BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #84 05/19/2006

Click on an article to view  OR just scroll through the Articles:

1. SENATE BILL DISGUISES VAST INCREASE IN LEGAL IMMIGRATION!

2. GOP Could Lose Congress, White House on Immigration

3. President Bush Addressed the Nation Monday Night and Renewed His Push for Amnesty

4. An Open Letter to America about Failed Leadership, on the Eve of Bad Immigration Policy

5. The traditional definition of marriage is under attack

6. Judge Strikes Down Voter-Approved Georgia Gay-‘Marriage’ Ban

7. U.S. Senate to Vote on Homosexual Marriage June 6

8. Recap: Many States Continue Fighting to Outlaw Abortion

9. Da Vinci Debut Insults 85 Million Americans

10. Poll Shows Reading the Da Vinci Code Changes Beliefs

11. Discrediting faith under the Guise of fiction

12. Movie; the 'Da Vinci Code' Bombs With Critics

13. Free Software Helps Protect Kids from Pornography and Other Online Dangers

14. Brownback and Stevens: Two Approaches to Decency

15. Broadcast-Decency Bill Sponsor Promised Vote

16. Fears Expressed Over Texas' Proposed Change in Selecting School Material

17. Will California Senate Textbooks Measure S.B. 1437 throw Mom and Dad from the train?

18. New Initiative Links Parents to Christian Schools: DiscoverChristianSchools.com

19. Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web

20. More Churches Upgrading Technology to Reach Cyber-Savvy Masses

21. Support for 'Net Neutrality' to Prevent Giant Phone and Cable Companies from Discriminating Against Web Sites

22. NASA Abandons Attempt to Censor National Day of Prayer Announcement

23. CWA Cheers Defeat of .XXX Domain

24. Casinos do Increase Crime

25. Walk to Reclaim America Crosses he 2000 Mile Benchmark

26. Jordan archeological site may be the biblical city of Sodom

27. Ford Makes Historic Move in Support of Groups Pushing Homosexual Marriage

28. Majority of Ford Shareholders Turn Away Proposal to Amend Non-Discrimination Policy but Proposal Supporters Encouraged by 5% Vote Favoring It

SENATE BILL DISGUISES VAST INCREASE IN LEGAL IMMIGRATION

May 16, 2006 Maggie Gallagher

OK, it was a good speech, a great speech, even right from the beginning President Bush struck exactly the right note. "America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time." This is what most Americans, in our hearts, want to believe. Immigrants? si! - Illegal immigration? NO!.

Why does this immigration issue obsess me so? I think the answer is the fundamental dishonesty of the debate.

The Senate bill, as it stands, contains a vast unacknowledged increase in legal immigration disguised as a guest worker bill. "Guest workers" under the Senate version would mostly have a right to convert to legal immigrant status after a number of years. Legal immigrants are automatically eligible for citizenship status. Meanwhile, each legal immigrant obtains new rights to bring spouses, children, and even parents to the United States under current law.

A new analysis by the Heritage Foundation suggests that the net result of the Senate provision would be a vast increase in legal immigration, to the tune of 103 million new legal immigrants over the next 20 years. This is in itself hard to fathom. We are good at assimilating immigrants, but surely there is a limit: When one out of three Americans is a legal immigrant that is likely to swamp our existing institutions and national identity. But of course, legal immigration is not the whole story. Every enclave of legal immigrants becomes an informal haven for relatives and friends who come illegally.

The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is the report notes, a mid-level estimate. "If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate permitted by the bill, 20 percent per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next 20 years would be 193 million," the report notes. And that is just the legal immigration stream.

"If enacted," the Heritage report concludes, "CIRA (the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. ... The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history."

The Senate bill, the report notes, "would transform the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today."

People who support this should have the guts to honestly ask the American people to triple or quintuple the rate of legal immigration. The one thing we know about guest worker programs from the European experience is that the workers do not go home. Increasing legal immigration may be a good thing in itself, but it cannot reduce the trend of illegal immigration, unless we decide to simply open the borders to every person who wants to come here.

Here's my even deeper problem: President Bush has had six years to secure the border, and he has not, by his own acknowledgment, done so. Words, in such a circumstance, will not satisfy. Secure the borders first, and then we can debate how much more new immigration is in the American interest.

Actions on this will speak much louder than the president's words.

Quoteworthy: "Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country." -- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 25, 21 December 1787)

Back

GOP Could Lose Congress, White House on Immigration

May 17, 2006 Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

Many Republicans and some media outlets are praising the immigration proposals outlined by President Bush. But some conservative leaders warned Tuesday that the administration's insistence on a so-called "guest worker" program for illegal aliens could cost the GOP control of Congress later this year and that the alleged arrogance behind the proposal could put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

President Bush's plan, explained in a nationally televised speech Monday night, included a "guest worker" program for illegal aliens and the use of National Guard troops along the border until more Border Patrol agents can be trained and deployed.

Many Republican leaders complimented the president.

"He understands the issue possibly better than just about anyone given his experience as governor of Texas," Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-N.Y.) told the New York Sun.

"The President's plan is a serious and important first step in rebuilding the confidence of the American people that we can secure our border," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told The [Tennessee] Chattanoogan.

But Richard Viguerie -- the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, who is credited with creating the political direct mail industry that helps fund the conservative movement -- told Cybercast News Service what the president calls a "guest worker program," is just amnesty for illegal aliens, and that "conservatives feel that they have been insulted by the president.

"He may get his way, but he won't get it this year. He may get it next year because the conservatives will be so angry at the Republican leadership - starting with the president, but the congressional Republicans also - that I'd be surprised if many, many don't stay home, turning the congress over to the Democrats," Viguerie cautioned.

"And, of course, the Democrats, next year, would give the president what he wants because then they'll be able to govern America for the rest of the 21st Century [with the support of former illegal aliens who had become newly-legalized voters]."

In his "End of Day" daily email newsletter to supporters, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who now heads the "American Values" conservative advocacy group, summarized the reaction of his constituents to Bush's proposal.

"I understand the overnight 'snapshot' polling data on the president's proposal was pretty good, but I cannot say the same for the reaction of conservatives," Bauer wrote. "Your messages to me were overwhelmingly negative, suggesting you view this plan as little more than a 'dressed up amnesty' bill."

Steve Elliott, president of Grassfire.org, an online network of grassroots conservatives with more than one million participants, also believes support for the Bush proposal could cost Republicans in the short and long term.

"If the Senate chooses to resist the voice of the citizens of this country and pass an amnesty bill, there will be repercussions that I think will extend to November and beyond," Elliott predicted.

Viguerie rejected the notion that Democrats, if they regained control of Congress, could do more damage to the conservative agenda than a less-than-supportive president.

"We can't go through life living as if the 'boogey man' is going to get us, which is what the big-government, left-of-center Republicans are always saying," Viguerie said. "We're just sick of that, and I'm just tired of that, being treated like a child ... I've been hearing that all my life."

As for conservatives' ultimate 'boogey man' in the coming presidential election, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Viguerie rejects that threat, as well.

"We won't have lost this country if Hillary becomes president," Viguerie concluded. "It will be those who have betrayed and lied to their supporters. They will bear the responsibility, not those who were true to their principles."

Bush 'A.W.O.L.' on conservative agenda

President Bush continues to insist that his "guest worker" proposal does not offer amnesty to illegal aliens.

"[W]e must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already," the president said. "They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it."

Elliott accused Bush of exhibiting a trait more commonly associated with former President Bill Clinton.

"They're playing with the language," Elliott said, recalling President Clinton's famous quote debating the meaning of the word "is."

"Amnesty is any program that grants legal status to people who are here illegally, whether that's citizenship or a guest worker program, that's amnesty," Elliott insisted. "That's what the American people call amnesty and the American people oppose amnesty."

Viguerie believes President Bush's words and actions on the immigration issue are symptomatic of a larger problem in the administration.

From a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, to limiting the power of the federal government over religious institutions, to overturning the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision legalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy, Viguerie feels Bush has abandoned the conservative agenda.

"Where is he? He's A.W.O.L. in this," Viguerie said. "Where are the evangelicals in this administration? Where are the religious right types?

"This president has surrounded himself with long-term, friendly, big-business types," Viguerie continued. "I just don't think he's done anything except what his father did, which was give us lip service."

Conservatives, Viguerie argued, must shift their focus from changing the minds of Republican leaders to replacing them with individuals who share, and will fight for conservative ideals.

"It's just time that conservatives focus on building the conservative movement and taking over the Republican Party from those who have hijacked it," Viguerie said. "We've done it before and we can do it again."

Back

President Bush Addressed the Nation Monday Night and Renewed His Push for Amnesty

May 10 2006 Federation for American Immigration Reform

Our immigration crisis has been boiling over for years now-at its fastest pace under President Bush's Administration. Now, after six long years of inaction, the President took 17 minutes to campaign for his political legacy and looked directly into the camera to show that he is serious about border security. Sitting in the Oval Office, the President looked right at the American people and did his best to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public and conservative members of his own party. But when put into perspective, the President's speech shows he only intends to offer a token gesture to border security while renewing his push for Congress to adopt a massive guest worker amnesty program.

The President used his Oscar moment by stating he finally wants to address the "basic responsibility of a sovereign nation" and secure the nation's borders. The President called for the deployment of 6,000 National Guard members to our southern border. While under normal circumstances this might be considered an improvement, the President from the outset sought to undermine their success. The National Guard troops will not carry weapons and will not be permitted to assist in apprehensions or detainment. In other words, they might as well join the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Thank you Mr. President.

Not only will the National Guard be limited to a support role, President Bush stated that the National Guard on the southern border will only be "temporary." Whether this is temporary until the Senate passes its massive guest worker amnesty (S.2611) or temporary until the elections of November 7, 2006 is still to be determined. The President has miscalculated the American public yet again. Border security is not something the American people want managed for political gain; they want the borders secured in fact and immigration laws enforced in reality.

Previewing the President's speech, Stephen Hadley, the President's national security advisor, stated: "The President is looking to do everything he can to secure the border. It's what the American people want." Apparently, this token gesture is all the President can do to secure the border. The President said his administration has been working to end the program of catch and release, but the Washington Post reported yesterday that tens of thousands of captured non-Mexicans are still being released into the country because there is no place to detain them.

New Report: The Senate’s Massive Guest Worker and Amnesty Bill “Will Be the Largest Expansion of the Welfare State in 35 Years”

Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, this week S.2611). His findings bring home the reality and detrimental impacts of the U.S. Senate's actions.

• S.2611 would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years.

• S.2611 would allow between 103 million and 200 million people to immigrate to this country over the next 20 years. Estimating conservatively, this would increase the United States' population by at least one-third. Current law would only allow for 19 million people to immigrate over the next 20 years.

• Net cost to the federal government in benefits to this large growth in population would be $16 billion per year. As the legal immigration continues to rise after the enactment of S.2611, the cost to the federal government for benefits could reach $30 billion per year or more.

• S.2611 would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.

Quoteworthy: "Apparently the American establishment has finally taken to heart the teaching of Karl Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. America should house and feed and educate and provide health care and employ the whole world according to our ability. And surely the people of the world will provide the need. Why not? After all, it is just dumb luck that each of us finds ourselves in God-blessed America. Well, if we keep going at this rate we will soon run out of luck. But apparently we will never run out of dumb." —Tony Blankley

Back

An Open Letter to America about Failed Leadership, on the Eve of Bad Immigration Policy

May 14 2006 Christian Newswire

The following is an open letter from Steven T. Voigt, Foundations of Law PAC Executive Director:

PHILADELPHIA, On the eve of the President’s speech on illegal immigration and facing the imminent reincarnation of the Senate’s three-tiered amnesty proposal, I write to you again on this important issue. Illegal immigration is indeed the topic of the day, but illegal immigration is but a symptom of the greater issue we face – a crisis of failed leadership on both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

We are a good-hearted and trusting people. Only a few short years ago, as the seat of power of Congress and the White House changed hands, we looked to the future as one of promise. We lifted our heads to the horizon with optimism.

We believed that – at long last – America was on the right path, and we trusted in our elected leaders to take us down the road with humble confidence. Our leaders would surely stand tall for our nation. They would protect the Constitution. They would fight for traditional family values. They would lessen government bureaucracy and allow capitalism to shine. They would curtail the overreaching judiciary and take legislative decisions out of the courtroom and return them to our communities. They would uphold the rule of law, and they would protect our sovereignty. They would rally the international community behind our leadership. The future was indeed bright.

Today, through nothing we have done except to trust in the ballot box, we find ourselves betrayed – and mired in much the same spot as we stood several years ago, with dark clouds shrouding the horizon that we once gazed on with such promise. Our optimism of years past is muted, and we are left with frustration and disappointment in our leaders.

Friends, mediocrity may be fine in some parts of the world – but not here in America. Not in business. Not in schools. Not in science. Not in technology. Not in our values. And mediocrity shouldn’t be tolerated in government, either. We are America. We expect better. We deserve the best.

I write today to tell you that the bright horizon does remain; it is merely veiled behind a few dark clouds. But you have done nothing to dim this nation’s future. Your good hearts still fuel the fires of this nation’s hope, and they will forevermore. The dreams remain, but every leader on both sides of the aisle in the Senate must share the blame for failing to lead us on the bright path to the horizon. They have failed and abused our trust.

With the illegal alien crisis, the Senate continues to defy the will of the American people. Simply put, our Senators lack the guts to secure the border, to punish businesses that employ foreigners illegally, to uphold and enforce the rule of law and immigration procedures, and to reject outright any reward of amnesty for those who choose to evade legal processes. Instead, they seem only capable of self- aggrandizing speeches and pandering slogans that feed their egos.

Sadly, our President also seems to be on the wrong side of this issue, and no amount of feel-good phraseology in his Monday night speech will lessen this betrayal of the American mandate. Apparently, the only leaders who stand opposed to bad policy on illegal aliens are many members of the House of Representatives, who understand – rightly – that border security must be a priority.

Nevertheless, while the Senate’s failure on illegal immigration is inexcusable and apparent, it is really a failure on a much larger scale – a failure to fight for and achieve progress regarding just about every issue that put these individuals in office.

This past Friday as I walked to work in Center City Philadelphia and passed two construction sites, I considered how the ineptitude of our leaders with the illegal alien crisis will impact America. As I approached my office building, to my left, workers in harnesses bolted steel beams together on the city’s next skyscraper. After I turned to the right and walked one block, I passed bulldozers and a second hard hat crew laying new asphalt on a road in William Penn’s grid. These men and women would be a little embarrassed to hear it, and they would never agree with their humble natures, but they are in truth all heroes. Nobles all, these individuals, along with most of us, clock in every day of every week to put bread on the table for their families, and in so doing, represent what is best in America.

In recent weeks, as the illegal alien crisis has come to the fore, time and again, I listened to wealthy, elite, out-of-touch Capitol Hill politicians pay lip service to these construction workers and others in the middle class, and then in the next breath, cater to the illegal aliens who have subverted our immigration laws.

Believe me when I tell you, if the politicians on Capitol Hill award amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens who have flouted our laws, in only a few short years those construction workers that I passed on my way to my office – individuals who are raising families with solid wage jobs – will be replaced by cheap, exploitable labor from a bloated labor pool, with all of the added profit going into the pockets of only a handful of corporate fat cats. Experts and commentators have documented repeated instances of such displacement and depressed wages in regions where illegal immigration is particularly excessive, and this will be the entirety of America if the Senate has its way.

Just once, I want to see America’s supposed advocates talk about and consider these Philadelphia construction workers, instead of pandering to the foreign illegals, who are poised to take their jobs and depress wages across the labor spectrum.

However, I am not holding my breath.

As retired Colonel Al Rodriguez recently stated, “when it comes to immigration policy, the United States Senate apparently doesn't speak for anyone, except the people who have broken our laws and cheap labor business interests.”1

Likewise, Ron Maxwell, the writer and director of “Gettysburg” and “Gods and Generals,” recently wrote, “It seems the overriding concern of most senators of both parties is for the illegal-immigrant population. Perhaps these senators should be reminded they are supposed to represent and defend American citizens, not foreign nationals, illegal aliens or indeed anyone else. Listening to the self-serving and pandering speeches, you'd think the senators were elected in Mexico or any other country on the globe except America.”2

While I pray for our leaders to turn their gaze back to the American people, the longer we tarry on this wayward path with failed leadership, the more I am beginning to believe that it is we who must turn our gaze from them.

I implore you, however, to never give up on our efforts. Since our leaders are failing us, we must redouble our efforts to make them listen. Please continue to call and email your Senators and Representatives and tell them that amnesty is wrong and border security must be a priority.

May God bless all of you and may God bless America.

Steven T. Voigt
Executive Director
Foundations of Law PAC

Back

The traditional definition of marriage is under attack

May 16 2006 Focus on the Family

Greetings from Colorado Springs! As you may know, the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) will be coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate in early June - just a few days from now - and we need your help to ensure that your senators vote to protect marriage.

As I write this, the traditional definition of marriage is under attack in state and federal courts in Nebraska, Michigan, California, Minnesota and Oklahoma. Moreover the Defense of Marriage law, 'as it currently exists, in Washington state' is under intense scrutiny, and we fully expect the debate to end in favor of same-sex unions. This is particularly troubling because, unlike Massachusetts where out-of-state couples are barred from acquiring marriage licenses, Washington has no residency requirement. It would only be a matter of time before states from coast to coast would face lawsuits filed on behalf of homosexual couples demanding recognition of the marriages they obtained in the Evergreen State.

The threat to marriage has never been more brazen, and as the debate intensifies, we must step up our efforts to defend the foundational institution of our nation. Already, we are daily confronted with the fact that traditional marriage in a given state or region is never more than one federal judge away from being declared unconstitutional, and of course, the U.S. Supreme Court represents the greatest concern. That very issue will be decided in coming months for future generations. It is our duty to make certain that the outcome is determined by the people and their representatives rather than unelected, unaccountable judges. Our answer is found in the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. We desperately need what the MPA will readily accomplish: the traditional definition of marriage placed beyond the reach of all judges - directly in the U.S. Constitution.

Please make every effort to get in touch with your senators and urge them to support the MPA. Do not assume that your senators will vote to protect marriage or that they understand the extent to which their constituents value this sacred institution. They need to hear from you as soon as possible. Contact information for your senators along with additional details on this subject are available in the Marriage Protection Amendment Action Center on our Citizen Link Web site.

Given the issues at stake, I trust you will take action on behalf of America. This is one matter we cannot afford to ignore, especially if we hope to bestow upon our children and grandchildren a nation that esteems the family. Thank you in advance for making your voice heard in defense of one-man, one-woman marriage. God bless you!

• The Marriage Protection Amendment will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prevent courts from imposing same-sex marriages or similar counterfeits.

• The text of the amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

• The Marriage Protection Amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate prior to being sent to the states for ratification. Three-fifths of the states must also approve for the amendment to be added to the U.S. Constitution.

Back

Judge Strikes Down Voter-Approved Georgia Gay-‘Marriage’ Ban

May 17 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell ruled Tuesday that Georgia's two-year-old ban on same-sex marriages violates the state's constitution.

The ballot proposition had been approved by Georgia's voters. But the ACLU and homosexual advocates rushed into court, claiming the initiative violated a provision that calls for ballot measures to confine themselves to a single subject. Well, it did confine itself to a single subject: preserving marriage! The ballot proposition did no more than strengthen the law as it was then understood.

Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) expressed his opposition to Judge Russell's ruling: "The people of Georgia knew exactly what they were doing when an overwhelming 76 percent voted in support of this constitutional amendment." What better illustration do we need that the federal Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) needs to be approved by the U.S. Senate? Judges will continue to trample on state and federal constitutions until they are effectively reined in.

Additional Resources
Judge Strikes Down GA Ban on Gay Marriage

Back

U.S. Senate to Vote on Homosexual Marriage June 6

May 15 2006 American Family Association

The most important vote in the Senate this year! The future of our children is at stake.

On June 6, the U.S. Senate will vote on the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Time is short! It is critical that you contact your senators and ask them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).

Once homosexual marriage is legal, our religious liberties will be stripped away. Even pro-homosexual marriage advocates agree with that statement. To understand how this will happen, please take time read Dr. Maggie Gallagher's very detailed and accurate article by clicking here. Print it out and give a copy to your pastor!

We expect Democratic senators to vote to kill the MPA. The public is not aware that the Democratic National Committee has given thousands of dollars to homosexual groups to help promote homosexual marriage.

The groups supporting homosexual marriage have activist judges waiting to make homosexual marriage legal. It is expected that the Washington state Supreme Court will rule homosexual marriage legal as soon as the elections are over. Some feel the ruling has already been made, but they will not release it until after the November elections. They don't want to hurt the pro-homosexual liberal nominees in the elections.

Only a constitutional amendment will stop homosexual marriage from becoming the law of the land.

Take Action: It is extremely important that you email your senators today, and get as many others as possible to do the same. Please, please forward this to your family and friends! Click here to send an email to your two senators.

Back

Recap: Many States Continue Fighting to Outlaw Abortion

May 8, 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

A recap of what's happening.

From South Dakota to Hawaii, state legislatures are looking at ways to place limits on abortion, from outright bans to trigger-mechanisms in case Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

South Dakota's Legislature voted to ban abortion earlier this year, with the only exception being when the life of the mother is in danger. Not surprisingly, that law is now caught up in the courts. Eleven other states, including Mississippi, Louisiana, Ohio and Kentucky have either banned the practice or have pending legislation to do so.

Meanwhile, six states have codified Roe, guaranteeing the right to abortion should the ruling ever be overturned: California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington. Hawaii has been dubbed the "abortion state" after the passage of a law eliminating of residency requirements and ending a ban on late-term abortions.

John Long, executive director of Hawaii Right to Life, said there is a certain amount of apathy among residents there.

"Until the church, that sleeping giant, wakes up," he said, "I think we're going to continue to lose battles here."

But Mississippi Sen. Alan Nunnelee told Family News in Focus he senses a growing optimism in his state.

"We feel empowered in Mississippi," he said. "We began to feel that empowerment following the Casey decision."

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld the right of states to place restrictions on abortion, including a 24-hour waiting period, a requirement that a minor inform a parent, and that women be fully informed about the procedure in advance.

Efforts to limit abortion in Mississippi have led to only one clinic being in operation in the state.

Others states have followed suit. Some, including Illinois, have trigger laws to ban the practice in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned.

David Christensen, director of government relations for the Family Research Council, explained that the end of Roe would simply return the issue to the states.

"There would be states that would continue to legalize abortion," he said, "but there would be other states that would be able to outlaw abortion."

Back

Da Vinci Debut Insults 85 Million Americans

May 18 2006 Christian Newswire

WASHINGTON, - The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), and Evangelical minister and president of the National Clergy Council in Washington, DC, representing thousands of church leaders from Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, released this statement today regarding the newly released film, “The Da Vinci Code.”

“With the debut of their film, The Da Vinci Code, film director Ron Howard and Sony Pictures will insult and deeply offend 85 million American Christians. Can anyone imagine the outcry had Ron Howard and Sony made a film based on The Protocols of Zion, a scurrilous attack on Jews and Judaism, or The Satanic Verses, for which author Salman Rushdie was accused of insulting Islam? I doubt it.

“Howard and Sony know that people of deep Christian faith will turn the other cheek, so they took the plunge and poured contempt on our faith, our traditions and our institutions; shame on Howard and Sony for their insensitivity, incivility and callous disregard for what is precious to so many of us. They’re no different than the boob who takes the Lord’s name in vain when he can’t get a Coke out of the dispensing machine.”

Back

Poll Shows Reading the Da Vinci Code Changes Beliefs

May 17, 2006 Citizen Link

The Opinion Research Business (ORB) found that when people read Dan Brown's fictional bestseller The Da Vinci Code, their beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church and about the life of Jesus Christ are likely to be altered, Reuters reported.

ORB interviewed more than 1,000 people in Britain and found that, of those who had read the book, 60 percent believed that Jesus had fathered children with Mary Magdalene — a claim with no historical basis.

The book also portrays the Catholic group Opus Dei as a murderous organization responsible for killing people to cover up church secrets. And, according to the ORB poll, people who read the book were four times more likely to think that to be true than those who had not.

Austin Ivereigh, press secretary to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, said the book and subsequent movie — being released Friday — have been advertised as a factual account of history, but nothing could be further from the truth.

"Our poll shows that for many, many people The Da Vinci Code is not just entertainment," he said. "An alarming number of people take its spurious claims very seriously, indeed."

Both Brown and Sony Pictures — the film company, that released the movie — present the book as though new truths were uncovered.

"They have encouraged people to take it seriously while hiding behind the claim that it is fiction," Ivereigh said. "Our poll shows they should take responsibility for their dishonesty and issue a health warning."

Stuart Shepard, managing editor of Citizen Link, is concerned that, a year from now, people may not remember that something they think they learned as truth came from a fictional film.

"It's easy to imagine someone restating the falsehoods of the movie, prefaced with the words, 'I remember hearing somewhere…,' " he said "The best defense against being misled is to have a solid foundation in what the Bible does and does not say, as well as knowledge of the history of the church."

Back

Discrediting faith under the Guise of fiction

May 17, 2006 Robert Norris Christian Coalition of America

The release Friday of the film version of Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code," and its prophesied status as a "blockbuster," once more brings to the forefront a story line that is a frontal assault upon the central truths of the Christian message.
    In the course of his story, Mr. Brown enables his readers to "discover" that the doctrine of the deity of Christ emerged, four centuries after his death, as a result of the political invention of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who aimed to create a new religious power he could control.
    Far from being divine, Jesus, according to "The Da Vinci Code," was human, which was proved by his marriage and his siring an heir whose line continues to the present. Also "exposed" is the carefully concealed historical fact that the church had its origin in a battle between the sexes: Jesus' intent, Mr. Brown writes, was for his followers to be led by his daughter after his crucifixion. This desire, however, was thwarted by the ambition and design of Peter, who was determined to impress male dominance upon any future church.
    The Bible and the Gospel each come in for considerable reinterpretation in "The Da Vinci Code" and ultimately are seen as further creations of the devious Constantine.
    A startling reality to emerge amidst the controversy that surrounds the book is that our society, one of the most sophisticated in history, can be so gullible. The book's content is a cocktail in which some basic historical facts are blended with considerably more half-truths, and mixed up with substantial amounts of author-acknowledged "make-believe."
    Yet the public not only continues to buy "The Da Vinci Code," but some repeat as "fact" its content, using the book's assertions to challenge orthodox Christian belief. The deliberate gullibility of a society that wants to believe and promulgate acknowledged and exposed fabrication raises profound questions about the nature of faith today. Many people, it seems, are looking for a new form of religious faith, and want a spirituality that has removed the dogma of the past. To gain this, they are willing to affirm the manifestly untrue and assert the demonstrably absurd.
    Mr. Brown seems to have tapped into this "spirit of the age" and become an apologist for a form of Christianity that embraces and integrates many of the motifs of modernity -- such as an absence of absolutes -- while reinventing history.
    He draws upon and blends ancient symbols of pre-Christian mystical religions and traditions. When his heroes arrive at Rosslyn Chapel, they discover it is filled with a plethora of symbols, including Masonic seals, mystical pentacles, pyramids and plants. The shrine is dedicated to "all faiths ... to all traditions ... and above all, to nature and the goddess." Thus spirituality is conjoined with nature and the feminine to form the substance of a new Christian religion absent any of its historic dogmas.
    By rejecting the historic content of Christianity and replacing it with a mythology, Mr. Brown is not simply weaving another story with which to entertain weary travelers; he is constantly and deliberately assaulting the historic understanding of Jesus Christ, demeaning His person and denying His divinity. His is a serious attempt to discredit Christianity and belittle the institution of the church.
    Mr. Brown portrays the church's leaders as prejudiced, self-serving deceivers, ignoring the fact all the disciples died martyr's deaths. If his reinterpretation were to be believed, they would have died knowing they sacrificed themselves for a lie. Few are willing to die for the truth; who willingly dies for what he knows to be a lie?
    In his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul warned exactly this sort of assault upon the Christian faith would take place. He understood that, though all people know deep in their being there is a Creator God to whom they are ultimately responsible, apart from grace and because of their own pride, they refuse to honor Him as God. Instead, they exchange "the truth about God for a lie, and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator."
    The ultimate blasphemy, then, is to reject the real God incarnate in Jesus Christ, as historic Christianity affirms. Humanity may devise and worship tame "lesser gods" who may satisfy their longing for spirituality, but they do so at the expense of truth.
    "The Da Vinci Code" is far from harmless. Under the guise of fiction, it attempts to rewrite history, refashion Christianity and reinvent the truth. That our society embraces fiction as fact is not only sad but profoundly frightening. There is an inevitable moral consequence when truth is replaced by the lie.
    Our culture already bears the indelible battle scars of the decline of accepted values built upon truth. With their passing, moral ambiguity and uncertainty, both personal and public, must increase. The release of "The Da Vinci Code" movie can only intensify that confusion.

   Robert Norris is senior pastor of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Md.

Back

Movie: the 'Da Vinci Code' Bombs With Critics

May 17 2006 Christian Newswire

NEW YORK, May 17 2006 Christian Newswire - 'Da Vinci Code' Bombs With Critics. Here’s a sample of what critics who previewed “The Da Vinci Code” yesterday had to say about the movie:

“Dud, unwieldy and plodding.” (Reuters)

“A Bloated Puzzle”; “The movie is so drenched in dialogue musing over arcane mythological and historical lore and scenes grow so static that even camera movement can’t disguise the dramatic inertia”; “No chemistry exists between the hero and the heroine.” (Hollywood Reporter)

“The Movie is almost as bad as the book.” (Boston Globe)

“High-minded lurid material sucked dry by a desperately solemn approach”; "They’ve drained all the fun out of the melodrama.” (Variety)

When the movie “takes a brief wrong turn, and Howard momentarily loses control of his huge, streamlined vehicle, it’s hard to say where to put the blame.” (FoxNews.com)

“Critics Crucify ‘Da Vinci Code.’” (Australian Associated Press)

“Critics largely panned the cinematic version”; “The movie did receive some lukewarm praise, but the majority of the response was highly critical”; “One scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience. There was no applause when the credits rolled; instead, a few catcalls and hisses broke the silence.” (CNN)

“At one point, some of them responded in the auditorium with laughter to one of the developments in the plot—something director Ron Howard would not have anticipated.” (Press Association News file)

“Shrugs of indifference, some jeering laughter and a few derisive jabs”; “The Cannes audience clearly grew restless as the movie dragged on to two and a half hours and spun a long sequence of anticlimactic revelations”; “Some people walked out during the movie’s closing minutes...and there was none of the scattered applause even bad movies sometimes receive at Cannes.” (AP)

Bill Donohue said, “If Ron Howard is being laughed at by those predisposed to believe the worst about Catholicism, he’s an utter failure.”

Back

Free Software Helps Protect Kids from Pornography and Other Online Dangers

May 15 2006 Christian Newswire

BOSTON, - TechMission Safe Families Program has released free software to protect children from pornography and other dangers by blocking them from accessing objectionable material on the Internet. The software is available as a free download at http://www.safe families.org.

The software builds on technology by We- Blocker.com, which is the most widely used free Internet filtering software with hundreds of thousands of downloads. TechMission’s Safe Families software represents a long awaited update building on the We-Blocker.com software which was last updated in 2001. The update adds over 300,000 blocked sites and expands the features available in the free version including extensive training materials online.

TechMission is a Christian nonprofit organization addressing social issues brought up by technology. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Mrs. Romney and Jim Towey, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives visited TechMission last week in recognition of its Safe Families program and their work in at-risk communities. TechMission launched the Safe Families program in response to the growing pornography industry that is increase targeting families. Some resent statistics include:

• 9 out of 10 children between the ages of 8 and 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet (London School of Economics January 2002).

• Adult industry says traffic is 20-30% children (NRC Report 2002, 3.3).

• 1 in 5 children who use chat rooms have been approached by a pedophile online (Telegraph.co.uk. 1/02).

• The Internet was a significant factor in 2 out of 3 divorces, according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2003 (Divorcewizards.com).

To address this, the Safe Families Website provides free software as well as online safety manuals and Webcast presentation trainings which include the following materials:

• For parents: steps to implement an online safety program in your family, a software ratings guide, a family internet safety pledge and how to change your child’s homepage to a kid-friendly search engine

• For pastors: steps for dealing with pornography in your church strategy including church bulletin insert sample

• For nonprofits and schools: training materials and curriculum for online safety

• For pornography addicts: steps for recovery from pornography addiction including a media/pornography sobriety covenant and questions to test for sex addiction and lists of counseling and other resources

Back

Brownback and Stevens: Two Approaches to Decency

May 16 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) wants to fine `em. That is, fine broadcasters who profit from sending indecent material into our living rooms. Under the Brownback bill, S. 193, broadcasters would be subject to much heavier fines--up to $325,000 for each incident. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is the very powerful Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He is serving his sixth term, to which he was elected by 78 percent of the vote. He is the senior Republican in the Senate. Small wonder, then, that Stevens feels confident in stiff-arming the cries of parents.

He takes a very different approach to indecency. He says he wants to give Hollywood flack Jack Valenti's ad campaign time to work. That $300 million ad blitz is premised on the idea that you have the power to combat indecency by consulting ratings, by using technical blocking means, and ultimately by turning off the TV. In short, Valenti's team wants to keep fouling the airwaves.

You may recall pictures of Israeli parents putting gas masks on their children during the first Gulf War. How empowered they must have felt. It's time for Congress to act on S. 193 and make the broadcasters do their part.

Back

Broadcast-Decency Bill Sponsor Promised Vote

May 17 2006 Pete Winn, associate editor Citizen Link

Congress may finally increase fines for offensive programming.

The Senate sponsor of legislation designed to crack down on broadcast indecency said today he's been given assurances his bill will receive a vote before the Senate recesses for Memorial Day.

But an inside-the-Beltway publication is reporting that the powerful chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is waffling on the issue and may refuse to allow a vote on any bill.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., told reporters he has been given assurances his Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (S. 193) will soon get a vote.

"It looks like to me that we're going to have a good chance to get this passed in the Senate," he said. "If we do, we'll be able to go to conference (committee), and I think we will be able to get a bill out of the House and the Senate."

Brownback's proposal would increase fines for indecent radio or television broadcasts from the current $32,500 per incident to $325,000 per violation. A similar bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., that would raise it to $500,000 has already passed the House. If the chambers pass differing versions, a conference committee would iron out the final language.

Brownback said he talked with Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who has been standing in the way of a vote.

"He told me he is supportive of getting this narrow bill through the Commerce Committee," Brownback said. "If we're not able to get it through the committee, we still have the opportunity of being able to have the leadership bring it up -- in essence, bypassing the committee -- and bring it up on the Senate floor."

But The Hill reported today that Stevens is still refusing to let any broadcast indecency bill out of his committee.

Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media, said it's obvious to him that Stevens has "a mixed agenda" when it comes to reducing the level of sex and violence on the airwaves.

"On the one hand," he said, "Stevens has been holding hearings on the subject of broadcast indecency on cable television and the problem of children accessing pornography on the Internet, and these hearings have gained a considerable amount of publicity. Yet the bottom line is that nothing has resulted -- no legislation."

Under federal law, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can fine a TV or radio station that airs indecent programming between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. "Indecent" generally includes off-color jokes and language that is common on late night talk shows and programs such as Saturday Night Live. Obscene programming is a violation at any time of day. "Obscene" includes language such as the f-word and graphic sexuality.

Peters said Stevens is not only blocking passage of bills designed to toughen standards for broadcasters he's also stopped bills that aim at doing something about cable TV, which is not subject to FCC regulation.

Pat Trueman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said even if the Senate does get a chance to vote on Brownback's bill, that legislation is more narrowly defined than Upton's version.

"The House bill actually allows the FCC to revoke licenses of radio and television networks that distribute indecency," Trueman said. "The Senate bill doesn't do that."

Brownback, meanwhile, said something needs to be done to stem the amount of "indecent and prurient" material being broadcast over the public airwaves. He noted a huge increase of it in the last few years.

"It is ridiculous that people would be allowed to use public property -- which the airwaves are -- for (degrading) radio and TV over-the-air broadcasts" he said. "We wouldn't allow (other) public property to be used in this means."

Peters said the decline began more than 30 years ago.

"I don't know how Sen. Stevens could believe in 2006 that the broadcast television industry -- or the cable industry, for that matter -- is going to clean up its act without legislation," he said. "By not letting these bills come up for a vote, he's just ensuring that smut is going to continue to reign on television."

TAKE ACTION:
Please contact your U.S. senators and ask them to support efforts to pass a broadcast decency enforcement bill, whether Sen. Brownback's S. 193 or Rep. Upton's tougher H.R. 310.

Back

Fears Expressed Over Texas' Proposed Change in Selecting School Material

May 16, 2006 Jim Brown Agape Press

Some members of the Texas Board of Education are strongly opposing an amendment to a property tax bill that they claim would give un-elected education bureaucrats too much power over the development of school curriculum.

Conservative board members like Terri Leo of Spring Texas fear Article 5 of House Bill 1 -- a property tax relief bill -- would strip them of their power over high curriculum. They contend the authority to approve curriculum would be handed over to the commissioner of education and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Leo says the state board of education would have to rubber-stamp whatever the Coordinating Board approves.

"First of all, we're concerned when anybody comes in from an agency and has a power grab over an elected body," Leo shares. "Citizens have no recourse if the curriculum will end up in the hands of an un-elected bureaucratic organization. There will be no public hearings if people disagree with the curriculum."

The bill's sponsor, Republican Senator Florence Shapiro, did amend the measure to say the state board of education will still have authority over curriculum. But Leo says the provision is still not satisfactory -- and if passed with its current language, she contends the state's school children will be reading textbooks written by far-left professors like Robert Jensen of the University of Texas.

"[T]he curriculum is important [because] the curriculum elements must be covered in the textbooks," she says. "It's another way for 'Big Daddy' to get control of content in textbooks and content in curriculum -- and if there's no elected official that is a firewall between that and the average citizen and taxpayer, that is a very dangerous situation."

Leo fears the House will concur on Article 5. If the House does not concur, the bill goes to a conference committee made up of five state senators and five state representatives. Texas is the only state in the United States with a formal K-12 textbook-adoption system. Consequently textbooks adopted in Texas are what the rest of the nation has to choose from.

Back

Will California Senate Textbooks Measure S.B. 1437 throw Mom and Dad from the train?

May 12 2006 Tony Perkins family Research Council

Just in time for Mother's Day, the California Senate has voted to approve S.B. 1437, a measure that could eliminate mom and dad from school textbooks. Under this measure the Education Code is modified to make it illegal for textbooks or other instructional materials to "reflect adversely" upon lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals.

It also states that educational materials shall include "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the total development of California and the United States." Classroom discussion of the role of mothers and fathers in family life, for example, will require that equal time is given to parenting by same-sex couples.

If enacted into law, this would also require an extreme rewrite of the history books. Political correctness will not help American students meet the challenge of competition in a global economy. Some years back California students were surveyed, along with those from other states. Only 23 percent could identify James Madison as Father of the Constitution. But 98 percent then recognized Snoop Doggy Dog.

This so-called curriculum will only further dumb down education for California's kids. Please don't write this off as some crazy idea that will only impact families in California. As one of the largest purchasers of school textbooks, California influences what textbooks publishers offer to other states.

We call upon the State Assembly to reject this absurd bill. And we urge Governor Schwarzenegger to commit now that he will veto the outrageous piece of propaganda if it is approved.

Back

New Initiative Links Parents to Christian Schools: www.DiscoverChristianSchools.com  

May 15 2006 Christian Newswire

BROOKHAVEN, Penn., - DiscoverChristianSchools.com is the newest communications initiative designed to assist parents in making the most informed decisions about their children’s education. www.DiscoverChristianSchools.com  is a website that connects schools and parents together, and imparts the most current and reliable resources available where Christian education is concerned.

Founded by Tim Sierer, Vice President of the Mid- Atlantic Christian Schools Association and Harold Naylor, Director of Institutional Advancement for The Christian Academy, DiscoverChristianSchools.com seeks to provide parents with an abundance of school information via the website.

"DiscoverChristianSchools.com affords parents the opportunity to gainfully explore Christian education, by providing them with a plethora of resources, including the ability to find a local Christian school with the School Finder on the home page," stated Tim Sierer. "In over two decades of working in the field of education, I’ve been asked virtually every question imaginable by parents, regarding the quality of a Christian education for their children. Parents are extremely concerned today about what their children are learning in school, and rightfully so.

DiscoverChristianSchools.com aims to provide these answers and put parents’ minds at ease. We hope that parents will spend some serious time thinking through the implications of this single decision regarding their children’s education that will impact their children for the rest of their lives."

For more information about DiscoverChristianSchools.com, please visit the website at www.DiscoverChristianSchools.com.

Note: Facts in DCS news releases are verified prior to publication but additional facts may come to light over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact DiscoverChristianSchools.com for the latest information on this matter

Back

Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web

May 16 2006 Prophecy News Watch

Congress wants to change the Internet.

This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.

The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."

Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.

Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.

The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.

By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.

It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.)

You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.

"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."

If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees?

The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence.

The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered.

The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.

Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.

Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.

Back

More Churches Upgrading Technology to Reach Cyber-Savvy Masses

May 16 2006 Prophecy News Watch

Spokesman for a coalition of groups utilizing Internet evangelism says he's not surprised at a report that faith-based organizations are going after technology to reach the current generation in a way like never before.

The Christian Post reports that several secular media sources, including the New York Times, have noted the hiring of a major advertising agency by Teen Mania, a Christian youth ministry. Founder Ron Luce says the secular ad agency was brought in to help bring the youth-targeted organization's "Battle Cry" campaign website get up to speed with all available web technology.

Because the current generation is tech-savvy, Luce observes, Teen Mania needed the best consultant it could find to help the ministry compete with MTV and other rival influences. The practical impulse behind that decision is echoed by Robby Richardson, vice chairman of the Internet Evangelism Coalition (IEC), who says when it comes to reaching young people, Christian outreach must go as far as the modern technology available can take it.

"In proclaiming the gospel, in trying to reach people with the good news of Jesus Christ," Richardson says, "we need to use the best tools available and to use them in the best way possible. And I think ministries are becoming savvy and are looking for ways to do that."

Just last weekend, the IEC organized its second annual Internet Evangelism Day, a yearly event designed to promote the use of the latest online technology for churches and faith-based groups in their evangelism. The group's vice chairman says the pursuit of technology does appear to be a rising trend among faith-based groups in general, as well as those that interact specifically with today's technologically adept teens and young adults.

For many young people, Richardson says, "twenty-five years [old] and down, maybe 30 years and down, the Internet is a first language. It is the way they communicate." Therefore, he asserts, for churches and ministries to reach these youth, "to be in front of them with the gospel or to give them opportunities for relationship and for follow-up, involves utilizing that medium. There's no question about that."

On the other hand, Richardson points out, it is still important for Christians not to become totally reliant on technology for evangelism. Ultimately, he says, coming to the faith requires a relationship with Jesus Christ and with other believers.

Back

Support for 'Net Neutrality' to Prevent Giant Phone and Cable Companies from Discriminating Against Web Sites

May 17 2006 Christian Coalition of America

WASHINGTON, Christian Coalition of America announced its support for the effort to amend pending telecom legislation in Congress in order to prevent the large phone and cable companies from discriminating against web sites.

Roberta Combs, the President of Christian Coalition of America said, "Christian Coalition is joining a broad array of organizations, representing consumers, businesses, and all ends of the political spectrum. The Coalition is committed to working on behalf of our supporters to ensure that the Internet remains the free marketplace of ideas, products and services that it is today."

Major telecom companies are laying plans to create tiered access to the Internet – and to charge extra fees to consumers and content providers in order to offer select web sites for "fast access" by consumers. Without "Net Neutrality", American consumers who want to pay for fast broadband access to the Internet will find out they don't actually have what they thought they were paying for. They won't have high-speed broadband access to the entire Internet; just the part that the phone and cable companies allow them to see.

The Internet is what it is today because every site, no matter how obscure, is just as accessible to every individual as any name brand site with a multi- million dollar budget. Every American has the opportunity to create their own site and say what they want to the entire world and have the same access to the world as anyone else. And consumers have the ability to connect with them.

Since the inception of the Internet, it has existed on phone lines, which were covered under what are known as "common carrier" regulations, which prevented discrimination, based on content. This principle helped make the Internet what it is today -- a dynamic engine for free expression and economic growth.

Mrs. Combs said, "Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from not allowing consumers to have access to speech that they don't support. What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high- speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, they could slow down the pro-life web site, harming their ability to communicate with other pro-lifers - and it would be legal. We urge Congress to move aggressively to save the Internet -- and allow ideas rather than money to control what Americans can access on the World Wide Web. We urge all Americans to contact their Congressmen and Senators and tell them to save the Internet and to support 'Net Neutrality'."

Back