let’s get the job done.

Back

Dems caught playing politics on immigration

Mar. 29 2006 Tim Chapman Townhall.com

As the immigration debate in Congress heats up, so does the Democrats' rhetoric. Democrats are constantly accusing conservatives who want to secure the borders of employing "draconian" measures. Hillary Clinton even went so far as to say the GOP immigration bill would criminalize "Jesus himself."

But when given the chance to soften immigration policies, Democrats backtracked for political reasons. When the House debated immigration reform last year, Chairman James Sensenbrenner offered a little-noticed amendment that would reduce the penalty for immigrants who overstay their visas from a felony to a misdemeanor. Only 8 Democrats backed up their rhetoric and voted for Sensenbrenner's amendment which ultimately failed.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee immigration bill markup, Senator John Cornyn pointed out the hypocrisy highlighted in this vote. "It does not further the debate for politicians to state that churches will be raided; Jesus himself would be prosecuted…when no member of the Senate or the House has ever indicated that that is their intent or understanding of the law," said Cornyn.

Cornyn defended a provision in Specter's mark that would treat immigrants who overstay their visas in the same way as illegal immigrants. Although, Cornyn emphasized he did not support making overstays a felony.

"But I would note that when the opportunity arose in the House to reduce the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor, only 8 Democrats voted to do so, and 191 voted to retain the felony penalty," said Cornyn. "This issue is too important for Congress to play political games with. My state is impacted every day by illegal immigration, and Texans are ready for the federal government to step up and address a federal issue."

Back

Pro-family Victory at the Federal Election Commission!

Mar. 29 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

FRC and other pro-family advocates are hailing the decision of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) not to attempt to regulate online political comment in the form of web logs (blogs).

The FEC was not aggressively seeking to regulate the blogs, but a Clinton federal judge had ruled that the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act applied to the Internet as well as to advertising.

That law is one of the grossest violations of free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. The liberal judge's ruling made it even worse. Despite this ruling, Congress still needs to pass Rep. Jeb Hensarling's (R-Texas) Online Freedom of Speech Act to make sure that other activist judges or a future FEC does not try to squelch this vital form of political free speech.

The blogs are one of the most exciting things to come along in years. Granted, what passes for "commentary" on the blogs is often wrong-headed and even vicious. But the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.

If the FEC had permitted regulation of the blogs, the criticism I just made about McCain-Feingold could have been blocked.

Back

Forty-Seven Lawmakers join the Fight over the National-Motto

Mar. 28 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link

The man who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is now going after "In God We Trust." But pro-family senators and congressmen are pushing back.

Forty-seven members of Congress fired back today against anti-religionist Michael Newdow's latest court case to try to remove mention of God from the public square.

The lawmakers filed a friend-of-the-court brief in federal district court in Sacramento, Calif., in support of the U.S. government's request to dismiss Newdow's legal challenge of the national motto, "In God We Trust."

"We believe the court should dismiss this lawsuit, which has no basis in fact and presents another flawed attempt to use the legal system for remove a legitimate reference to the religious heritage of our country," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and the congressmen's attorney.

Newdow, who filed suit last November, told CitizenLink he is pursuing equality by demanding "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. money and official documents.

"(I filed this lawsuit) because I believe in equality — especially religious equality," he said. "The Constitution of the United States guarantees to every citizen that the government of the United States will respect their religious views the same as any other religious view. And I don't see how the religious views of those who deny that God exists are being treated with the same respect as the religious view that God does exist."

But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said it's clear Newdow — who not only challenged the Pledge in court but also the prayers said at the last presidential inaugural — has an ax to grind.

"Newdow seems to have a chip on his shoulder about public acknowledgment of God," he said.

Sekulow, meanwhile, said Newdow actually has things backwards: Congress can pass a law saying the national motto is "In God We Trust" because it is not establishing a religion — merely recognizing our history.

"What the Establishment Clause was designed to protect was an establishment of religion or a particular religion for the country," he said. "That's not what we have at stake here."

The Founders of our nation believed in God, Sekulow added. There is nothing in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause that requires "the relentless extirpation of public references to God" that Newdow wants.

"This is a situation where government, much like the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged that it is in God where we place our trust," he said. "The Founders said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.' "

Hausknecht agreed that Newdow's understanding of the Establishment Clause is skewed.

"One only needs to look at that first Congress," he said. "One of their first official acts after approving the language of the First Amendment was to ask the president to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting; and it hired a congressional chaplain. If that first Congress thought those actions were in line with the First Amendment — and they ought to know — then the national motto easily fits within it as well."

So, just how much of a threat is this case? Given Newdow's success in the Pledge case — in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found "under God" unconstitutional, only to be overruled by the Supreme Court on a technicality — the self-proclaimed "minister" of the "First Amendment Church of True Science" might have an argument some liberal judge is willing to entertain.

Hausknecht said the fact that Newdow again filed suit in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit helps his cause.

"It all depends on what district judge he draws, or what panel of judges if it makes it to the 9th Circuit," Hausknecht said. "If you get a liberal judge, or even a panel, we'll get the same ridiculous result we did with the Pledge case. But there is also a likelihood that, even if that happens, that the entire 9th Circuit en banc — all the judges — will review the case."

Sekulow, though, isn't taking any chances.

"We filed a brief on behalf of 47 members of Congress," he said, "because we take this very seriously."

FOR MORE INFORMATION/TAKE ACTION:
To find out who signed on to the friend of the court brief, visit the American Center for Law and Justice Web site.

Back

New Israeli PM expected to withdraw from West Bank, divide Jerusalem

Mar. 29 2006 Prophecy News Watch

With almost all votes counted from yesterday's national elections, Kadima leader Ehud Olmert is set to become Israel's next prime minister as results showed his party won the most Knesset seats by a slim majority.

During his victory speech last night, Olmert made clear his administration will immediately seek to "evacuate Jews" from most of the West Bank. Kadima officials also have stated the party would seek to give parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians to form a state.

"The people have spoken clearly, they want Kadima," Olmert said in a nationally televised victory ceremony. "A chapter in the history of the country has ended. We're tasked with shaping the future of the state, and before we bring peace with our neighbors we must make peace within, us patiently and with love."

Olmert spoke about the need to renounce the dream of the "Greater Land of Israel and evacuate, with much pain, Jews."

The "Greater Land of Israel" usually refers to a Jewish state that includes the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Ballot counts showed a minor election victory for Kadima, with the party winning 28 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, much less than it had anticipated. The leftist Labor Party took 20 seats. The ultra-Orthodox Shas party won 13 seats. Yisroel Beitanu, a new Russian immigrant party, garnered 12 seats.

Likud, led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, finished in fifth place with 11 seats. Calls for Netanyahu to resign already started pouring in from senior members of his own party.

The leader of the party that wins the most seats becomes prime minister and forms a governing coalition. Traditionally, Israeli government coalitions ruled by a leading party with less than 40 seats – which is now the case with Kadima – tend to be unstable and short-lived.

Since Kadima did not win a majority, it will need to form a coalition with several parties. Analysts expect a Kadima-Labor-Pensioners-Shas government with Likud placed in the opposition, although senior sources in Likud told WND the party would consider joining Olmert's new government if Netanyahu is offered the post of minister of finance.

Olmert last month announced if his party wins the elections he would "change Israel's borders" by withdrawing from most of the West Bank, which is within rocket-firing range of Jerusalem and which military strategists long have estimated Israel must maintain to defend its borders from any ground invasion.

Olmert said under his plan Israel will maintain select security zones and some of the area's major West Bank Jewish communities, alluding to evacuating West Bank towns that fall outside Israel's security fence.

About 200,000 Jews live in the West Bank. The security fence, still under construction in certain areas, cordons off nearly 95 percent of the territory from Israel's pre-1967 borders. More than half the West Bank's Jewish residents reside on the side of the fence closest to Israel. About 80,000 more Jews live on the other side of the barrier.

Netanyahu earlier this week warned Israeli elections would determine whether Jerusalem remains the undivided capital of the Jewish state or is given to the Palestinians by Kadima in the near future.

"Without a strong Likud, we will not have sovereignty in Jerusalem," Netanyahu told reporters during a campaign stop at the Western Wall yesterday. "Only a strong Likud can maintain Jerusalem. Kadima and the left will divide Jerusalem and once you start dividing, you never know where it's going to end. There is no way to safeguard Jerusalem without the nationalist camp, and there is no nationalist camp without the Likud."

Last week, just days before the elections, the Kadima Party revealed it would divide Jerusalem and allow a Palestinian state to be established in parts of Israel's "eternal capital."

"The Old City, Mount Scopus, the Mount of Olives, the City of David, Sheikh Jarra will remain in our hands, but [regarding] Kafr Akeb, Abu-Ram, Shuafat, Hizma, Abu-Zaim, Abu-Tur, Abu Dis, in the future, when the Palestinian state is established, they will become its capital," said Otniel Schneller, a Kadima member who represented the party at an official debate last week on dividing Jerusalem.

The revelation followed months of denials by top Kadima officials that the party would advocate withdrawing from Jerusalem.

The neighborhoods Schneller listed are located on Jerusalem's periphery, near the city's border with the West Bank.

Schneller said Kadima supports "separation between us and the Palestinians who don't live in the heart of Jerusalem," claiming there would be "no concessions" on sites that are sacred to Jews.

Kadima's claims last week: of "only" withdrawing from peripheral sections of Jerusalem worry many here. The Israeli government has denied previous withdrawal plans only to carry them out later, followed by announcements of more withdrawals in larger magnitudes from areas it pledged not to vacate.

Olmert was the first Sharon deputy to go public with Israel's plan to evacuate its Jewish communities from the Gaza Strip and four small West Bank communities. That plan was at first denied but later announced by Sharon. Israel withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank towns this past August, claiming there would be no further West Bank withdrawals.

Back

Israel Views Katyusha Rocket Firing As 'Ominous Sign'

Mar. 29 2006 Julie Stahl CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief

While all eyes were focused on the Israeli elections, the terror group Islamic Jihad launched into Israel a rocket with twice the range of those its usually fires.

Southern Israel has been hit by hundreds of homemade, short-range, and imprecise Kassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip over the last few years. Tuesday marked the first time that a Katyusha was launched from Gaza. No injuries or damage were reported.

The Katyusha has twice the range of a Kassam -- about 20 to 30 kilometers (12-18 miles) instead of 11 kilometers (6.6 miles). The longer range rocket puts much more of southern Israel in the danger zone. Both the large coastal city of Ashkelon and the port city of Ashdod are now within range.

Although the Kassams are crude, inaccurate weapons, they have killed a number of Israelis and caused considerable damage to Israeli homes and property. The Katyusha is more powerful.

It is an "ominous sign" from the new Hamas government that there will be no let-up in terrorism, said prime ministerial spokesman Dr. Ra'anan Gissin.

"[The terror groups] are continuing to try to acquire the capability to disrupt the strategic balance there," said Gissin.

Hamas may not engage in terrorism directly but they are going to give a free hand to other groups that want to carry out attacks, he said. "They will try to sweet-talk the West, but in practice they will not do anything to stop [the terrorism]."

Islamic Jihad, which is ideologically aligned with and backed by Iran, claimed responsibility for firing the Katyusha rocket. The group has launched more than 450 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets since the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip last September.

According to the military sources, the rocket probably was smuggled into Gaza across the Egyptian border. Sources said Islamic Jihad probably doesn't have many of the longer-range rockets -- yet.

Five of the cruder Kassams were launched from Gaza toward Israel on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, two Bedouin shepherds, a father and son, were killed when they handled a Kassam rocket that had been launched into Israel earlier.

Residents of northern Israel have suffered for years from Katyusha rocket attacks on Israeli border towns launched by the Iranian-backed Hizballah.

Back

Florida County Wants to Force Churches to Stay Small

Mar. 24 2006 Wendy Cloyd assistant editor Citizen Link

Commissioners seek to amend zoning laws to ensure new churches have limited pews.

Pastors and concerned citizens in Palm Beach County Fla. are protesting as both unrealistic and unconstitutional a proposed amendment to zoning laws that would limit the size of future church-building projects.

County officials maintain residents in some communities have complained about the noise and traffic associated with church expansion. The only way to solve the problem, they maintain, is to keep churches small.

Palm Beach County commissioners have requested that the Planning and Zoning Department draft an amendment to the land development code that would severely limit the size of any future church to a scale based on the density of the neighborhood population.

Steve Stewart, senior pastor of Church in the Farms — a conservative Southern Baptist congregation — was one of many who spoke at a public meeting on the matter this week.

"We strongly encouraged them to find better ways to accomplish the same thing," he said. "If they wanted to accomplish some traffic congestion issues, some better traffic accommodations, you can do that with a slightly different code."

Current zoning is divided into three tiers: low-density, medium-density and high-density population areas. Under the proposal, a church in a high-density area could cover 75,000 square feet and have 750 seats, while a medium-density area could have 50,000 square feet and 500 seats. Buildings in low-density areas would be limited 25,000 square feet with just 250 seats.

"That 250 seats means everywhere (in the building)," Stewart explained. "If you have a fellowship hall with 100 seats, you can only put 150 in the auditorium."

Churches, he said, would be discouraged from buying property in low-density areas because they couldn't develop it.

"If this is happening in Palm Beach County, it could be happening in other quickly developing counties throughout various states," Stewart said. "We can't let this become a legal precedent — if this became a precedent, my word, what it could do."

At the public meeting, he asked planners to consider what would happen if a church was a highly effective at ministry.

"What if we deliver relevant sermons, we have great worship, we have great children's and youth programs, we have great addiction therapy — we have great ministry, and people drive over from other neighborhoods?" he asked. "And here was their response: 'Well, they can go to church in their own neighborhood.' "

Proponents of the amendment say they simply want churches to fit the size and look of their neighborhoods and want to avoid traffic problems every Sunday morning.

"We are totally sympathetic to that," Stewart said. "We understand that we have a responsibility in a county to beautify it and to keep the problems to a minimum. Not one pastor I know would argue that. We have a responsibility to be good neighbors.

"But at the same time we have a responsibility to our communities, and if a church happens to be effective at ministry, they are going to attract a crowd."

The proposal doesn't just affect Christian churches, either.

"This affects synagogues, mosques, every house of worship," Stewart said. "They are trying to say this is for all nonprofit assembly, but interestingly it is not for schools or anything commercial. In other words, it doesn't apply to anything they would get tax income from."

Back

Republicans Demand Vote on 'Holly's Law'

Mar. 29 2006 Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor

House Republicans are demanding quick action on proposed legislation that would force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to withdraw approval of the abortion drug RU-486.

The bill, H.R. 1079, is called Holly's Law, named after 18-year-old Holly Patterson of California. She died of infection in 2003 after taking RU-486.

Earlier this month, two more deaths were linked to RU-486, bringing the U.S. death toll for medication abortions to 7.

A group of House Republicans wants the FDA to pull RU-486 off the market, pending a thorough review of the drug and how it was approved. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) has accused the Clinton administration of rushing approval of the drug for political purposes -- and ignoring safety concerns in the process.

Republican lawmakers are holding a press conference on Wednesday, hoping the publicity will help them bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.

Even the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has expressed concern about the deaths of women who took RU-486.

In a statement on its website two weeks ago, Vanessa Cullins, Planned Parenthood's vice president for medical affairs, said the organization was "seeking additional information" about the two most recent deaths linked to RU-486.

"At this time, none of those deaths have been directly attributed to mifepristone," said Cullins, a physician. But, she added, "Due to health concerns about infection rates and adverse events, we are updating our medical protocol for medication abortion."

Planned Parenthood said it will no longer administer misoprostol vaginally, but instead will give it orally. (Misoprostol is the second drug in the two-drug RU-486 abortion regimen).

Putting the situation in "context," Planned Parenthood also noted that since RU-486 was approved by the FDA in September 2000, 560,000 medication abortions have taken place in the U.S., and seven women who were taking the drug died.

Republican lawmakers attending Wednesday's press conference include Reps. Chris Smith, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Mike Pence of Indiana, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Trent Franks of Arizona, and Jean Schmidt of Ohio.

Back

San Francisco Jeers Teenage Christians

Mar. 27 2006 Citizen Link

The City by the Bay is fast becoming America's most anti-religious and bigoted city.

For the second time in as many weeks, San Francisco was downright unfriendly to Christians.

This time, it was teenagers. More than 25,000 evangelical Christian teens met in San Francisco on Friday and Saturday for a two-day rally at AT&T Park. The youth rally, Teen Mania's "Battle Cry for a Generation," focused on the sexualization of culture -- and encouraged teens to stand for virtue.

Apparently that message was so repugnant to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that it passed a resolution condemning the Christian youth rally as an "act of provocation." The supervisors also called it an "anti-gay, anti-choice organization" that "aimed to negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Assemblyman Mark Leno, the homosexual activist who represents San Francisco in the California Assembly, also told an audience of gays protesting the meeting that the "fundamentalist" teens were "loud," "obnoxious" and "disgusting" and "should get out of San Francisco."

Teen Mania leader Ron Luce said this was the first time one of his rallies has been officially condemned.

Ron Luce, founder of Teen Mania, Garden Valley Texas, encourages teens to stand firm in their faith and reject the negative influences of pop culture.

But this is hardly the first anti-religious act to take place in a city named for St. Francis of Assisi. Just last week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the Roman Catholic Church as a "foreign power" and telling San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer to flout the Vatican and support homosexual adoption. The archbishop declined to do so.

(LifeSiteNews.com) – Battle Cry for a Generation is a Christian evangelization project started by a young Texas minister working against the degeneration of modern popular culture and its effects on young people. The group says that a “stealthy enemy” has corrupted the youth of America with a highly sexualized media and corporate culture that contributes to underage sex, drug use and suicide.

“Corporations, media conglomerates and purveyors of popular culture have spent billions to seduce and enslave our youth,” the group’s website says.

Battle Cry has organized a series of rallies around the US that feature rock music bands with a Christian message and speeches intended to inspire teenagers to “retake” the culture. The Group’s next stop is Detroit, April 7-8.

Back

The great San Francisco Family Exodus

Mar. 23 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

"There's a quality of imagination that's very important for the spirit and the soul of the city to maintain. Children bring that to a city. A city without children has no future." That was San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom (D). I could not have said it better myself.

Mayor Newsom is concerned that San Francisco is losing, no, hemorrhaging families with children. Black families with children are leading the exodus, with the number of black children declining 45 percent from 1990 to 2000. An additional 15 percent left from 2000 to 2004. San Francisco now has fewer than 10,000 black children. White families are not far behind. From 2000 to 2004, the number of black children declined in eight major cities of the Pacific coast, the number of white children declined in seven of them.

Mayor Newsom is responding with a number of tried and failed liberal policy initiatives, including universal pre-school: 'this would only separate children from their parents earlier and give liberal educators more opportunity to indoctrinate them.' Mayor Newsom, who performed illegal marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, seems to understand the futility of his own efforts. "And still they leave," he said resignedly. Is it any wonder?

Back

Dutch Consider Legalizing Infanticide echoed by US Senator Hillary Clinton

Mar. 29 2006 Prophecy News Watch

Infanticide used to be taboo in the Western world. But the government of the Netherlands is currently considering what many consider to be unthinkable – the creation of legal standards for pediatric euthanasia.

According to the London Times, a committee will soon be set up to regulate the practice, which doctors have quietly been performing for years in the Netherlands. Shockingly, Dutch politicians have not faced the wrath of many domestic or foreign critics.

Only Italian Parliamentary Affairs minister Carlo Giovanardi has created a ripple of continental dissent to the new policy. "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas," he told an Italian radio program last week, "are re-emerging in Euope via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkeende was quick to react, saying the Nazi comparison was "unacceptable" and assuring his fellow Dutchmen that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi maintained Giovanardi spoke only for himself, not the Italian government. Thus far, Giovanardi has refused to back down from his comparison.

The commission will likely issue regulations similar to the Groningen Protocol, a document drawn up in 2004 by the Groningen University Medical Center to establish internal guidelines for its euthanasia program that terminated the lives of 22 disabled newborns from 1997 to 2004.

According to Colleen Campbell, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Groningen Protocol declared a newborn subject to euthanasia if "his diagnosis and prognosis are 'certain,' his suffering is 'hopeless and unbearable,' and his qualify of life is 'very poor,' according to the child's parents and 'at least one independent doctor.'"

Though infant euthanasia is not yet a political issue in the United States, the arguments made by Dutch defenders of "compassionate" infanticide were echoed by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in floor debate over a federal ban on partial-birth abortions in 2003.

Clinton took issue with visual aids provided by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.. The visual aids, she said, were "deceptive" because they showed a "perfectly formed" fetus. "Where are the swollen heads?" she asked while arguing in favor of legal partial-birth abortions, "Where are the charts with fetuses with vital organs such as the heart and the lungs growing outside the body?"

In the end, Clinton said, she could not support Santorum's legislation because it did not distinguish between healthy babies and those with "serious life-threatening abnormalities."

For his part, Sen. Santorum said he could not make such a distinction.
"What the senator from New York is asking me to do," Santorum said, "is separate those who are somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put them somewhat a peg below protection than the perfect child."

"No," he continued, "I do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are prefect, this cannot happen to you, but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The senator is right. I do not."

Back

S.D. Abortion Ban Sponsors Braced for Counterattack

Mar. 27 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor

The pro-abortion crowd is intent on demolishing South Dakota's ban on all forms of abortion. But the law's backers say it did not spring up on a whim — and it won't go down easily.

Abortion activists have launched their expected attack on South Dakota's abortion ban, a law widely considered a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 33 years ago.

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, a pro-abortion group, announced plans last week to place the issue before voters on the November ballot. The group needs to get 16,000 valid signatures for a referendum to overturn the law.

In addition, Planned Parenthood, the state's largest abortion provider, is expected to launch a legal challenge in the federal courts soon.

At the same time, a South Dakota Indian tribe, the Oglala Sioux, said last week it will open an abortion clinic on tribal lands, one which would not be subject to the ban because of Indian sovereignty.

These actions are hardly surprising. When Gov. Mike Rounds signed the bill into law in February, he issued a written statement saying he expected it to be tied up in court for years and not take effect at all unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," Rounds said. "The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

Rep. Roger Hunt, the prime sponsor of House Bill 1215, said South Dakota is prepared for the pro-abortion assault.

He said the Mt. Rushmore State didn't come to the point of banning all abortions — except if the mother's life is at stake — in a flash. There is a long history of passing pro-life legislation.

"We have, since the early 1990s, been pretty aggressive in enacting legislation regulating abortion," Hunt told Citizen Link. "For example, requiring that before a minor can have an abortion her parents must be given notification.

"We've dealt with informed consent to ensure that abortion doctors are properly informing (women) of all the risks and post-abortion problems among all the other matters that should normally be contained in an informed-consent type proceeding. We've also enacted legislation which created rights for unborn children, in the sense that they can be victims of crimes."

With that history, Hunt said lawmakers decided to do some homework. They created a 17-member task force to study the issue of abortion.

"We know more a lot more now" about the medical and scientific issues surrounding abortion, Hunt said, than the Supreme Court did in 1973, when it ruled in Roe v. Wade.

"The medical and scientific evidence for protecting unborn children is now simply overwhelming," he said. "When we're talking of unborn children, we're not just talking of some glob of tissue, we're talking of a separate human being, with DNA separate from the mother, with a separate gene system. The medical and scientific communities clearly established that unborn are children whose lives are being taken by the abortion process."

How did South Dakota's legislation come about? It was business as usual, according to Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, president of the South Dakota Senate, who was a prime supporter of this year's bill.

"I wouldn't call it an unusual step," he told Citizen Link. "I think for those of us in South Dakota, in the Legislature at least, it's been hard to understand or appreciate all the national attention because we passed almost the same bill two years ago, and have all stood for election since then."

Schoenbeck said two years ago, he co-sponsored a very similar bill — which passed but was vetoed by Rounds for technical reasons.

"We decided it was time to have this discussion in South Dakota," Schoenbeck explained. "We understood it would end up eventually being challenged in the courts and would hopefully lead, through the course of those appeals, to a national decision."

John Paulton, director of family policy councils for Focus on the Family Action, headed the South Dakota Family Policy Council for eight years. He said it took years for the Legislature to come to the point of even considering pro-life legislation.

South Dakota's success on pro-life legislation can be reproduced in other states, he said, but it will take time to develop a pro-life consensus.

"Get as organized as you can," he advised. "Get as big of an army as you can. And speak out. You don't always have to win to be successful."

You may start out with a bill that doesn't go anywhere, Paulton said, but don't let that stop you.

"Use that to raise the issue, to raise awareness in people and get them to speak out. Remember how the politicians voted come election time, and remind other pro-life people of that," he said.

"Most importantly, be persistent — year after year after year, if necessary. You may be surprised."

TAKE ACTION
No matter what state you live in, you can thank the pro-life South Dakota officials mentioned in this story for their courage in banning abortion in their state. Click each name below for contact information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form.

Gov. Mike Rounds

Rep. Roger Hunt

Sen. Lee Schoenbeck

Back

A New Marriage Poll Doesn't Tell Whole Story

Mar. 24 2006 staff reports Focus on the Family

Media failing to note that 60 percent of Americans still oppose allowing homosexuals to marry.

A national poll by the Pew Forum seems to indicate that Americans are weakening in their resolve to defend traditional marriage.

The poll reports that in February 2004, the month Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, 63 percent of Americans opposed such arrangements. Today, that number is 51 percent.

The Massachusetts decision and gay marriages allowed during the same month in defiance of California state law by the rogue mayor of San Francisco certainly bolstered opposition. But the same Pew poll also finds only four in 10 support gay marriage, a fact conveniently omitted in most media accounts.

Matt Daniels, director of the Alliance for Marriage, said the poll results aren't really an accurate reflection of Americans' attitudes.

"We've seen routinely with these polls that what people will say is at least 10 percentage points different from what they do when they go to the voting booth," he told Family News in Focus.

Apparently even gay lobbyists doubt the polls, he added, noting that there must be some reason they are fighting so hard to legalize same-sex marriage in the courts.

"There's an inherent contradiction between the lawsuits that are seeking to strike down our laws on marriage," he said, "and this constant claim we hear in the media that the American public is moving in the direction of embracing so-called same-sex marriage."

But Caleb H. Price, a social research analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the battle is far from won.

"As younger kids come of age and start to participate in the political process," he explained, "they're much more liberal in their views on the issue of homosexuality."

Pro-family organizations are fighting furiously to preserve traditional marriage. Price said it's up to Christians to tip the scales.

"Fundamentally, this is a spiritual issue," he said. "It's a matter of changing hearts one by one."

Several upcoming events could fuel opposition to same-sex marriage, though. The state Supreme Court of Washington is expected to rule on gay marriage and the same battle is just starting in Connecticut courts.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about how you can support the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, to ensure that traditional marriage in not redefined by radical courts, visit the CitizenLink Web site.

Back

Ohio Court ruled against Abused Women and Children because of the States Marriage Amendment

Mar. 28 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

An Ohio Appeals Court ruled Friday that the state's domestic violence law could not be enforced--because the state has adopted a Marriage Amendment. The Appeals Court said that a woman charged with beating up her live-in boyfriend could not be prosecuted because Ohio voters had denied marital status to non-married. This is the latest, hare-brained attempt to stop states from adopting Marriage Amendments. This strained ruling is only one of 12 appellate courts in Ohio, so their absurd reading of the domestic violence law and the Marriage Amendment is not likely to stand. Judge Mary Donovan dissented from the opinion arguing that the majority's notion of "quasi-marriage" has no more of a basis in Ohio law than "quasi-pregnancy" or "quasi-divorce". Good for her! In this case, the abuse victim was a man, but the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women and children. This legal maneuver shows that liberals are even willing to throw women and children off the sled--just to appease the homosexual lobby.

Back

Who will Ultimately Decide America's Public Policy?

Mar. 24 2006 Gary Bauer American Values

In a story headlined, “Same-sex Marriage Battles Escalate,” USA Today picked up on a point I have been stressing for years – that the militant homosexual movement, in an effort to force its “morality” on the American people, has adopted the most undemocratic method of changing public policy by waging a massive campaign with well-placed, well-timed and well-financed lawsuits in the courts. That is the way liberalism has advanced most of its agenda for decades.

Whether the issue is abortion-on-demand, the assault on religious liberty, or redefining the meaning of marriage, the Left has demonstrated utter disregard for the American people and our values by bypassing the electoral process. But that is why it is so important for men and women of faith to remain engaged.

We are not losing in the court of public opinion, and it is through the political process that we can eventually restore order to our courts by appointing and confirming strict constructionist judges who will resist the temptation to legislate from the bench.

Back

Spirituality May Be Popular in America but 76 Million Adults Never Attend Church

Mar. 20 2006 the Barna Group

Ventura, CA - Marketers devote billions of dollars to penetrating the Baby Boomer market – the generation of 77 million individuals that populate the nation. There is another market segment equally as large that is of interest to the faith community: the 76 million adults who regularly avoid going to church.

A new report based on its annual tracking survey by The Barna Group reveals that one-third of the adult population (34%) has not attended any type of church service or activity, other than a special event such as a funeral or wedding, during the past six months.

The Barna report described this “un-churched” population in relation to its spiritual and demographic background.

The Religious Profile of the Un-Churched

Citing past research that discovered most un-Churched adults were formerly churched, the new study indicates that six out of ten un-Churched people (62%) consider themselves to be Christian, 4% say they are Jewish, 4% are associated with an eastern religion, and 24% say they are atheist. Denominationally, the largest share of un-Churched adults is made up of lapsed Catholics: almost three out of every ten un-Churched people (29%) associate with Catholicism. One out of every five (18%) say they are Baptist.

In the eyes of these individuals, absence from church life does not indicate a lack of commitment to the Christian faith. Three out of four un-Churched adults who consider themselves to be Christian (77%) contend that they are either absolutely or moderately committed to the Christian faith.

Millions of un-Churched adults engage in spiritual activity during a typical week. For instance, nearly two-thirds (62%) pray to God, one-fifth (20%) read from the Bible, and 5% participate in a small group that meets in someone’s home for Bible study, prayer or Christian fellowship.

The aggregate numbers of the un-Churched are not as clean-cut as they used to be, however, one out of every eight un-Churched adults (13%) is involved in a house church at least once a month, with another 15% involved in a house church less frequently. In the survey, these house church participants stated that they had not attended a “Christian church service or event” during the past six months, despite having attended numerous house church meetings during that period.

Un-Churched Possess A Variety of Beliefs

Adults disassociated with a conventional church have a wide range of beliefs, some of which are biblical in nature. Some of the perspectives held by half or more of the un-Churched population, either strongly or moderately, include the following:

50% agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches.
66% agree that their religious faith is very important in their life today.
64% contend that Satan is not a living being but is just a symbol of evil.
62% believe that a good person can earn eternal salvation
51% believe that Jesus Christ sinned while He lived on earth.
61% say their single, most important purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul.
55% argue that they are totally committed to having a deeper relationship with God and will do whatever it takes to get and maintain that relationship.
66% say they are completely committed to making the world, and other people’s lives, better.

The Barna Group survey noted that one out of every five un-Churched adults (21%) is born again Christians. However, only 4% of un-churched adults possess a biblical worldview.

George Barna, who directed the study, also pointed out that a minority of un-Churched adults has a biblical view of God. In addition, less than one out of five say that involvement in a community of faith is necessary to become a mature and complete person. Interestingly, nearly one-quarter of the un-Churched (23%) say that a person’s faith in God is meant to be developed mainly through involvement in a local church.

Demographic Profile

As has been the pattern throughout the two decades that Barna has been tracking religious belief and behavior in the U.S., men represent the majority of un-churched adults (55%). However, during the past decade there has been a significant increase in the percentage of women who avoid church activity.

The un-churched rate is highest in the Northeast (40%) and West (43%). It is also more common among single adults (43%) than married adults (28%). People groups with abnormally high levels of church avoidance include Asians (56%) and those who consider themselves to be “mostly liberal” on social and political issues (51%).

Back

Georgia Making a move on illegal immigration

Mar. 26 2006 Jeff Emanuel Townhall.com

The "most comprehensive illegal immigration proposal ever to come before the Georgia Legislature" made it out of the Georgia state Senate this month when it was approved by a 40-13 vote of the 56-member body. Supporters hope that other states will follow Georgia’s lead and that this legislature could be the beginning of an immigration-reform movement across the nation. The House is expected to pass the bill and Governor Sonny Perdue will likely sign it into law, but the all-inclusive measure is sure to spark a major courtroom showdown in the near future.

Senate Bill 529, known as the "Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act" is a much-needed response to the ever-increasing number of illegal immigrants in Georgia who benefit from the state's taxpayer-supported programs while avoiding paying into the system. Nobody seems to be able to make an accurate estimate; the number is often listed as "between 250,000 and 800,000"—a margin of error which is so large that it provides an excellent illustration of the problem itself. A population can only support so many non-productive beneficiaries of goods and services, and the swelling underclass of illegal immigrants is straining Georgia’s state infrastructure to a point at which further inaction would be extremely detrimental to the state’s economy and society.

"If this bill in its present form makes it into law, it will be the strongest [state immigration] law in America," said state Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), one of the bill's sponsors. SB 529, which was a no-brainer to pass in an election year when almost 80% of Georgians want this issue addressed, would "prohibit adult illegal immigrants from receiving many taxpayer-funded benefits, financially penalize private employers who hire illegals, require employers with public contracts to verify that their workers are in the country legally, and crack down on human trafficking." It would not, however, "prohibit the children of illegal immigrants from attending public school, nor would it deny them certain medical benefits, such as emergency medical care, prenatal care and immunizations"—benefits which have already been largely guaranteed by federal courts.

This measure’s passage has sparked controversy among student groups on the state’s more liberal university campuses. Various pro-illegal immigration groups have protested the measure, calling the legislation "troubling" and citing in large part the revocation of illegals’ current ability (which they often refer to as a "right") to pay in-state tuition rates at state universities (a difference of roughly $12,000 per year). "If you cut that, there’s no way they can go to school," said a Hispanic Student Association spokesman, who added the dire warning that "educational barriers will only create a negative economic cycle among the illegal immigrants."

Threats regarding the enforcement of our nation’s laws resulting in a cycle of economic depression aside, this legislation is, for the most part, a very positive step forward on the road to getting Georgia’s, and America’s, ballooning illegal immigration problem under control. The Compliance Act does not advocate deportation or other "inhuman" treatment of illegals, but rather encourages those who are here to make themselves known and to comply with the law, while discouraging those who are elsewhere from migrating to the state of Georgia in hopes of gaining an under-the-radar, illegally "free ride" through the state’s institutions and services—many of which are barely efficient enough to cater to legal, tax-paying citizens. Undocumented "students," for example, are by law illegal; therefore, it makes perfect sense to not guarantee them privileges like in-state tuition, which are reserved for citizens of the state.

The price America pays for being the strongest, most prosperous, and most free nation on earth is that people the world over are constantly striving to immigrate here. A microcosm of that is that many of those people attempt to accelerate their relocation here by doing so outside of the law. We as American conservatives, who pride ourselves on living in a "nation of laws," must take care to differentiate between those in this country who are law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants, and those whose presence is a violation of law.

There will always be a demand for low-wage, high-efficiency, unskilled labor, which immigrants today so readily provide. As President Bush said this week: if an "American won't do a job and you can find somebody who will do the job, they ought to be allowed to do it legally." While we American conservatives are, and should be, 100% for immigration, we are, and must be, 100% for the law as well. This has always been a nation of immigrants; our history as a "melting pot" is a large part of what has made us the great nation we are today. However, even more importantly in this modern age of terrorism than ever before, it cannot—and must not—be too much to ask that those who come to this country, be it for the lifestyle, the opportunities, the freedom, or the work, do so legally, and with a full disclosure of their intentions.

Quoteworthy: "Phoenix was also the site of a massive march by illegal aliens who walked off the job Friday to protest immigration reform. President Bush is dismayed. He hadn't figured on Americans getting a chance to take the jobs illegal aliens refuse to do." —Argus Hamilton

Back

NCBCPS Applauds Georgia Legislation Calling for Bible to be Taught in Public Schools

Mar. 27 2006 Christian Wire Service

GREENSBORO, NC, The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) applauds the Georgia state legislature’s overwhelming passage of a bill calling for the Bible to be taught in Georgia’s public schools.

"We are very pleased that the state legislature decided properly to determine that the Old and New Testaments were to be the text of any elective Bible curriculum taught in Georgia public schools," said Elizabeth Ridenour, President of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. "It is important the Bible be used as the main textbook in order that the Bible is taught from a position of neutrality in accordance with the Constitution. A textbook about the Bible could be written from a biased worldview, but if the Bible is used as the text, students can study the original source, and draw their own conclusions."

Representatives voting for SB 79, which passed the House 151-7 and the Senate 50-1, say the legislation would withstand a court challenge because it treats the Bible as an educational supplement. Under the bill, the Old Testament and New Testament would be the primary text for each class and the local school board would decide which version of the text to use. Students would also have the option to use a different version of the text. The bill also requires that the courses should be taught "in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students."

A rival Democratic bill called for "nonsectarian, non- religious academic study" of the Bible through a textbook called The Bible and Its Influence, which is published by the Virginia-based Bible Literacy Project (BLP).

Republican State Senator Eric Johnson said his Democratic colleagues were "trying to put a wolf in sheep's clothing" with the rival legislation. "Whether there's a national memo from the Democratic Party to try and act like there's more faith on their side of the aisle, I don't know," Johnson said, "but what they're saying in Georgia is they're proposing to teach the Bible, but they won't use the Bible as a text."

"In the end, political agendas were put aside to advance the Bible being taught in the Georgia public schools, and it will be the textbook for the class— and that’s a victory for all students who would take the elective course," Ridenour said.

Back

UN's Sham so Ugly even the New York Times Sees It

Mar. 15 2006 Tony Perkins Family research Council

Yes, even The New York Times recognizes that the new UN Human Rights Council is "an ugly sham." The UN General Assembly today voted 170-4 (with 3 abstentions) to create the new body to replace the thoroughly discredited UN Human Rights Commission. The UN Commission--which counted as voting members such gross violators as Cuba, Libya, and Zimbabwe--could hardly be worse. But this new UN Human Rights Council actually is worse. Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.) chairs the House Human Rights Committee. Smith says "the victims of human rights [violations] around the world deserve better than this new, egregiously flawed council." Smith says that the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of the old commission will now continue unchecked on this new Council unless wholesale reforms--such as those proposed by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton--are adopted. The Open Society Institute of George Soros should be pleased. The billionaire who funds Moveon.org and a host of hate-Bush ads advocated this new UN Council in a Washington Post ad this morning. But if you really care about human rights--and not such invented rights as abortion, suicide, and drug use--you should be on alert. In the UN house of mirrors, human rights are not what they seem.

Back

Legal Group Files Second Religious Freedom Suit Against Plano Schools

Mar. 28 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press

A Texas-based legal organization has filed its second federal lawsuit against a public school district accused of trampling the constitutional rights of Christian students.

Earlier this year, members of the Christian Bible study group known as Students Witn