Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Does the belief in the existence of God morally, socially, and politically affect our nation? Tune into a national debate on Nov. 2, 8-9:30 p.m. CST on TLN to see renown Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig and the legal director of the American Atheists Organization, Edwin Kagin, discuss this issue.
Visit www.tlnministries.org to get your free studio tickets or call TLN at 630-801-3684.
The 90 minute program will feature in-studio guests: Sandy Rios, president, Culture Campaign and Fox News channel contributor, Peter S. Sprigg, Vice President of Policy, The Family Research Council; Dan Barker, Co-president, Freedom From Religion Foundation; and others. The program’s host and moderator is TLN President Jerry Rose.
As WND reported, the girls, ages 8 to 12, were scheduled to perform a hip-hop dance routine Dec. 3, 2005, at a "Holiday Festival." A consent decree signed Oct. 24 ordered the city to pay $3,000 to each of the girls and to their dance instructor. Another $10,000 is to be paid for attorney fees and costs. Also included in the settlement is a requirement by the court for the city "to provide First Amendment training on an annual basis to its police officers and all city employees who are classified as mid-managers and above."
Attorney Brian Fahling said Chula Vista "is to be commended for stepping forward and acknowledging it violated the girl's constitutional rights." Tim Wildmon, president of the American Center of Law & Policy's parent group, the American Family Association, said "the girls had a great civics lesson in all of this … they learned that asserting their constitutional rights benefits not just them, but all of us."
The dancers were listed first on the Holiday Festival's schedule of performers, but officials kept the girls waiting 80 minutes as they deliberated about whether to allow the act, according to the instructor, Lita Ramirez. When finally informed they could not perform, the girls began to cry, some hysterically, parents said.
Read more about this at WorldNetDaily.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Defense: Killing payback for gay taunts
‘She could not leave him alone’
What could be worse?
The Chicago Tribune didn’t even bother to report it…
Read more at Americans for Truth
Islam is being taught in the nation's public schools as a religion to be embraced because "organized Islamists have gained control of textbook content," according to an organization that analyzes textbooks.
The American Textbook Council has concluded that the situation is the consequence of "the interplay of determined Islamic political activists, textbook editors, and multiculturally minded social studies curriculum planners."
It has gone so far that correcting the situation now becomes a problem, because "educational publishers and educational organizations have bought into claims propounded by Islamists – and have themselves become agents of misinformation."
Read more about this at WorldNetDaily.com
Thursday, October 26, 2006
In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".
"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked.
The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.
In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
Read more at the Australian News
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 today homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals but said lawmakers must determine whether that takes the form of same-sex marriage or some other legal union.
A ruling by the Massachusetts high court in 2003 introduced same-sex marriage to the United States. But activists on both sides viewed the New Jersey decision as even more significant because the Garden State, unlike Massachusetts, has no law barring out-of-state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states.
New Jersey is one of only five states without a law or a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. It could become a destination for homosexual couples from around the U.S. who would return home and sue to have their marriages recognized.
Four other states have similar pending cases, California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
In today's decision, the New Jersey court gave the state legislature 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include homosexual couples or create new civil unions.
"The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people," the court said.
Like the Massachusetts Supreme Court before them, the New Jersey Supreme Court exhibits a stunning lack of logic in being unable to distinguish between equal rights and changing the fundamental definition of marriage itself...
The justices who dissented against this decision did so only because they were holding out for FULL BLOWN MARRIAGE for same-sex couples!
...but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...Romans 1:21-22
Read more about this at WorldNetDaily
"Quebec children are legally required to follow the provincial curriculum ... but these evangelical schools teach their own courses on creationism and sexuality that don't follow the Quebec curriculum," said Pierre Daoust, director-general of the Commission Scolaire au Coeur-des-Vallees in Thurso, Que.
Mr. Daoust's complaint sparked the province-wide investigation.
Quebec law requires school boards to assure the Ministry of Education that every child between the ages six of and 16, with the exception of home-schooled children, receives an adequate education, he said.
But the 20 elementary and high school students who attend a school operated by Eglise Evangelique near Saint-Andre-Avellin, Que., are being educated according to a Bible-based curriculum and their high school diplomas will not be recognized anywhere in Canada, he said.
Supporters of Eglise Evangelique, part of the l'Association des eglises evangeliques du Quebec, counter that the school teaches a "world view" that is essential for their students.
"We offer a curriculum based on a Christian world view rather than humanistic world view," said Alan Buchanan, chairman of a committee that reorganized the school's administration this past summer, as well as a former Quebec public school teacher.
Excerpted from National Post in Canada
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
What's the truth about this amendment? Family Research Council sums it up:
Have Christianity and Islam ever coexisted peacefully?
Haven't each perpetrated more than their share of violence?
Culture Campaign Presents
"THE CROSS AND THE CRESCENT"
The history of Islam and Christianity
from the beginnning...
Saturday, November 18th, 7PM
Dr. Erwin Lutzer
Senior Pastor of Moody Church
335 E. Seminary
Wheaton, IL 60187
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Since school faculty and staff need to monitor activities in the restrooms and locker rooms, which gender of teacher will be allowed to enter the rooms for these newly fabricated genders . . . hermaphrodites?
Below are excerpts from the news article, Psychologist Says Gender-Dysphoric Kids Need Case-by-Case Intervention
Christian PhD Claims Professional Conflicts, Pro-Homosexual Politics Fuel Gender Confusion Controversy
(AgapePress) - Reports say a growing number of public and private elementary schools are allowing young boys to enroll as girls and vice versa. One five-year-old boy who is said to be rejecting his biological gender was enrolled by his family in Broward County Schools and is being called the youngest transgender child in the U.S.
A recent San Francisco Chronicle article featured two Oakland, California, elementary schools that are developing new ways to accommodate students who are said to be exhibiting "gender dysphoria," which is described as confusion or discomfort about one's birth gender.
However, noted mental health counselor Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College in Pennsylvania believes children who feel they are the wrong gender require individualized, case-by-case intervention. In some cases, he suggests, reported incidences of gender dysphoria indicate as much about the mental health community as they do about the actual problem.
Throckmorton says he has counseled children with gender-variant behavior who later embraced their God-given biological gender. Unfortunately, he contends, homosexual and transgender groups often use cases of gender confusion in children to promote their own political agenda.
Friday, October 20, 2006
“I have never seen such hatred in my life. I am being bludgeoned,” Dobson said, making reference to an NBC broadcaster who allegedly referred to him as ‘the worst man in the world.’ “Why? Why now? Well, it’s not really personal to me. But they identify me as one of the people who turned out the values voters last time--and they are determined to never, ever let it happen again. If people of faith--the so-called values voters--don’t come out and let their voices be heard, there are going to be some major implications for this country”, he said. “There are these statements from the media that values voters don’t care this year and that they’re going to stay home.”
Read more of this article at Lifesite.net
Thursday, October 19, 2006
And that could explain why students at a California school were told as part of their required classes they would become Muslims and pray to Allah – and a federal judge approved that, and why an Oregon school this year is delivering similar lessons to its students, as WND has reported.
Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was president of the American Muslim Council and a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, worked with President Clinton and the American Civil Liberties Union when the guidelines, launched by Clinton in 1995, were being developed, according to reports.
Those are the same guidelines that the ACLU's Nadine Strossen referred to for authority when supporting organization lawsuits to restrict Christmas celebrations and the removal of the Nativity from public display, the reports said.
When Clinton issued the guidelines, he announced that they had been developed by "35 religious groups" but didn't disclose that many of those were civil rights organizations such as the ACLU, and committed whole-heartedly to the separation of church and state.
Read more about this at WorldNetDaily.com
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The video itself featured eminent scientist Richard Dawkins claiming that science has proven faith to be nonsense. Christianity was the main focus of Dawkins' diatribe, although Judaism and Islam were also featured. Teachers claim that the video was used as a lesson about bias and that context makes all the difference. (Incidentally, they made the same claim regarding CONTEXT last spring while defending the assignment of books that contained gratuitous obscenity and graphic pornography.)
There is a proper context in which to show this movie but it is NOT in public schools. It should be shown to students IN THE CHURCH, where Dawkins' tactics AND groundless claims can be properly debunked…
An English teacher who had actually shown the video weighed in here on this blog (without using his name) to defend himself. To his credit, I’d like it noted that this teacher was respectful and courteous. The quotes that follow are his.
I spent less than one class session showing the Dawkins video in an effort to demonstrate bias and examine a counter perspective. Prior to watching the video, I asked students to look for inflammatory language, loaded terms, and agenda driven argumentation (all of which are blatantly evident and easy for students to see through). The following day, we spent a significant amount of time discussing the rhetorical strategies Dawkins used to communicate his arguments (hence showing the video in an English class). All classes understood that Mr. Dawkins had an axe to grind.
Here’s the problem: While the biased character of the video was discussed, the main substance of Dawkin's claim (that science has proven religion to be nonsense) was not discussed. It was left unrefuted. In other words Dawkin's tactics were examined and denounced but not his actual claims. It leaves a question mark in one's mind: Has science really proven Chrisitianity to be nonsense?
I know the answer to that question, but how many students know? Indeed, it would have been impossible for teachers to refute Dawkin’s claim, because to do so would have been proselytizing Christianity. Ironically, proselytizing atheism, as indeed this video did, apparently is perfectly acceptable at District 214.
These teachers seem certain that this video would not undermine any student’s faith – or the future possibility of it. How on earth could they know? My own faith was derailed by a study of comparative religions in 6th grade and a movie about the ‘missing link’ in junior high. My teachers never knew…
We asked teachers if they would be willing to show a video critical of homosexual behavior for the same purpose. Would teachers risk exposing students to a diversity of ideas about one of their own ‘sacred cows?’
The teacher’s response:
As to whether or not I would show a film critical of homosexuality; I wouldn't show a video that promotes it.
Why not? WHY is it OK to show a film critical of Christianity but not homosexual behavior?
Since the object of the assignment was to expose bias, teachers should have no objection to selecting a new video on a different topic. There are literally thousands available. We suggest one that doesn’t ridicule the beliefs of the majority of District 214 parents and taxpayers...
How about evolution?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Georgetown University, which boasts a tradition of more than 200 years of Jesuit and Catholic teachings, recently sent letters to half a dozen evangelical Christian organizations telling them they no longer are welcome.
"Now I've seen derecognition letters before, but this one takes the cake," David French, the senior legal counsel for the ADF, said of the Georgetown University decision. "Blessings and may God's peace be on you! … Now get off campus!"
He told WND that there's been no satisfactory explanation for the sudden change in school policy, but those in a position to know best say the groups, such InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, are too evangelical.
"The real interesting thing is that Georgetown tossed these groups, but left the Muslim Student Alliance and the Jewish Student Alliance intact," French told WND. "This Christian college is giving more religious freedom to Muslims and Jews than to Christians."
He said the evangelical groups simply want "to have a place at the table" with other religious groups.
Read more on this story at WorldNetDaily.com
Thursday, October 12, 2006
“The scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian edifice are cruel and brutish. What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book (the Bible) that contains such stuff? Science weighs up evidence and advances. Religion is hidebound belief for belief’s sake. It’s bad for our children and it’s bad for you.”The video itself is 40 minutes long, but please take 5 or 10 minutes to view at least some of it. It must be seen to be believed.
Christian parents, we must stand to defend both the truth and our children. They are both under attack in District 214. Will we stand idly by while our children’s faith is being deliberately destroyed? Educators are apparently under the impression that those concerned about the nature of materials being taught in District 214 schools are a tiny fringe minority who can simply be disregarded. How did they get this impression?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
I was just wondering if you actually believe what you said on his show or if you were just following the party line. I am sick to death of people like you and organizations like the one's you are associated with telling me how to live my life. My morals are just fine, thank you, and I don't need them legislated or controlled by those conservatives who don't seem to be able to keep their own house in order. Do the names Abrahamoff and Foley mean anything to you?
To Spirit John 1:
What a great screen name, John! Would love to hear THAT story...Yes...I actually believe the things I said on Real Time...I usually do....mean what I say, don't you?
You've challenged me on two fronts....the "Party Line" and my draconian Christian faith.
To the first, I would say that I have never been a "Party Girl." It's truth, honor, and good public policy I'd like to hold both parties to....apart from defending President Bush on the War in Iraq, I'm not sure what I said to make you think I was promoting the Republican Party. I'm as concerned about the behavior of Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff as I am about Barney Frank and Bill Clinton. Aren't you?
I'm glad to hear your morals are just fine. What did I say that made you think I thought they weren't? Isn't it interesting the way people view Christians these days? I declare I am a Christ-follower and that conjures up in you a vitriolic response to things I never even said. What do you suppose is at the root of that? Is there NO believer in Jesus in your life who is kind and loving and honest and moral and gracious and forgiving, but still steadfast on what is true? Isn't there anyone anywhere around you who exemplifies that?
The real Jesus is irresistible, John. When you see Him...and really know Him, somehow your morals don't seem just fine. Suddenly you are weeping and asking forgiveness and first thing you know, he is forgiving and loving you and last thing you see is your life really is changing....not because you were forced, but because you wanted to.
That's what I've experienced in my life....that's what I've seen over and over again in the lives of my family and friends and people all over the world I've had a chance to meet. There is new life...abundant..and rich...to be had when you serve Him.
If you could shake loose your stereo-type-me and just look at Him, you could experience that too.
I'm glad you wrote...hope you are too.
Feedback to Culture Campaign from a NY attorney...
Unfortunately for you, technology as well as freedom has ensured you have/will loose this 'war' you are fighting. With every new technology people get more and more free to follow what they wish as opposed to your puritanical dictates.
The Christian Right's complaints that Christianity is under 'attack' is seen by intelligent people as being absolutely ridiculous when 82% of Americans are Christians and you control every single branch of government.
I am not a Christian but it appears to me your and the rest of the Christian right's goals and methods are so far from what Christianity professes as to be unrecognisable.
I saw your Intergalactic Leader on Bill Maher's show the other night.
Ridiculous. Your understanding of Middle East/Iraqi politics was infantile and utterly incorrect from a factual basis. In other words, it complied with your larger world view.
If pre-teens look to Jenna Jameson as a role model, I guess you've lost your culture war already, huh?
Blocking .xxx domain is a terrible mistake for you people. It just means porn is distributed throughout the non-porn internet universe. Much better to have porn mainstream and legitimate than restricted to .xxx domain back alleys I say.
If the porn industry thinks it needs such an area, they can easily set one up under another country's top domain code. You see, as I said, with technology as we have today, YOU and your puritan ilk will *ALWAYS* loose.
Fortunately your logic is so screwy you'll continue to shoot youselves in the feet, like you have here by opposing .xxx domains.
I like porn, and moreso, I like being able to access it, and have the rest of the civilised world access it immediately! Be it on cell phones, (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/132005e.asp) my computer, VCR tapes, or stained glass windows, it is here to stay. AS ARE most of the freedoms you object to. In the future there will be even more pornography, in more places, in relms of technology and access we can't even dream of as yet.
Chemestry promises there'll be more drugs for us, also. And if we take them or not, I look forward to having the choice (I don't recall Jesus ever being 'anti-drug').
You see...since the 1960s we have seen so much PROGRESS - gambling, contraception, abortion, pornography, individual drug use, and dozens of other freedoms people have free will to enjoy. Or not. That's freedom as I see it. As opposed to a world where puritans like your group tell me how to behave. Lucky you will always loose.
Like the divorce on demand you so hate. You'd rather children be brought up in unhappy, violent homes than non-compatable couples live their separate lives I presume. Tsk Tsk Tsk. So we have divorce on demand. You loose AGAIN.
How about That!
And think for a moment, if all these 'horrors' (to you) or 'freedoms' to me have come about in a republican administratoin whose main desire is to clenze and take America back hundreds of years (like Osama) can you IMAGINE what things will be like when we Democrats take over? Oh Goodness. We will really be in for soddom and Gomorrah. Good times, good times.
Also, with nothing to do with Hugh Heffner (whom I don't particularly care for), I happen to think having sex with multiple women is a blessing and indeed an obligation for a man today. One does not have to be dishonest to do it, either, the women can be compliant in this. In fact, ethically they should be!
I'll have to hand it to you....you're certainly honest about your motives. I don't blame you for opposing Christianity given your desire to be "free." I'd like to issue a challenge. Try NOT using porn or drugs for 30 days and see just how "free" you are.
Here's the deal, David. It took me years to "get this" myself, but I'll try to share what I've learned with you, even though, I'm sure my inferior mind won't be able to compete with your superior New York Doctorate of Juris Prudence. :)(There should be a sign for kidding)
It's one of the ironies of following Christ that by determining not to cross certain boundaries, you actually find freedom. When you "get that," you find yourself wanting to stay in the boundaries, because when they are kept with the right motives, they produce contentment...joy...peace...
While it's true some Christians keep them out of obligation, the true Christ-follower keeps them out of love. It's like obeying a loving mother. You know you could break the rules and still be loved, but because you are loved and love her in return, you want to please her. So...for instance...even though you're free to view any sexual activity you like on the internet, you have given up your ability to be truly intimate with anyone. Ever wonder why it takes more and more to satiate that part of you? Because it isn't sex you crave, it is intimacy and ironically that intimacy only comes by concentrating that part of yourself on one person who in turn concentrates that part of themselves on only you. God wants that for you.
I never thought I would understand why the Psalmist in the Bible said "I love Your law," but since I've seen my own family fall apart from violated boundaries, I love God's law, for one, because it preserves families. I think a loving mother and father loving their children is one of the most beautiful natural entities on earth. Boundaries make them possible. That's why I LOVE God's law. I don't keep it out of obligation, but out of love.
I realize some Christians seem to be hellbent on MAKING people like you keep those rules. God doesn't really want that. He wants you to love and serve Him voluntarily. He will never force anyone to do that and neither should Christians force people to their way of thinking.
I agree with you that Christians are losing the battle. According the Bible, there are very difficult days ahead for us. At first it will be our reputations...then our jobs..and eventually our lives. Christians in China and North Korea are already there. If this life is all there is, you've got it right and I would absolutely agree you should live any way you want. But if there is a God, you're making a huge mistake. Don't be deceived. God will not be mocked. A man will reap exactly what he sows. You sow vileness, lewdness and unfaithfulness, you will surely reap the same.
But it is your choice. Your "freedom" or God's boundaries....
David, God has transformed my life and the lives of my family and friends. I've seen lives sorted out in ways you can't even imagine. I have felt God's power in the midst of grief and joy. As hard as you are, I beg you not to disregard the possiblity of the reality of Him...
Republicans have been grappling for a "good" candidate to run for president in '08. Some feel Newt Gingrich has the "right stuff" to lead the charge, but others are concerned about his private behavior. Here are my thoughts on the matter:
It was Newt's personal bad behavior that caused him to be virtually silent in the wake of the Clinton scandals. Conservatives in DC who know the details will never support him. If a man cannot be faithful to his family...twice...who can he be faithful to... His country? His office? If we understood we could not trust Clinton for this reason, how could Newt Gingrich get a pass?
Much of the scandal in Washington is a result of the loss of morality among people who once held a high standard....immasculated from taking action because they too are guilty of some private sin. It is a disease overtaking government, as we learned when Clinton was elected for a second time, and the country as well. Do we throw away standards and allow the Bill Clintons and the Newt Gingriches and the Mark Foleys and the Barney Franks to behave in any way they see fit, or do we embrace the standard, hold people to account...including ourselves...and restore the sanity that comes from restraint and self-control?
Moral chaos breeds social and economic chaos. We are all tempted in one way or another and most of us have given in in ways in which we are not proud. But to live in that behavior is to embrace foolishness which breeds bad decisions in every area. Consider California...and Illinois for that matter, led by morally reprobate people whose decisions bare the mark of that in finance...immigration...utilities...education..et al.
High moral standards are not a restriction, but instead prevent bondage to our depravity. One is not free who constantly craves sexual gratification...heterosexual or homosexual. One is not free who spends every waking moment pursuing sex on the internet or viewing the lewdness it has to offer. One is not free who can't say "no" to alcohol or drugs, but one IS free who confines himself to the love of spouse and family. High moral standards bring clarity...self-control, and establish a foundation upon which good decisions can be made. Is there anyone left who holds to them? For the sake of our nation and our state, I hope so.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
"Would it have been 'just cultural education' if students were in simulated baptisms, wearing a crucifix, having taken the name of St. John and with praise banners saying 'Praise be to Jesus Christ' on classroom walls?" asked Edward White III, of the Thomas More Law Center.
His comments came after a new protest arose in Nyssa, Ore., where one parent raised objections when the Islamic teachings came to light. The district there, according to Supt. Don Grotting, is teaching a chapter in a history textbook "Journey Across Time" that talks about "how civilization has developed and some of the particular aspects of Islam."
"We teach out of the book, and there are some supplemental class activities," he told WND. "The kids do some skits, they could bring a food from the region, you could build a prop that would have depicted (something) maybe during that time period.
Read more of this article at WorldNetDaily.com.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Christians are being sued and fined for their beliefs when they express them in public.
Churches are punished if they refuse to rent their property to homosexual couples.
Charities are penalized for their stand on marriage.
Below are excerpts from news sources, covering the spectrum:
Federal religious freedom act would face hurdles
[Christians] expressed concerns over the growing number of cases where the rights of homosexuals have seemed to trump those of religious persons. Marriage commissioners in several provinces have been told they must perform same-sex ceremonies or lose their jobs. Even in cases where the initial complaints have been dropped, such as human rights complaints against Calgary Bishop Fred Henry for a pastoral letter outlining the Church’s teaching on marriage, the fact that complaints can be laid poses a chilling effect on free speech because of the expense of having to defend against them. Those making the complaints don’t have to pay any legal fees.
Even when religious rights are upheld, there have been glitches. In the case of a homosexual couple suing a B.C. chapter of the Knights of Columbus for refusing the use of their hall for a “wedding” reception, the Knights were found to be within their rights to refuse but were nevertheless fined $2,000 for “hurting the feelings” of the women, Landolt said.
Tories blasted for proposed defence of religions act
by Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service
Thursday, October 05, 2006
OTTAWA - A Conservative government proposal to create a defence of religions act to protect opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage would trample on provincial jurisdiction and mimic existing constitutional protection for religious freedom, critics said Wednesday.
Even some Conservative MP's denounced the prospective act, which would allow officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, protect the free speech of anti-gay religious leaders and organizations that refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.
Brenda Cossman, a constitutional expert at the University of Toronto, said the federal government cannot extend extra protection to public officials who refuse to perform gay marriages because the solemnization is a provincial responsibility.
The Conservatives currently face failure in an upcoming vote in Parliament on whether to re-open the debate over same-sex marriage, which became the law of the land in 2005 and the religious protection proposal is believed to be a consolation prize of sorts for the law's opponents.
"We've got example after example across the country of religious people being prosecuted by courts and human rights commissions because there is no protection," said Brian Rushfeldt, of the Campaign Life Coalition. "I think there definitely has to be strong legislation at the federal level but it has to be followed up at the provincial level as well because of the jurisdictional issue."
There was also speculation Wednesday that adding an extra religious protection for freedom of expression and freedom of speech in the name of religious freedom could result in a licence to spew hatred.
"Obviously I'm concerned about any legislation that might legitimize intolerance of any kind," said Conservative MP Garth Turner.
"The only reason that I could see for this type of legislation is to create a protection for hate speech which is not constitutional," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings.
The Regina Leader Post newspaper, has joined the fray demonstrating the lack of tolerance for opposition to homosexuality. While the paper would allow for priests to oppose homosexuality publicly, it suggests that opposition by non-clergy should be illegal. "There is an argument to be made for allowing religious leaders leeway in criticizing homosexuality. Many religions have prescriptions against the practice and religious leaders should be permitted to publicly defend their religion's tenets. But extending that right to rank-and-file members of a religion goes too far," says the editorial in the paper today.
National Post - Opinion by John Moore, radio talk show host
Friday, October 06, 2006
One of the great myths invented and propagated by the political right is the notion that it's dangerous to be a conservative. Life is a daily struggle against a relentless liberal cabal comprising the media, academia and the judiciary. One is not free to think conservative thoughts let alone speak them. Some political conservatives claim to be afraid to even express themselves to friends and business associates for fear of being ostracized from liberal sushi parties.
DORA [The Defence of Religions Act], we are told, would allow religious leaders and people of faith to speak about homosexuality without fear of retaliation from noisy activists. It would permit justices of the peace to live according to their conscience rather than being forced to officiate over marriages that they believe to be a sin. It would protect churches from gays who will force their way to the altar and demand to be married.
As a libertarian I believe people should be able to say whatever they want. However, Canada has a human rights code that denies the right to hate speech. [DORA would be] a law that acts as a pass for people who hate gays . . .
Those who fought and lost the battle against same-sex marriage argued that they didn't want the state, on their behalf, to offer their sanction to something they believe is wrong. The Defence of Religions Act does the very same thing. On behalf of all those who believe in inclusion, tolerance and equality, it offers government sanction and protection to those who don't like gay people to say and do whatever they want.
Friday, October 06, 2006
"Marian said, 'Shoot me first,' " said Rita Rhoads, a midwife who helped deliver Fisher 13 years ago.
Barbie Fisher, 12, spoke up just after her big sister, and asked Charles Carl Roberts IV to shoot her next, Rhoads said. They were trying to protect the younger girls, ages 6 to 13, who were taken prisoner Monday when Roberts barricaded them inside the West Nickel Mine Amish School, Rhoads said.
"He asked them to pray for him," she said. "I think that's amazing. He recognized they had something he didn't."
Rhoads learned about the exchange from the Fisher family, who were able to talk to the younger daughter in Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Barbie Fisher is recovering from gunshot wounds. Her big sister was buried Thursday.
This bloody and confusing debacle began its slow, quiet end in a secluded cemetery where cold soil now covers the bodies of Marian Fisher and three other Amish girls.
Shrouded in white and encased in wood, Fisher, Naomi Rose Ebersole, 7, Mary Liz Miller, 8, and her sister Lina, 7, were buried by hundreds of family and friends in Georgetown Amish Cemetery. As mourners helped shovel dirt on the caskets, a bubble of police protection shielded them from the unwanted attention of a transfixed nation but not the relentless autumn wind.
Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12, the fifth girl to die after being shot by Roberts, will be buried today.
In addition to Marian Fisher, Rhoads helped give birth to Naomi Rose. She attended their viewings Wednesday, but thought the families should be alone for the burials.
Instead, Rhoads, a Mennonite, served as unofficial liaison between the intensely private Amish community and reporters, talking about how the families are coping and explaining how the Amish conduct funerals.
The partitions in the family home's main floor were removed and two rows of benches set up, with men and women sitting on opposite sides, Rhoads said. The funeral services typically last for about two hours and focus on mortality and the afterlife, rather than celebrating the life lost.
Excerpted from 'Shoot me first' victim said, by Mike Wereschagin, Oct. 6, 2006, Pittsburgh-Tribune Review
I was in Hollywood last week. A limo picked me up and took me to the Beverly Hilton in preparation for my appearance on RealTime with Bill Maher. We taped at CBS studios in the famed auditorium where Jack Benny and Red Skelton once filmed their shows.
My partners on the panel were Bradley Whitford of West Wing and Iranian-Muslim, Reza Aslan. The show began with Frank Rich of the New York Times sharing his new book “The Greatest Story Ever Sold”…. his collection of what he considers “lies” told by the Bush administration to get us into war in Iraq. The interview was entertaining…even funny as Bill and Frank mocked the president, the vice-president and marveled at the clever way the American public had been deceived. The audience roared approval as Bill was overcome with laughter at the memory of Bush’s landing on the aircraft carrier to the backdrop “Mission Accomplished.”
In an e-mail dated Tuesday, September 26th, a doctor stationed in Iraq, sent the following: “Today… we had a 20 year old soldier who came in with a head wound. Unfortunately his wound was too severe to save him. We spent about 30 minutes trying to resuscitate him. I have witnessed many deaths but this was different. The Chaplain prayed for the soldier and then I pronounced him dead. After we realized our efforts were futile, there were many tears shed. After the flurry of the resuscitation, the room full of doctors, nurses, and techs was strangely quiet. Many tears were shed. I did not know him from Adam. It was like I had lost a member of the family. I could not help think about the precious life that was lost, the family that would have a horrible void, and the pain his mother would feel.”
He continued, “Soldiers like this unknown fellow are the true heroes of our age. Unfortunately many are never recognized. They exhibit courage and commitment far beyond what I possess. These guys go out and literally face death on a daily basis. They do not know when they may be hit by a sniper‘s bullet or drive by an IED.
As the day unfolded, I took care of another soldier who had neck injuries, but survived. His only concern was not whether he would be ok, but his platoon. What selflessness and commitment.
Pray for the protection of our soldiers and peace for Iraq. Grace and peace. Doctor B.”
I liked Bill Maher, Brad Whitford, and Reza Aslan very much. I thought the New York Times reporter was very entertaining. They really believe what they are saying and can’t believe someone like me could have another opinion. They profess support and loyalty for our soldiers while launching a campaign of derision and hate for the president.
President Bush is America’s Commander in Chief….do they really think they can destroy him and NOT affect the confidence of our soldiers? Do they think those soldiers can march into battle giving all when their sacrifice is being degraded and ridiculed as carrying out the marching orders of a stupid, lying president? To hear this line of reasoning is to deny the very real threat that manifested itself on 9/11 and is sure to return soon....sooner if we undermine our president and troops. What victory will there be if they succeed in impeaching the president, installing a new one who represents their thinking, bringing all American troops home? Is that the utopia they envision? Because if that happens, the bloody swords of Radical Islam will descend upon us with a fury we have yet to behold.
Our Hollywood friends and their journalist counterparts are behind a veil of deception so thick, I don’t know what will penetrate it short of another disaster. They think war proponents are equally deceived. I wish we were. To wake up and think this whole nightmare is a construction of a deceiving president would be far more comforting than the reality of the brutal, murderous hordes surely coming our way.
The doctor closed his e-mail with a familiar but profound tribute to the young soldiers making that sacrifice in spite of the poison that would render it vain….as another young man named Jim Elliot once said…”He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”
Let the scoffers scoff…..for now, America still has heroes…they just don’t hang around CBS studios.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
A report on Family News in Focus said officials there will make sure parents relinquish their children for that "education." "If there is a parent who wants to remove their child from school," district spokesman Fernando Gallard told the report, "they would have to deal with the truancy regulations."
His comments came after a number of protests erupted over the school system's formalization of its "gay" agenda recognition.
The district reports that it already has had about 120 complaints about the recognition, even though Gallard explained there are no special activities associated with the formal recognition.
One of those complaints was from a parent who said she would keep her child home for the month, and that prompted Gallard's threat.
School officials say they added the recognition this year "to be more inclusive" and follow a district policy requiring equity for all races and minority groups, according to Cecilia Cummings, a school community relations executive. However, of the many minorities available for recognition, the only other groups receiving it are the Hispanic Heritage in September, African American in February and Asian Pacific American in May, officials confirmed, all three racial minorities.
"We knew that this would be controversial," Cummings told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "When you deal with diversity, there are some hot-button issues that emerge."
Read the rest of this article at Worldnetdaily.com.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Children from Christian families may be turned away from popular Church of England schools to make way for non-believers and those of other faiths under a new quota system.
At least a quarter of places at all new Church of England schools will be set aside for other pupils, according to guidelines outlined by the Church yesterday. The reform of school admissions will also affect Roman Catholic schools which will in future need to prove that their intakes reflect the social nature of the areas from which they recruit.
The changes have been prompted by the Government's admission code going through Parliament.
Excerpted from: Faith Schools May Reject Christians, by Liz Lightfoot, 3/10/2006, Telegraph.co.uk