Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Aug. 11th, 2005 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFar short of (original) recruiting goals and in need of more qualified troops, Army steps-up gay-soldier expulsions;
Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government joins Faith and Freedom Network, dropping its own name; also appears to have gone insane, declaring secularists are in intentional and open rebellion against God. No, I'm not making this up;
Focus on the Family article on Kansas's trying to find new ways to work in Creationism (my summary, not theirs);
FotF article on the decision by "Public Advocate of the United States," a fundamentalist group small enough that even I'd never heard of them, withdrawing their support from the nomination of John Roberts over his Amendment 2 pro-bono work - with another indication that they want to hear about this work in confirmation hearings;
FotF article defending Colorado representative Musgrave for pocketing the anti-marriage-rights Federal Marriage Amendment - claims it's merely a matter of timing, not a faltering of her commitment to it;
FotF calls anti-Roberts ads "seditious" - is everything treason with these guys now or what?;
Falwell sends out "Vote Christian" letters, bumper stickers - Anti-Defamation League not amused;
FotF article on court challenges to New Hampshire abortion law;
FotF article on organising boycotts against Planned Parenthood supporters;
FotF: Pair of Canadian straight men to marry to protest same-sex marriage laws;
FCC chair Kevin Martin, who has taken criticism for attempting to interfere with PBS and NPR operations on a political basis, has appointed a fundamentalist pro-censorship wonk from Concerned Women for America as a policy advisor - includes action item to thank him (ACTION ITEM);
FotF continues its build of David Parker as some sort of victim of conscience;
Concerned Women for America condemns Starbucks for "promoting homosexual activism";
San Francisco Chronicle: rights of GBLT citizens certain to end up before court - Roberts' votes could be crucial - Family Research Council wants someone who does "not consider Lawrence v. Texas settled law," demonstrating again that they're on the "recriminalise homosexuality" bandwagon;
Four articles (and counting) from Focus on the Family that are interviews with other fundamentalist leaders and sympathetic politicos promoting Justice Sunday II and the need to get fundamentalist judges on the court;
Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily condemns John Roberts as "another Souter";
Families Northwest, a fundamentalist anti-marriage-rights group, puts out their latest newsletter;
National Review makes the amusing argument that adding marriage promotion to the Federal government is an example of government being less intrusive, not more - "We're from the government, we're here to help" is echoed in their statement that it's appropriate and necessary for government to "help couples form and sustain healthy marriages."
----- 1 -----
Military ousts more gays for online ads
Tom Musbach, PlanetOut Network
Thursday, August 4, 2005 / 09:18 AM
http://planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/08/04/1
As a frontline artilleryman during two tours of duty in Iraq, Army Specialist Jeff Howe faced many dangers that could have ended his military career, if not his life. Instead he got tripped up by his online personal ad, which identified him as gay.
Howe set up the ad last year on Connexion.org as a social outlet during a break between his deployments. Though he did not use the ad or discuss it while on active duty, it led to his discharge on Wednesday under the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against openly gay and lesbian service members.
Howe's case is not unusual, as online "outings" have increased this year over last year, according to a Washington D.C.-based group that serves gay and lesbian military personnel and works to end the gay ban.
By the end of July, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) had assisted 10 people with similar circumstances, and the cases represent 25 percent of the "outing" incidents monitored by SLDN this year. The category refers to cases in which a service member's sexual orientation is revealed by another individual to a supervisor without the member's consent.
The individuals affected -- nine men and one woman -- include a Farsi linguist, a doctor, an intelligence analyst and a communications operator. At least three served in the Iraq war. Five of the cases involved profiles on Gay.com, which is owned by PlanetOut Inc.
Howe's case started this spring in Iraq with a Web log, or blog, the Army asked him to create so that his unit could easily update friends and family back home. One of the photos he posted to the blog depicted a vehicle that was blown up by a rocket. A commander who was senior to Howe's direct supervisor objected to the photo and quietly started a background investigation on Howe, which led to the discovery of his Connexion.org profile from 2004.
Howe, 32, enlisted in the Army after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, taking a leave of absence from his job in corporate marketing. He was already open with family and friends about his sexuality, but his desire to help his country exceeded his concern about the military's gay ban.
"Going back in the closet was a trade-off I could make briefly," Howe said in an interview with the PlanetOut Network.
"With my understanding of 'don't ask, don't tell,' I thought I was fine," the Chicago resident said. "I didn't realize my personal ad was a violation of the policy. You don't receive any training about it during your military orientation."
In addition to Howe, four service members have been discharged this year because of online ads. The five others have either been retained or are fighting to be retained, according to SLDN.
The military's actions have angered many advocates for online privacy and LGBT rights.
"It's bigoted, wasteful and expensive for us all when the U.S. military continues to violate its own policy regarding the privacy of off-duty gay personnel by investigating and discharging them for seeking companionship with other gay people online," said Will Doherty, executive director of the Online Policy Group.
[more at URL]
----- 2 -----
Faith and Freedom Network
August 1, 2005
Faith and Freedom Network (formerly WERG) Lays It on the Line
[Received in paper copy; no URL. Apologies for HTML markup; it was the best way I could think of to preserve their use of bold and italics.]
Dear Friend,
Let me share some personal thoughts with you. We at Faith and Freedom Network have laid it on the line - as an organization and each of us individually.
Here's how we got to this point.
John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, on June 28, 1913 said, "The general principles on which the Father's [sic] achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ..."
And Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1811-1845 said in a lecture at Harvard (August 25, 1824), "Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide to the law of nature." Twenty years later he wrote, "... Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundation of all government."
With an undeniable "Christian Consensus" guiding our Founding Fathers and their successors, America truly became a "city on a hill."
Only in recent years has America drifted off course.
Patrick Henry said, "When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains; a corrupted public conscience is incompatible with freedom."
Early in the twentieth century, the drumbeat to secularize America began to pick up support. And America's freedoms began to be eroded.
The stealing of America continued until recent years.
Now, people of faith are rising to the occasion and are beginning to be heard.
Yet, the secularists continue to push their "God Free Zone" ideas by attempting to strip every vestige of our Godly heritage from our public life.
The secularists seek to redefine marriage, morality and family, moving away from the traditional Biblical principles upon which our Country was built, under the guise of inclusiveness, diversity, tolerance, sensitivity and open-mindedness. All of which is a facade, used to mask the real agenda, which is not so much an honest intellectual disagreement with traditional Judeo-Christian values, but rather a rebellion against the God who gave them. [Emphasis added]
Left to our own devises, we exchange real freedom for perceived freedom, which removes accountability to God and actually in the spirit of "progressiveness" makes personal choice the supreme ruler - we become like God. Then we destroy ourselves.
This worldview then permeates every part of society, from abortion, to how we educate our children, to our acceptedness [sic] of perversion as "normal," to the laws we make, to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.
Joshua, the ancient leader of God's people, once said, "You have seen God's faithfulness and blessing, but now you must, "choose you this day whom you will serve."
The call to people of faith today is simply, WHO'S [sic] SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Jesus, the Founder of Christianity, clearly taught that you cannot serve two masters - two philosophies.
Faith and Freedom Network and those who are a part of the growing network of people who volunteer and support the ministry financially have answered the question. We know you, too, have answered with the same words, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Faith and Freedom Network (formerly WERG) has answered not only in word but also in action. We have changed our name to better define our mission.
We have publicly committed to take even stronger leadership against the assault on marriage and family and the general attack against traditional values.
More importantly, we are committed to lead in establishing a Positive Christian Agenda in our communities and our State.
It is one thing to verbalize our convictions; it is another matter to actually act on that conviction.
Acting on one's convictions actually costs something. But only by acting, can we see results.
Our new level of commitment exceeds our present income.
However, we believe so deeply in the mission and recognize, as you do, the unusual times in which we live, that we had no choice, but to not only choose sides, but to act on that choice.
We have laid it on the line.
Now, we're asking you to act on your choice.
WERG has a long tradition of serving Washington State with a Christian lobbyist in Olympia. Bob Higley, Senior Lobbyist, is already preparing for the next session.
We are prepared to continue to lead in the defense of traditional marriage.
We are prepared to respond immediately should the State Supreme court rule against traditional marriage.
We will be challenging certain elected officials who have a different, "liberal, progressive" view for our State, and we will be supporting those who hold traditional values.
We will be challenging certain aspects of public education, particularly sex-education.
But now, will you stand with us?
Right now, we need a few large donations combined with many smaller ones.
Only you know what you can and should do.
Please sense our heart and our spirit, and in that spirit, TAKE ACTION.
God Bless You.
Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman and CEO - Gary Randall, President
P.S. Be sure to visit our new Website ... www.faithandfreedom.us
Formerly Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government (WERG)
----- 3 -----
KANSAS STANDARDS EVOLVE
Students would learn about evolution's controversial side.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037531.cfm
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Students would learn about evolution's
controversial side.
The Kansas State Board of Education approved a draft of
new state science standards Tuesday that would allow
teachers to address the controversy surrounding Darwinian
evolution.
Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian and president of the
board explained that only three pages in the 105-page
change get noticed. But he understands the importance of
those three pages.
"Before these changes Neo-Darwinian evolution was taught
as dogma," he said. "What we basically said is there is a
lot of scientific evidence that evolution is not all it's
cracked up to be. We want teachers to show students those
evidences from peer-reviewed scientific journals."
[...]
"This kind of forum is not how you establish science,"
Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science,
told CitizenLink in May.
The board disagreed and is now implementing a change in
what teachers can teach.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
PRO-FAMILY GROUP PULLS SUPPORT OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE
Roberts' work for homosexual activists scrutinized.
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037522.cfm
SUMMARY: Roberts' work for homosexual activists
scrutinized.
In the wake of news that Supreme Court nominee John
Roberts did pro bono legal work in support of a challenge
to a Colorado law that denied special rights for
homosexuals, a pro-family group has pulled its support for
the nominee.
Roberts' free work for homosexual activists was the main
reason Eugene Delgaudio, the president of Public Advocate
of the United States, is yanking his group's support.
"No attorney that I know would help the opposition for
money, (much less) for free," he told Family News in
Focus. "They would all have something else to do during
that week or the month that they are needed by the sworn
opposition."
[...]
However, [...] Focus on the Family, remains
optimistic about Judge Roberts and believes the
confirmation process will work.
"We're looking forward to the hearings when Roberts will
have a chance to discuss his judicial philosophy and
really give air to some of the things that have come out
in the last few weeks," she said.
"We remain optimistic that Roberts is a strict
constructionist and that President Bush has fulfilled his
campaign pledge to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia
and Thomas."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Rep. Musgrave Pockets Gay Marriage Ban -- For Now
Focus on the Family
August 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has placed on hold a measure that
would constitutionally define marriage. The Associated
Press described her as "waiting to see what voters and the
courts think about the proposed constitutional amendment
before she takes any further action."
The news report said she had "new worries" after GOP
leaders rated her as one of the 10 most vulnerable
Republicans in the country.
"We're kind of waiting to see what happens," the Colorado
legislator said. "There is overwhelming support for
marriage to be defined as the union between a man and
woman. We'll see what happens before I run it up again."
Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the
Family Action, said Musgrave is simply doing her job and
working with House leadership to determine the best time
to reintroduce the Marriage Protection Amendment.
"She is not faltering one bit," Banks said. "Musgrave is a
courageous defender of family values and marriage in
particular. We are grateful for her leadership in
protecting marriage and look forward to working with her
upon a second introduction of the marriage amendment."
----- 6 -----
Specter Urges Removal of Anti-Roberts Ad
Focus on the Family
August 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
In a letter to NARAL Pro-Choice America, Senator Arlen
Specter, R-Pa., urged the President Nancy Keenan to pull
seditious television spots criticizing Supreme Court
nominee John G. Roberts "in order to avoid the possibility
of similar advertising to sully and denigrate the
confirmation process."
Specter asserts the television ads -- which accuse Roberts
of "excusing" violence against abortion clinics -- are
"blatantly untrue" and that Roberts, in filing briefs with
the U.S. Supreme Court in Bray v. Alexandria Women's
Health Clinic, stated that individuals who target abortion
clinics with violence "should be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law."
He points out Roberts simply argued the law which
prosecutors were trying to use should not apply to the
case.
"Judge Roberts did not act improperly in his advocacy
before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the plaintiffs
could not sue under an 1871 Act designed to protect
African-Americans from actions of the Ku Klux Klan,"
Specter advanced.
----- 7 -----
Falwell Criticized For 'Vote Christian' Message
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
August 10, 2005
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized the Rev. Jerry
Falwell for urging his constituents to "Vote Christian" in
a fundraising letter earlier this year. The Associated
Press reported the ADL viewed Falwell's statement as a
poor mix of religion and politics.
Falwell included in the appeal letter a sticker that read
"I Vote Christian."
The League's national director, Abraham Foxman, said
Falwell's comments were "directly at odds with the
American ideal and should be rejected."
Falwell said his statements were misunderstood.
"What I was saying was for conservative Christian voters
to vote their values, which are pro-life and pro-family,"
he said. "I had no intention of being anti-Jewish at all."
----- 8 -----
PRO-LIFE ATTORNEYS DEFEND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LAW
SUMMARY: New Hampshire case will set precedent for the nation.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037515.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: New Hampshire case will set precedent for the
nation.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first case involving
abortion in more than five years this fall. This week,
pro-life attorneys are busy filing legal briefs in
connection with the case -- all seeking to defend New
Hampshire's parental notification law.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the Christian Legal
Society (CLS), the American Center for Law and Justice and
a group associated with the National Right to Life
Committee, among others, have all filed
friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, Ayotte v. Planned
Parenthood of Northern New England.
They did so on behalf of groups ranging from the American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
the Christian Medical Association, the Catholic Medical
Association, the National Association of Evangelicals and
Concerned Women for America.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SUPPORTERS IDENTIFIED
Pro-life group has compiled a boycott list of abortion financiers
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037487.cfm
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Pro-life group has compiled a boycott list of
companies that give money to the abortion giant.
Pro-lifers who want to avoid patronizing businesses that
give money to Planned Parenthood have a friend in Life
Decisions International (LDI), which maintains a boycott
list that tracks corporations that give money to the
abortion giant.
LDI President Douglas R. Scott has been boycotting Planned
Parenthood supporters for nearly 20 years.
"We have 116 corporations that have stopped giving to
Planned Parenthood," he told Family News in Focus. "That
has amounted over the past decade to 35 million dollars
that Planned Parenthood is not receiving."
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Same-Sex Straight Marriage?
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
Family News in Focus
August 9, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Two Toronto men have decided to tie the knot under
Canada's new same-sex marriage law in order to benefit
from the legal protections of the union. The thing is,
they aren't gay, Fox News reported.
Bill Dalrymple and his best friend, Bryan Pinn, made the
decision while joking with friends at a local bar, but
maintain that, merriment aside, they intend to make a real
statement about what gay marriage brings to their country.
"There are significant tax implications that we don't
think the government has thought through," Pinn said.
Though both men are straight, Dalrymple consulted a lawyer
and learned that the country's marriage laws do not
include anything about sexual preference.
No date has been set for the Pinn-Dalrymple union.
----- 11 -----
FCC CHAIRMAN NAMES FAMILY ADVOCATE AS ADVISER
New consultant to Kevin Martin is long-time conservative activist.
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037482.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
August 8, 2005
SUMMARY: New consultant to Kevin Martin is long-time
conservative activist.
A woman who has for years helped lead the grassroots war
against indecent broadcasting has joined the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to advise the agency's new
chairman, Kevin Martin, on policy matters.
Anti-pornography attorneys hope Penny Nance will be
instrumental in helping commissioners enforce prohibitions
against broadcast indecency. She will work as a special
adviser in the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy
Analysis.
Pat Trueman of the Family Research Council said the move
shows Martin is committed to keeping objectionable content
off the public airwaves.
"He was committed before he was named chairman, when he
was an FCC commissioner, and he is today," Trueman said.
"This is further evidence of his commitment -- that he
would reach out to someone who's been a leader in the
effort to protect families, and the fight against
indecency on television, and bring that person on staff."
Bob Peters, president of the watchdog group Morality in
Media, agreed that Martin had made a good choice, calling
Nance's hiring "an indication that he means business about
dealing with the indecency problem in broadcasting."
Nance, until recently, has served as member of the board
of directors of Concerned Women for America and was the
founder of the Alexandria, Va.,-based Kids First Coalition
-- a group which works to protect children from TV smut.
[...]
"Things will improve," Trueman said, "only if the
president, in filling the two remaining vacancies on the
commission, appoints commissioners who align themselves
with Chairman Martin's views. If the president fails to do
that, the FCC will tip in favor of non-enforcement."
TAKE ACTION: Thank FCC Chairman Kevin Martin for
appointing a pro-family adviser and encourage him to
continue aggressively taking on broadcast indecency. For
contact information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form,
visit the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4889&dir=fof&command=depresult2&submit.x=19&submit.y=11
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Trial Date Set for Massachusetts Man Upset over Pro-Gay Curriculum
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
August 8, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
A Lexington, Mass., man charged with trespassing after
protesting his son being given pro-homosexual materials at
school will go to trial next month, the Lexington
Minuteman reported.
David Parker was arrested after refusing to leave a
meeting at Estabrook Elementary School, which he attended
to voice his concern over a bag of materials sent home
with his son that contained information depicting same-sex
parents as one type of family unit. Parker was upset
because, even though he had asked to be notified if
homosexuality was to be discussed in his son's classroom,
he had not been.
Parker's lawyer, Jeffery Denner, said his client did not
attend the meeting with the intention of getting arrested
-- nor is he anti-gay.
"This is about choice," Denner said, "about the proper
relationship between parents and the government."
Denner added that he hopes the matter can be resolved out
of court, but will be prepared if the trial goes forward
as scheduled.
----- 13 -----
Starbucks Funds and Promotes Homosexual Activism
Concerned Women for America
8/10/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8693/CWA/misc/index.htm
The financial and political support of the homosexual agenda by Starbucks, the nation’s leading coffee bar chain, has some “frothing.” The company crossed the line for one customer when it funded “Pride” events in San Diego, California that included activities for children and known sex offenders on its volunteer staff. The coffee company crossed the line for yet another customer when it placed a quote promoting homosexual activity on the back side of her coffee cup. Bob Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute joins Meghan Kleppinger, assistant to the national field director, on this topic. Click here to listen.
----- 14 -----
GAY ISSUES DESTINED FOR TOP COURT
Activists agree Justice Roberts would be pivotal in same-sex marriage cases
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, August 11, 2005
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/11/MNGVCE66GN1.DTL
Washington -- Abortion may dominate next month's Senate hearings on whether to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, but gay rights is the stealth issue.
Democrats aren't as eager to push for same-sex marriage as they are to protect abortion, but there is little question that the leading edge of civil rights law involves lesbians and gays rather than more settled questions of gender and racial equality.
Over the next decade or more -- and if confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts could be on the court for 30 years -- activists on both sides expect the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denying homosexuals federal benefits conferred by marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays and lesbians in the military.
Several such cases already are moving through lower courts, though they may be several years away from the Supreme Court.
"I don't think there's any question" such cases ultimately will come before the Supreme Court, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading social conservative group, who supports President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the court.
[...]
Although the stakes are high, both sides are downplaying the issue for strategic reasons.
Some gay leaders warn against making gay issues a focus of the confirmation hearings, fearing such a move could backfire.
Very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage, and the public remains largely opposed to the idea. Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy.
[...]
Religious conservatives want to avoid imposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals cannot demand one on abortion. Bush himself has carefully avoided doing so.
"We're not setting litmus tests; it's the other side doing that," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.
Still, he added, "I would say that we would not want a candidate to say they considered Lawrence vs. Texas to be settled law or beyond the scope of review on constitutional grounds."
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
'IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE HAVE NEW JUSTICES'
Part I of our series on "Justice Sunday II" features a chat with Phyllis Schlafly.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037477.cfm
by Stuart Shepard, managing editor
Focus on the Family
August 8, 2005
SUMMARY: In Part I of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II"
simulcast, we talk with Phyllis Schlafly.
"Justice Sunday II," a nationwide simulcast featuring
speeches from some of America's most influential
pro-family leaders, is set for 7 p.m. EDT Aug. 14. The
event's purpose is to focus attention on the need to rein
in activist courts -- in part by ensuring a fair hearing
and an up-or-down confirmation vote for Judge John
Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Among the roster of speakers will be Focus on the Family
Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson; Prison Fellowship's
Chuck Colson; former U.S. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia;
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins; and U.S.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Also scheduled to appear is Phyllis Schlafly, president of
the Eagle Forum, who is generally regarded as the
"founding mother" of the pro-family movement. Perhaps best
know for her 10-year battle to defeat the deceptively
named Equal Rights Amendment, Schlafly is an articulate
and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement.
She appears in debate on college campuses more frequently
than any other conservative and was named one of the 100
most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies'
Home Journal.
In anticipation of "Justice Sunday II," CitizenLink will
publish all this week short Q&A features with the event's
speakers. We've asked each of them for their take on the
same five questions -- with Schlafly leading us off.
Q. Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. What the Supreme Court does is of tremendous importance
to all Christians. We know, as Chief Justice (William)
Rehnquist has said, that the Supreme Court is
demonstrating hostility to religion, and we want to bring
that to a stop. The Court issued conflicting decisions on
the Ten Commandments this year. The Court ducked the issue
of the Pledge of Allegiance, but that case will come back.
And it is very important to Christians whether the court
sticks to the Constitution, or whether the justices
believe it's a living and evolving document they can
rewrite.
Q. What is the threat of activist judges to our nation and
our religious freedoms?
A. Activist judges -- I like to call them 'supremacist
judges' because they think they're supreme over other
branches of government and over all the rest of us -- they
think they can rewrite the words of the Constitution,
create new privileges that nobody else saw for a hundred
years, and in general pretend that they give a new meaning
to the Constitution.
Q. What's your opinion of John Roberts?
A. I'm cautiously positive about him. He has not much of a
record, where we can demonstrate what he believes in. He's
made very few statements, other than the briefs he's filed
in cases for which he was a lawyer. But, I'm hopeful that
he will be at least like Rehnquist.
[More at URL]
'THIS NOMINATION COULD SHIFT THE COURT'
In Part II of our series of "Justice Sunday II" series, we talk with Tony Perkins.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037486.cfm
Focus on the Family
'This Nomination Could Shift the Court'
by Gary Schneeberger, editor
SUMMARY: In Part II of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II"
simulcast, we talk with Tony Perkins.
"Justice Sunday II," a coast-to-coast simulcast being
broadcast live from Two Rivers Baptist Church in
Nashville, Tenn., is designed to focus attention on the
fight against judicial tyranny and the need to ensure
Judge John Roberts receives a fair hearing and up-or-down
confirmation vote on his nomination to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
One of the key speakers taking the stage will be Family
Research Council President Tony Perkins, a former
Louisiana state lawmaker who has become one of the most
influential pro-family voices in America.
CitizenLink spoke with Perkins about the event.
Q. Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. Over the last 40 years, the Supreme Court has made
itself into a super legislature, imposing radical public
policies upon the American people. In this process the
Court has systematically chiseled away at religious
freedoms, in effect, attempting to erase the Christian
heritage that is etched upon the character of our nation.
The Court has routinely usurped the authority of the
Congress and the president and set itself up as the final
arbiter of public policy. Recent decisions by the Court
make it clear that unless President Bush is successful in
nominating judges who understand the role of the Court is
to interpret law, not make it, the future of our nation is
in grave danger.
Q. What is the threat of activist judges to our nation and
our religious freedoms?
A. We have witnessed over the last 40 years what Supreme
Court Justice (Antonin) Scalia described recently as the
Court ratcheting up its hostility toward religion. It was
not our elected representatives who took prayer out of our
schools, or removed the Ten Commandments from the
classrooms; nor was it the legislative branch of
government that found a right to privacy in the
Constitution that gave us a national policy of abortion on
demand that has resulted in over 45 million babies being
killed. That same hidden right was found to harbor a right
to sodomy, and if the court is left unchallenged, these
activist judges may find within the shadows of the
constitutional a right to same-sex marriage. In short,
there are no boundaries that activist judges will hesitate
to cross in imposing a radical public policy agenda on our
nation.
[More at URL]
'LET'S TAKE AMERICA BACK!'
In Part III of our "Justice Sunday II" series, we talk with Bishop Harry Jackson.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037511.cfm
Focus on the Family
'Let's Take America Back!'
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: In Part III of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II," we
talk with Bishop Harry Jackson.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor of Hope
Christian Church in Bowie, Md., found himself in the media
spotlight last fall as a registered Democrat publicly
supporting President Bush's reelection. He co-authored,
with Christian pollster George Barna, the book
"High-Impact African-American Churches" and is chairman of
the High Impact Leadership Coalition.
He talked with CitizenLink recently about the importance
of this weekend's "Justice Sunday II" simulcast, designed
to ensure a fair hearing for Judge John Roberts, President
Bush's Supreme Court nominee.
Q: Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. The fate of traditional marriage, affirmative action,
civil rights, educational choice, stem-cell research and
the culture of life will all be decided by our highest
courts. America will either remain a Christian nation
protected by laws based on morality or it will become more
morally lawless than every before. Paul introduces a
concept in the New Testament that suggests that there is a
restraining hand of God at work in different seasons of
the earth's life. During these seasons the depravity of
mankind is kept in check by the power of the Holy Spirit.
[More at URL]
'WE HAVE TO CARE ABOUT WHO SITS ON THE COURT'
In Part IV of our series on "Justice Sunday II," we talk with Chuck Colson.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037526.cfm
Focus on the Family
'We Have to Care about Who Sits on the Court'
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
SUMMARY: In Part IV of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II," we
talk with Chuck Colson.
Chuck Colson is one of the most recognizable family
advocates in the country -- and easily the one who once
enjoyed the closest access to American political power.
A White House counsel in the Nixon administration, Colson
was known as the administration's "hatchet man," feared by
even the most powerful politicos. His reputation for
roughness was so great, in fact, that when news of his
conversion to Christianity leaked to the press in 1973,
the Boston Globe reported, "If Mr. Colson can repent of
his sins, there just has to be hope for everybody."
[...]
CitizenLink spoke with him about the event.
Q. Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. Because of activist judges, the court has become in
many ways the most powerful branch of government -- at
least in terms of setting policy. All religious-liberty
questions are in the hands of the court, along with a
whole variety of life issues and of course marriage and
the family. So, as citizens we are vitally interested and
as Christians we want to do our civic duty; we have to
care about who sits on the court.
Q. What is the threat of activist judges to our nation and
our religious freedoms?
A. In this year of relativism, the judges have almost
abandoned any commitment to transcendent law or even to
the Constitution itself. They are interpreting laws and
they are making laws. The latest Ten Commandments case
simply illustrates what is wrong with the secular-purpose
test, because it allows the court to give or take away our
liberties almost by whim. This is why the current issue
is so crucial.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
The real Roberts
Joseph Farah
Between the Lines
WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: August 12, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45733
I predicted it.
I told you those expected to oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court would come around after realizing they got their wish – another Anthony Kennedy or David Souter.
It's happening.
Just check out the column earlier this week by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen.
This is the beginning.
Soon you will see some of the most partisan Democrats in the U.S. Senate coming around. Mark my words.
Cohen's commentary is not directed to Republicans in the Senate, who will support the nomination by President Bush unanimously. It is directed to those who might consider opposing him. Here's a man who is convinced, as I am, that Roberts has virtually the entire "conservative movement" bamboozled.
"John G. Roberts Jr. is out of the closet," he writes. "President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, on the basis of the available evidence and all we know about human behavior, is not – and I emphasize not! – a bigot. Specifically, he seems to harbor no prejudice against gay men and lesbians, who are, as we all know, anathema to social conservatives, who are anti-gay and pro-Bush, in about equal measures. Roberts, amazingly and inexplicably, seems to be a man of tolerance."
What this really means is that Roberts has no objections to creating special protections for homosexuals based on their sexual behavior.
[More at URL]
----- 17 ------
Families Northwest
Family Times Newsletter
Summer 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
View the latest edition of Families Northwest's Family Times newsletter online by clicking here (pdf). [URL: http://www.familiesnorthwest.org/pdf/summer05ft.pdf ]
Are you receiving the print version of Family Times at home? Now you can get all the same great information and resources (and much more) sent to your email inbox each month!
From newsletter:
Summer Mission Report
I love this time of the year. It’s the time for family vacations, visiting relatives, backyard barbecues, swimming, yard work, ballgames, etc. It is my hope that your summer is filled with all of this which equates to time with family.
You need to know that our work doesn't stop during the summer months. As a matter of fact, this summer is quickly becoming a time of great impact for Families Northwest. We are making a difference this summer!
New projects are in the works and our marriage movement is maturing into a powerful force for positive change in this state.
[...]
All of this takes money. In order to maintain our high level of excellence, we need your help right away. We can’t afford to make the necessary financial commitments required to expand our programs and reach into new communities until we have the resources committed or in hand.
Your donation will be used to:
* Increase the number of communities implementing marriage-saving strategies so more children grow up with both their mom and their dad.
* Develop web-based resources to help couples – both married and engaged – to improve their relationship and grow as a couple.
* Increase the number of marriage enrichment seminars and forums around the Pacific Northwest.
* Raise the volume on our public voice for marriage in the media, in front of civic clubs, and through out the region.
* Respond to the impending decision by the State Supreme Court on the definition of marriage in our state.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
August 09, 2005, 8:06 a.m.
Wedded to Marriage
Invest now or pay later?
By Wade F. Horn
National Review Online
The recently released report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University — "The State of Our Unions, 2005" — is the latest in a series of such reports to document our cultural retreat from marriage. Although divorce rates have declined from all-time highs in the early 1980s, more men and women are cohabiting — many of them with children — rather than marrying.
This is not good news; at least not for children. That's because research consistently finds that cohabiting relationships are far more unstable than marriage. Wherever one finds family instability, an increased risk of problems for children follows with all the associated impacts on social institutions and the demand for more (and more expensive) governmental interventions.
In contrast, healthy and stable marriages support children and limit the need for government programs. Whether the problem is abuse, neglect, or poverty, research clearly shows the best chance a child has of avoiding these problems is to grow up with their mom and dad in a stable, healthy marriage.
In the face of these trends, some counsel resignation. High divorce rates and increasing cohabitation rates are simply a reflection of modernity, they say, and besides, there is not much anyone can do about it.
We disagree. Armed with compelling research that shows that children do best when reared in healthy, stable, two-parent households, three years ago President Bush launched his Healthy Marriage Initiative. The initiative's goal is to help couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative is based on solid research indicating that what separates stable and healthy marriages from unstable and unhealthy ones is not the frequency of conflict, but how couples manage conflict. The good news is that through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught.
[...]
But, some libertarians and fiscal conservatives worry, is this initiative really consistent with a conservative's view of limited government? Good question. Here's our answer: First, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative does not add a penny to the federal budget. Rather, our plan simply redirects money from two existing incentive funds under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, incentive funds which most impartial observers agree have not been particularly effective.
Second, rather than an expansion of government, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is an exercise in limited government. Here's how: I run the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs — from child welfare, to child-support enforcement, to anti-poverty assistance to runaway-youth initiatives — the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand that controlling the growth of these programs depends on preventing problems from happening in the first place. One way to accomplish that — not the only way, of course, but one way — is to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages.
[More at URL]
Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government joins Faith and Freedom Network, dropping its own name; also appears to have gone insane, declaring secularists are in intentional and open rebellion against God. No, I'm not making this up;
Focus on the Family article on Kansas's trying to find new ways to work in Creationism (my summary, not theirs);
FotF article on the decision by "Public Advocate of the United States," a fundamentalist group small enough that even I'd never heard of them, withdrawing their support from the nomination of John Roberts over his Amendment 2 pro-bono work - with another indication that they want to hear about this work in confirmation hearings;
FotF article defending Colorado representative Musgrave for pocketing the anti-marriage-rights Federal Marriage Amendment - claims it's merely a matter of timing, not a faltering of her commitment to it;
FotF calls anti-Roberts ads "seditious" - is everything treason with these guys now or what?;
Falwell sends out "Vote Christian" letters, bumper stickers - Anti-Defamation League not amused;
FotF article on court challenges to New Hampshire abortion law;
FotF article on organising boycotts against Planned Parenthood supporters;
FotF: Pair of Canadian straight men to marry to protest same-sex marriage laws;
FCC chair Kevin Martin, who has taken criticism for attempting to interfere with PBS and NPR operations on a political basis, has appointed a fundamentalist pro-censorship wonk from Concerned Women for America as a policy advisor - includes action item to thank him (ACTION ITEM);
FotF continues its build of David Parker as some sort of victim of conscience;
Concerned Women for America condemns Starbucks for "promoting homosexual activism";
San Francisco Chronicle: rights of GBLT citizens certain to end up before court - Roberts' votes could be crucial - Family Research Council wants someone who does "not consider Lawrence v. Texas settled law," demonstrating again that they're on the "recriminalise homosexuality" bandwagon;
Four articles (and counting) from Focus on the Family that are interviews with other fundamentalist leaders and sympathetic politicos promoting Justice Sunday II and the need to get fundamentalist judges on the court;
Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily condemns John Roberts as "another Souter";
Families Northwest, a fundamentalist anti-marriage-rights group, puts out their latest newsletter;
National Review makes the amusing argument that adding marriage promotion to the Federal government is an example of government being less intrusive, not more - "We're from the government, we're here to help" is echoed in their statement that it's appropriate and necessary for government to "help couples form and sustain healthy marriages."
----- 1 -----
Military ousts more gays for online ads
Tom Musbach, PlanetOut Network
Thursday, August 4, 2005 / 09:18 AM
http://planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/08/04/1
As a frontline artilleryman during two tours of duty in Iraq, Army Specialist Jeff Howe faced many dangers that could have ended his military career, if not his life. Instead he got tripped up by his online personal ad, which identified him as gay.
Howe set up the ad last year on Connexion.org as a social outlet during a break between his deployments. Though he did not use the ad or discuss it while on active duty, it led to his discharge on Wednesday under the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against openly gay and lesbian service members.
Howe's case is not unusual, as online "outings" have increased this year over last year, according to a Washington D.C.-based group that serves gay and lesbian military personnel and works to end the gay ban.
By the end of July, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) had assisted 10 people with similar circumstances, and the cases represent 25 percent of the "outing" incidents monitored by SLDN this year. The category refers to cases in which a service member's sexual orientation is revealed by another individual to a supervisor without the member's consent.
The individuals affected -- nine men and one woman -- include a Farsi linguist, a doctor, an intelligence analyst and a communications operator. At least three served in the Iraq war. Five of the cases involved profiles on Gay.com, which is owned by PlanetOut Inc.
Howe's case started this spring in Iraq with a Web log, or blog, the Army asked him to create so that his unit could easily update friends and family back home. One of the photos he posted to the blog depicted a vehicle that was blown up by a rocket. A commander who was senior to Howe's direct supervisor objected to the photo and quietly started a background investigation on Howe, which led to the discovery of his Connexion.org profile from 2004.
Howe, 32, enlisted in the Army after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, taking a leave of absence from his job in corporate marketing. He was already open with family and friends about his sexuality, but his desire to help his country exceeded his concern about the military's gay ban.
"Going back in the closet was a trade-off I could make briefly," Howe said in an interview with the PlanetOut Network.
"With my understanding of 'don't ask, don't tell,' I thought I was fine," the Chicago resident said. "I didn't realize my personal ad was a violation of the policy. You don't receive any training about it during your military orientation."
In addition to Howe, four service members have been discharged this year because of online ads. The five others have either been retained or are fighting to be retained, according to SLDN.
The military's actions have angered many advocates for online privacy and LGBT rights.
"It's bigoted, wasteful and expensive for us all when the U.S. military continues to violate its own policy regarding the privacy of off-duty gay personnel by investigating and discharging them for seeking companionship with other gay people online," said Will Doherty, executive director of the Online Policy Group.
[more at URL]
----- 2 -----
Faith and Freedom Network
August 1, 2005
Faith and Freedom Network (formerly WERG) Lays It on the Line
[Received in paper copy; no URL. Apologies for HTML markup; it was the best way I could think of to preserve their use of bold and italics.]
Dear Friend,
Let me share some personal thoughts with you. We at Faith and Freedom Network have laid it on the line - as an organization and each of us individually.
Here's how we got to this point.
John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, on June 28, 1913 said, "The general principles on which the Father's [sic] achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ..."
And Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1811-1845 said in a lecture at Harvard (August 25, 1824), "Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide to the law of nature." Twenty years later he wrote, "... Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundation of all government."
With an undeniable "Christian Consensus" guiding our Founding Fathers and their successors, America truly became a "city on a hill."
Only in recent years has America drifted off course.
Patrick Henry said, "When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains; a corrupted public conscience is incompatible with freedom."
Early in the twentieth century, the drumbeat to secularize America began to pick up support. And America's freedoms began to be eroded.
The stealing of America continued until recent years.
Now, people of faith are rising to the occasion and are beginning to be heard.
Yet, the secularists continue to push their "God Free Zone" ideas by attempting to strip every vestige of our Godly heritage from our public life.
The secularists seek to redefine marriage, morality and family, moving away from the traditional Biblical principles upon which our Country was built, under the guise of inclusiveness, diversity, tolerance, sensitivity and open-mindedness. All of which is a facade, used to mask the real agenda, which is not so much an honest intellectual disagreement with traditional Judeo-Christian values, but rather a rebellion against the God who gave them. [Emphasis added]
Left to our own devises, we exchange real freedom for perceived freedom, which removes accountability to God and actually in the spirit of "progressiveness" makes personal choice the supreme ruler - we become like God. Then we destroy ourselves.
This worldview then permeates every part of society, from abortion, to how we educate our children, to our acceptedness [sic] of perversion as "normal," to the laws we make, to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.
Joshua, the ancient leader of God's people, once said, "You have seen God's faithfulness and blessing, but now you must, "choose you this day whom you will serve."
The call to people of faith today is simply, WHO'S [sic] SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Jesus, the Founder of Christianity, clearly taught that you cannot serve two masters - two philosophies.
Faith and Freedom Network and those who are a part of the growing network of people who volunteer and support the ministry financially have answered the question. We know you, too, have answered with the same words, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Faith and Freedom Network (formerly WERG) has answered not only in word but also in action. We have changed our name to better define our mission.
We have publicly committed to take even stronger leadership against the assault on marriage and family and the general attack against traditional values.
More importantly, we are committed to lead in establishing a Positive Christian Agenda in our communities and our State.
It is one thing to verbalize our convictions; it is another matter to actually act on that conviction.
Acting on one's convictions actually costs something. But only by acting, can we see results.
Our new level of commitment exceeds our present income.
However, we believe so deeply in the mission and recognize, as you do, the unusual times in which we live, that we had no choice, but to not only choose sides, but to act on that choice.
We have laid it on the line.
Now, we're asking you to act on your choice.
WERG has a long tradition of serving Washington State with a Christian lobbyist in Olympia. Bob Higley, Senior Lobbyist, is already preparing for the next session.
We are prepared to continue to lead in the defense of traditional marriage.
We are prepared to respond immediately should the State Supreme court rule against traditional marriage.
We will be challenging certain elected officials who have a different, "liberal, progressive" view for our State, and we will be supporting those who hold traditional values.
We will be challenging certain aspects of public education, particularly sex-education.
But now, will you stand with us?
Right now, we need a few large donations combined with many smaller ones.
Only you know what you can and should do.
Please sense our heart and our spirit, and in that spirit, TAKE ACTION.
God Bless You.
Joseph B. Fuiten, Chairman and CEO - Gary Randall, President
P.S. Be sure to visit our new Website ... www.faithandfreedom.us
Formerly Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government (WERG)
----- 3 -----
KANSAS STANDARDS EVOLVE
Students would learn about evolution's controversial side.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037531.cfm
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Students would learn about evolution's
controversial side.
The Kansas State Board of Education approved a draft of
new state science standards Tuesday that would allow
teachers to address the controversy surrounding Darwinian
evolution.
Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian and president of the
board explained that only three pages in the 105-page
change get noticed. But he understands the importance of
those three pages.
"Before these changes Neo-Darwinian evolution was taught
as dogma," he said. "What we basically said is there is a
lot of scientific evidence that evolution is not all it's
cracked up to be. We want teachers to show students those
evidences from peer-reviewed scientific journals."
[...]
"This kind of forum is not how you establish science,"
Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science,
told CitizenLink in May.
The board disagreed and is now implementing a change in
what teachers can teach.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
PRO-FAMILY GROUP PULLS SUPPORT OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE
Roberts' work for homosexual activists scrutinized.
Focus on the Family
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037522.cfm
SUMMARY: Roberts' work for homosexual activists
scrutinized.
In the wake of news that Supreme Court nominee John
Roberts did pro bono legal work in support of a challenge
to a Colorado law that denied special rights for
homosexuals, a pro-family group has pulled its support for
the nominee.
Roberts' free work for homosexual activists was the main
reason Eugene Delgaudio, the president of Public Advocate
of the United States, is yanking his group's support.
"No attorney that I know would help the opposition for
money, (much less) for free," he told Family News in
Focus. "They would all have something else to do during
that week or the month that they are needed by the sworn
opposition."
[...]
However, [...] Focus on the Family, remains
optimistic about Judge Roberts and believes the
confirmation process will work.
"We're looking forward to the hearings when Roberts will
have a chance to discuss his judicial philosophy and
really give air to some of the things that have come out
in the last few weeks," she said.
"We remain optimistic that Roberts is a strict
constructionist and that President Bush has fulfilled his
campaign pledge to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia
and Thomas."
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Rep. Musgrave Pockets Gay Marriage Ban -- For Now
Focus on the Family
August 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has placed on hold a measure that
would constitutionally define marriage. The Associated
Press described her as "waiting to see what voters and the
courts think about the proposed constitutional amendment
before she takes any further action."
The news report said she had "new worries" after GOP
leaders rated her as one of the 10 most vulnerable
Republicans in the country.
"We're kind of waiting to see what happens," the Colorado
legislator said. "There is overwhelming support for
marriage to be defined as the union between a man and
woman. We'll see what happens before I run it up again."
Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the
Family Action, said Musgrave is simply doing her job and
working with House leadership to determine the best time
to reintroduce the Marriage Protection Amendment.
"She is not faltering one bit," Banks said. "Musgrave is a
courageous defender of family values and marriage in
particular. We are grateful for her leadership in
protecting marriage and look forward to working with her
upon a second introduction of the marriage amendment."
----- 6 -----
Specter Urges Removal of Anti-Roberts Ad
Focus on the Family
August 11, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
In a letter to NARAL Pro-Choice America, Senator Arlen
Specter, R-Pa., urged the President Nancy Keenan to pull
seditious television spots criticizing Supreme Court
nominee John G. Roberts "in order to avoid the possibility
of similar advertising to sully and denigrate the
confirmation process."
Specter asserts the television ads -- which accuse Roberts
of "excusing" violence against abortion clinics -- are
"blatantly untrue" and that Roberts, in filing briefs with
the U.S. Supreme Court in Bray v. Alexandria Women's
Health Clinic, stated that individuals who target abortion
clinics with violence "should be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law."
He points out Roberts simply argued the law which
prosecutors were trying to use should not apply to the
case.
"Judge Roberts did not act improperly in his advocacy
before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the plaintiffs
could not sue under an 1871 Act designed to protect
African-Americans from actions of the Ku Klux Klan,"
Specter advanced.
----- 7 -----
Falwell Criticized For 'Vote Christian' Message
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
August 10, 2005
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized the Rev. Jerry
Falwell for urging his constituents to "Vote Christian" in
a fundraising letter earlier this year. The Associated
Press reported the ADL viewed Falwell's statement as a
poor mix of religion and politics.
Falwell included in the appeal letter a sticker that read
"I Vote Christian."
The League's national director, Abraham Foxman, said
Falwell's comments were "directly at odds with the
American ideal and should be rejected."
Falwell said his statements were misunderstood.
"What I was saying was for conservative Christian voters
to vote their values, which are pro-life and pro-family,"
he said. "I had no intention of being anti-Jewish at all."
----- 8 -----
PRO-LIFE ATTORNEYS DEFEND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LAW
SUMMARY: New Hampshire case will set precedent for the nation.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037515.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: New Hampshire case will set precedent for the
nation.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first case involving
abortion in more than five years this fall. This week,
pro-life attorneys are busy filing legal briefs in
connection with the case -- all seeking to defend New
Hampshire's parental notification law.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the Christian Legal
Society (CLS), the American Center for Law and Justice and
a group associated with the National Right to Life
Committee, among others, have all filed
friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, Ayotte v. Planned
Parenthood of Northern New England.
They did so on behalf of groups ranging from the American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
the Christian Medical Association, the Catholic Medical
Association, the National Association of Evangelicals and
Concerned Women for America.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SUPPORTERS IDENTIFIED
Pro-life group has compiled a boycott list of abortion financiers
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037487.cfm
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Pro-life group has compiled a boycott list of
companies that give money to the abortion giant.
Pro-lifers who want to avoid patronizing businesses that
give money to Planned Parenthood have a friend in Life
Decisions International (LDI), which maintains a boycott
list that tracks corporations that give money to the
abortion giant.
LDI President Douglas R. Scott has been boycotting Planned
Parenthood supporters for nearly 20 years.
"We have 116 corporations that have stopped giving to
Planned Parenthood," he told Family News in Focus. "That
has amounted over the past decade to 35 million dollars
that Planned Parenthood is not receiving."
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Same-Sex Straight Marriage?
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
Family News in Focus
August 9, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Two Toronto men have decided to tie the knot under
Canada's new same-sex marriage law in order to benefit
from the legal protections of the union. The thing is,
they aren't gay, Fox News reported.
Bill Dalrymple and his best friend, Bryan Pinn, made the
decision while joking with friends at a local bar, but
maintain that, merriment aside, they intend to make a real
statement about what gay marriage brings to their country.
"There are significant tax implications that we don't
think the government has thought through," Pinn said.
Though both men are straight, Dalrymple consulted a lawyer
and learned that the country's marriage laws do not
include anything about sexual preference.
No date has been set for the Pinn-Dalrymple union.
----- 11 -----
FCC CHAIRMAN NAMES FAMILY ADVOCATE AS ADVISER
New consultant to Kevin Martin is long-time conservative activist.
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037482.cfm
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
August 8, 2005
SUMMARY: New consultant to Kevin Martin is long-time
conservative activist.
A woman who has for years helped lead the grassroots war
against indecent broadcasting has joined the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to advise the agency's new
chairman, Kevin Martin, on policy matters.
Anti-pornography attorneys hope Penny Nance will be
instrumental in helping commissioners enforce prohibitions
against broadcast indecency. She will work as a special
adviser in the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy
Analysis.
Pat Trueman of the Family Research Council said the move
shows Martin is committed to keeping objectionable content
off the public airwaves.
"He was committed before he was named chairman, when he
was an FCC commissioner, and he is today," Trueman said.
"This is further evidence of his commitment -- that he
would reach out to someone who's been a leader in the
effort to protect families, and the fight against
indecency on television, and bring that person on staff."
Bob Peters, president of the watchdog group Morality in
Media, agreed that Martin had made a good choice, calling
Nance's hiring "an indication that he means business about
dealing with the indecency problem in broadcasting."
Nance, until recently, has served as member of the board
of directors of Concerned Women for America and was the
founder of the Alexandria, Va.,-based Kids First Coalition
-- a group which works to protect children from TV smut.
[...]
"Things will improve," Trueman said, "only if the
president, in filling the two remaining vacancies on the
commission, appoints commissioners who align themselves
with Chairman Martin's views. If the president fails to do
that, the FCC will tip in favor of non-enforcement."
TAKE ACTION: Thank FCC Chairman Kevin Martin for
appointing a pro-family adviser and encourage him to
continue aggressively taking on broadcast indecency. For
contact information, including an easy-to-use e-mail form,
visit the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/agencies/?id=4889&dir=fof&command=depresult2&submit.x=19&submit.y=11
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Trial Date Set for Massachusetts Man Upset over Pro-Gay Curriculum
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Newsbriefs
August 8, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
A Lexington, Mass., man charged with trespassing after
protesting his son being given pro-homosexual materials at
school will go to trial next month, the Lexington
Minuteman reported.
David Parker was arrested after refusing to leave a
meeting at Estabrook Elementary School, which he attended
to voice his concern over a bag of materials sent home
with his son that contained information depicting same-sex
parents as one type of family unit. Parker was upset
because, even though he had asked to be notified if
homosexuality was to be discussed in his son's classroom,
he had not been.
Parker's lawyer, Jeffery Denner, said his client did not
attend the meeting with the intention of getting arrested
-- nor is he anti-gay.
"This is about choice," Denner said, "about the proper
relationship between parents and the government."
Denner added that he hopes the matter can be resolved out
of court, but will be prepared if the trial goes forward
as scheduled.
----- 13 -----
Starbucks Funds and Promotes Homosexual Activism
Concerned Women for America
8/10/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8693/CWA/misc/index.htm
The financial and political support of the homosexual agenda by Starbucks, the nation’s leading coffee bar chain, has some “frothing.” The company crossed the line for one customer when it funded “Pride” events in San Diego, California that included activities for children and known sex offenders on its volunteer staff. The coffee company crossed the line for yet another customer when it placed a quote promoting homosexual activity on the back side of her coffee cup. Bob Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute joins Meghan Kleppinger, assistant to the national field director, on this topic. Click here to listen.
----- 14 -----
GAY ISSUES DESTINED FOR TOP COURT
Activists agree Justice Roberts would be pivotal in same-sex marriage cases
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, August 11, 2005
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/11/MNGVCE66GN1.DTL
Washington -- Abortion may dominate next month's Senate hearings on whether to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, but gay rights is the stealth issue.
Democrats aren't as eager to push for same-sex marriage as they are to protect abortion, but there is little question that the leading edge of civil rights law involves lesbians and gays rather than more settled questions of gender and racial equality.
Over the next decade or more -- and if confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts could be on the court for 30 years -- activists on both sides expect the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denying homosexuals federal benefits conferred by marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays and lesbians in the military.
Several such cases already are moving through lower courts, though they may be several years away from the Supreme Court.
"I don't think there's any question" such cases ultimately will come before the Supreme Court, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading social conservative group, who supports President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the court.
[...]
Although the stakes are high, both sides are downplaying the issue for strategic reasons.
Some gay leaders warn against making gay issues a focus of the confirmation hearings, fearing such a move could backfire.
Very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage, and the public remains largely opposed to the idea. Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy.
[...]
Religious conservatives want to avoid imposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals cannot demand one on abortion. Bush himself has carefully avoided doing so.
"We're not setting litmus tests; it's the other side doing that," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.
Still, he added, "I would say that we would not want a candidate to say they considered Lawrence vs. Texas to be settled law or beyond the scope of review on constitutional grounds."
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
'IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE HAVE NEW JUSTICES'
Part I of our series on "Justice Sunday II" features a chat with Phyllis Schlafly.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037477.cfm
by Stuart Shepard, managing editor
Focus on the Family
August 8, 2005
SUMMARY: In Part I of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II"
simulcast, we talk with Phyllis Schlafly.
"Justice Sunday II," a nationwide simulcast featuring
speeches from some of America's most influential
pro-family leaders, is set for 7 p.m. EDT Aug. 14. The
event's purpose is to focus attention on the need to rein
in activist courts -- in part by ensuring a fair hearing
and an up-or-down confirmation vote for Judge John
Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Among the roster of speakers will be Focus on the Family
Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson; Prison Fellowship's
Chuck Colson; former U.S. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia;
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins; and U.S.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Also scheduled to appear is Phyllis Schlafly, president of
the Eagle Forum, who is generally regarded as the
"founding mother" of the pro-family movement. Perhaps best
know for her 10-year battle to defeat the deceptively
named Equal Rights Amendment, Schlafly is an articulate
and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement.
She appears in debate on college campuses more frequently
than any other conservative and was named one of the 100
most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies'
Home Journal.
In anticipation of "Justice Sunday II," CitizenLink will
publish all this week short Q&A features with the event's
speakers. We've asked each of them for their take on the
same five questions -- with Schlafly leading us off.
Q. Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. What the Supreme Court does is of tremendous importance
to all Christians. We know, as Chief Justice (William)
Rehnquist has said, that the Supreme Court is
demonstrating hostility to religion, and we want to bring
that to a stop. The Court issued conflicting decisions on
the Ten Commandments this year. The Court ducked the issue
of the Pledge of Allegiance, but that case will come back.
And it is very important to Christians whether the court
sticks to the Constitution, or whether the justices
believe it's a living and evolving document they can
rewrite.
Q. What is the threat of activist judges to our nation and
our religious freedoms?
A. Activist judges -- I like to call them 'supremacist
judges' because they think they're supreme over other
branches of government and over all the rest of us -- they
think they can rewrite the words of the Constitution,
create new privileges that nobody else saw for a hundred
years, and in general pretend that they give a new meaning
to the Constitution.
Q. What's your opinion of John Roberts?
A. I'm cautiously positive about him. He has not much of a
record, where we can demonstrate what he believes in. He's
made very few statements, other than the briefs he's filed
in cases for which he was a lawyer. But, I'm hopeful that
he will be at least like Rehnquist.
[More at URL]
'THIS NOMINATION COULD SHIFT THE COURT'
In Part II of our series of "Justice Sunday II" series, we talk with Tony Perkins.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037486.cfm
Focus on the Family
'This Nomination Could Shift the Court'
by Gary Schneeberger, editor
SUMMARY: In Part II of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II"
simulcast, we talk with Tony Perkins.
"Justice Sunday II," a coast-to-coast simulcast being
broadcast live from Two Rivers Baptist Church in
Nashville, Tenn., is designed to focus attention on the
fight against judicial tyranny and the need to ensure
Judge John Roberts receives a fair hearing and up-or-down
confirmation vote on his nomination to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
One of the key speakers taking the stage will be Family
Research Council President Tony Perkins, a former
Louisiana state lawmaker who has become one of the most
influential pro-family voices in America.
CitizenLink spoke with Perkins about the event.
Q. Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. Over the last 40 years, the Supreme Court has made
itself into a super legislature, imposing radical public
policies upon the American people. In this process the
Court has systematically chiseled away at religious
freedoms, in effect, attempting to erase the Christian
heritage that is etched upon the character of our nation.
The Court has routinely usurped the authority of the
Congress and the president and set itself up as the final
arbiter of public policy. Recent decisions by the Court
make it clear that unless President Bush is successful in
nominating judges who understand the role of the Court is
to interpret law, not make it, the future of our nation is
in grave danger.
Q. What is the threat of activist judges to our nation and
our religious freedoms?
A. We have witnessed over the last 40 years what Supreme
Court Justice (Antonin) Scalia described recently as the
Court ratcheting up its hostility toward religion. It was
not our elected representatives who took prayer out of our
schools, or removed the Ten Commandments from the
classrooms; nor was it the legislative branch of
government that found a right to privacy in the
Constitution that gave us a national policy of abortion on
demand that has resulted in over 45 million babies being
killed. That same hidden right was found to harbor a right
to sodomy, and if the court is left unchallenged, these
activist judges may find within the shadows of the
constitutional a right to same-sex marriage. In short,
there are no boundaries that activist judges will hesitate
to cross in imposing a radical public policy agenda on our
nation.
[More at URL]
'LET'S TAKE AMERICA BACK!'
In Part III of our "Justice Sunday II" series, we talk with Bishop Harry Jackson.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037511.cfm
Focus on the Family
'Let's Take America Back!'
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
SUMMARY: In Part III of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II," we
talk with Bishop Harry Jackson.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor of Hope
Christian Church in Bowie, Md., found himself in the media
spotlight last fall as a registered Democrat publicly
supporting President Bush's reelection. He co-authored,
with Christian pollster George Barna, the book
"High-Impact African-American Churches" and is chairman of
the High Impact Leadership Coalition.
He talked with CitizenLink recently about the importance
of this weekend's "Justice Sunday II" simulcast, designed
to ensure a fair hearing for Judge John Roberts, President
Bush's Supreme Court nominee.
Q: Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. The fate of traditional marriage, affirmative action,
civil rights, educational choice, stem-cell research and
the culture of life will all be decided by our highest
courts. America will either remain a Christian nation
protected by laws based on morality or it will become more
morally lawless than every before. Paul introduces a
concept in the New Testament that suggests that there is a
restraining hand of God at work in different seasons of
the earth's life. During these seasons the depravity of
mankind is kept in check by the power of the Holy Spirit.
[More at URL]
'WE HAVE TO CARE ABOUT WHO SITS ON THE COURT'
In Part IV of our series on "Justice Sunday II," we talk with Chuck Colson.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037526.cfm
Focus on the Family
'We Have to Care about Who Sits on the Court'
by Wendy Cloyd, senior editorial coordinator
SUMMARY: In Part IV of our series of short Q&A features
with speakers at this weekend's "Justice Sunday II," we
talk with Chuck Colson.
Chuck Colson is one of the most recognizable family
advocates in the country -- and easily the one who once
enjoyed the closest access to American political power.
A White House counsel in the Nixon administration, Colson
was known as the administration's "hatchet man," feared by
even the most powerful politicos. His reputation for
roughness was so great, in fact, that when news of his
conversion to Christianity leaked to the press in 1973,
the Boston Globe reported, "If Mr. Colson can repent of
his sins, there just has to be hope for everybody."
[...]
CitizenLink spoke with him about the event.
Q. Why should Christians care who's on the Supreme Court?
A. Because of activist judges, the court has become in
many ways the most powerful branch of government -- at
least in terms of setting policy. All religious-liberty
questions are in the hands of the court, along with a
whole variety of life issues and of course marriage and
the family. So, as citizens we are vitally interested and
as Christians we want to do our civic duty; we have to
care about who sits on the court.
Q. What is the threat of activist judges to our nation and
our religious freedoms?
A. In this year of relativism, the judges have almost
abandoned any commitment to transcendent law or even to
the Constitution itself. They are interpreting laws and
they are making laws. The latest Ten Commandments case
simply illustrates what is wrong with the secular-purpose
test, because it allows the court to give or take away our
liberties almost by whim. This is why the current issue
is so crucial.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
The real Roberts
Joseph Farah
Between the Lines
WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: August 12, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45733
I predicted it.
I told you those expected to oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court would come around after realizing they got their wish – another Anthony Kennedy or David Souter.
It's happening.
Just check out the column earlier this week by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen.
This is the beginning.
Soon you will see some of the most partisan Democrats in the U.S. Senate coming around. Mark my words.
Cohen's commentary is not directed to Republicans in the Senate, who will support the nomination by President Bush unanimously. It is directed to those who might consider opposing him. Here's a man who is convinced, as I am, that Roberts has virtually the entire "conservative movement" bamboozled.
"John G. Roberts Jr. is out of the closet," he writes. "President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, on the basis of the available evidence and all we know about human behavior, is not – and I emphasize not! – a bigot. Specifically, he seems to harbor no prejudice against gay men and lesbians, who are, as we all know, anathema to social conservatives, who are anti-gay and pro-Bush, in about equal measures. Roberts, amazingly and inexplicably, seems to be a man of tolerance."
What this really means is that Roberts has no objections to creating special protections for homosexuals based on their sexual behavior.
[More at URL]
----- 17 ------
Families Northwest
Family Times Newsletter
Summer 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
View the latest edition of Families Northwest's Family Times newsletter online by clicking here (pdf). [URL: http://www.familiesnorthwest.org/pdf/summer05ft.pdf ]
Are you receiving the print version of Family Times at home? Now you can get all the same great information and resources (and much more) sent to your email inbox each month!
From newsletter:
Summer Mission Report
I love this time of the year. It’s the time for family vacations, visiting relatives, backyard barbecues, swimming, yard work, ballgames, etc. It is my hope that your summer is filled with all of this which equates to time with family.
You need to know that our work doesn't stop during the summer months. As a matter of fact, this summer is quickly becoming a time of great impact for Families Northwest. We are making a difference this summer!
New projects are in the works and our marriage movement is maturing into a powerful force for positive change in this state.
[...]
All of this takes money. In order to maintain our high level of excellence, we need your help right away. We can’t afford to make the necessary financial commitments required to expand our programs and reach into new communities until we have the resources committed or in hand.
Your donation will be used to:
* Increase the number of communities implementing marriage-saving strategies so more children grow up with both their mom and their dad.
* Develop web-based resources to help couples – both married and engaged – to improve their relationship and grow as a couple.
* Increase the number of marriage enrichment seminars and forums around the Pacific Northwest.
* Raise the volume on our public voice for marriage in the media, in front of civic clubs, and through out the region.
* Respond to the impending decision by the State Supreme Court on the definition of marriage in our state.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
August 09, 2005, 8:06 a.m.
Wedded to Marriage
Invest now or pay later?
By Wade F. Horn
National Review Online
The recently released report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University — "The State of Our Unions, 2005" — is the latest in a series of such reports to document our cultural retreat from marriage. Although divorce rates have declined from all-time highs in the early 1980s, more men and women are cohabiting — many of them with children — rather than marrying.
This is not good news; at least not for children. That's because research consistently finds that cohabiting relationships are far more unstable than marriage. Wherever one finds family instability, an increased risk of problems for children follows with all the associated impacts on social institutions and the demand for more (and more expensive) governmental interventions.
In contrast, healthy and stable marriages support children and limit the need for government programs. Whether the problem is abuse, neglect, or poverty, research clearly shows the best chance a child has of avoiding these problems is to grow up with their mom and dad in a stable, healthy marriage.
In the face of these trends, some counsel resignation. High divorce rates and increasing cohabitation rates are simply a reflection of modernity, they say, and besides, there is not much anyone can do about it.
We disagree. Armed with compelling research that shows that children do best when reared in healthy, stable, two-parent households, three years ago President Bush launched his Healthy Marriage Initiative. The initiative's goal is to help couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative is based on solid research indicating that what separates stable and healthy marriages from unstable and unhealthy ones is not the frequency of conflict, but how couples manage conflict. The good news is that through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught.
[...]
But, some libertarians and fiscal conservatives worry, is this initiative really consistent with a conservative's view of limited government? Good question. Here's our answer: First, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative does not add a penny to the federal budget. Rather, our plan simply redirects money from two existing incentive funds under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, incentive funds which most impartial observers agree have not been particularly effective.
Second, rather than an expansion of government, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is an exercise in limited government. Here's how: I run the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs — from child welfare, to child-support enforcement, to anti-poverty assistance to runaway-youth initiatives — the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand that controlling the growth of these programs depends on preventing problems from happening in the first place. One way to accomplish that — not the only way, of course, but one way — is to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages.
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 12:58 pm (UTC)I would agree about insane. They say, "Our new level of commitment exceeds our present income." In other words, they have overspent their budget and are begging for more money--while trying to present themselves as a force for responsibility and good moral judgment.
Other oddities I believe arise from them reading their own literature over and over again instead of reading the Bible. A person writing a speech tends to go for the dramatic, and a person conducting a spiritual lesson tends to go for the personal. The writer of the message you posted seems to have copied rhetoric out of those sources where it does not belong. That stuff about, "which is not so much an honest intellectual disagreement with traditional Judeo-Christian values, but rather a rebellion against the God who gave them," refers to personal spiritual issues. Some people are upset at God not living up to the standards that they set for him, and they create arguments against God as a form of temper tantrum. If you try debating the arguments with such a person, he or ends the debate by not listening. To use this phrase in a real debate is a character attack on the opponent.
"Left to our own devises, we exchange real freedom for perceived freedom, which removes accountability to God and actually in the spirit of 'progressiveness' makes personal choice the supreme ruler - we become like God. Then we destroy ourselves." This is the old submission to God ideal of spiritual growth. The "we become like God" phrasing should be interpretted as "We set ourselves up as gods in our own minds." The argument is that submission to God is like navigating on the open seas with a good compass. If a person throws away the compass, he does not gain extra freedom. Instead, he becomes lost, and thus loses the freedom to do what he really wants. It is a deep theological issue and not really appropriate for this flier that the WERG sent out. If I were cynical, I would say that the WERG is hinting that it is God's will that you give them money.
Erin Schram
no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 01:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 03:03 pm (UTC)I've been reading this stuff for a while and this is pretty over the top even for groups like this. It's a new level of language - it's kinda Wahabi, really, only with a different label.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 04:09 am (UTC)attend the meeting with the intention of getting arrested
-- nor is he anti-gay.
The last comment? Bullshit.
And, wasn't Jefferson a Diest, not a Christian?