BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #86 06/02/2006

Has the Watchman Report been too lengthy? Has the subjects of the report's articles been too varied? Please take a few minutes and send your comments and suggestions to me at: hwilson@texasmoralaction.org I will appreciate hearing from you. Howard Wilson

Click on an article to view OR hold Ctrl down and click to view OR just scroll through the Articles:

1. State Denies Judge's Accusations of 'Un-Americanizing' School Curriculum

2. “Grassley Not Getting Burned Again by a Senate Immigration Bill”

3. Conservatives must hold firm on immigration

4. Virginia Pastor Sues for Right to Pray Christianly at Council Meetings

5. Vatican to United Nations: "Sexual Orientation Is Not Comparable To Race or Ethnic Origin"

6. Assault against America's Christian Traditions Continues

7. We can't retire worries about Social Security, Medicare

8. Public Support for Gambling Declines

9. 'Net Neutrality' a Must for Most Christian Broadcasters, Says NRB Leader

10. U.S. district Court: Philly Police May have Conspired with Homosexual Activists against Pastors

11. Court Orders Jerusalem to Fund Homosexual Activist Organization

12. Pedophilia Party Launched in the Netherlands

13. Oregon student newspaper runs pictures of Jesus as a homosexual. It is time to speak out!

14. Polygamy vs. Democracy

15. Hillary vs. Frist / Homosexual activists vs. Federal Marriage Protection Amendment

View the Gallup Poll Morality Stats on the BMAT Moral Action site (Pastors Report) at: http://texasmoralaction.org/pastor.htm

State Denies Judge's Accusations of 'Un-Americanizing' School Curriculum

May 31 2006 Jim Brown and Jody Brown Agape Press

A Michigan judge is accusing the state's Department of Education of censoring the words "America" and "American" from public schools. But the Department is denying any such move is afoot.

Judge Michael Warren says the Michigan Department of Education has eliminated the words "America" and "American" from the state testing program and instructed those drafting curriculum content standards to remove the words as well. According to Warren, the department also issued a verbal directive to high-profile educators that they should instruct their teachers to stop using the words because they are "ethnocentric."

Warren, a former member of the state's Department of Education, says "well-intentioned but pernicious political correctness" is rolling around in that department. "I think we all agree that we're Americans in the United States and that we're the United States of America," he says. "There was the American Revolution, and the words 'America' and 'Americans' have a very special meaning for us as individuals and as a nation. The Department of Education didn't understand that."

In a May 24 press release, State Superintendent Michael Flanagan flatly denies Warren's allegations. Flanagan says no such edict has gone out to school teachers across Michigan, nor will one. In addition, if such a recommendation for curriculum change ever came across Flanagan's desk it would be "stopped in its tracks," says the department. He also told American Family Radio News that if the censorship has taken place, he will revise the current testing protocol to allow the words to be used.

Warren contends the Education Department is in a state of denial. He says Superintendent Flanagan is not aware of how much political correctness exists in "the bowels of the Department." The judge asserts that the Department has initiated a series of "different steps to eliminate the words America and American in the state level as well as in the local level."

"In other words," he says, "[there's a feeling] that Mexicans, because they're in the North American continent, are also Americans; and Canadians, because they're in the North American continent. And they also refer to South America, so apparently the Brazilians and the Belizeans are also Americans."

And while the Department acknowledges an "independent association of Social Studies educators has discussed the issue of official U.S. documents or titles," it says no recommendations for changes in curriculum have been submitted to Flanagan for his review.

"These are advisory groups," says the superintendent in the press statement. "The conversations and internal communications between members [of that independent association] have been misconstrued as Department of Education policy. This is not a [Department] policy, nor will it ever be our policy while I'm here. We are not seeking to do away with the terms 'America' or 'American' from classroom instruction. It's not going to happen."

Warren, however, says the alleged censorship was so "ludicrous and disgraceful" it needed to be exposed and stopped. And to counteract the alleged political correctness, the judge suggests the Department create an "American Freedom" curriculum to help educate K-12 children in understanding the principles of the nation's founding documents.

Back

“Grassley Not Getting Burned Again by a Senate Immigration Bill”

May 30 2006 Gary Bauer American Values

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is not a man prone to hyperbole or rhetorical flourishes. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he spends his days immersed in the arcane details of American tax law, and on most issues Sen. Grassley is a loyal partisan. On key issues and tough votes, the Senate’s “old bulls” can usually be relied upon to support the president. But for Sen. Grassley, the Senate immigration bill was “a bridge too far.”

Introducing his list of “top 10 flaws” in the Senate’s immigration bill, Sen. Grassley said, “I was burned once in 1986 when I voted for amnesty believing that it would solve our problems. Now, we have a 12 million illegal immigrant problem. I’m not getting burned again. Not only do we have a glide path to citizenship, but it’s a glide path with plenty of loopholes that don’t meet the common sense test.”

Among the most egregious flaws identified by Sen. Grassley is a provision allowing illegal aliens to avoid paying two of their last five years worth of back taxes. As Sen. Grassley noted, “Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people.” The Department of Homeland Security is required to conduct background checks on illegal aliens in the United States. That’s good. But, the federal government is supposed to “complete the background checks on 10 million illegal aliens in 90 days.” Does anyone seriously believe the government can thoroughly screen 10 million aliens in 90 days?

And what if they find something? (You might want to sit down for this one.) According to Sen. Grassley, “Under the bill, if an illegal alien applies for amnesty, the federal government cannot use information provided in the application for anything but adjudicating the petition. For example, if illegal aliens write in their applications that they are related to Osama Bin Laden, then our government cannot use that information. …Also, if a federal agent does use information provided by an illegal alien in an application for amnesty the agent would be fined $10,000.”

Back

Conservatives must hold firm on immigration

May 31 2006 David Limbaugh Townhall.com

The prevailing mentality among Beltway Republicans is that passage of an imperfect immigration bill before the November elections is better than no bill at all. They might just find out how wrong they are when they experience the inevitable conservative backlash.

Why do we have to be faced with these false choices? The enactment of an imperfect bill, even if it would help to preserve the Republican majority in November, would be a classic case of sacrificing the long-term good for short-term political benefit.

I strongly believe we need to preserve a Republican majority, even though that majority is often controlled by dictatorial moderates -- as in the Gang of 14, seven of which are Republicans. The election of a true Democratic majority would have potentially horrifying consequences on domestic and national security issues across the board.

But with the immigration, we're not talking about some little throwaway issue, but one whose resolution could determine whether this country will ultimately retain its national identity. If anything closely resembling the Senate bill becomes law, we will be stacking the decks against ourselves in what already promises to be a formidable struggle to preserve the unique American culture.

The idea that we can later tweak an imperfect bill is pernicious folly. Not only is this bill far from merely "imperfect," the reality is that the law of entropy usually applies in politics as well as thermodynamics. If anything, an imperfect bill will, over time, become more imperfect.

Remember the Campaign Finance Reform Bill that President Bush signed, after having campaigned against it, offering the half-hearted assurance that the Supreme Court would probably declare it unconstitutional anyway? Well, they haven't, have they?

What's more, while the bill put a selective dagger through free speech in the critical 60 days prior to the election, it still didn't fulfill its specious promise of taking big money out of politics.

So now, Sen. McCain and his band of merry "reformers" want to further massage the bill and carve the imperfections of out it. Every version, including the present one, is presented as the bill to end all bills. But additional iterations just make matters worse, without correcting any of the so-called imperfections.

The last thing we need is another imperfect bill, this one on immigration, even if it means that Republicans have to take a hit in November.

As much as I prefer imperfect Republicans over Democrats and fear the consequences of a Democratic majority, this is one issue where we simply have to draw the line. This bill, which could easily result in an exponential wave of immigrants entering this country over the next two decades alone whom our P.C. culture will not even encourage [to] assimilate must be vigorously opposed.

While I agree that we can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, we simply can't risk bargaining away the very identity of this nation on the illusory promise that holes in the bill will be patched over in time. If there isn't enough time to craft a nation-preserving bill before the election, there won't be afterwards either.

Having said these things, I don't accept the premise that failure to pass a deeply flawed bill is politically suicidal for Republicans. If you believe that, you probably believe the conventional wisdom that elections are controlled by the mushy middle.

To the contrary, the Republicans who have been most successful in national elections are those who have held firm on conservative principles. Unlike the base of the Democratic Party, the Republican base is not fringe or extreme, but mainstream conservative. Those who want to preserve the unique American culture and the English language are not extremists, nativists or racists, which shouldn't even have to be said.

Ronald Reagan won landslide elections through unabashed conservatism. And, the decline in President Bush's approval rating is not just due to "all bad news all of the time" on Iraq, but that he is perceived to have abandoned his conservative base on far too many issues.

Much of the reason the Republican Senate is so disappointing to conservatives is that the moderate and liberal tail is wagging the conservative dog. The McCain moderates are hamstringing conservatives -- and even some of the conservatives have lost their nerve.

I don't remember a time when Beltway politicians, including way too many Republicans, have been so tone deaf on an issue and so complicit on a matter that could severely damage the long-term interests of this nation.

Let principled conservatives try on their obstructionist hats for a change. In this case, for now, passing no bill is better than passing the Senate bill. They should have the courage to take their case to the voters in November.

Back

Virginia Pastor Sues for Right to Pray Christianly at Council Meetings

May 31 2006 Allie Martin Agape Press

The director of the Christian Defense Coalition says one Virginia pastor should be commended for standing up for his free-speech rights after being told how to pray at public meetings of the local city council.

Hashmeal Turner, a pastor in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was on a rotating list of clergy who were called on to open the city council's meetings with prayer. Before he was scheduled to pray, however, officials told him he could not pray in the name of Jesus or mention the name of Christ during the invocation.

Turner has filed a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming that his First Amendment rights are being violated. Rev. Patrick Mahoney is director of the Christian Defense Coalition, a conservative, pro-family advocacy group that has been vocal in commending the minister and supporting his stance.

"Our position is this: no governmental body, no civil authority, should tell any American citizen how they are to pray," Mahoney asserts. "That should be left up to their own conscience, to the dictates of their faith tradition and the practices of their faith," he says.

The Fredericksburg officials who required Pastor Turner to restrict his prayers were overstepping their authority, as far as the Coalition spokesman is concerned. He says government entities have no business trying to dictate how people should pray.

"We would all be appalled and up in arms if a city council or a legislative body or a governmental body told American citizens [they] had to pray in the name of Allah," Mahoney contends. "Yet, by telling citizens to pray nonsectarian prayers, [these government officials] in essence are ordering and determining how people are to pray."

If Hashmeal Turner wins his case, Mahoney believes this will make it easier for Christians to express their faith in the public arena. The Christian Defense Coalition leader has organized rallies in the Fredericksburg area in support of the pastor and his fight for free speech and religious freedom.

Back

Vatican to United Nations: "Sexual Orientation Is Not Comparable To Race or Ethnic Origin"

May 31 2006 Terry Vanderheyden LifeSiteNews.com

VATICAN CITY, A Vatican delegation to the United Nations has objected to granting UN NGO status to two homosexual activist groups.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association argue that they deserve NGO status at the UN as a matter of human rights. The Vatican delegation, headed by Msgr. Ruben Dimaculangan, stated in an intervention dated May 16, a copy of which has been obtained by LifeSiteNews.com, that the demands of homosexual activist organizations have nothing to do with human rights.

In particular, "sexual orientation is not comparable to race or ethnic origin," as the ILGA contends, Msgr. Dimaculangan emphasized. "In spite of its assertions about human rights, this NGO's particular interests fall beyond the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international juridical instruments."

Msgr. Dimaculangan added in his letter that the ILGA is seeking not equal rights but special rights: "In other words, what ILGA and its proponents are asking is not for equal rights but special rights; special rights that allow others a leeway for a discreet suppression of moral distinctions in choices and behavior that are of vital concern to the international community and the international order."

Defending the Catholic Church's long-held position on homosexuality, the Vatican envoy explained to the UN that "Placing the homosexual lifestyle on the level of marriage will have 'a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy'."

"Tolerance without standards seeks to create a level playing field offering loopholes for suppressing moral distinctions in choices and behavior which would be tantamount to accepting fake expressions of 'anarchic freedom'," he added.

Dimaculangan explained that the meaning of the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, despite "interpretations to the contrary", is based in an understanding if marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Msgr. added that, if the Vatican's interpretation is seen as an imposition of morality on others, then "gay rights laws and the demand for special rights as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislations."

Back

Assault against America's Christian Traditions Continues

May 31 2006 Felicia (Fee) Benamon the Conservative Voice

We now come upon that time of year when graduation ceremonies are aplenty and tributes to God are common during these events. This assault, however, on America's Christian traditions continues. The organization leading the charge is the ACLU. The ACLU has been responsible for going against cherished organizations in America such as the Boy Scouts, for their beliefs of honoring God, and for their stand against homosexuals taking leadership positions in the organization. The Boy Scouts are an organization which prides itself on values and faith, pride in one's country, and the mentoring and preparation of ushering young boys into manhood. It's their right to exclude those who see the sexually deviant homosexual lifestyle as normal.

We hear about incidents where the ACLU has tried to stifle the freedom of expression to honor God across this country, but rarely do we think that the ACLU's oppressive thumb would come to our hometowns. Such is the case in my area where people in the small town of Munford, TN were shocked and upset to hear that graduation prayers were to be scrapped from an upcoming graduation ceremony. Munford High school received a letter from the ACLU of Tennessee requesting that all prayers be canceled from the graduation program. Some dozen students from the school's recent established ACLU group were the culprits who expressed concern about prayer being added to graduation ceremony. There was no stopping the graduating seniors though, most of whom, during a moment of silence, stood and said The Lord's Prayer amidst clapping from other attendees.

Senior valedictorian Scott Balentine was notified well in advance of the ceremony by school officials not to mention any references to Jesus, but he pressed on anyway. During the ceremony, Scott boldly declared, "I would like to thank my lord and savior Jesus Christ."

Local churches got involved and bookmarks bearing The Lord's Prayer were passed out to those who wanted them.

I am very proud of the people of Munford, TN who would not back down when the ACLU tried to keep them from expressing their faith publicly. It's been the norm in Munford and towns across America for many years to give honor to God, and they are, in no violation of any laws.

In another almost identical story which the ACLU was involved...a Kentucky High school principal was petitioned by a student with the ACLU's backing to drop prayers from graduation ceremonies, but the principal refused.

In other random fits of political correctness, an issue over "In God We Trust" on a coin arose and a Navy chaplain is to be disciplined for praying in Jesus' name!

It seems incidents like these are happening more and more. We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion here in America, you may not have the same beliefs as me, but don't suppress my right to express myself about my God, especially since it's been a part of the traditions here in America and it's part of who we are, and why this country is so great, caring, and thoughtful of others. It all comes from our core values and beliefs.

What I found rather striking is that the ACLU wants to shut up its Board Members with dissent or complain against their tactics. To conclude, the ACLU exists only to stifle freedom of speech, not to work in anyone's favor.

What has happened to us in the U.S. (most of us who are Christians or conservatives) that some of us are allowing people to push us around and tell us what we can or can't do with regards to religious freedom? The traditions which we've grown up with haven't bothered anyone until recently, because some feel they can complain and get their way. Our traditions tie us to who we are, and if that unravels, then what do we have left? Are we going to allow radical organizations like the ACLU to dictate to us how we should live our lives?

People who complain about traditions which Americans have long cherished are not "offended." They are looking to change the climate in America to that of a secular nature. An America that is not anchored by a love for God, family, values, tradition, integrity and honor.

Let's be like the Scott Balentines, those who will stand their ground no matter who or what comes against us to change our society. When this fight comes to your door, will you fight back, or will you give in?

Back

We can't retire worries about Social Security, Medicare

May 25, 2006 Edwin J. Feulner The Heritage Foundation

Sometimes the biggest stories don't make the newspaper.

Earlier this month, the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds issued their annual report on the future of the programs -- to little fanfare. Yet the report merits large headlines. It's important. And it's grim.

The trustees report that the two programs have promised $37 trillion more in benefits than they can deliver. In years to come, these entitlements are set to eat up shocking amounts of tax income.

One of the trustees estimates that, unless we fix these programs now, more than a quarter of all federal income taxes in 2020 will be spent on Social Security and Medicare benefits. That's up from about 7 percent today, in addition to the more than $764 billion in payroll taxes in 2005, to fund the two programs. By 2030, roughly half of all income taxes would be needed to keep these two programs afloat.

The trustees also report that the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust fund will run out of money by 2018, two years earlier than they projected just last year. Since we allowed 2005 to pass without doing anything, this means we've actually lost three years that could have been used to fix the program. That fact alone should spur lawmakers to act.

Unfortunately, the most recent attempt at reform made the problem worse. In 2003, lawmakers tacked an open-ended prescription-drug entitlement onto Medicare an expansion the trustees say will cost $8 trillion over the next 75 years.

It's time for Congress and the administration to change Medicare from today's open-ended entitlement to a defined-contribution program, one that adjusts contributions for age, health costs and income.

None of that will be easy politically, of course. But if lawmakers won't do something now, they'll have to do something in five years, or in 2018 when Medicare goes into the red. And the sooner they act, the more choices they'll have.

Social Security presents a similar problem.

The trustees report that program will continue to collect more in taxes each year than it will spend on benefits until 2017. But at that point, it will become a major drain on the Treasury, because it will start redeeming the special government bonds in the Social Security trust fund. Because there's no actual cash in that trust fund, the government will have to use general revenues -- such as income taxes -- to pay those benefits.

The crunch, in fact, will hit earlier than that. Around 2009, the roughly $100 billion annual Social Security surpluses, a cash cushion Congress has been spending on other programs, will begin to shrink. By 2017, those surpluses will be gone for good.

Think of the trust fund kid who spends his parents' money on frivolous things until the fund eventually dries up. That's the prospect facing the federal government within about 15 years, when today's annual Social Security surplus will turn into a $100 billion annual deficit -- a $200 billion reversal.

To head off the problem, lawmakers should allow workers to start saving money in Social Security personal retirement accounts that they would own and control. This would let younger workers build a nest egg for their own retirement and wouldn't reduce the benefits already promised to Social Security recipients born before 1950.

Many predictions come with a caveat: Maybe they'll happen, maybe they won't. Hurricane season is like that. This year may bring another Katrina, or we may escape without a major storm making landfall. But one storm we know is coming is the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare. The only way to keep that story off the front pages in years to come is to fix the problems now. Time is running out.

Back

Public Support for Gambling Declines

May 31 2006 staff reports Citizen Link

Experts say public officials are addicted to gambling revenue.

Although the gambling industry continues to grow rapidly, public support is declining, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

According to the survey, 70 percent of Americans say gambling encourages people to bet over their limits. It represents an 8 percent increase since 1989.

Tom Grey, spokesman for the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, said people are realizing the true cost of gambling.

"What we see in the polls are people who are gambling, but they're not winning," he said. "It has the seeds of its own destruction within it, and it will 'crap out' just like the two previous waves of gambling did in America."

Tom Coates, executive director of Consumer Credit of Des Moines, a group that helps people through financial problems, said 15 percent of his clients carry gambling debt.

"When they come in with gambling debt," he said, "a lot of the times it's 50 to 100 percent higher than the average unsecured debt by non-gamblers."

Coates told Family News in Focus that politicians are addicted to gambling revenue, so it will take others to stem the tide of increased gambling.

"You can't count on the leaders that should be looking out for your best interest to do it," he said. "You're going to have to come from the ground up."

Back

'Net Neutrality' a Must for Most Christian Broadcasters, Says NRB Leader

May 30, 2006 Allie Martin and Jody Brown Agape Press

Christian broadcasters are concerned about legislation that could make it tougher for the public to access their websites. Recent action by a House committee would seem to allay some of those fears.

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a bill that would allow broadband network operators to offer streamlined access to websites that pay them extra for a higher level of service. Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), says such an arrangement would put many nonprofit radio stations at a disadvantage.

"The telephone companies and cable companies that control access to the Internet are talking about creating kind of a better level of service for those who are willing to pay for it," Wright explains, "and everyone else sort of gets what's left over."

Broadband Internet providers such as Verizon and AT&T have been lobbying for a sort of "fast lane" on the web that would be reserved for video and other high-priority content. But last week, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill [PDF] that would require such providers to abide by strict "Net neutrality" principles -- that is, operate their networks in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Wright obviously sees merit to such a move. "A system of Internet control that shows favoritism to one group over another would probably disadvantage non-profits like religious broadcasters," he says. "We don't have the revenue streams that would help us pay for a better level of Internet service that they're talking about."

Despite being opposed by several Republicans on the committee, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (H.R. 5417) was passed out of committee on a 20-13 vote. Committee chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, a congressman from Wisconsin, said the measure "will provide an insurance policy for Internet users against being harmed by broadband network operators abusing their market power to discriminate against content and service providers."

The president of the Christian Coalition of America is asking Congress to preserve what supporters of what has come to be known as "net neutrality." Roberta Combs says Sensenbrenner and others on the committee have stood up for continued freedom on the Internet.

"We urge Congress to move aggressively to save the Internet -- and allow ideas rather than money to control what Americans can access on the Worldwide Web," she says. Congress, says the Christian Coalition, must make sure the Internet remains accessible to all Americans, rich or poor.

Back

U.S. district Court: Philly Police May have Conspired with Homosexual Activists against Pastors

May 31 2006 Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, A U.S. district court judge has refused to release the homosexual activist group Philly Pride Presents from a lawsuit brought by members of the Christian group Repent America.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of eleven members of Repent America, claiming allegations of a conspiracy between Philly Pride and the Philadelphia police to deny the group free speech during the homosexual celebration of "OutFest" in October 2004.

The group was harassed and prevented from speaking by homosexual activists known as the "Pink Angels" and were arrested by the police and charged with multiple crimes under the Pennsylvania "hate crimes" law. The charges were later dismissed in court.

The eleven members brought a lawsuit against Philly Pride and the city on allegations of conspiracy between Philly Pride and the Philadelphia Police to prevent them from delivering their message.

Judge Lawrence F. Stengel said the allegations had merit and refused to comply with Philly Pride's request to be released from the lawsuit.

"In this case, Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to infer a conspiracy between the Philly Pride Defendants and the other defendants. The Complaint alleges a number of facts sufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights."

The lawsuit pointed out that Chief Inspector James Tiano of the Philadelphia Police Department testified during the criminal proceedings that police met with "OutFest" organizers 3 or 4 times beforehand and discussed ways of preventing repent America from gaining access to the event.

"Chief Inspector Tiano's comments seem to make it clear that the City conspired with the organizers of 'OutFest' to ensure that Repent America would not have access to the event to exercise their protected rights under both our state and federal Constitutions," said attorney Ted Hoppe, representing the eleven plaintiffs, in a Repent America press release last week.

"We are most pleased with the [sic] Judge Stengel's decision to deny Philly Pride Presents' motion to dismiss, and look forward to the discovery phase of the case," Repent America director Michael Marcavage said.

"The discovery process will afford us the opportunity to conduct depositions in order to further investigate evidence and document the conspiratorial actions between Philly Pride and the Philadelphia Police to violate our civil rights."

"The City's action at the 'OutFest' event demonstrated a clear hostility toward Repent America and the content of their message," Ted Hoppe said. "Through this lawsuit, we hope to send a message to the City of Philadelphia, its police force, as well as Philly Pride Presents, that they do not have the right to interfere with Repent America's constitutionally protected rights to free speech and free exercise of religion simply because they do not agree with the content of their message."

Back

Court Orders Jerusalem to Fund Homosexual Activist Organization

May 30 2006 Gudrun Schultz LifeSiteNews.com

JERUSALEM, - A Jerusalem District Court has ordered the Jerusalem Municipality to pay over CAD$80,000 to a city organization promoting homosexuality, the Gay and Lesbian Center. The payout covers "cultural and social activities" held by the Center since 2003, when the city stopped funding the organization, reported the Jerusalem Post Monday.

Judge Yehudit Tzur accepted the organization's argument that the city was discriminating against them, saying in her ruling, "[The municipality] must treat this community with equality, out of recognition of the supreme value of equality, and out of respect for the values of tolerance and pluralism, which exist at the heart of democratic society."

Jerusalem officials have been fighting against efforts by homosexual activists to hold public celebrations of homosexuality within the city. The municipality lost a court case last year after officials banned the fourth annual Jerusalem gay parade.

The city council implemented the ban on the grounds that the parade would offend Jewish, Muslim and Christian residents of the holy city, but the court ruled the injunction was illegal and ordered the city to pay the organizers $13,245 in legal fees.

Plans for a WorldPride event to take place in the city are again underway, after being cancelled last year due to the Gaza pullout. Organizers of the international homosexual event targeted Jerusalem as the venue of choice, after holding WorldPride Rome in 2000, despite the fierce opposition from the Vatican and Catholics throughout the world.

Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious leaders joined together last year in condemning the event planned for Jerusalem, saying it was offensive to believers from multiple faiths who revere Jerusalem as a holy city.

Residents of the city oppose the international event, with 75% of people questioned saying they did not want the activity to take place, according to a public opinion poll released last year.

Back

Pedophilia Party Launched in the Netherlands

May 30 2006 Hilary White LifeSiteNews.com
 
AMSTERDAM, -  The newly formed Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party of the Netherlands has introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights and has vowed, "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
 
The NVD is Europe's first political party dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia. In a press release, the NVD's spokesman and co-founder, Ad van den Berg said among their goals is lowering the age of consent for sexual activity from 16 to 12 and eventually eliminating it completely.
 
"A ban just makes children curious," van den Berg told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper. The party will also be working to decriminalize child pornography and to lower the age for which it is legal to appear in it from 18 to 16. The party suggests that in order to prevent "abuse" a governmental body be appointed to investigate whether children had been forced to appear in pornographic movies.
 
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.
 
The party says toddlers should be given sex education and wants pornography to be broadcast on daytime television. Other party platform planks include the right of everyone to go naked in public and legalizing all soft and hard drugs.
 
It is unlikely that even with the extremely liberal social views of the Dutch public, that it is ready for its political part all about sex with children. Reuters reports that a poll found that in the same country that has legalized prostitution, marijuana use, euthanasia of children and homosexual "marriage," 82 % said the government should do something to stop the pedophilia party from advancing its agenda.

Back

Disclaimer: I have reluctantly included the following article in the Watchman report, I feel Christians must be aware when Christ and Christianity are so terribly depicted anywhere in America. This article was on hold for one week and prayerfully considered before appearing in this issue. The most explicit descriptions in this article have been deleted. Howard Wilson

 

Oregon student newspaper runs pictures of Jesus as a homosexual. It is time to speak out!

May 19 2006 American Family Association

The Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) has refused to apologize for an obscene anti-Christian assault in the campus newspaper Insurgent.

The March edition of the Insurgent ran one of the strongest attacks on Christianity I have seen. The paper ran graphics depicting Jesus as a homosexual. One was a depiction of a naked Jesus on the cross; the other, titled Resurrection, showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man.

(These images depict sexual overtures so revolting that it is a shame to even imagine. Howard Wilson)

When asked for an apology by Students of Faith, ASUO refused to give one saying that "there are no grounds for demanding an apology from Insurgent." The ASUO went on to defend the publication saying that the newspaper contributes "to the cultural and physical development of the university community."

The Insurgent would never show a naked graphic of the Rev. Martin Luther King kissing another man. But offending Christians was of no concern to the Insurgent or to University President Dave Frohmayer.

The ASUO Women's Center tolerates no defamation against gays and lesbians. Three years ago, ASUO demanded that the university radio station, KUGN, drop Michael Savage (a conservative talk show host). The university promptly discontinued the program. But depicting Jesus as a homosexual is perfectly OK.

Here is what Insurgent Student Editor Jessica Brown had to say about the graphics. "I have to say it is really fun to offend people. It is fun to break the rules. If it pi--es people off - good that's the point!!! It has here in this office. So read, get pi--ed and talk about it."

Incidentally, the University forces all students, including Christians, to pay student dues of $191.00 per term, part of which goes to support the Insurgent.

Send an email letter to the Governor, University President and other Oregon officials protesting this anti-Christian bigotry.
It is time for Christians to speak out saying that bigotry against Christians or any faith is unacceptable.

Click Here to Email Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski Now!

Quote by Dave Frohnmayer, President University of Oregon November 30, 2004: Some people think of ethics as staying out of jail. A second group of people think about ethics as codes of conduct and rule books. A third group may understand ethics more broadly in spiritual commands or principles of a religious belief. A fourth group might think about ethics as helpful aphorisms such as “first do no harm” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or the utilitarian principle, “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Yet another group believes that ethics has to do with doing the right things for the right reasons. And a final group might even think of ethics as challenging because so often we are torn not between choosing right or wrong, but rather choosing between two rights or two wrongs: we become confused, perplexed, even paralyzed, by the realization that our values actually seem in conflict.

Back

Polygamy vs. Democracy

June 1 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

That blunt title is Stanley Kurtz' lead story in The Weekly Standard this week. Perfect timing. Kurtz, who is a fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, makes a powerful case that you cannot have both polygamy and democracy. In this article, Dr. Kurtz shows how essential one man-one woman marriage is to the life of democratic institutions. He traces the issue of polygamy to its roots in ancient times--and brings the issue right into the heart of modern day Europe. And same-sex marriage is the battering ram to force open the gates for polygamy.

He says that polygamous Muslim immigrants in France, for example, are unassimilated and may be incapable of being assimilated. With their burgeoning numbers, they threaten France's very existence. We are already deeply indebted to Stanley Kurtz for his groundbreaking research on the disappearance of marriage in Europe following the liberalization of laws on civil unions.

This article is a must-read for everyone involved in the debate over marriage and the future of our country. In fact, as Kurtz shows, it is essential to any hopes for the development of democracy in the Mideast. (Might this be just one reason why the polygamous Saudis drag their heels in supporting our efforts there?) Stanley Kurtz's article should be read by every one of our 100 U.S. Senators before they vote on protecting marriage next week.

Back

Hillary vs. Frist / Homosexual activists vs. Federal Marriage Protection Amendment

June 1 2006 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) addressed a racially and denominationally diverse group of clergy from 43 states here last week as part of FRC's third annual pastors' briefing. Central to the many messages from speakers at the event was the need to defend marriage. Sen. Frist gave strong support to the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) and called for help. I thanked him for his continued leadership on the marriage issue.

Then there is New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (Democrat-Liberal) who last March met with homosexual activists to plot strategy against the MPA. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D) took part in that meeting. Quinn, a militant homosexual, later reported that Reid and others wanted support from the homosexual community for help on "messaging" when they vote against the MPA. Quinn said they want to send a positive message about "LGBT families." Does that mean that the Democratic Party, through its leadership, now has a positive and affirming position on two men raising children as "a family"? Will the Democratic Party tell its millions of pro-marriage voters that it rejects protecting marriage in the Constitution and has cast its lot with activist judges and radical homosexuals?

View the facts on the Federal Marriage Amendment on the Pressing Issues column at TMAC website: http://texasmoralaction.org

Back

Col 4:2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving

Please pray for: The restoration of America's Christianity, Morality and Virtue, Strength in the place of apathy, our Christian leaders, state and US Congress, the President and the men and women of the United States Armed Services.

Howard Wilson hwilson@texasmoralaction.org

Visit the Moral Action Committee of the BMA of Texas web site: http://texasmoralaction.org

Visit the BMA web site: http://bmaweb.net

To make a donation to the Moral Action Committee of the BMA of Texas please click on this link