Friday's Cultural Warfare Update
Jul. 10th, 2005 09:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdThis includes a few items from Saturday and Sunday too, so tomorrow's will probably be light. But given that things on the Supreme Court nominee front are expected to get moving this week, it might not be that light. Buckle in, folks.
Muslim Council of Britain unconditionally condemns London bombings;
TSA watch-list - a reminder of how indiscriminate and outside of due process it is;
Catholic Church changes position on evolutionary theory, continues slide towards fundamentalism, along with Andrew Sullivan's commentary on why;
Focus on the Family attacks attempt to open more embryonic stem cell lines for research, includes action item;
Republican NEA leaders to work against vouchers from within the Republican party; FotF calls this "bullying" and launches a broad attack against the NEA, "an organization that supports abortion, promotes homosexuality and attacks Christian groups";
"Partial birth" abortion ban struck down for having no exception for the health or life of the mother;
FotF: Reid expects "mainstream conservative" nominee, will filibuster any radical;
Fundamentalist groups demand Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. remove himself from the confirmation debate - includes action item to demand his removal;
FotF action item against California marriage-rights bill;
FotF attacks California Gov. Schwarzenegger, claims San Diego gay pride parade is "being supported by two convicted pedophiles" - earlier versions of the story had "run by," WorldNetDaily says they're volunteers; I'm wondering what the real story is;
Fundamentalist attacks on evolutionary theory are working - Harris poll shows overwhelming support for teaching Creationism in schools, as well as a general decline in both the understanding of and support for evolutionary theory amoungst the public;
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney vetos GBLT-youth suicide prevention programme - Concerned Women for America praises act, says all such programmes should be zeroed out as "promoting homosexuality";
Concerned Women for America supporting Southern Baptist Conference resolution to investigate public schools;
Catholic Church in Canada refusing communion to pro-marriage MPs, pro-choice MPs;
"Both sides" afraid of "stealth" nominee with little or no paper trail or writings behind them.
----- 1 -----
British Muslims utterly condemn acts of terror
http://www.mcb.org.uk/
The Muslim Council of Britain utterly condemns today's indiscriminate acts of terror in London. These evil deeds makes victims of us all. It is our humanity that must bring us shoulder to shoulder to condemn, to oppose and to overcome those who would spread fear, hatred and death.
Our sympathies and our prayers are with the victims, their families and friends. We extend our support and gratitude to the emergency services, the Police and all the frontline services charged with our collective security.
"The evil people who planned and carried out these series of explosions in London this morning want to demoralise us as a nation and divide us as a people. All of us must unite in helping the Police to capture these murderers. Yesterday we celebrated as Londoners, euphoric that our great city had secured the Olympic Games. Today we stand aghast as we witness a series of brutal attacks upon our capital city. We were together in our celebration; we must remain together in our time of crisis,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
"We must and will be united in common determination that terror cannot succeed. It is now the duty of all us Britons to be vigilant and actively support efforts to bring those responsible to justice", he added.
The MCB, with the Bishop of London Rt Hon Richard Chartres, Chair of the CRE Trevor Phillips and other faith and civil society leaders have affirmed their mutual solidarity and support.
----- 2 -----
Who's Watching the Watch List?
By John Graham, AlterNet. Posted July 7, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/23362/
Heading for Oakland from Seattle to see my grandkids last week, the Alaska Airlines check-in machine refused to give me a boarding pass. Directed to the ticket counter, I gave the agent my driver's license and watched her punch keys at her computer.
Frowning, she told me that my name was on the national terrorist No Fly Watch List and that I had to be specially cleared to board a plane. Any plane. Then she disappeared with my license for 10 minutes, returning with a boarding pass and a written notice from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) confirming that my name was on a list of persons "who posed, or were suspected of posing, a threat to civil aviation or national security."
No one could tell me more than that. The computer was certain.
Back home in Oakland, I called the TSA's 800 number, where I rode a merry-go-round of pleasant recorded voices until I gave up. Turning to the TSA web site, I downloaded a Passenger Identity Verification form that would assist the TSA in "assessing" my situation if I sent it in with a package of certified documents attesting to who I was.
I collected all this stuff and sent it in. Another 20 minutes on the phone to the TSA uncovered no live human being at all, let alone one who would tell me what I'd presumably done to get on The List. Searching my mind for possible reasons, I've been more and more puzzled. I used to work on national security issues for the State Department and I know how dangerous our country's opponents can be. To the dismay of many of my more progressive friends, I've given the feds the benefit of the doubt on homeland security. I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense and I take my shoes off for the airport screeners with a smile.
I'm embarrassed that it took my own ox being gored for me to see the threat posed by the Administration's current restricting of civil liberties. I'm being accused of a serious--even treasonous--criminal intent by a faceless bureaucracy, with no opportunity (that I can find) to refute any errors or false charges. My ability to earn a living is threatened; I speak on civic action and leadership all over the world, including recently at the US Air Force Academy. Plane travel is key to my livelihood.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution
By CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 9, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?hp&ex=1120968000&en=c1d22e12f70c2ef1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.
The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.
He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.
Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.
[More at URL]
Andrew Sullivan's commentary:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_07_03_dish_archive.html#112092928188351323
BENEDICT STRIKES AGAIN: One the great distinctions between Roman Catholicism and protestant fundamentalism in recent times has been Catholicism's respect for free scientific inquiry, specifically comfort with evolutionary biology. Reason and faith are not in conflict, the Second Council told us, and the Church has nothing to fear from open scientific inquiry, based on empirical research and peer-reviewed study. Not for us Catholics the know-nothingism of the literalist fundamentalists, who still hold that the world was made in seven literal days, or that Adam and Eve literally existed, or that God somehow directed the random process of natural selection. Well, now we have Benedict in charge and the rush back to the Middle Ages, already seen in fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Protestantism, looks as if it is going to be endorsed in the Vatican. I expected reactionary radicalism from Benedict. But this kind of stupidity? I fear there's much more to come. Remember that Ratzinger was an anti-intellectual intellectual. Free thought not controlled by Vatican diktat is anathema to him. And so we return to the nineteenth century. The thinking may also be nakedly political. Benedict - in order to pursue his secular war against freedom for gays, or reproductive freedom - needs an alliance with the Protestant right. This is exactly a way to bolster the new anti-modern Popular Front. It would be depressing if it weren't also infuriating.
----- 4 -----
SENATE EYES VOIDING BUSH STEM-CELL POLICY
Proposal would expand embryonic stem-cell lines for
scientific research.
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037145.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Proposal to expand embryonic stem-cell lines for
scientific research expected to be voted on next week.
Members of the U.S. Senate are expected to vote next week
on a bill which could throw wide open the gate to
limitless federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research
-- research that requires the destruction of human
embryos.
Pro-family analysts and lawmakers are calling on senators
to defeat the legislation, which has already passed the
House. It is sponsored by Reps. Michael Castle, R-Del.,
and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., H.R. 810.
"What we're talking about with embryonic stem-cell
research is going to the infertility clinics and taking
these little frozen embryos that were created by in vitro
fertilization for life -- their parents created them for
life -- and destroying them for research," said Carrie
Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the
Family Action, who discusses the bill with U.S. Sen. Sam
Brownback, R-Kan., during Monday's Focus on the Family
broadcast.
The bottom line of the bill is that it would gut President
Bush's stem-cell policy, Earll explained.
"In August of 2001, the president decided any stem-cell
line -- which is a group of stem-cells being developed --
that was created prior to August '01 would be eligible for
federal funds, while those after wouldn't," Earll
explained. "The reason Bush drew that line in the sand is
that he did not want our federal tax dollars to be used as
an incentive to researchers to destroy additional embryos
so they could get federal tax dollars for research."
Now some advocacy groups and members of Congress, she
said, are not happy with the barrier -- and want
unrestricted funding.
"They don't want any moral limits on this type of
research," Earll said. "So what they've done is (create)
legislation that makes any new stem-cell lines that are
created by destroying human embryos eligible for federal
funding."
Brownback said the legislation is wrong -- and must be
defeated.
...
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please take time to call
your two U.S. senators and urge them to oppose the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810. For contact
information, including district office phone numbers and
an easy-to-use e-mail form, visit CitizenLink Action
Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
For a deeper look at the issues surrounding the stem-cell
research debate, please see the CitizenLink feature
"Talking Points: Protecting the Bush Stem-Cell Research
Funding Policy," by Carrie Gordon Earll.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037144.cfm
And to listen online to Monday's Focus on the Family
broadcast featuring Earll and Sen. Sam Brownback, visit
the Focus on the Family Web site any time Monday.
http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
NEA TARGETS BUSH EDUCATION PLAN
Liberal teachers union says it will launch "infiltration strategy."
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037127.cfm
SUMMARY: Liberal teachers union says it will launch
"infiltration strategy" to undo the No Child Left Behind
Act from within the Republican Party.
The National Education Association (NEA) wound up its
annual convention in Los Angeles this week with a pledge
to frustrate President Bush's education initiative and
state voucher proposals.
But instead of the traditional frontal attack, the union
will try to infiltrate Republican ranks and poison the
education platform from within.
The convention ended with a vote to commit more than
$170,000 to a campaign against the president's education
policy, commonly known as No Child Left Behind.
"It's earmarked for training Republican NEA members to
affect Republican platform policy, so it's an infiltration
strategy," explained Jeralee Smith, a conservative NEA
delegate.
The specific target appears to be school vouchers.
Republican Educators Caucus Chair Shawna Adam promised to
"infiltrate the Republican Party with an anti-voucher
agenda." But the GOP sees the spies coming and refuses to
be bullied, according to Republican National Committee
spokesman Danny Diaz.
"Republicans and, I think, education professionals are
going to continue to focus at the task at hand," he said,
"and ultimately our goal is to make sure that more kids
learn."
Although the NEA did not return a call seeking comment,
Heritage Foundation Director of Domestic Policy Jennifer
Marshall said the union has a long history of opposing
parental choice.
"The NEA each year seems to come up with new ways of
contesting policies that it doesn't like," she noted.
"This is in that pattern."
Still, she added, this latest move could eventually hurt
the union.
"Once again," Marshall said, "we see the NEA leadership
not necessarily acting in the best interest of rank and
file teachers."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Teachers, would you give hundreds of
dollars to an organization that supports abortion,
promotes homosexuality and attacks Christian groups? The
NEA does all these things. But no teacher has to be a
member of the National Education Association. You have a
choice.
Parents, the NEA spends millions of dollars to advance
this agenda . . . and your kids are caught in the
crossfire. Find out more in our special report "Grading
the NEA" by Perry L. Glanzer, Ph.D. & Travis R. Pardo.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1399&refcd=CE05GCZL&tvar=no
----- 6 -----
Appeals Court Agrees Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 8, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a lower
court ruling that found the federal Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban unconstitutional.
The court, headquartered in St. Louis, found that even
though the ban contains an exception to save the life of
the mother, it is unconstitutional because it makes no
such exception for the health of the mother.
"When 'substantial medical authority' supports the medical
necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health
exception is constitutionally required," Judge Kermit Bye
wrote for the 8th Circuit wrote in the opinion issued
Friday. "In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus
exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires
legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's
health by including a health exception."
In issuing its ruling, the court rejected the Justice
Department's argument that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act, singed into law by President Bush in 2003, prohibits
"one particular method of abortion that Congress, after
nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane,
never necessary to preserve the health of women, and less
safe than other readily available abortion methods."
Two other district court rulings voiding the ban are also
on appeal in cases out of New York and San Francisco.
----- 7 -----
Dem Leader Reid Says Supreme Court Filibuster Possible
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 8, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid said Thursday his party
could filibuster President Bush's Supreme Court nominee --
if the candidate is anything other than a "mainstream
conservative."
"The president, we know, will pick a conservative lawyer,"
Reid said. "We need a mainstream conservative."
Reid also said he has recommended the president look
beyond the judicial branch, suggesting Republican Sens.
Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo
of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as possible
justices.
"I've already given those names to the president," Reid
said. "The names that he gives us are the important ones."
----- 8 -----
SCHUMER URGED TO BOW OUT OF COURT DEBATE
Liberal senator promises "war" no matter who is nominated to Supreme Court.
Focus on the Family
by Pete Winn, associate editor
July 7, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037114.cfm
SUMMARY: New York's senior U.S. senator pledges Democrats
will "go to war" no matter who the president nominates to
succeed Sandra Day O'Connor.
Pro-family groups are calling on a powerful liberal
senator to remove himself from deliberations on the
nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor's eventual replacement
on the Supreme Court.
Internet media maven Matt Drudge reported Wednesday that
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a powerful member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, was overheard promising that
Democrats would "go to war" over President Bush's nominee
-- regardless of the candidate the president nominates.
Pro-family activists were appalled. Family Research
Council President Tony Perkins was blunt in his comments.
"I would not hesitate to suggest that Senator Schumer
should recuse himself from the confirmation process,"
Perkins said, "since he has obviously already made up his
mind."
Tom Minnery, vice president of government and public
policy at Focus on the Family Action, agreed.
"It is impossible, in light of these comments, for any
candidate likely to be advanced by the president to get a
fair hearing from Sen. Schumer," he said. "Senators are
constitutionally obligated to offer their advice and
consent on court nominees. All Sen. Schumer is prepared to
offer is his disgust and contempt."
Schumer, who was reportedly overheard talking on his cell
phone on an Amtrak train between Washington, D.C., and New
York, indicated he wasn't concerned about the judicial
backgrounds or qualifications of the candidate President
Bush ultimately selects.
"It's not about an individual judge," Drudge reported
Schumer as saying. "It's about how it affects the overall
makeup of the court."
Minnery said Schumer was showing his true liberal colors.
"For him to say 'It's not about an individual judge' but
about 'the overall makeup of the court,' " Minnery
explained, "makes it clear his only interest is in
obstructing any nominee who doesn't subscribe to his brand
of judicial activism."
Schumer, who serves as chairman of the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee, further dismissed the
agreement reached by the so-called "Gang of 14" senators
of both parties which guaranteed floor votes to appellate
judges Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William
Pryor -- and barred future filibusters against judicial
nominees except in "extraordinary" circumstances.
"A Priscilla Owen- or Janice Rogers Brown-style
appointment," he said, "may not have been 'extraordinary'
to the appellate court but may be 'extraordinary' to the
Supreme Court."
Perkins said it seems Schumer's ultimate goal "is to
fulfill his own personal political agenda and refute any
nominee who doesn't live up to his specified litmus test."
Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America,
said Schumer's statements prove what pro-family
conservatives have believed all along -- that for Senate
Democrats, "it isn't about whom the nominee is, it's about
whom the president is."
"It wouldn't make any difference to the left if the
president nominated Moses or King Solomon," LaRue said.
"They're demanding a say in picking the nominee to make
sure judicial activism continues to reign supreme.
Liberals' greatest fear is that President Bush will cut
away at the majority on the Court that acts as backup for
their failed policies."
She said Schumer misled Americans -- and deceived the
president -- when the senator recently said publicly he
wanted to work with the White House to choose "a consensus
nominee" to replace O'Connor.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family
Action, said it now seems clear that Democrats are gearing
up to use the same filibuster tactic they have used to tie
up many of the president's nominees to the federal appeals
courts.
What's more, he said, this incident is vaguely reminiscent
of Memogate -- where memos from Democratic Judiciary
Committee staffers were discovered and leaked to the press
during the height of the judicial filibusters.
"We learned then," Hausknecht said, "that the Democrats on
the Judiciary Committee work hand in hand with the liberal
extremist groups on the left to decide who they are going
to fight, and which hill to die on. It’s no secret anymore
that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are spoon-fed
and controlled by liberal left extremists groups."
For Perkins, meanwhile, the thought that Senate Democrats
might threaten to filibuster the person the president
nominates to the Court is repulsive.
"We are asking for a simple up-or-down vote on the
president’s nominee," Perkins said. "This should be a
simple process and a judge should be seated no later than
October 3, when the Court starts its new term. Schumer's
actions are against the process of judicial honor,
un-American and shameful."
LaRue added: "Drop your war plans and cool your rhetoric,
Senator. It's time to end the ugly partisanship and start
working together to give America a Supreme Court that
upholds the Constitution and restores rule by 'We the
People.' "
TAKE ACTION: No matter what state you live in, please take
a moment to respectfully urge Sen. Charles Schumer to bow
out of the Supreme Court confirmation process in light of
his declaration of "war" before a candidate has been
nominated. Please send him an e-mail and call as many of
his district offices as you can.
All the phone numbers and addresses you need to do this
are in the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=402&lvl=C&chamber=S
----- 9 -----
Focus on the Family
California Gay Marriage Bill Refuses to Die
NEWS BRIEFS
[Received in email; no URL]
Pro-family Californians who thought that they had stopped
Assemblyman Mark Leno's gay marriage license bill on June
2 now have to gear up to face the bill again this fall,
only in a different form.
Leno, a Democrat and homosexual activist who got elected
to the California Legislature from San Francisco, has
gutted the language of a marine biology research bill
which already passed the Assembly -- and inserted the text
of his failed homosexual marriage bill. That bill is
currently in the state Senate.
Mona Passignano, state issues analyst for Focus on the
Family Action, said even though Leno's bill was defeated
earlier by four votes, no one should be surprised that the
bill is back. Gay activists, she said, will try any tactic
they can to implement their agenda.
"This is not an unusual tactic for people who want
homosexual rights passed in the states to take,"
Passignano said. "We've seen it in Colorado, we've seen it
in Massachusetts, we've seen it in many, many states,
where they will try to attach it to a bill which had
absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage or homosexual
rights, and force the Legislature to veto a bill that
normally would have passed easily."
Passignano said the new Leno bill, AB 849, though
dangerous, is unlikely to get through the full Legislature
before California lawmakers recess for the summer. But,
she said, an August battle over the legislation is
looming.
TAKE ACTION: If you live in California, please take a
moment to ask your state legislators to oppose AB 849,
which would legalize same-sex marriage. For contact
information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form, visit
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/legdir.tt?command=statedir&state=CA
----- 10 -----
Schwarzenegger Supports Gay Pride and Sex Offenders
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 7, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
San Diego's Gay Pride Festival is being supported by two
convicted pedophiles -- and California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger is endorsing it, according to
WorldNetDaily.com.
Warren Patrick Derichsweiler and Daniel Reiger, both on
California's Megan's Law list of sex offenders, are listed
in the event's program as a supervisor and coordinator,
respectively.
Freelance reporter Allyson Smith told WND she spoke with
Schwarzenegger's office and quoted a staffer saying that
the governor "supports gay and lesbian rights and that he
does not have time to check out the backgrounds of every
single person involved with every pride event in the state
of California."
Smith replied: "It is reprehensible that Schwarzenegger, a
professed Catholic and so-called Republican, would put the
special rights of perverts above the protection of
innocent children."
TAKE ACTION: Have something to say to Gov. Schwarzenegger
about his reaction to the backgrounds of San Diego Gay
Pride workers? You can find contact information, including
an easy-to-use e-mail form, in the CitizenLink Action
Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=141270&lvl=S&chamber=G
----- 11 -----
The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005
Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God
Opinions are divided about evolution theories
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/
Earlier this year, the State Board of Education in Kansas reignited an old debate – whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools – and shone the spotlight on a new theory, intelligent design. While many in the scientific community may question why this issue has been raised again, a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."
At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design). Moreover, a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools, while 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only, and four percent intelligent design only.
These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,000 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive® between June 17 and 21, 2005.
Other key findings include:
* A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
* Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
* Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).
* Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.
* Factors such as age, education, political outlook, and region appear to guide views on this debate.
In general, older adults (those 55 years of age and older), adults without a college degree, Republicans, conservatives, and Southerners are more likely to embrace the creationism positions in the questions asked.
* Those with a college education, Democrats, independents, liberals, adults aged 18 to 54 and those from the Northeast and West support the belief in evolution in larger numbers. However, among these groups, majorities believe in creationism.
* Despite the significant numbers who believe in creationism, pluralities among the demographic subgroups examined still believe all three concepts (evolution, creationism, and intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.
[Much more at URL]
[Ed. note: note a weirdness; if you talk about what evolutionary theory actually says, you find stronger support - tho' it's still a substantial minourity. Even in columns where the majority of evolution/creation respondents responded with the evolution-supported answer, when asked specifically using those terms, the overwhelming majority would answer saying they supported creationism.]
----- 12 -----
Massachusetts Governor Vetoes Increase for Homosexual Youth Programs
7/8/2005
By Robert Knight
Concerned Women for America
Romney rejects $175,000 increase, but leaves commission budget intact at $250,000
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8506/CFI/family/index.htm
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has vetoed a portion of the state budget that would have increased money for the Gay and Lesbian Youth Commission and would have directed the state Department of Education to spend $75,000 on pro-homosexual “suicide prevention” programs.
State legislators had increased the budget of the commission from $250,000 to $425,000 – a 70 percent hike. Romney rejected the increase, including the allocation for the Education Department.
“That’s the good news. The bad news is that the state is still officially promoting homosexuality to school kids via this commission, which has assisted homosexual activists in installing 'gay-straight alliance' clubs in most of the state’s schools,” said Tammy Mosher, CWA of Massachusetts state director. “While we applaud the governor’s response to the many Massachusetts citizens who asked him to veto the increase, we urge him to zero out the commission. Nobody has the right to use taxpayer money to promote homosexuality to kids.”
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Southern Baptists Pass Strong Resolution on Public Schools
Concerned Women for America
7/7/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8499/CWA/education/index.htm
The Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Nashville June 21 and 22, approved a resolution warning parents of some disturbing trends in public education. The resolution called attention to the growing problems in government-run schools including promotion of the homosexual agenda, immorality, sexual promiscuity and violence. The measure had strong grassroots support, including endorsement by 11 of CWA’s state chapters. A similar resolution was raised at the annual meeting of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). Martha Kleder spoke with Dr. Bruce Shortt with The Exodus Mandate, on this ground-breaking move. Click here to listen.
["Most of your listeners may recall that we submitted a resolution that had three principle points... first, it warned parents and churches about homosexual activism and cooperation between school districts and homosexual activists. Second, it asked parents and churches to investigate whether their district is cooperating with homosexual activists. Third, it urged parents... to withdraw their children from [such school districts]." Final version included first and second points, not third. Final resolution asked parents and churches to investigate, but said that parents should "insure[d]... the physical, moral, spiritual, and intellectual well-being of their children." Claims that school districts "who promote homosexuality," which means any non-condemnational mention (from my past experience, they don't define it) cannot guard the "physical, moral, spiritual, or intellectual" well-being of children.
"It very explicitly points out that homosexual activists... are working very very hard in many school districts to influence children... and it also calls for parents to investigate and demand that any immoral [missed word] be removed."
Presbyterian groups trying to introduce resolution urging parents to remove students from public schools entirely, as per Bruce Shortt's original resolution version; received on the floor, went to committee, not recommended for adoption. Minourity made a report to the general assembly and it was debated on the floor of the general assembly, where it failed again. "A very, very important first step."
Claims that these resolutions aren't particular to any denomination, hopes for it to spread across all Christian denominations, "the public schools are destroying our children."
"One of the things that helped us was that Dr. Rick Scarborough... gave us a boost within the SBC... Dr. Mohler wrote an op-ed in which he examined the issue from both sides an came to the remarkable conclusion that now is the time for responsible Baptists to develop and exit strategy from the public schools. And in addition to that... was a wonderful coalition of grassroots Christian family associations who came together and provided endorsement for our resolution." 11 CWA state orgs, 10 or 11 AFA state affiliates, 16 ort 17 Focus on the Family state, 8 or 9 Eagle Forum affiliates. Also credits CWA national's information-distributing ability and CWA's Robert Knight for "expert guidance."
Notes that resolutions are non-binding. Things "Baptist activists" will take similar resolution into state conventions in the fall, to warn of "this danger our children are being subjected to in many, many school districts."]
----- 14 -----
Ontario MP, wife denied communion
Ottawa Citizen
Canadian Press
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=10faf8e0-75a3-449a-aa54-5290d1bd5676
Charlie Angus and Celina Symmonds had their lives turned upside down when they were told by their parish priests that they could no longer take communion because their stands on social issues conflicted with church teachings.
Angus, a New Democrat MP who represents a northern Ontario riding, ran afoul of the Roman Catholic church over his support for the federal government's controversial same-sex marriage bill.
"It's quite disturbing,'' said Angus, pointing to what he called "the rising militancy of language within the church. I went to Ottawa feeling that I would be speaking as someone rooted in a faith tradition and rooted in a justice tradition.
"Then your involvement in the sacraments becomes a political pressure point. It was unacceptable.''
Prime Minister Paul Martin, also a practising Catholic, faced similar flak from a priest in his Montreal riding over the bill. Father Francis Geremia said Martin no longer deserved the sacrament of communion and "I pray that he will lose his riding'' in the next election.
Symmonds, who once managed the now closed Planned Parenthood office in Medicine Hat, Alta., had to find another place to be married about a month before her wedding in September 2002 after her priest discovered from a newspaper article that she was pro-choice on abortion.
"I was shocked,'' says Symmonds. "When you grow up Catholic you grow up awaiting the day where you can walk into that great big cathedral with your husband. It's something you dream of as a little girl.
"And it got crushed within seconds.''
Angus, who represents the riding of Timmins James-Bay and lives in New Liskeard, has only attended mass a couple of times since the incident in the spring. "I haven't accepted communion,'' he said. His wife and three daughters have stayed away from mass.
"It's something I don't feel very comfortable discussing,'' he said, his voice quavering. "So much of politics is spin ... party position ... (or) having some one-liners. But when it speaks to the essence of what you feel and what you believe, it's very hard to rationalize it or to articulate it.''
Symmonds remembers well the day when the priest's assistant phoned, and she hasn't attended church since the incident. "It hurts that you're told that you're not welcome to be a part of something that was very precious in your life,'' she said, her voice trembling.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Both sides fear "stealth" nominee, observers say
By Deirdre Shesgreen
Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
07/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/127FAF691468FC7586257032001D4D05?OpenDocument
WASHINGTON - With the Supreme Court battle now under way, what both sides fear most is the unknown: a so-called "stealth" nominee who has a thin paper trail and offers ambiguous answers in the Senate grilling that is sure to come.
Already, activists on the right and left are calculating how to divine the true ideology of any candidate the White House might put forward, especially on politically explosive subjects like abortion. While in the past, nominees have been able to duck and dodge dicey questions, this time the president's pick for the high court won't be let off so easily, court observers say.
The apprehension about a blank-slate candidate is all the more intense on both sides of the aisle because it is Sandra Day O'Connor - herself an unpredictable swing vote - leaving the court, rather than Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a reliable conservative whose retirement had been the subject of speculation.
With a Rehnquist vacancy, President George W. Bush might have felt freer to appoint a strong conservative - and Senate Democrats might have felt more willing to accept such a choice - because it wouldn't have tipped the balance of the court. Now, however, the pressure on Bush to appoint a moderate will be more intense, say those on both sides of the fight.
[More at URL]
Muslim Council of Britain unconditionally condemns London bombings;
TSA watch-list - a reminder of how indiscriminate and outside of due process it is;
Catholic Church changes position on evolutionary theory, continues slide towards fundamentalism, along with Andrew Sullivan's commentary on why;
Focus on the Family attacks attempt to open more embryonic stem cell lines for research, includes action item;
Republican NEA leaders to work against vouchers from within the Republican party; FotF calls this "bullying" and launches a broad attack against the NEA, "an organization that supports abortion, promotes homosexuality and attacks Christian groups";
"Partial birth" abortion ban struck down for having no exception for the health or life of the mother;
FotF: Reid expects "mainstream conservative" nominee, will filibuster any radical;
Fundamentalist groups demand Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. remove himself from the confirmation debate - includes action item to demand his removal;
FotF action item against California marriage-rights bill;
FotF attacks California Gov. Schwarzenegger, claims San Diego gay pride parade is "being supported by two convicted pedophiles" - earlier versions of the story had "run by," WorldNetDaily says they're volunteers; I'm wondering what the real story is;
Fundamentalist attacks on evolutionary theory are working - Harris poll shows overwhelming support for teaching Creationism in schools, as well as a general decline in both the understanding of and support for evolutionary theory amoungst the public;
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney vetos GBLT-youth suicide prevention programme - Concerned Women for America praises act, says all such programmes should be zeroed out as "promoting homosexuality";
Concerned Women for America supporting Southern Baptist Conference resolution to investigate public schools;
Catholic Church in Canada refusing communion to pro-marriage MPs, pro-choice MPs;
"Both sides" afraid of "stealth" nominee with little or no paper trail or writings behind them.
----- 1 -----
British Muslims utterly condemn acts of terror
http://www.mcb.org.uk/
The Muslim Council of Britain utterly condemns today's indiscriminate acts of terror in London. These evil deeds makes victims of us all. It is our humanity that must bring us shoulder to shoulder to condemn, to oppose and to overcome those who would spread fear, hatred and death.
Our sympathies and our prayers are with the victims, their families and friends. We extend our support and gratitude to the emergency services, the Police and all the frontline services charged with our collective security.
"The evil people who planned and carried out these series of explosions in London this morning want to demoralise us as a nation and divide us as a people. All of us must unite in helping the Police to capture these murderers. Yesterday we celebrated as Londoners, euphoric that our great city had secured the Olympic Games. Today we stand aghast as we witness a series of brutal attacks upon our capital city. We were together in our celebration; we must remain together in our time of crisis,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
"We must and will be united in common determination that terror cannot succeed. It is now the duty of all us Britons to be vigilant and actively support efforts to bring those responsible to justice", he added.
The MCB, with the Bishop of London Rt Hon Richard Chartres, Chair of the CRE Trevor Phillips and other faith and civil society leaders have affirmed their mutual solidarity and support.
----- 2 -----
Who's Watching the Watch List?
By John Graham, AlterNet. Posted July 7, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/23362/
Heading for Oakland from Seattle to see my grandkids last week, the Alaska Airlines check-in machine refused to give me a boarding pass. Directed to the ticket counter, I gave the agent my driver's license and watched her punch keys at her computer.
Frowning, she told me that my name was on the national terrorist No Fly Watch List and that I had to be specially cleared to board a plane. Any plane. Then she disappeared with my license for 10 minutes, returning with a boarding pass and a written notice from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) confirming that my name was on a list of persons "who posed, or were suspected of posing, a threat to civil aviation or national security."
No one could tell me more than that. The computer was certain.
Back home in Oakland, I called the TSA's 800 number, where I rode a merry-go-round of pleasant recorded voices until I gave up. Turning to the TSA web site, I downloaded a Passenger Identity Verification form that would assist the TSA in "assessing" my situation if I sent it in with a package of certified documents attesting to who I was.
I collected all this stuff and sent it in. Another 20 minutes on the phone to the TSA uncovered no live human being at all, let alone one who would tell me what I'd presumably done to get on The List. Searching my mind for possible reasons, I've been more and more puzzled. I used to work on national security issues for the State Department and I know how dangerous our country's opponents can be. To the dismay of many of my more progressive friends, I've given the feds the benefit of the doubt on homeland security. I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense and I take my shoes off for the airport screeners with a smile.
I'm embarrassed that it took my own ox being gored for me to see the threat posed by the Administration's current restricting of civil liberties. I'm being accused of a serious--even treasonous--criminal intent by a faceless bureaucracy, with no opportunity (that I can find) to refute any errors or false charges. My ability to earn a living is threatened; I speak on civic action and leadership all over the world, including recently at the US Air Force Academy. Plane travel is key to my livelihood.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution
By CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: July 9, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?hp&ex=1120968000&en=c1d22e12f70c2ef1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.
The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.
He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.
Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.
[More at URL]
Andrew Sullivan's commentary:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_07_03_dish_archive.html#112092928188351323
BENEDICT STRIKES AGAIN: One the great distinctions between Roman Catholicism and protestant fundamentalism in recent times has been Catholicism's respect for free scientific inquiry, specifically comfort with evolutionary biology. Reason and faith are not in conflict, the Second Council told us, and the Church has nothing to fear from open scientific inquiry, based on empirical research and peer-reviewed study. Not for us Catholics the know-nothingism of the literalist fundamentalists, who still hold that the world was made in seven literal days, or that Adam and Eve literally existed, or that God somehow directed the random process of natural selection. Well, now we have Benedict in charge and the rush back to the Middle Ages, already seen in fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Protestantism, looks as if it is going to be endorsed in the Vatican. I expected reactionary radicalism from Benedict. But this kind of stupidity? I fear there's much more to come. Remember that Ratzinger was an anti-intellectual intellectual. Free thought not controlled by Vatican diktat is anathema to him. And so we return to the nineteenth century. The thinking may also be nakedly political. Benedict - in order to pursue his secular war against freedom for gays, or reproductive freedom - needs an alliance with the Protestant right. This is exactly a way to bolster the new anti-modern Popular Front. It would be depressing if it weren't also infuriating.
----- 4 -----
SENATE EYES VOIDING BUSH STEM-CELL POLICY
Proposal would expand embryonic stem-cell lines for
scientific research.
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037145.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: Proposal to expand embryonic stem-cell lines for
scientific research expected to be voted on next week.
Members of the U.S. Senate are expected to vote next week
on a bill which could throw wide open the gate to
limitless federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research
-- research that requires the destruction of human
embryos.
Pro-family analysts and lawmakers are calling on senators
to defeat the legislation, which has already passed the
House. It is sponsored by Reps. Michael Castle, R-Del.,
and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., H.R. 810.
"What we're talking about with embryonic stem-cell
research is going to the infertility clinics and taking
these little frozen embryos that were created by in vitro
fertilization for life -- their parents created them for
life -- and destroying them for research," said Carrie
Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the
Family Action, who discusses the bill with U.S. Sen. Sam
Brownback, R-Kan., during Monday's Focus on the Family
broadcast.
The bottom line of the bill is that it would gut President
Bush's stem-cell policy, Earll explained.
"In August of 2001, the president decided any stem-cell
line -- which is a group of stem-cells being developed --
that was created prior to August '01 would be eligible for
federal funds, while those after wouldn't," Earll
explained. "The reason Bush drew that line in the sand is
that he did not want our federal tax dollars to be used as
an incentive to researchers to destroy additional embryos
so they could get federal tax dollars for research."
Now some advocacy groups and members of Congress, she
said, are not happy with the barrier -- and want
unrestricted funding.
"They don't want any moral limits on this type of
research," Earll said. "So what they've done is (create)
legislation that makes any new stem-cell lines that are
created by destroying human embryos eligible for federal
funding."
Brownback said the legislation is wrong -- and must be
defeated.
...
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please take time to call
your two U.S. senators and urge them to oppose the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810. For contact
information, including district office phone numbers and
an easy-to-use e-mail form, visit CitizenLink Action
Center and type your ZIP code into the space provided.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
For a deeper look at the issues surrounding the stem-cell
research debate, please see the CitizenLink feature
"Talking Points: Protecting the Bush Stem-Cell Research
Funding Policy," by Carrie Gordon Earll.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037144.cfm
And to listen online to Monday's Focus on the Family
broadcast featuring Earll and Sen. Sam Brownback, visit
the Focus on the Family Web site any time Monday.
http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
NEA TARGETS BUSH EDUCATION PLAN
Liberal teachers union says it will launch "infiltration strategy."
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037127.cfm
SUMMARY: Liberal teachers union says it will launch
"infiltration strategy" to undo the No Child Left Behind
Act from within the Republican Party.
The National Education Association (NEA) wound up its
annual convention in Los Angeles this week with a pledge
to frustrate President Bush's education initiative and
state voucher proposals.
But instead of the traditional frontal attack, the union
will try to infiltrate Republican ranks and poison the
education platform from within.
The convention ended with a vote to commit more than
$170,000 to a campaign against the president's education
policy, commonly known as No Child Left Behind.
"It's earmarked for training Republican NEA members to
affect Republican platform policy, so it's an infiltration
strategy," explained Jeralee Smith, a conservative NEA
delegate.
The specific target appears to be school vouchers.
Republican Educators Caucus Chair Shawna Adam promised to
"infiltrate the Republican Party with an anti-voucher
agenda." But the GOP sees the spies coming and refuses to
be bullied, according to Republican National Committee
spokesman Danny Diaz.
"Republicans and, I think, education professionals are
going to continue to focus at the task at hand," he said,
"and ultimately our goal is to make sure that more kids
learn."
Although the NEA did not return a call seeking comment,
Heritage Foundation Director of Domestic Policy Jennifer
Marshall said the union has a long history of opposing
parental choice.
"The NEA each year seems to come up with new ways of
contesting policies that it doesn't like," she noted.
"This is in that pattern."
Still, she added, this latest move could eventually hurt
the union.
"Once again," Marshall said, "we see the NEA leadership
not necessarily acting in the best interest of rank and
file teachers."
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Teachers, would you give hundreds of
dollars to an organization that supports abortion,
promotes homosexuality and attacks Christian groups? The
NEA does all these things. But no teacher has to be a
member of the National Education Association. You have a
choice.
Parents, the NEA spends millions of dollars to advance
this agenda . . . and your kids are caught in the
crossfire. Find out more in our special report "Grading
the NEA" by Perry L. Glanzer, Ph.D. & Travis R. Pardo.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1399&refcd=CE05GCZL&tvar=no
----- 6 -----
Appeals Court Agrees Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 8, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a lower
court ruling that found the federal Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban unconstitutional.
The court, headquartered in St. Louis, found that even
though the ban contains an exception to save the life of
the mother, it is unconstitutional because it makes no
such exception for the health of the mother.
"When 'substantial medical authority' supports the medical
necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health
exception is constitutionally required," Judge Kermit Bye
wrote for the 8th Circuit wrote in the opinion issued
Friday. "In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus
exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires
legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's
health by including a health exception."
In issuing its ruling, the court rejected the Justice
Department's argument that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act, singed into law by President Bush in 2003, prohibits
"one particular method of abortion that Congress, after
nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane,
never necessary to preserve the health of women, and less
safe than other readily available abortion methods."
Two other district court rulings voiding the ban are also
on appeal in cases out of New York and San Francisco.
----- 7 -----
Dem Leader Reid Says Supreme Court Filibuster Possible
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 8, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Senate Minority leader Harry Reid said Thursday his party
could filibuster President Bush's Supreme Court nominee --
if the candidate is anything other than a "mainstream
conservative."
"The president, we know, will pick a conservative lawyer,"
Reid said. "We need a mainstream conservative."
Reid also said he has recommended the president look
beyond the judicial branch, suggesting Republican Sens.
Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo
of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as possible
justices.
"I've already given those names to the president," Reid
said. "The names that he gives us are the important ones."
----- 8 -----
SCHUMER URGED TO BOW OUT OF COURT DEBATE
Liberal senator promises "war" no matter who is nominated to Supreme Court.
Focus on the Family
by Pete Winn, associate editor
July 7, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037114.cfm
SUMMARY: New York's senior U.S. senator pledges Democrats
will "go to war" no matter who the president nominates to
succeed Sandra Day O'Connor.
Pro-family groups are calling on a powerful liberal
senator to remove himself from deliberations on the
nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor's eventual replacement
on the Supreme Court.
Internet media maven Matt Drudge reported Wednesday that
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a powerful member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, was overheard promising that
Democrats would "go to war" over President Bush's nominee
-- regardless of the candidate the president nominates.
Pro-family activists were appalled. Family Research
Council President Tony Perkins was blunt in his comments.
"I would not hesitate to suggest that Senator Schumer
should recuse himself from the confirmation process,"
Perkins said, "since he has obviously already made up his
mind."
Tom Minnery, vice president of government and public
policy at Focus on the Family Action, agreed.
"It is impossible, in light of these comments, for any
candidate likely to be advanced by the president to get a
fair hearing from Sen. Schumer," he said. "Senators are
constitutionally obligated to offer their advice and
consent on court nominees. All Sen. Schumer is prepared to
offer is his disgust and contempt."
Schumer, who was reportedly overheard talking on his cell
phone on an Amtrak train between Washington, D.C., and New
York, indicated he wasn't concerned about the judicial
backgrounds or qualifications of the candidate President
Bush ultimately selects.
"It's not about an individual judge," Drudge reported
Schumer as saying. "It's about how it affects the overall
makeup of the court."
Minnery said Schumer was showing his true liberal colors.
"For him to say 'It's not about an individual judge' but
about 'the overall makeup of the court,' " Minnery
explained, "makes it clear his only interest is in
obstructing any nominee who doesn't subscribe to his brand
of judicial activism."
Schumer, who serves as chairman of the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee, further dismissed the
agreement reached by the so-called "Gang of 14" senators
of both parties which guaranteed floor votes to appellate
judges Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William
Pryor -- and barred future filibusters against judicial
nominees except in "extraordinary" circumstances.
"A Priscilla Owen- or Janice Rogers Brown-style
appointment," he said, "may not have been 'extraordinary'
to the appellate court but may be 'extraordinary' to the
Supreme Court."
Perkins said it seems Schumer's ultimate goal "is to
fulfill his own personal political agenda and refute any
nominee who doesn't live up to his specified litmus test."
Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America,
said Schumer's statements prove what pro-family
conservatives have believed all along -- that for Senate
Democrats, "it isn't about whom the nominee is, it's about
whom the president is."
"It wouldn't make any difference to the left if the
president nominated Moses or King Solomon," LaRue said.
"They're demanding a say in picking the nominee to make
sure judicial activism continues to reign supreme.
Liberals' greatest fear is that President Bush will cut
away at the majority on the Court that acts as backup for
their failed policies."
She said Schumer misled Americans -- and deceived the
president -- when the senator recently said publicly he
wanted to work with the White House to choose "a consensus
nominee" to replace O'Connor.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family
Action, said it now seems clear that Democrats are gearing
up to use the same filibuster tactic they have used to tie
up many of the president's nominees to the federal appeals
courts.
What's more, he said, this incident is vaguely reminiscent
of Memogate -- where memos from Democratic Judiciary
Committee staffers were discovered and leaked to the press
during the height of the judicial filibusters.
"We learned then," Hausknecht said, "that the Democrats on
the Judiciary Committee work hand in hand with the liberal
extremist groups on the left to decide who they are going
to fight, and which hill to die on. It’s no secret anymore
that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are spoon-fed
and controlled by liberal left extremists groups."
For Perkins, meanwhile, the thought that Senate Democrats
might threaten to filibuster the person the president
nominates to the Court is repulsive.
"We are asking for a simple up-or-down vote on the
president’s nominee," Perkins said. "This should be a
simple process and a judge should be seated no later than
October 3, when the Court starts its new term. Schumer's
actions are against the process of judicial honor,
un-American and shameful."
LaRue added: "Drop your war plans and cool your rhetoric,
Senator. It's time to end the ugly partisanship and start
working together to give America a Supreme Court that
upholds the Constitution and restores rule by 'We the
People.' "
TAKE ACTION: No matter what state you live in, please take
a moment to respectfully urge Sen. Charles Schumer to bow
out of the Supreme Court confirmation process in light of
his declaration of "war" before a candidate has been
nominated. Please send him an e-mail and call as many of
his district offices as you can.
All the phone numbers and addresses you need to do this
are in the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=402&lvl=C&chamber=S
----- 9 -----
Focus on the Family
California Gay Marriage Bill Refuses to Die
NEWS BRIEFS
[Received in email; no URL]
Pro-family Californians who thought that they had stopped
Assemblyman Mark Leno's gay marriage license bill on June
2 now have to gear up to face the bill again this fall,
only in a different form.
Leno, a Democrat and homosexual activist who got elected
to the California Legislature from San Francisco, has
gutted the language of a marine biology research bill
which already passed the Assembly -- and inserted the text
of his failed homosexual marriage bill. That bill is
currently in the state Senate.
Mona Passignano, state issues analyst for Focus on the
Family Action, said even though Leno's bill was defeated
earlier by four votes, no one should be surprised that the
bill is back. Gay activists, she said, will try any tactic
they can to implement their agenda.
"This is not an unusual tactic for people who want
homosexual rights passed in the states to take,"
Passignano said. "We've seen it in Colorado, we've seen it
in Massachusetts, we've seen it in many, many states,
where they will try to attach it to a bill which had
absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage or homosexual
rights, and force the Legislature to veto a bill that
normally would have passed easily."
Passignano said the new Leno bill, AB 849, though
dangerous, is unlikely to get through the full Legislature
before California lawmakers recess for the summer. But,
she said, an August battle over the legislation is
looming.
TAKE ACTION: If you live in California, please take a
moment to ask your state legislators to oppose AB 849,
which would legalize same-sex marriage. For contact
information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form, visit
the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/legdir.tt?command=statedir&state=CA
----- 10 -----
Schwarzenegger Supports Gay Pride and Sex Offenders
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
July 7, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
San Diego's Gay Pride Festival is being supported by two
convicted pedophiles -- and California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger is endorsing it, according to
WorldNetDaily.com.
Warren Patrick Derichsweiler and Daniel Reiger, both on
California's Megan's Law list of sex offenders, are listed
in the event's program as a supervisor and coordinator,
respectively.
Freelance reporter Allyson Smith told WND she spoke with
Schwarzenegger's office and quoted a staffer saying that
the governor "supports gay and lesbian rights and that he
does not have time to check out the backgrounds of every
single person involved with every pride event in the state
of California."
Smith replied: "It is reprehensible that Schwarzenegger, a
professed Catholic and so-called Republican, would put the
special rights of perverts above the protection of
innocent children."
TAKE ACTION: Have something to say to Gov. Schwarzenegger
about his reaction to the backgrounds of San Diego Gay
Pride workers? You can find contact information, including
an easy-to-use e-mail form, in the CitizenLink Action
Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=141270&lvl=S&chamber=G
----- 11 -----
The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005
Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God
Opinions are divided about evolution theories
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/
Earlier this year, the State Board of Education in Kansas reignited an old debate – whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools – and shone the spotlight on a new theory, intelligent design. While many in the scientific community may question why this issue has been raised again, a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."
At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design). Moreover, a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools, while 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only, and four percent intelligent design only.
These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,000 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive® between June 17 and 21, 2005.
Other key findings include:
* A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
* Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
* Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).
* Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.
* Factors such as age, education, political outlook, and region appear to guide views on this debate.
In general, older adults (those 55 years of age and older), adults without a college degree, Republicans, conservatives, and Southerners are more likely to embrace the creationism positions in the questions asked.
* Those with a college education, Democrats, independents, liberals, adults aged 18 to 54 and those from the Northeast and West support the belief in evolution in larger numbers. However, among these groups, majorities believe in creationism.
* Despite the significant numbers who believe in creationism, pluralities among the demographic subgroups examined still believe all three concepts (evolution, creationism, and intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.
[Much more at URL]
[Ed. note: note a weirdness; if you talk about what evolutionary theory actually says, you find stronger support - tho' it's still a substantial minourity. Even in columns where the majority of evolution/creation respondents responded with the evolution-supported answer, when asked specifically using those terms, the overwhelming majority would answer saying they supported creationism.]
----- 12 -----
Massachusetts Governor Vetoes Increase for Homosexual Youth Programs
7/8/2005
By Robert Knight
Concerned Women for America
Romney rejects $175,000 increase, but leaves commission budget intact at $250,000
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8506/CFI/family/index.htm
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has vetoed a portion of the state budget that would have increased money for the Gay and Lesbian Youth Commission and would have directed the state Department of Education to spend $75,000 on pro-homosexual “suicide prevention” programs.
State legislators had increased the budget of the commission from $250,000 to $425,000 – a 70 percent hike. Romney rejected the increase, including the allocation for the Education Department.
“That’s the good news. The bad news is that the state is still officially promoting homosexuality to school kids via this commission, which has assisted homosexual activists in installing 'gay-straight alliance' clubs in most of the state’s schools,” said Tammy Mosher, CWA of Massachusetts state director. “While we applaud the governor’s response to the many Massachusetts citizens who asked him to veto the increase, we urge him to zero out the commission. Nobody has the right to use taxpayer money to promote homosexuality to kids.”
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Southern Baptists Pass Strong Resolution on Public Schools
Concerned Women for America
7/7/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8499/CWA/education/index.htm
The Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Nashville June 21 and 22, approved a resolution warning parents of some disturbing trends in public education. The resolution called attention to the growing problems in government-run schools including promotion of the homosexual agenda, immorality, sexual promiscuity and violence. The measure had strong grassroots support, including endorsement by 11 of CWA’s state chapters. A similar resolution was raised at the annual meeting of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). Martha Kleder spoke with Dr. Bruce Shortt with The Exodus Mandate, on this ground-breaking move. Click here to listen.
["Most of your listeners may recall that we submitted a resolution that had three principle points... first, it warned parents and churches about homosexual activism and cooperation between school districts and homosexual activists. Second, it asked parents and churches to investigate whether their district is cooperating with homosexual activists. Third, it urged parents... to withdraw their children from [such school districts]." Final version included first and second points, not third. Final resolution asked parents and churches to investigate, but said that parents should "insure[d]... the physical, moral, spiritual, and intellectual well-being of their children." Claims that school districts "who promote homosexuality," which means any non-condemnational mention (from my past experience, they don't define it) cannot guard the "physical, moral, spiritual, or intellectual" well-being of children.
"It very explicitly points out that homosexual activists... are working very very hard in many school districts to influence children... and it also calls for parents to investigate and demand that any immoral [missed word] be removed."
Presbyterian groups trying to introduce resolution urging parents to remove students from public schools entirely, as per Bruce Shortt's original resolution version; received on the floor, went to committee, not recommended for adoption. Minourity made a report to the general assembly and it was debated on the floor of the general assembly, where it failed again. "A very, very important first step."
Claims that these resolutions aren't particular to any denomination, hopes for it to spread across all Christian denominations, "the public schools are destroying our children."
"One of the things that helped us was that Dr. Rick Scarborough... gave us a boost within the SBC... Dr. Mohler wrote an op-ed in which he examined the issue from both sides an came to the remarkable conclusion that now is the time for responsible Baptists to develop and exit strategy from the public schools. And in addition to that... was a wonderful coalition of grassroots Christian family associations who came together and provided endorsement for our resolution." 11 CWA state orgs, 10 or 11 AFA state affiliates, 16 ort 17 Focus on the Family state, 8 or 9 Eagle Forum affiliates. Also credits CWA national's information-distributing ability and CWA's Robert Knight for "expert guidance."
Notes that resolutions are non-binding. Things "Baptist activists" will take similar resolution into state conventions in the fall, to warn of "this danger our children are being subjected to in many, many school districts."]
----- 14 -----
Ontario MP, wife denied communion
Ottawa Citizen
Canadian Press
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=10faf8e0-75a3-449a-aa54-5290d1bd5676
Charlie Angus and Celina Symmonds had their lives turned upside down when they were told by their parish priests that they could no longer take communion because their stands on social issues conflicted with church teachings.
Angus, a New Democrat MP who represents a northern Ontario riding, ran afoul of the Roman Catholic church over his support for the federal government's controversial same-sex marriage bill.
"It's quite disturbing,'' said Angus, pointing to what he called "the rising militancy of language within the church. I went to Ottawa feeling that I would be speaking as someone rooted in a faith tradition and rooted in a justice tradition.
"Then your involvement in the sacraments becomes a political pressure point. It was unacceptable.''
Prime Minister Paul Martin, also a practising Catholic, faced similar flak from a priest in his Montreal riding over the bill. Father Francis Geremia said Martin no longer deserved the sacrament of communion and "I pray that he will lose his riding'' in the next election.
Symmonds, who once managed the now closed Planned Parenthood office in Medicine Hat, Alta., had to find another place to be married about a month before her wedding in September 2002 after her priest discovered from a newspaper article that she was pro-choice on abortion.
"I was shocked,'' says Symmonds. "When you grow up Catholic you grow up awaiting the day where you can walk into that great big cathedral with your husband. It's something you dream of as a little girl.
"And it got crushed within seconds.''
Angus, who represents the riding of Timmins James-Bay and lives in New Liskeard, has only attended mass a couple of times since the incident in the spring. "I haven't accepted communion,'' he said. His wife and three daughters have stayed away from mass.
"It's something I don't feel very comfortable discussing,'' he said, his voice quavering. "So much of politics is spin ... party position ... (or) having some one-liners. But when it speaks to the essence of what you feel and what you believe, it's very hard to rationalize it or to articulate it.''
Symmonds remembers well the day when the priest's assistant phoned, and she hasn't attended church since the incident. "It hurts that you're told that you're not welcome to be a part of something that was very precious in your life,'' she said, her voice trembling.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Both sides fear "stealth" nominee, observers say
By Deirdre Shesgreen
Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
07/02/2005
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/127FAF691468FC7586257032001D4D05?OpenDocument
WASHINGTON - With the Supreme Court battle now under way, what both sides fear most is the unknown: a so-called "stealth" nominee who has a thin paper trail and offers ambiguous answers in the Senate grilling that is sure to come.
Already, activists on the right and left are calculating how to divine the true ideology of any candidate the White House might put forward, especially on politically explosive subjects like abortion. While in the past, nominees have been able to duck and dodge dicey questions, this time the president's pick for the high court won't be let off so easily, court observers say.
The apprehension about a blank-slate candidate is all the more intense on both sides of the aisle because it is Sandra Day O'Connor - herself an unpredictable swing vote - leaving the court, rather than Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a reliable conservative whose retirement had been the subject of speculation.
With a Rehnquist vacancy, President George W. Bush might have felt freer to appoint a strong conservative - and Senate Democrats might have felt more willing to accept such a choice - because it wouldn't have tipped the balance of the court. Now, however, the pressure on Bush to appoint a moderate will be more intense, say those on both sides of the fight.
[More at URL]
no subject
Date: 2005-07-11 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-11 04:00 pm (UTC)Also, I don't care how you spell it, it's still crazy to say, "I hope those laws go back into place." Yes, we'll have to get to the point where people are okay with us. Yes, we've been doing a lot of that. No, being illegal doesn't exactly help. It's not like these laws weren't used against us politically.
I mean, for the love of god - if people are so goddamn determined to be originalists, then what the fuck happened to the concept of natural rights and the right to revolt? Being made illegal is a perfect example of the kind of law that triggers the right of people to revolt against their government. As in armed fucking uprising.
Between armed uprising and court decision, personally, I'll take the court decision.