BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report #87 06/09/2006
News Topics of Particular Interest or Moral Concern
Click on an article to view OR hold Ctrl down and click to view OR just scroll through the Articles:
Christianity / Religion
Couple to Celebrate 32nd Anniversary Walking Across America
Judge Rules Christian Prison Program Unconstitutional; Appeal Planned
The Good Old and New Faith of Branson
Feds seize 'millions' – in gospel tracts Secret Service threatens evangelist in Texas with arrest for counterfeiting
Democracy / Security
Ignoring the Real danger to liberty
US Birthright in Exchange for Immigration
Senate Marriage Mockers
Family / Social
World Congress of Families Disappointed by Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
Great News! The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Passed the US House
Federal Marriage Amendment: -- Baptists spoke last Sunday, Bush on Monday
Government / Legislation
U.N. making homeschooling illegal?
A Step in the Right Direction: Louisiana Passes Conditional Abortion Ban
Should the U.S. Supreme Court Give Each State the Ability to Decide Roe v. Wade? Or Should Congress Overturn It?
Life Issues / Behavior
Our U.S. Government Evicts Homeowners from Their Homes and their City Charges them Back Rent
Colorado High School Graduate's Diploma Held After She Speaks About Her Faith
Teacher Suspended For Telling Student to Read Bible
United States Court of Appeals: FDA Failed to Provide Adequate Explanation for Withholding Abortion Pill Documents
Sex Offenders Sue Indianapolis
Media / Internet / Entertainment
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott Wins States First Spam Case
Nation's Only High-Power, Direct-to-Home Christian Satellite Television Service Made It Possible for Homes, Churches to Link Up for International Prayer Event Sunday
Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam
What are your kids WATCHING this summer? Give them a movie that is sure to inspire them!
Baptist-backed film gets PG rating for being too evangelistic
Politics
Governor Perry, Texas GOP seize border as issue
World / World Apostasies
This is No Way to Treat Christianities’ Holy Sites
Australian State Government Pushing Gay Curriculum Saying Drop Terms "Mother", "Father"
Christianity / Religion
June 6 2006 Wendy Griffith CWNews
Christians in nearly 200 countries took part in the Global Day of Prayer on Sunday.
T
he horn sounded in nations across the globe on Pentecost Sunday. The shofar -- Israel's ancient call to prayer -- beckoned Christians worldwide to lift their voices to God.
The response was a tidal wave of prayer.
Graham Power, from the Global Day of Prayer, said, “400 million to 500 million Christians are praying across the world together. And what started as a vision, a dream, an instruction that God gave -- exploded across this world. This is not man's plan, this is God's plan.”
Close to home, thousands of prayer meetings took place throughout the Americas. They stretched from Calgary, Canada, and down into most South American nations, including Santiago, Chile.
Here in the u.S., Christians in 48 states observed the day of prayer, with a three-hour live national broadcast from Reunion Arena in Dallas anchoring the worldwide event.
But it was the so-called ' Third World' that led the way in prayer. Organizers estimate 40 million Africans in 53 countries came out to pray.
An arena in Cape Town was one of 37 prayer sites in Africa alone, and some of the biggest crowds gathered in Asia.
Believers in Taipei and 10 other cities in Taiwan asked God to bless not only their nation, but Mainland China as well.
And they cried out for unity among all Chinese believers so they can fulfill their dream of preaching the Gospel throughout Asia and all the way back to Jerusalem.
It is that kind of faith and action day of prayer that organizers hope to inspire in the church.
That is why they are following up the day of prayer with "90 days of Blessing." Starting today, churches will begin doing good works in their communities, and putting feet to their faith.
Back
Couple to Celebrate 32nd Anniversary Walking Across America
June 7 2006 Christian Newswire
B
RISTOL, Tenn., Rick and Jane McKinney will spend their 32nd wedding anniversary crossing the Tennessee border into Virginia, their ninth and final state in their Walk To Reclaim America. The McKinneys have walked nearly 2400 miles and through eight states on the “prayer walk” across America.
The couple left Santa Monica Pier in Los Angeles, California on January 1st and plan to arrive in Washington DC on July 4th. “The most common question we get is why,” says Rick McKinney. “Of course that’s the best question we could possibly be asked. That gives us the opportunity to tell folks that we’re praying for our country and its people. We tell them that we’re praying that our country will return to the faith of our Founding Fathers. That allows us to start a conversation about personal faith. We just try to turn every conversation into an opening to share the gospel. We’ve done it thousands of times all across America.”
“A lot of folks want to talk about politics or the President,” says Jane McKinney, “but we just want to talk about Jesus. We believe the only answer for our country is for individuals to experience salvation. That can change our nation, one life at a time.”
“This has been the most difficult adventure of our lives,” says Rick McKinney. “We’ve walked every step of the way. We’ve been through every kind of weather, walked in every kind of terrain, walked hurt and injured, and at over 50 years old, really stretched our bodies to the limit. But God has been faithful every step of the way. When we thought we couldn’t take another step, somehow he has kept us moving.”
More information about the Walk To Reclaim America including maps, photos, and stories about the journey can be obtained from their website at www.walktoreclaimamerica.com. You can also reach the McKinneys on the toll-free phone number (866) 462-7464.
Note: I spoke to Rick early Wednesday morning and wished him and Jane a happy 32nd anniversary and congratulated them on their success. I told Rick I would ask our people [through this report] to pray for their safety on this last leg of their “Walk to Reclaim America” please pray for Rich and Jane as they finish their walk through Virginia and into Washington D.C.
Rick told me: “it was by God’s helping hand and by the prayers of Godley people that has enabled them to make this long journey. Rick also said: “if every Christian across this country would join together in prayer, God will restore this nation’s Christian heritage, but before we can all unite in prayer, we must first over come the apathy that grips so many of us.”
Howard Wilson
Back
Judge Rules Christian Prison Program Unconstitutional; Appeal Planned
June 5 2006 Jody Brown Agape Press
"The courts took God our of America's schools -- now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons." -- Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship President.
Evidently it matters not that a well-known and highly successful prison ministry believes one of its premier programs is constitutional and well within the guidelines of the First Amendment, or that statistics bear out the effectiveness of the program. A federal judge has ruled the program is unconstitutional -- and now the program that equips prisoners to successfully re-enter society is in jeopardy.
A federal judge has ruled that an Iowa prison program that involves inmates immersing themselves in evangelical Christianity is unconstitutional and must be shut down. Associated Press reports that Judge Robert Pratt, in a ruling expected to have national implications, said Prison Fellowship's InnerChange Freedom Initiative amounts to a government establishment of religion.
Pratt ruled that the Iowa Department of Corrections must close the program within 60 days and that $1.5 million in contract payments must be returned to state officials, but he suspended those orders while an appeal is pending.
Prison Fellowship, which sponsors similar programs in Texas, Minnesota, Kansas and Arkansas, argued that the Iowa program is voluntary and has secular benefits. The ministry claims the program has produced "dramatic results" in the lives of hardened criminals and has been effective in stopping what it describes as "the revolving door of crime."
If Judge Pratt's ruling is allowed to stand, says Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley, it will "enshrine" religious discrimination. The ruling, he states, "has attacked the right of people of faith to operate on a level playing field in the public arena and to provide services to those who volunteered to receive them."
In addition, observes Earley, the federal judge's decision fosters what the ministry leader describes as a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approach to fighting crime.
"It assumes by warehousing criminals and providing no services to help them change, that society will be safer when they get out," he says. "Nothing could be further from the truth." Prison Fellowship says it plans to appeal the ruling to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and that it believes the case will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was more than three years ago -- February 2003 -- that the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Iowa, alleging that it represented an excessive entanglement between state and religion.
Back
The Good Old and New Faith of Branson
June 6 2006 Feature by Cindy Shorey Agape Press
The Branson story is not a new story to many: quaint historic town becomes a tourist Mecca, seemingly overnight. That line could be true of several great travel destinations, including Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and Myrtle Beach. But what sets Branson, Missouri, apart?
Branson has seen its share of successes and even a few failures. That is the normal ebb and flow of business in a tourist-driven economy. Beyond the economics, what has remained is the faith in the heart of Branson and, to many a faith in a higher purpose for the area. On the surface a new face is evident -- but dig deeper and you will find a rich vein of faith in God, and faith in family. Branson is a town where God, flag, and country take center stage. Perhaps that was the heart of Branson all along.
Back in 1990, Branson saw the arrival of a cavalcade of stars including Mel Tillis, Charley Pride, Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson, Wayne Newton, and comedian David Brenner. All big names to be sure! But the muscle of the bigger names didn't keep the smaller shows from surviving. They have survived and thrived ... and have proceeded to remain atop the list of "must-see family shows" in Branson. The shows you wouldn't be embarrassed to take your family to. And that is a common denominator that 99 percent of the shows share.
It's 2006 and families are expected to pour into Branson. What does the new Branson offer? It no longer caters solely to the stereotypical Branson tourist: the "country music loving, Larry the Cable Guy tourist." Branson has found a way to embrace sophisticated baby boomers. New attractions in 2006 include a $300 million waterfront development known as the "Landing," a new Titanic exhibit, and Silver Dollar City's new expansion, The Grand Exposition.
Some 16 years after the "boom years" of the 1990s, many of the theaters also cater to a new audience -- that of church member. Many theaters in Branson have also become home to several churches. It's not uncommon to find services every Sunday morning at your favorite theater.
Mel Tillis sold his 110,000-square-foot building in 2002 to the Assemblies of God, and it has become home to one of Branson's fastest growing churches and event centers. The center plans to host Christian events and conferences year round. This summer it will host its first children's show, "God Rocks!"
On the other side of town, Keith Moore pastors the popular Faith Christian Church, formerly known as the Tony Orlando Theater. Tourists flock to these and other churches each Sunday, in search of services away from home. Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church has expanded their facility thanks to benevolent tourists each year.
Branson has also become a popular destination for religious meeting planners, conferences, and ministries. Religious conferences are one of the fastest growing meeting sectors nationwide. Speakers such as David Jeremiah, Kenneth Copeland, John Hagee and James Dobson have all appeared at one time or another in Branson. Brannon Howse, director of Worldview Weekend conferences, has indeed been pleasantly surprised at the success of his ministry conference held each year in Branson. "Branson represents a destination that I could not have dreamed up: faith, family, flag," says Howse. His event for 2006, which celebrated the birth of our religious freedom, sold out.
It is safe to say one of the biggest successes of the past 15 years in Branson has not been the "star factor," but the ability of the community to withstand the knock of gambling at its door. The year 2005 saw a successful, and some say surprising, victory against a Rockaway Beach proposed gaming initiative.
When you visit Branson this year, expect to see some familiar sights, marvel at some new ones, and listen closely to the strength of the heartbeat of a new Branson.
Cindy Shorey manages the Tri-Lakes Center for the Assemblies of God, and has been a resident of Branson since 1989. A freelance writer, she often writes "on assignment" for her dad Mel Tillis and sister Pam Tillis. She especially enjoys writing about her faith and is working on a devotional book for single moms.
Back
Feds seize 'millions' – in gospel tracts Secret Service threatens evangelist in Texas with arrest for counterfeiting
June 2, 2006 Joseph Farah WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON -- Secret Service agents today threatened a Denton, Texas, evangelist with arrest for counterfeiting and seized 8,300 gospel tracts designed as "million-dollar bills."
Three Secret Service agents visited the Great News Network offices about 1 p.m. asking staffer Tim Crawford if he was responsible for printing "the million-dollar bills."
Crawford suggested they talk to his boss, Darrel Rudus, the founder of the organization that trains evangelists from around the country in the techniques of witnessing their faith.
By telephone, Rudus offered his opinion that it was impossible to counterfeit something that wasn't real – a $1 million bill.
But the agents explained that a woman in North Carolina had attempted to deposit one of the million-dollar bills in her bank account. The address of the Great News Network was on the back, and the Secret Service went into action.
Rudus also explained that his organization had not designed the tracts. They are the work of the Living Waters Ministry of Ray Comfort in Southern California, which distributes millions of them a year.
Before he got off the phone, Rudus was convinced the agents were going to drop their demand for the Great News Network's tracts.
But later, he reports, the agents again demanded them from Crawford, threatening him with arrest for "concealing evidence." Rather than face arrest, Crawford turned over the approximately 8,300 million-dollar tracts the group had stored. The agents left a receipt and their business cards.
Comfort told WND he was stunned by the action of the Secret Service and expects agents to visit his offices soon. He said he has no plans to abandon the use of the tracts, which are among the most popular of the many his organization distributes. Living Waters is known for its television program, "The Way of the Master," and an association with actor Kirk Cameron.
"I'm not going to stop printing them," Comfort said. "How can you possibly counterfeit something that is not real – a $1 million bill?"
One side of the tract is designed like an imaginary $1 million bill. The other side has the gospel message written around the border. It also includes this message: "The million dollar question: Will you go to Heaven? Here's a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain? Jesus said, "Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart." Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will. He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you. Jesus took your punishment upon Himself – 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting
life.' Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (turn from sin) today and trust in Jesus, and God will grant you everlasting life. Then read your Bible daily and obey it."
The tracts are also clearly marked on the front: "This bill is not legal tender."
Rudus says he won't be deterred from distributing the tracts in the future.
"Show me the law we're breaking," he told WND. "How can you counterfeit bills that do not exist?"
Rudus suspects the unknown lady in North Carolina didn't actually try to deposit the tract into her bank account.
"People drop these tracts for others to see and read," he explained. "That's the purpose of it. I have no way of knowing, but if I were going to guess, I would suggest this person just included the tract along with a deposit and someone got offended."
Back
Democracy / Security
Ignoring the Real danger to liberty
Jun 6 2006 Alan Sears Townhall.com
So, essentially, the argument in opposition to a federal marriage amendment comes down to this: sex trumps God.
S
ex trumps religious liberty. Sex trumps the well-being of children. Sex trumps personal conscience.
Sex trumps the Constitution.
By forcing court-ordered same-sex “marriage” on the rest of us, political activists pushing the homosexual agenda will compel the great majority of American citizens and religious groups to ignore their deepest spiritual convictions, and effectively embrace—at the point of a legal shotgun—a homosexual definition of matrimony.
And, in doing so, these same advocates will force open the door for polygamy and countless other redefinitions of the term. Marriage, having ceased to become what it is, will effectively become nothing at all.
Mission accomplished.
Then, on to the next mission: search out and destroy any church or religious institution that doesn’t embrace homosexual behavior.
Twenty-three years ago, the courts took away Bob Jones University’s tax exemptions, in response to school rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage. Though the arguments equating homosexual behavior and race hold no water whatsoever, it would be no great stretch for those same courts to de-exempt, say, a Bible college that outlaws homosexual dating and other behavior. Already, parents in Massachusetts who object to the teaching of pro-homosexual messages in their children’s public schools have been told they have no say. Same-sex “marriage” is legal in their state, a judge told them; why shouldn’t teachers promote it in the classroom?
Scott Savage, a Quaker and librarian at Ohio State University, is only the latest in a long line of college faculty and staff members all over the country to find his job and reputation hanging by a thread, merely for questioning the politically-correct, pro-homosexual status quo. Does anyone really think judicially mandated same-sex “marriage” is going to lessen the number or kind of allegations (bigotry, sexual harassment) that Savage and other conscientious students and educators are being forced to endure?
The Hobson’s choice made by Catholic Charities Boston (to discontinue its work, rather than arrange adoptions for same-sex couples) illustrates the kind of pressure more and more religious-based organizations will face once states hand over their legal keys to the homosexual activists.
And the case of Pastor Ake Green—arrested in his native Sweden for daring to preach a sermon in his own church on what the Bible says about homosexual behavior—gives an ominous preview of coming attractions, once religious liberty falls afoul of the homosexual movement’s aggressive intolerance—an intolerance demanding religious liberty give way to the homosexual agenda.
That intolerance is building like a tsunami, just off the shores of federal law. It’s all well and good for some United States senators to mount a high horse, wrap themselves in the flag, and sidestep their responsibilities, grandly announcing that marriage amendments should be handled at the state level. They know that no matter how many citizens approve such amendments, leftist federal judges—urged on by the ACLU and radical homosexual advocates—will continue to try to nullify the referendums.
Furthermore, the precedent of federal protection of marriage is long established. Western states like Arizona and Utah had to proscribe polygamy in their constitutions to come into the union. This was in the 19th and 20th centuries, as part of the Republican national platform.
Soon enough, what’s left of marriage will be engulfed by politically-correct edicts.
It’s amazing to realize how much has come to hinge on this amendment, and in such a short time. Once, and not so long ago, religious freedom was understood as a priority – indeed, as the fundamental right protected by the Constitution. But that was back when Divine directives were acknowledged as both prescient and legal precedent; the horrors of persecution weren’t so far removed but that people—even judges—recognized how precious it is, this freedom to preach and pray.
Even those who had no real intention of putting God before salacious satisfaction understood that, in sidestepping thousands of years of holy revelation and moral conviction, they were deliberately choosing “the dark side.” They recognized their hypocrisy, in Matthew Arnold’s famous phrase, as “the tribute vice pays to virtue.”
These days, vice is widely regarded as the virtue, and its receiving tributes galore from judges, academes, actors, and even pastors too besotted with the glories of humanism to recognize the freedoms slipping fast through their fingers.
The problems with same-sex “marriage” are myriad—the emotional implications for children, the permanent physical and psychological dangers for those engaging in homosexual behavior, the structural cracks in society, the precedent for government intrusion in profoundly personal arenas.
But even the most sobering of these social ripples pales beside the very real threat that court-decreed homosexual “marriage” poses for the future of religious liberty in America.
The couples themselves can talk all they like about love and benefits. But what they really want isn’t marriage at all.
It’s a divorce of Americans from their most basic freedom.
Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor who held various posts in the departments of Justice and Interior during the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. He is co-author with Craig Osten of the books The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values
and The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom, which outlines the above and much more in greater detail.
Back
US Birthright in Exchange for Immigration
Jun 6 2006 Thomas Sowell Townhall.com
Many stores held sales over the Memorial Day holidays. In Washington, the Senate immigration bill has been selling our birthright for a message of political pottage.
F
ar from "controlling the borders" as advertised, this bill reduces our existing control of the borders. Under a provision inserted at the eleventh hour by Senator Arlen Specter, the Senate bill forbids the federal government from building a fence without first consulting with the Mexican government.
In fact, state and local governments are also forbidden by this bill to take any border control actions without first consulting with their Mexican counterparts. In other words, if the city of San Diego wants to put up any sort of barriers, it would have to consult with the municipal authorities in Tijuana before doing so.
This legislation was never about border control. The laws already on the books at this very moment allow us to control the borders, to build any fence we choose, without consulting the government of Mexico.
The laws already on the books allow any illegal alien to be arrested and expelled. Those laws are simply not being enforced. If a Los Angeles policeman arrests an illegal alien and reports him to the federal authorities, it is the Los Angeles cop who will be in big trouble.
Border Patrol agents can knock themselves out capturing people trying to enter the country illegally but nothing happens to most of those people, even the ones organizing the smuggling of people and drugs into this country.
An Associated Press dispatch reports: "The vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense, demoralizing the Border Patrol agents, according to an internal document obtained by the Associated Press."
In other words, we have make-believe border control and the current Senate legislation will weaken even that, all the while talking about "tough" enforcement. That "tough" enforcement is a promise but legalizing illegal aliens is immediate and irrevocable and its consequences irreversible and lasting far into the future.
"Border control" is just political cover for legalizing illegal aliens. The two things are put together in a package deal that is like horse-and-rabbit stew, whose ingredients are one horse and one rabbit. Border control is the rabbit.
The word games played about "amnesty" deliberately confuse the issue of violations of American law with the issue of acquiring American citizenship.
The fact that the Senate bill has requirements -- described as "tough," like everything else -- for acquiring citizenship is irrelevant to the question of letting the violations of law go unpunished.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who has over the years done some of the most incisive analysis of census and other statistical data, projects the actual consequences of legalizing the existing illegal alien population in the United States to extend far beyond the 12 million estimated to be here now.
These 12 million people are not test tube babies. They have parents and they will have children. Nor are their other family members likely to be kept out after the illegals are made legal.
Over the following 20 years, Dr. Rector projects that the real increase in this population living in the United States to be 103 million, not the 12 million that everyone is talking about.
This is one of the most reckless gambles with the future of this nation ever taken by supposedly responsible members of Congress. The idea that we must consult with Mexico before controlling our own borders is staggering -- and revealing.
The Mexican government has already shown its utter contempt for our laws by publishing booklets advising its citizens how to enter the United States illegally and how to take advantage of American welfare state provisions.
Mexican president Vicente Fox has even had the nerve to warn that his "friendship" with the United States is at risk if we pass immigration laws he doesn't like. Consulting with his government is truly putting Vicente Fox in charge of the hen house.
Back
Senate Marriage Mockers
June 8 2006 Tony Perkins Family Values
S
en. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sneers that defenders of marriage are bigots "pure and simple." Such talk is giving aid and comfort to others who publicly mock marriage. We've reported on the Truro, Mass., fire engineer who was fired because he signed a pro-marriage petition.
Now we learn that in Florida, police harassed and ridiculed petition gatherers. The police officers in Sunrise, Fla., ordered Nathan Dunn to stop circulating a petition for signatures to put marriage on the ballot in the Sunshine State. Dunn is Vice President of the Florida Family Policy Council. Two of the male officers mocked the petition drive by publicly kissing each other. Worse, this incident took place at a Promise Keepers gathering. The petition effort had been approved by PK leaders. Sergeant Stephen Allen, it quickly became clear, is a backer of gay marriage.
FRC is looking into these actions and will seek an appropriate legal and legislative remedy. The right of petition is fundamental. Harassment such as we've seen in Massachusetts and Florida give the lie to Ted Kennedy's slander. There is bigotry in this debate--and it's all coming from his side. Does Kennedy think his fellow Democrats in the Pennsylvania state legislature are bigots? While Mr. Kennedy was engaged in hate speech on the Senate floor against supporters of marriage, the Democratic-controlled House in Pennsylvania approved a marriage protection amendment for the Keystone State. The vote was 136-61. Michael Geer and the Pennsylvania Family Institute are to be congratulated for this important victory.
Back
Family / Social
World Congress of Families Disappointed by Senate Vote on Marriage Amendment
June 7 2006 Christian Newswire
N
EWS ADVISORY, World Congress of Families organizer Dr. Allan Carlson expressed “extreme disappointment” over the Senate’s failure to approve the Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. An attempt to end a filibuster failed. Only 49 Senators supported the amendment, far short of the two-thirds needed to approve a Constitutional amendment.
“The Senate has once again evaded its responsibility to defend the institution of marriage,” Carlson commented. “Opponents asked why supporters were wasting the Senate’s time with a ‘politically motivated’ measure, with war raging in Iraq and the price of oil at over $3.00 a barrel – as if preserving traditional marriage and the natural family was something of little consequence.”
Carlson reminds us that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948) recognizes the right of “men and women” – and men and women alone -- “to marry and to found a family.”
The Declaration states, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Carlson: “This suggests that the United States government has an absolute duty to keep the courts from defining marriage out of existence, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did three years ago, when it forced gay marriage on the state.”
Carlson noted that, in March, a commission established by the President of the French National Assembly recommended against extending marriage to same-sex couples in France. Its report declared that the interests of children are paramount here, that “marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that implies rights and duties, and is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child.”
Still, Carlson warned that European Union bureaucrats are trying to effect the same radical change sought by some judges here. In May, the EU ordered member states to facilitate gay marriages contracted in other EU countries.
Protecting marriage from the assault of social engineers – in the bureaucracy or on the bench – will be high on the agenda of World Congress of Families IV, when it convenes in Warsaw, Poland May 11-13, 2006.
American Values President, Gary Bauer said: Members of the United States Senate, once again, demonstrated just how divorced from reality they have become. Two weeks ago, it was illegal immigration. Today, it was the definition of marriage. This morning, the Senate failed to end a liberal filibuster of the proposed constitutional amendment to preserve the definition of marriage in America as the union of one man and one woman. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to shut down filibusters, but the vote was 49-to-48, effectively killing the amendment. The respective positions of the political parties could not be more clear: 85% of Senate Republicans voted for the marriage protection amendment, while 91% of Senate Democrats voted
against the marriage protection amendment – against defining marriage in America as the union of one man and one woman.
CLICK HERE to see how the U.S. Senators voted today.
Back
Great News! The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Passed the US House
June 7 2006 Christian Newswire
W
ASHINGTON, Concerned Women for America (CWA) and millions of parents today celebrate the passage of Sen. Sam Brownback’s (R- Kansas) Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, S.193. This huge victory comes after last week’s Senate passage of the bill. We eagerly await President Bush’s signature so that this legislation will be made law.
“Today marks a major victory for American families in the final passage of this long-awaited legislation,” said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. “Finally, broadcasters will be held financially responsible for the filthy content they transmit. The new regulations will raise indecency fines from the current $32,500 per offense, up to $325,000. These steep increases will force broadcasters to think twice before they dispense more profanity, sex scenes and inappropriate programming into our homes. The penalties will hit them where they will feel it the most—their pocketbooks.
“This victory belongs to the citizens and grassroots organizations who have taken a stand for families by insisting that senators heed their demand for clean airwaves. It has been encouraging and inspiring to witness the number of people who have risen up to the challenge of protecting their families. Your hard work has paid off today and families across America will be reaping the benefits.”
Sleazy entertainment like Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” pushed the envelope one step too far. The American people have spoken and Congress has taken a solid step in the right direction. Congress must become still more responsive to the needs of America’s families and CWA looks forward to even greater reforms.
Swann concluded, “We would also like to thank Sen. Brownback, Senate Majority Leader Frist, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for their dedication to passing this bill in both the Senate and the House. Their leadership has been instrumental in this pro-family triumph. Sen. Frist especially deserves the thanks of moms and dads across the nation for his bold and creative efforts to free the bill from an intransigent committee chairman who bottled up the legislation for well over a year.”
Click to read more about the passage of The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.
Back
Federal Marriage Amendment: -- Baptists spoke last Sunday, Bush on Monday
June 2 2006 Allie Martin, Jody Brown, and Rusty Pugh Agape Press
Family Advocate Highly Disappointed in White House Passivity toward MPA
S
outhern Baptist pastors were being encouraged last weekend to preach about the necessity of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. The legislative matter is scheduled to come before the U.S. Senate for debate and a vote next week.
The Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) has 32 co-sponsors, all Republicans. The amendment states, in part, that marriage in the U.S. "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state's constitution shall confer the legal incidents of marriage on any other type of union.
Because the measure deals with amending the U.S. Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, and then two-thirds of the U.S. House, before going to individual states for consideration. Three-fourths of the states -- 38 of them -- would then have to ratify the measure.
Pro-family and faith-based groups across the country have been urging their supporters to contact their senators and encourage them to vote for the MPA. Among those groups is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which has dubbed June 4 as "Marriage Protection Sunday" throughout its churches in an effort to encourage Southern Baptists to learn more about the threat to biblical marriage posed by same-sex unions.
Kenyn Cureton is vice president for convention relations with the Executive Committee of the SBC. He says pastors have an obligation to educate their congregations about the necessity of protecting traditional marriage.
"They need to take the lead in equipping their churches to become what Jesus asks us to be," he explains. "That is, the salt that stings and then heals, and also the light that shines [as] the only way that's hope for America, and that's Jesus. And so if the pastors will take the lead in equipping the congregations, then I think the congregations will rise up and let their voices be heard on this matter."
It is vital for Christians to get involved with the issue, asserts Cureton. "All you need to do is look at Scandinavia to see what is going to happen in America if we allow the definition of marriage to be changed," the SBC official says, continuing to explain what has happened in that country.
"In Scandinavia for the last ten years or so, maybe fifteen, they've allowed de facto gay marriage. As a result, in some places in Norway upwards of 80 percent of the children are being born into homes without a legally married mom and dad, [who are] just cohabiting."
Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to have legalized same-sex marriage. But state supreme courts in New Jersey, New York, and Washington could legalize such unions before the end of the year. Six states -- Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- are considering state marriage amendments this fall.
It's Not All Rosy from the White House.
Interestingly, at no point in the formal federal constitutional amendment process does the U.S. president play a role. The president can veto neither an amendment proposal nor ratification. Yet the president's opinion on the matter can carry great influence -- and that is why a pro-family leader in Virginia is bothered by President Bush's apparent reluctance to use his bully pulpit to rally support for the MPA.
President Bush is scheduled to deliver a speech in the nation's capital on Monday, where he is expected to voice his support for the Marriage Protection Amendment. But Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, says the fact that the president has waited until the day before the Senate votes to speak on the issue shows the president does not care. Bush, he says, "hasn't lifted a finger" to push the MPA.
"He hasn't twisted any arms, he hasn't made any deals, he hasn't been pushing senators to support defining marriage as between a man and a woman," Glover states. "And [yet] he thinks that he can hold one speech ... the day before the vote, which is a clear expression of weakness, and appease conservatives as if he's done something significant."
The pro-family activist notes that the president worked for months on issues such as Social Security and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, "which conservatives didn't even like." Glover adds. "But for marriage he gives us one speech ... the day before and expects us all to be pleased with it."
In addition, Glover reports that the venue for Bush's speech on Monday -- originally to take place in the White House Rose Garden -- has been moved to a room in the Eisenhower Building. He suggests the change in location as another indication of the administration's lackluster support for the amendment. "They've moved it to the back of the bus," he says.
Glover feels that Bush's lack of concern for protecting traditional marriage is a slap in the face of conservative Christians who helped elect him. And it is ironic, he adds, that First Lady Laura Bush made the comment recently that protecting marriage should not be a campaign issue, when the issue was a key part of the Republican platform in 2004.
Back
Government / Legislation
U.N. making homeschooling illegal?
May 29 2006 Prophecy News Watch
A U.N. treaty conferring rights to children could make homeschooling illegal in the U.S. even though the Senate has not ratified it, a homeschooling association warns.
M
ichael Farris, chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association, or HSLDA, believes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child could be binding on U.S. citizens because of activist judges, reports LifeSite News.
Farris said that according to a new interpretation of "customary international law," some U.S. judges have ruled the convention applies to American parents.
"In the 2002 case of Beharry v. Reno, one federal court said that even though the convention was never ratified, it still has an impact on American law," Farris explained, according to LifeSiteNews. "The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence."
The convention places severe limitations on a parent's right to direct and train their children, Farris contends.
The HSLDA produced a report in 1993 showing that under Article 13, parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable.
Under Article 14, children are guaranteed "freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which suggests they have a legal right to object to all religious training. Further, under Article 15, the child has a right to "freedom of association."
"If this measure were to be taken seriously, parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions," the HSLDA report explained.
Farris pointed out that in 1995 the United Kingdom was deemed out of compliance with the convention "because it allowed parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child."
Farris argues, according to LifeSiteNews, that "by the same reasoning, parents would be denied the ability to homeschool their children unless the government first talked with their children and the government decided what was best. This committee would even have the right to determine what religious teaching, if any, served the child's best interest."
Offering solutions, Farris suggests Congress use its power to define customary law and modify the jurisdiction of federal courts.
"Congress needs to address this issue of judicial tyranny by enacting legislation that limits the definition of customary international law to include only provisions of treaties that Congress has ratified," he said.
Farris also suggested Congress could pass a constitutional amendment stating explicitly that no provision of any international agreement can supersede the constitutional rights of an American citizen.
He pointed out two such amendments have been proposed in Congress.
Finally, he says specific threats to parental rights can be solved by "putting a clear parents' rights amendment into the black and white text of the United States Constitution."
Back
A Step in the Right Direction: Louisiana Passes Conditional Abortion Ban
June 6 2006 Christian Newswire
Legislation shows a trend in America to abolish abortion on demand.- The Louisiana Senate has passed a conditional ban on abortion that is expected to be signed by Gov. Kathleen Blanco.
B
ATON ROUGE The Louisiana abortion ban would punish abortionists with possible 10 year prison sentences and $100,000 fines, but allows exceptions to save the life of the mother or if the mother’s health would be seriously damaged. It can only go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, or the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow states to decided on the legality of abortion.
While Operation Rescue believes this is a step in the right direction, the pro-life group expressed some disappointment that the bill was conditional, and that a “health” exception was included at the last minute.
“We are happy for any restrictions to the brutal killing of innocent babies by abortion,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “But we would have liked to have seen a ban that would go into effect without having to wait on the Supreme Court or a Constitutional Amendment. Both of those processes can take decades, and the children that are scheduled to die today, tomorrow, and next week simply do not have that time to wait.”
“The health exception is also a concern to us because we have seen abortionists make careers out of exploiting the health exception clauses in state laws to include any abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason,” said Newman.
In spite of its flaws, Newman says that this is another example of the people speaking loud and clear that they do not want abortion in their communities and in their states. And this is a trend that he says is picking up steam across America.
“It is certain that abortion will come to an end in our nation, whether by judicial decree, Constitutional Amendment, or simply by the people running these abortion chop shops out of their towns,” said Newman.
“Americans see through the abortionists’ rhetoric and are beginning to realize that abortion hurts women, kills babies, and destroys families and relationships. This sentiment is starting to be reflected in state laws such as Louisiana’s abortion ban. We are witnessing the beginning of a decisive victory for the pro-life movement.”
Read Text of Louisiana Conditional Abortion Ban
Note: Texas is very much in need to this type of abortion legislation, called a trigger Law. Without a bill banning abortion in Texas, abortion in Texas would still be legal in the event that Roe v Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme court. Texas state representative Warren Chisum has proposed such legislation and chances are good that he will offer another resolution, next year during the 80th Texas legislative session.
Also Rep.Warren Chisum filed the Texas Constitutional Marriage Amendment resolution that makes marriage legal only between and man and a woman, [which] was later passed and then ratified by Texas voters. Howard Wilson
Back
Should the U.S. Supreme Court Give Each State the Ability to Decide Roe v. Wade? Or Should Congress Overturn It?
June 7 2006 Christian Newswire
S
AN DIEGO, In what may be one of the greatest legal blunders to be perpetrated by a well meaning and compassionate pro life community, many believe that overturning Roe through the courts is the best course of action to stop the horrific practice of killing the unborn. Many have believed that by putting in strict constructionist judges, they will be the greatest guarantee of overturning the decision that has deprived pre born children their 14th amendment right to life.
"Nothing could be further from the truth" so says Phil Magnan, Director of Biblical Family Advocates. "By allowing the courts to decide Roe, legal abortion is destined to go back to the states to decide, thus allowing abortion to continue in many states like California, who have placed the right of abortion into their constitution. Even though there will be States that decide against legal abortion, many will still have abortion available in their neighboring States, so the carnage of abortion will continue."
Some will say that by throwing the decision of legalized abortion back to the States abortion will at least be reduced. But Magnan responded, "But historically speaking, the decision of slavery was not decided by giving it back to the States. Could you imagine slavery still being legal in the South?
"The 13th amendment took that decision from the states because slavery should not be legal in any state, affirming that no person should be treated like property. So why should children continue to be treated as property in some states, thus violating the 13th amendment? It is not for the States to decide Roe if abortion should be legal, it was already decided when the 14th amendment was passed, stating that no one should be deprived of their life without due process. And I have yet to see a pre born commit any crime, unless sucking your thumb in the womb is a crime."
What also continues to not be addressed in this battle for the lives of millions of children in the womb is that Congress itself could constitutionally overturn the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. These facts can be seen in an article written by conservative Christian radio show and columnist, Chuck Baldwin. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.co m/c2003/cbarchive_20030321.html
Magnan continued "The Congress has conveniently ignored their authority to overturn Roe once and for all, thus continuing the judicial tyranny that is destroying our representative government and destroying over 4000 children a day. Their lack of moral and spiritual courage is quite revealing, showing that most are not morally conservative in the truest sense of the word. They have been disingenuous and apparently they say that they are against abortion, but do nothing with their authority to stop it, thus breaking their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Should not the American people remind the current administration we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes life? It is truly sad that we must remind them of this."
Back
Life Issues / Behavior
Our U.S. Government Evicts Homeowners from Their Homes and their City Charges them Back Rent
June 6 2006 American Conservative Union
The government CAN NOW take your business, your farm -- EVEN YOUR HOME -- and hand it over to PRIVATE developers!
Y
ou've probably heard of the Kelo decision. One year ago this month, five Justices of the United States Supreme Court sided with the City of New London, Connecticut and ruled that that governments HAVE THE RIGHT to take your home and hand it over to fat-cat private developers any time they want!
But what you probably didn't know is that while our political leaders dawdled, pontificated and gave lip-service to the 5th Amendment, the City of New London, Connecticut voted on Monday to EVICT the remaining New London homeowners from THEIR OWN HOMES!
And to add insult to injury the City of New London -- under the ludicrous assumption that THEY actually owned these homes all along -- is going to retaliate against these homeowners and fine them YEARS OF BACK RENT!
Can you imagine YOUR city charging you "back rent" for living in a house that you OWN?
Neither can I! That's why we need to DEMAND that our dawdling Senators immediately pass The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005.
And we MUST ACT RIGHT NOW, because the City of New London just voted to EVICT these homeowners from their own homes!
Back
Colorado High School Graduate's Diploma Held After She Speaks About Her Faith
June 7 2006 Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor Citizen Link
Legal experts say the action was a violation of her constitutional rights.
A
top high school graduate in Colorado who shared her faith in her valedictory was escorted from the ceremony by school staff and told she couldn't take her diploma home until she explained her actions to the principal and the parents of other graduates.
Erica Corder was among 14 Colorado Springs students who addressed their graduating class last month. Rather than choose one or a few speakers, they decided to each share for 30 seconds.
Corder worked with her peers to write her segment, but did not include any reference to her faith in the draft she submitted to the principal — because she was unsure how it would be received.
"But I knew without a doubt that God was calling me to share my faith with those at graduation," she said. "I had been praying about it for months, and God prepared me. He gave me the strength, confidence and peace that I needed to stand up in front of thousands and share my beliefs."
Here is the entire speech that caused all the trouble:
"Throughout these lessons our teachers, parents, and let's not forget our peers have supported and encouraged us along the way. Thank you all for the past four amazing years. Because of your love and devotion to our success, we have all learned how to endure change and remain strong individuals. We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in Heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don't already know Him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice He made for you, so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him. And we also encourage you, now that we are all ready to encounter the biggest change in our lives thus far, the transition from childhood
to adulthood, to leave (our school) with confidence and integrity. Congratulations class of 2006."
As caps flew and the graduates exited, a teacher next to Erica escorted her to the assistant principal.
"The assistant principal told me that I would not be given my diploma until I scheduled a meeting with the principal," Corder said, "who would then decide what to do about the situation."
Her father, Steve Corder, said he was pleased that his daughter's peers had chosen her to conclude the valedictory and was thrilled with her decision to share her faith.
"She had felt convicted from early in the school year that if she was named a valedictorian, God was asking her to say what she said," Corder said. "God had honored her in a number of ways this year and she simply wanted to redirect that honor to Him — for as John 12:26 says, 'If any man serve Me, him will My Father honor.' "
A few days later, Erica was asked by the principal to draft an e-mail to parents explaining that he had not approved or condoned her words. Her father said that wasn't all she was asked to write.
"He also asked her to include an apology for what she said," he said, "but she was not willing to do that, because this was something God had asked her to do."
She did draft a note that made it clear neither the principal nor the other valedictorians knew what she intended to say.
But the principal also asked Erica to add one more sentence: "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did."
Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, called such a requirement "outrageous."
"It's probably one of the most egregious things I've heard in terms of a graduation situation," he said. "I think it sends a horrible message not only to her, but also the other students, that what she did is illegal and shameful."
In fact, he said, she was completely within her constitutional rights to say whatever she wanted.
"She has a greater right to be able to speak because she's a valedictorian than even being elected by fellow students," he said. "Because she's there by virtue of her academic standing."
Steve Corder said he has spoken to the school-board president, who said she was open to hearing more about what students can legally share in a graduation ceremony.
Staver said the school had no authority to withhold Corder's diploma if she had successfully concluded her coursework and should not have asked her to write the e-mail to parents.
"I would say to her and her family that I apologize to her for her having experienced that kind of unconstitutional behavior from public school officials who are tasked with upholding the Constitution," he said. "What she did was absolutely protected by the Constitution."
Back
Teacher Suspended For Telling Student to Read Bible
June 6 2006 CWNnews.com
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A Tennessee high school teacher is on indefinite administrative leave after admitting that he told a student to "just read your Bible."
That is according to a letter in teacher John Fulkerson's personnel file obtained by the Knoxville News Sentinel. The human resources supervisor who signed the letter wrote: That, Fulkerson admitted making the statement.
Fulkerson teaches and coaches football at Karns High School in Knoxville.
A Knox County Board of Education policy states that employees can neither promote nor belittle a particular religious belief and must "be tolerant of each other's views."
Back
United States Court of Appeals: FDA Failed to Provide Adequate Explanation for Withholding Abortion Pill Documents
June 6 2006 Christian Newswire
Case Remanded Back to U.S. District Court for Further Review
W
ASHINGTON, Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to provide adequate explanations for withholding more than 6,000 documents from Judicial Watch related to the approval of the abortion pill RU- 486. The appellate court remanded the case back to the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia for further review and ordered the FDA to provide more information about the documents withheld in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
When a federal agency refuses to release documents responsive to a FOIA request, it is required by law to produce a Vaughn index, which describes in detail the documents withheld along with the reasons for withholding them. The purpose is to allow the requester to challenge individual documents, and for the court to determine if the exemptions invoked by the government hold merit. The appellate court agreed with Judicial Watch that many of the FDA’s Vaughn index descriptions for the RU-486 documents were inadequate.
“...The FDA labeled many index entries with scientific codes, lab jargon, or other identifications specific to the agency...By using this shorthand, the FDA missed sight of the Vaughn index’s purpose – to enable the court and the opposing party to understand the withheld information in order to address the merits of the claimed exemptions,” the court ruled. “We accordingly remand the case for further explanation of these technical descriptions...”
Because federal agencies are allowed to withhold documents produced prior to the adoption of an agency policy, or documents that reflect the “consultative process,” the court also ruled the FDA must provide “dates for documents that lack them or explanations where dates cannot be found.”
Shortly after the FDA rushed the abortion pill RU-486 to market in the United States in the closing days of the Clinton administration, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking all FDA documents related to the RU- 486 approval process. When the FDA failed to produce documents, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the FDA to produce all responsive documents by October 15, 2001. The FDA disclosed 9,000 documents, but withheld over 4,000 in their entirety and parts of almost 2,000 more. (Documents previously uncovered by Judicial Watch led to calls on the Bush administration to take RU-486 to be taken off the market.)
“We are pleased the court will not allow the FDA to continue to subvert with the open records process,” said JW President Tom Fitton. “The American people have a right to know why a dangerous and deadly drug was approved by an agency charged with protecting public health. Judicial Watch will continue to aggressively push for the release of documents related to the approval of RU-486.”
Back
Sex Offenders Sue Indianapolis
June 2, 2006 staff reports citizen Link
ACLU represents abusers who argue law forcing them to stay away from places where kids congregate could limit their access to churches.
Six sex offenders, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are suing the city of Indianapolis, saying an ordinance that keeps them 1,000 feet from parks, pools and playgrounds is unconstitutional.
They say the law is too vague and could be used to keep them from — among other places — churches. Rich Ackerman, president of the Pro-Family Law Center, said the rationale for the lawsuit is suspicious at best.
"The ACLU suddenly screaming about people's ability to get to church," he said, "sounds a little suspect, to say the least."
The ACLU of Indiana did not return calls for comment. Indianapolis City Attorney Tenley Drescher-Rhoades, though, said the city will vigorously defend the law.
"We believe in the constitutionality of the ordinance," she told Family News in Focus. "We worked hard to narrowly craft it, and so we believe it will withstand scrutiny."
