Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Aug. 15th, 2005 11:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdSo get this. The fundamentalists are still going out full-bore for John Roberts, organising churchcasts, staging letter-writing campaigns, setting up fake form letter-to-the-editor kits, repeating the talking points, going on about the vital need to defend him from attacks from the Democrats and the left, waging an all-out war to support a nominee that... almost... nobody... seems to be... opposing.
Then it comes out he's done pro-bono work for QUEERS, and now it's come out that he also did pay work for PORN.
Seriously. Item seven. They're trying really hard not to freak out, but they're clearly in LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU mode at this point.
God damn, this is funny.
And now, your headlines:
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decides for the status quo regarding gayfolk;
Focus on the Family action item against Plan B (ACTION ITEM);
FotF coverage on Justice Sunday II megachurchcast;
FotF on programme to encourage "biblically-based" legal mindsets in teens;
Concerned Women for America on Canadian marriage rights; call it a "tragedy"; interviews Conservative Senator extensively - I transcribed a lot of it;
CWFA again on the Red Cross worker "fired for refusing to celebrate homosexuality" - or, more specifically (check previous work) saying he couldn't do his job in good conscience while the Red Cross "promoted" a "dangerous lifestyle";
Human Events: Court nominee John Roberts did work for Playboy; fundamentalist groups continue to grit their teeth, but are starting to demand "quite severe" questioning in the Senate;
Focus on the Family claims "hostility" towards Christianity in America is growing.
----- 1 -----
ELCA NEWS SERVICE
August 12, 2005
ELCA Assembly Acts On Key Sexuality Proposals
CWA-33-05-JS
http://www.elca.org/ScriptLib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?article=3163
ORLANDO, Fla. (ELCA) -- The 2005 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) affirmed pastoral care for all people including people who are gay or lesbian, and continued to encourage the church to welcome gay and lesbian people into its life. In a related action, the assembly rejected a proposal that would have allowed the church, under special circumstances, to ordain gay and lesbian candidates for ministry who are involved in lifelong, committed same-sex relationships.
While the assembly did not create formal rites for blessing couples in same-sex relationships, by a vote of 670-323 it entrusted pastoral care to individual pastors and congregations. ELCA church leaders said that the actions affirmed the ELCA's current standards for ministry and reaffirmed the pastoral guidance of a 1993 pastoral letter issued by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.
The churchwide assembly, the chief legislative authority of the ELCA, is meeting here August 8-14 at the World Center Marriott and Convention Center. About 2,300 people are participating, including 1,018 ELCA voting members. The theme for the biennial assembly is "Marked with the Cross of Christ Forever."
Voting members devoted virtually all day Aug. 12 to three recommendations related to its Studies on Sexuality. The ELCA assembly actions highlighted pastoral guidance from its Conference of Bishops and restated its trust in its pastoral leaders. The church resolved to "welcome gay and lesbian persons into its life (as stated in Churchwide Assembly resolutions from 1991, 1995, and 1999), and trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to all to whom they minister." The Rev. Carol Hendrix, bishop of the ELCA Lower Susquehanna Synod, initiated an amendment to replace "same-sex couples" with "all to whom they minister" making the guidance match the bishops' pastoral message.
As the assembly deliberation began, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the ELCA, said that the church has "done this work well. We've listened to each other. We've learned from each other. We've prayed for and with each other. And I believe we've journeyed together faithfully" in the ELCA's three-year study of the questions related to homosexuality.
The debate regarding blessing same-sex relationships focused on many voting members' discomfort with perceived ambiguity regarding pastoral discretion in ministry with same-sex couples. A number of attempts to amend the resolution to more clearly define whether same-sex blessings were allowed failed. Robert Benne, voting member, ELCA Virginia Synod, was one of those attempting to clarify the resolution. He said the "ambiguity of [recommendation] number two is what many in the ELCA find troubling." On the other hand, the Rev. Stephen P. Bouman, bishop of the ELCA Metropolitan New York Synod, told voting members that many of their children come to live within the parishes of his synod. He asked for help in creating the "pastoral space to serve the children that we take -- so that can we be the church together and create space for that to happen."
Members of the assembly often disagreed in the debate on the use of the Bible. Many voting members urged the assembly to adhere to the Scriptures as the rule and norm for the life and faith. But a number also agreed with the Rev. Ralph Klein, resource theologian from Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, who reminded the assembly that what the scripture meant in its original context and what it means for today is not always the same thing.
Ultimately, the assembly failed to adopt a policy recommendation that would allow the church to ordain, consecrate and commission candidates for ministry who are in life-long, committed same-sex relationships. The vote fell well short -- 490-503 -- of the two-thirds required to make the change.
Current ELCA policy expects ministers to refrain from sexual relations outside marriage, which it defines as "a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman."
At a news conference after the voting, Hanson said that he knew going into the debate that "however the vote turned out some would be disappointed" but he also stated that he "hopes that those disappointed in the votes would not sever their relationship with the church or step back" from their involvement. I hope that "everyone hears it clearly -- all week as we have discussed publicly and clearly -- that gay and lesbian persons are welcome in this church."
The Rev. Roy Riley, bishop of the New Jersey Synod and chair of the ELCA Conference of Bishops, said "what impressed me about today was how right the [sexuality studies] task force was." He said that they "heard out in the church a significant minority that wanted flexibility and space to go in another direction."
Hanson said that he was pleased by the "respectful tone" of both the voting members and the visitors, referring to a silent protest that took place during the debate. In the early afternoon, some 100 persons wearing rainbow scarves around their necks walked slowly to the front of the podium, spread across the convention area, facing the voting members. Hanson requested the group return to the visitor section, but the group remained in place until the end of the Aug. 12 afternoon session. Once it was understood that the protesters were going to remain, Hanson invited the assembly to continue business.
The Rev. Sue Ericsson, voting member, ELCA Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, told the bishop, "I am in awe of your ability to lead us through this -- if you can do it, we can do it."
Following the assembly actions today, the Rev. Jodi Wangsness, voting member and a campus pastor from the ELCA Nebraska Synod, said "I'm hearing an improvement. I think [the statement] understands that this is a church that is in dialogue. We've been faithful to the conversation with one another."
Information about the ELCA Churchwide Assembly is at http://www.elca.org/assembly/05 on the Web.
For more information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
----- 2 -----
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Action Item
August 15, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
FDA About to Decide if 'Plan B' Will Be Offered Without a
Prescription
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to
decide by the end of this month whether to approve
over-the-counter sales of the so-called "morning-after"
pill -- if it doesn't, Planned Parenthood is poised and
ready to go to court.
Pro-life groups have opposed all sales of "Plan B"
because, when taken as directed, it can sometimes cause an
early abortion.
Karen Pearl, president of Planned Parenthood, said if the
FDA rejects non-prescription sales of the drug, her group
is likely to sue.
"This is absolutely the best way of assuring that when
something does go wrong, that people have the second
opportunity to prevent the unintended pregnancy," Pearl
told The Associated Press.
Pharmacies in seven states currently sell the drug without
a doctor's prescription and with no restriction on age.
Even if the FDA chooses to go with an age restriction,
pro-life experts contend young girls will simply have an
older friend make the purchase.
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America said the sale
of such a drug with unfettered access is a recipe for
disaster.
"The person who buys the drug is not necessarily the
person who takes the drug," Wright said. "It's a ludicrous
proposal."
TAKE ACTION: Contact President Bush and ask him to ensure
that officials in his administration do not approve
over-the-counter sales of "Plan B." You can find contact
information in the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F
----- 3 -----
JUSTICE SUNDAY II: A CALL TO PRAYER AND ACTION
The second event to raise awareness over judicial activism
connects Christians with a message of civic duty.
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
August 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037213.cfm
SUMMARY: The second event to raise awareness over judicial
activism connects Christians with a message of civic duty.
Justice Sunday II made a clarion call to the nation: It's
time to be active in the American political process. Two
Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville hosted the event, which
was carried via radio and satellite TV to churches and
individuals across the U.S.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, took the stage
to a standing ovation and made his point free of political
mishmash.
"We are here to protect the Constitution so the
Constitution can keep protecting us," he said. "The
American people have heard the arguments for
state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. We've heard the
arguments for partial-birth abortion and for ridding the
public square of religion. We've heard the arguments; we
just disagree."
James C. Dobson Ph.D., founder and chairman of Focus on
the Family Action, said it was time to defend the judicial
nomination process "against all the minions on the left
who want to preserve the majority on the court that has
done their bidding for so long. We expect them to turn
this nomination into a circus. The family itself is at
stake."
Dobson concluded with an impassioned call to action.
"It is time to bring greater balance (to the Supreme
Court) and I urge everyone to call, write, email, fax and
visit the offices of your senators," he said. "We dare not
sleep through this pointed decision. Future generations
depend on us. Continue to be in prayer for this issue."
The 2,200 in attendance at Two Rivers were reminded by
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that
evangelicals are not trying to take over government and
create a theocracy.
"We don't claim the right to speak for every American, but
we do claim the right to speak," he said. "The court has
expanded the Constitution to include the right to kill
unborn children (and) the right to homosexual sodomy. At
the same time, when it comes to religious freedoms, what
they've done is they've said our children don't have a
right to pray. When it comes to marriage they want to
redefine the institution of marriage. There is a lot at
stake."
Judge Robert Bork, a Ronald Reagan Supreme Court nominee
who was harshly rejected by Senate Democrats, spoke via
video in the interludes between the speakers on stage.
Once a court rules on an issue, he said Americans have no
voice in opposition.
"If the Supreme Court rules that homosexual marriage is a
constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do
about it," he warned.
[...]
Former Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., called on Christians to
stand up and be counted.
"While Americans have been asleep, our fields have
rotted," he said, alluding to a parable in the book of
Matthew. "It has come down to us to do something about
it."
In his deep southern drawl, Miller struck out at the
Supreme Court's decision to remove Ten Commandments
monuments from federal property.
"Isn't it strange that a government requires a 'No
Smoking' sign around gas pumps to remind us of that
danger, but then thinks we don't need to be reminded of
the danger of living a sinful life?"
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the Justice Sunday II Web
site:
http://www.justicesunday.com
[More at URLs]
----- 4 -----
TEENS CONSIDER A FUTURE IN LAW
Conferences show young people how the law can protect religious liberty.
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
August 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037549.cfm
SUMMARY: Conferences show young people how skillful use of
the law can protect religious liberty.
The TeenPact Judicial Program that offers high school
students insight into pursuing a career in law is held
each year at Regent University in Virginia, but this year
it also expanded westward to Arizona.
Jenna Ellis attended TeenPact when she was 13. Now a
college graduate, she said the experience opened up
unbelievable opportunities.
"This fall I will actually be a White House intern in the
Office of Media Affairs," she told Family News in Focus.
"At 15 years old, through TeenPact, I was introduced to
the lieutenant governor of Colorado, which is the state
that I'm from, and I was his intern and personal aid from
the time that I was 15 to 17."
This year's conferences were held Aug. 8-14. The new
western training was at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)
headquarters in Scottsdale, Ariz. Emily Smith, the
director of the judicial program, said Christians need to
impact the legal world.
"TeenPact is seeking to inspire young people who are
Christians to consider law," she said, "and to have the
tools at their fingertips to enter the world of law with a
Biblical world view."
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the TeenPact Judicial Program
Web site:
http://www.tpjudicial.org/
----- 5 -----
Canada Enacts Same-Sex ‘Marriage’: What Now?
Concerned Women for America
8/16/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8711/CWA/family/index.htm
Canada has enacted C28 into law, a measure that allows for same-sex marriage across the nation. What is ahead for our neighbors to the north as this law now works hand-in-hand with other laws to squelch the free speech of pastors and people of faith? Is there a change to turn this decision back? And what can we in the United States learn from this tragedy? Martha Kleder spoke with Canadian Senator Anne Cools, one of the few conservative Christians in the Canadian legislature.
[URL to audio: http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20050816a ]
[Senator Anne Cools, Canadian Senate: "As you know, the government controls the Senate overwhelmingly... I never had any doubt that the government would have its way in the Senate... there are 22 or 23 conservatives, and a handful of independents... I would like to go to what I would call the substance of the issue and what I would consider to be the law of the issue... I am of the very strenuous and strong opinion that the government of Canada, to arrive at a conclusion that the law of marriage... is open to same-sex couples, homosexual couples, I am of the opinion that to do that they have vandalised the law... I've coined a term... I call it 'constitutional vandalism,' because it is impossible, tracing the thread of the law of marriage as it entered Canada and where we are now... it is legally impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the government arrived at. So am of the opinion that an enormous legal and intellectual fraudulence has been perpetrated against Canadians by the government of Canada."
"The law of marriage as we have had it in Canada until yesterday is essentially the same law of marriage as it has stood since 1759. ... the control over the granting of marriage licenses was placed in the hands of the governor by what we call the King's Letters-Patent... the powers passed from the Pope, to the Archbishop of Canterbury... the power of marriage licenses was put in the hands of the governor ... of the new, conquered territories... they wanted to come to an accommodation that would be [acceptable] to both the English and French colonists..."
"They just declare that this and that is not important... they say that marriage is not about procreation because many couples don't have children, or many older couples cannot have children... they believe that they can dismiss 800 years of the law of marriage..."
"In 1867... the accommodation of marriage was a major consideration in the drafting of that [Confederation] document... the control... was inserted into the Governor's Letters-Patent." Also divorce. "And the interesting thing... the first prime minister... I have documents citing the first Prime Minister of Canada saying that essentially the structure of marriage in the first B&A act was essentially to accommodate the Roman Catholics of French Canada at that time..." "What the government has just done in creating a civil marriage is exactly what the Confederation was created to avoid."
"Marriage came into Canada as a sacrament of the Church, it was largely governed by canon law... and thought that statute law and common law should exist in a state of balance with canon law... so in a way, what this government has done has turned everything on its head because many of these individuals would tell us is that the parliament has not legislated much on marriage... one of the reasons is that marriage was a sacrament of the church, and it belonged to the church." Talks about how Canon law forbids mother-son marriage and similar incestual relationships.
"The fact of the matter is that any law that parliament passes, parliament can repeal... nobody really knows how this situation is going to unfold. You said that Canada is the fourth country, but very few people have observed that Canada is the first common law country [to legalise marriage]. I am told that the reason the advocates of homosexual marriage have pushed this law so hard and so fiercely in Canada is precisely because of that fact, that Canada would be the first common-law country... that once Canada got this law, it would then be easier to pressure other common-law countries... the United States of America... the USA. ... I tell you this so you understand the enormity of the challenge you are facing."
Talks about Section 15 of the Charter of Rights - the equality section - "that is the section that has been used to apply to marriage." Claims that later modifications to the Constitution cannot be used to override earlier portions of the constitution. Claims judicial activism, tho' not in those words. "I do not believe that this matter ends with the fact that that bill was passed, although we do have a situation now where I used to look at the United States of America and lament that these situations existed there, but as it is, based on the composition of the court, I don't see too many changes, see? It is a matter of great concern to me that in today's era of mass communications... that governments seem to be using manipulation more than principles than to put their messages out. And what the government did... is that they repeated again and again the whole phenomenon of equality and rights, that one can't have two levels of, two classes of citizens, and the fact is that marriage is not now and never has been a right, and if it were a right, any one of us could go and sue, I dunno, anybody, because they wouldn't marry us. ... Marriage is not a right!" Talks nostalgically about how people not in good standing with their local parish used to not be able to get married. "I'm beginning to open more and more contacts with [people] in the US on this issue."
"The advocates of same-sex marriage... appropriate the language of the black civil rights movement." "We can't have separate but equal." "A lot of individuals are quick to raise the fact that the anti-mysogination laws... were the same problem, the homosexual who want to marry are in the same position as black people and white people who couldn't parry... there was no need to alter or to change the definition of marriage... and in point of fact, the prohibition against mysogination... they weren't everywhere... the people who raise those points are, in actual fact, proving my point... the entire anti-marriage, anti-mysogination regime... were exactly against marrying inter-racially because of the heterosexual relationship of [the] marriage..." The point seems to be that racial anti-marriage laws were passed on the basis of preventing procreation and that this proves her point that without procreation there can't be marriage, tho' she never comes out and says that.
Starts talking about Jamaican history, and talks again about how comparing gay rights struggles to racial rights struggles is "very wrong." Claims that most "homosexual people" "are not concerned with getting married."
"I would love [election change] to happen, I would be delighted... but... I don't think it as straightforward as that. ... so that is not really controlled by the individual provinces... it would take all of the people of Canada voting this government out and voting my side in, the Conservatives in..." Talks about how this is to "compel" other countries to go along.
"Now, for the first time in Canada for 150 years, there are large numbers of people feeling... that their freedom of religion is going to be at risk, and I think their fears are justified. ... Huge numbers of Christian people have begun to work together, groups that never spoke to each other before... and I think that is good. And large numbers of people who just never took part in politics or just left it all or ignored it found themselves involved, because part of the situation in the last two years... people were organising, church groups, evangelicals, Roman Catholics were organising... Defend Marriage Coaltiion, working through Christians everywhere... if there is a good benefit that has come out of this, it is the fact that many Christian people have become alive again to the importance of their religion, and many many Christian people have found themselves working ... with people who were formerly strangers to each other."
----- 6 -----
Red Cross Defensive About Michael Hartman Case
Concerned Women for America
8/14/2005
By Lindsey Douthit
Claims it “does not dismiss people for their viewpoints.”
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8721/CFI/family/index.htm
The American Red Cross, which recently dismissed Christian employee Michael Hartman after he objected to the organization’s Gay Pride campaign, has responded to a CWA report about it.
“The American Red Cross does not dismiss people based on their viewpoints,” Devorah Goldburg, a Red Cross spokeswoman at National Headquarters in Washington, D.C., told CWA.
She also insisted that the organization does not endorse homosexuality as a lifestyle, and that the Gay Pride e-mail was a “routine communication.” When asked how the circulation of a nationwide e-mail telling employees to celebrate Gay Pride month was not an endorsement of homosexuality, Goldburg maintained that the Red Cross “did not endorse sexual orientation.”
CWA also asked the question, “How is it that the Red Cross can promote homosexuality when it doesn’t even allow homosexual men to give blood?”
Goldburg, after a period of hesitation, answered that the Red Cross “follows FDA guidelines for blood donations.”
The e-mail promoting homosexuality, sent June 1, 2005, by Chief Diversity Officer David Wilkins, said, “It is my pleasureto announce that June will be recognized as Gay and Lesbian Pride month at national headquarters.” [Emphasis added.]
He went on to praise Red Cross chapters for their “outreach and cultural recognition efforts for their local gay and lesbian communities.”
The situation began after Michael Hartman, a Christian, was troubled by the e-mail instructing employees to “take a step past creating awareness” for Gay Pride month and to “consider outreach to increase volunteerism, the creation of programs and services, or holding your own diversity celebration.” Hartman expressed his concerns to his supervisor and several head administrators.
In e-mails to administrators, Hartman expressed that he “is a Christian not willing to compromise my beliefs to promote the agenda of the homosexual community,” and “it’s disgraceful that while most of us [at the Red Cross] are trying to save lives, a select few are using this organization to promote their own lifestyles which in my opinion are unacceptable.”
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Conservatives Alarmed at Roberts’ Role in Playboy Case
by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Aug 12, 2005
Human Events Online
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8544
Prominent conservatives tell HUMAN EVENTS they are troubled by the revelation that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group--the second time in one week information has come to light that Roberts helped a liberal cause.
Last Thursday conservatives were hit with the news that Roberts, while a partner at Hogan & Hartson, did pro bono work for gay-rights advocates in the case Romer v. Evans, which challenged a Colorado voter-approved initiative on sexual orientation. Yesterday, HUMAN EVENTS documented Roberts’ similar involvement in a case involving Playboy and its challenge of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to restrict young children from viewing pornography.
Roberts’ firm came out on the winning side in each case before the Supreme Court. But it is his involvement in both--playing the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting--that has led to second-guessing among conservatives who wonder why he wouldn’t politely decline such assignments.
“John Roberts was a senior partner. John Roberts did not have to take these cases,” said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. “If John Roberts volunteered to take these cases, then this is very, very troubling.
“It goes to a core value,” Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS. “Would there be any cases Judge Roberts wouldn’t take? Would he defend the North American Man/Boy Love Association? Would he defend racist groups? Is there a line drawn where an attorney would not take cases? I would suppose if it isn’t for stifling a voter-approved initiative and for pornography being made more available to minors, then what kind of cases wouldn’t Judge Roberts take?”
One conservative group--Public Advocate--pulled its support for Roberts this week after learning of his role in the Romer case. The fact that Roberts was involved in the Playboy case as well should outrage conservative activists who are supporting his confirmation, said the group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio.
“We’ve got somebody who has worked for the political opposition for free and for pay. If he worked for pro-aborts, would that be enough?” Delgaudio said. “Do we really think, as conservatives, the stampede toward pornography and gay rights is the right thing? When do we starting mobilizing and reacting?”
[...]
“We don’t feel compelled to either attack him or defend him at this point,” said Peter Brandt, director of issues response for Focus on the Family. “These are all issues that I’m sure will come out at the hearings, and we don’t want to speculate on them. We’re like everyone else--anxious to watch the hearings and hear the questions that will be asked of him.”
Added Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America: “It’s a troubling revelation, and it raises the question whether and when attorneys should excuse themselves from certain cases that violate their beliefs. Attorneys are hired guns. They don’t necessarily believe in the cause they represent, but there must be some limitation somewhere when you’re dealing with issues that have the potential to change the moral fabric of the country. We hope that there are some good questions at the September hearing for Judge Roberts.”
The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, said Roberts still has his backing, but he questioned whether Roberts could have avoided any anxiety by declining involvement in the cases. He said he is encouraging Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be “quiet severe” in their line of questioning.
[More at URL]
[Ed. Note: the online copy actually did say "quiet severe." I presume they meant "quite severe," but a [sic] would have been ambiguous.]
----- 8 -----
NARAL, PPA Ads Signal Hostility Toward Christians is Growing
By Bill Wilson
Focus on the Family
August 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037539.cfm
Both the misleading NARAL television ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and the Planned Parenthood video that vaporized pro-life demonstrators and drowned an abstinence advocate have been pulled after public outrage, mainly from conservative Christians. The groups took aim at Christian values, suggesting that Christians were ignorant or violent. Jim Sedlak of the American Life League thinks demonizing Christians is becoming a matter of collective strategy
“Well I think that there is at the base level a link between them. I think they want to portray Christians as being out of the mainstream, as being groups that are not to be trusted or respected within this country.”
Concerned Women for America ’s Bob Knight thinks liberal groups are “hoping that enough people can be influenced initially by the “hit” piece that even if they withdraw it, they’ll have drawn some blood.” Sedlak expects attacks against Christians to escalate.
“I think this is the opening salvo and I think we are going to see more and more of this and I think we are going to be seeing more and more of a direct attack on Christians in this nation and we have to gird up to fight that, we have to do it in prayer. We have to do it peacefully.”
Then it comes out he's done pro-bono work for QUEERS, and now it's come out that he also did pay work for PORN.
Seriously. Item seven. They're trying really hard not to freak out, but they're clearly in LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU mode at this point.
God damn, this is funny.
And now, your headlines:
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decides for the status quo regarding gayfolk;
Focus on the Family action item against Plan B (ACTION ITEM);
FotF coverage on Justice Sunday II megachurchcast;
FotF on programme to encourage "biblically-based" legal mindsets in teens;
Concerned Women for America on Canadian marriage rights; call it a "tragedy"; interviews Conservative Senator extensively - I transcribed a lot of it;
CWFA again on the Red Cross worker "fired for refusing to celebrate homosexuality" - or, more specifically (check previous work) saying he couldn't do his job in good conscience while the Red Cross "promoted" a "dangerous lifestyle";
Human Events: Court nominee John Roberts did work for Playboy; fundamentalist groups continue to grit their teeth, but are starting to demand "quite severe" questioning in the Senate;
Focus on the Family claims "hostility" towards Christianity in America is growing.
----- 1 -----
ELCA NEWS SERVICE
August 12, 2005
ELCA Assembly Acts On Key Sexuality Proposals
CWA-33-05-JS
http://www.elca.org/ScriptLib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?article=3163
ORLANDO, Fla. (ELCA) -- The 2005 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) affirmed pastoral care for all people including people who are gay or lesbian, and continued to encourage the church to welcome gay and lesbian people into its life. In a related action, the assembly rejected a proposal that would have allowed the church, under special circumstances, to ordain gay and lesbian candidates for ministry who are involved in lifelong, committed same-sex relationships.
While the assembly did not create formal rites for blessing couples in same-sex relationships, by a vote of 670-323 it entrusted pastoral care to individual pastors and congregations. ELCA church leaders said that the actions affirmed the ELCA's current standards for ministry and reaffirmed the pastoral guidance of a 1993 pastoral letter issued by the ELCA Conference of Bishops.
The churchwide assembly, the chief legislative authority of the ELCA, is meeting here August 8-14 at the World Center Marriott and Convention Center. About 2,300 people are participating, including 1,018 ELCA voting members. The theme for the biennial assembly is "Marked with the Cross of Christ Forever."
Voting members devoted virtually all day Aug. 12 to three recommendations related to its Studies on Sexuality. The ELCA assembly actions highlighted pastoral guidance from its Conference of Bishops and restated its trust in its pastoral leaders. The church resolved to "welcome gay and lesbian persons into its life (as stated in Churchwide Assembly resolutions from 1991, 1995, and 1999), and trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to all to whom they minister." The Rev. Carol Hendrix, bishop of the ELCA Lower Susquehanna Synod, initiated an amendment to replace "same-sex couples" with "all to whom they minister" making the guidance match the bishops' pastoral message.
As the assembly deliberation began, the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the ELCA, said that the church has "done this work well. We've listened to each other. We've learned from each other. We've prayed for and with each other. And I believe we've journeyed together faithfully" in the ELCA's three-year study of the questions related to homosexuality.
The debate regarding blessing same-sex relationships focused on many voting members' discomfort with perceived ambiguity regarding pastoral discretion in ministry with same-sex couples. A number of attempts to amend the resolution to more clearly define whether same-sex blessings were allowed failed. Robert Benne, voting member, ELCA Virginia Synod, was one of those attempting to clarify the resolution. He said the "ambiguity of [recommendation] number two is what many in the ELCA find troubling." On the other hand, the Rev. Stephen P. Bouman, bishop of the ELCA Metropolitan New York Synod, told voting members that many of their children come to live within the parishes of his synod. He asked for help in creating the "pastoral space to serve the children that we take -- so that can we be the church together and create space for that to happen."
Members of the assembly often disagreed in the debate on the use of the Bible. Many voting members urged the assembly to adhere to the Scriptures as the rule and norm for the life and faith. But a number also agreed with the Rev. Ralph Klein, resource theologian from Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, who reminded the assembly that what the scripture meant in its original context and what it means for today is not always the same thing.
Ultimately, the assembly failed to adopt a policy recommendation that would allow the church to ordain, consecrate and commission candidates for ministry who are in life-long, committed same-sex relationships. The vote fell well short -- 490-503 -- of the two-thirds required to make the change.
Current ELCA policy expects ministers to refrain from sexual relations outside marriage, which it defines as "a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman."
At a news conference after the voting, Hanson said that he knew going into the debate that "however the vote turned out some would be disappointed" but he also stated that he "hopes that those disappointed in the votes would not sever their relationship with the church or step back" from their involvement. I hope that "everyone hears it clearly -- all week as we have discussed publicly and clearly -- that gay and lesbian persons are welcome in this church."
The Rev. Roy Riley, bishop of the New Jersey Synod and chair of the ELCA Conference of Bishops, said "what impressed me about today was how right the [sexuality studies] task force was." He said that they "heard out in the church a significant minority that wanted flexibility and space to go in another direction."
Hanson said that he was pleased by the "respectful tone" of both the voting members and the visitors, referring to a silent protest that took place during the debate. In the early afternoon, some 100 persons wearing rainbow scarves around their necks walked slowly to the front of the podium, spread across the convention area, facing the voting members. Hanson requested the group return to the visitor section, but the group remained in place until the end of the Aug. 12 afternoon session. Once it was understood that the protesters were going to remain, Hanson invited the assembly to continue business.
The Rev. Sue Ericsson, voting member, ELCA Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, told the bishop, "I am in awe of your ability to lead us through this -- if you can do it, we can do it."
Following the assembly actions today, the Rev. Jodi Wangsness, voting member and a campus pastor from the ELCA Nebraska Synod, said "I'm hearing an improvement. I think [the statement] understands that this is a church that is in dialogue. We've been faithful to the conversation with one another."
Information about the ELCA Churchwide Assembly is at http://www.elca.org/assembly/05 on the Web.
For more information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
----- 2 -----
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
Action Item
August 15, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
FDA About to Decide if 'Plan B' Will Be Offered Without a
Prescription
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to
decide by the end of this month whether to approve
over-the-counter sales of the so-called "morning-after"
pill -- if it doesn't, Planned Parenthood is poised and
ready to go to court.
Pro-life groups have opposed all sales of "Plan B"
because, when taken as directed, it can sometimes cause an
early abortion.
Karen Pearl, president of Planned Parenthood, said if the
FDA rejects non-prescription sales of the drug, her group
is likely to sue.
"This is absolutely the best way of assuring that when
something does go wrong, that people have the second
opportunity to prevent the unintended pregnancy," Pearl
told The Associated Press.
Pharmacies in seven states currently sell the drug without
a doctor's prescription and with no restriction on age.
Even if the FDA chooses to go with an age restriction,
pro-life experts contend young girls will simply have an
older friend make the purchase.
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America said the sale
of such a drug with unfettered access is a recipe for
disaster.
"The person who buys the drug is not necessarily the
person who takes the drug," Wright said. "It's a ludicrous
proposal."
TAKE ACTION: Contact President Bush and ask him to ensure
that officials in his administration do not approve
over-the-counter sales of "Plan B." You can find contact
information in the CitizenLink Action Center:
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F
----- 3 -----
JUSTICE SUNDAY II: A CALL TO PRAYER AND ACTION
The second event to raise awareness over judicial activism
connects Christians with a message of civic duty.
by Aaron Atwood, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
August 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037213.cfm
SUMMARY: The second event to raise awareness over judicial
activism connects Christians with a message of civic duty.
Justice Sunday II made a clarion call to the nation: It's
time to be active in the American political process. Two
Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville hosted the event, which
was carried via radio and satellite TV to churches and
individuals across the U.S.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, took the stage
to a standing ovation and made his point free of political
mishmash.
"We are here to protect the Constitution so the
Constitution can keep protecting us," he said. "The
American people have heard the arguments for
state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. We've heard the
arguments for partial-birth abortion and for ridding the
public square of religion. We've heard the arguments; we
just disagree."
James C. Dobson Ph.D., founder and chairman of Focus on
the Family Action, said it was time to defend the judicial
nomination process "against all the minions on the left
who want to preserve the majority on the court that has
done their bidding for so long. We expect them to turn
this nomination into a circus. The family itself is at
stake."
Dobson concluded with an impassioned call to action.
"It is time to bring greater balance (to the Supreme
Court) and I urge everyone to call, write, email, fax and
visit the offices of your senators," he said. "We dare not
sleep through this pointed decision. Future generations
depend on us. Continue to be in prayer for this issue."
The 2,200 in attendance at Two Rivers were reminded by
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins that
evangelicals are not trying to take over government and
create a theocracy.
"We don't claim the right to speak for every American, but
we do claim the right to speak," he said. "The court has
expanded the Constitution to include the right to kill
unborn children (and) the right to homosexual sodomy. At
the same time, when it comes to religious freedoms, what
they've done is they've said our children don't have a
right to pray. When it comes to marriage they want to
redefine the institution of marriage. There is a lot at
stake."
Judge Robert Bork, a Ronald Reagan Supreme Court nominee
who was harshly rejected by Senate Democrats, spoke via
video in the interludes between the speakers on stage.
Once a court rules on an issue, he said Americans have no
voice in opposition.
"If the Supreme Court rules that homosexual marriage is a
constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do
about it," he warned.
[...]
Former Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., called on Christians to
stand up and be counted.
"While Americans have been asleep, our fields have
rotted," he said, alluding to a parable in the book of
Matthew. "It has come down to us to do something about
it."
In his deep southern drawl, Miller struck out at the
Supreme Court's decision to remove Ten Commandments
monuments from federal property.
"Isn't it strange that a government requires a 'No
Smoking' sign around gas pumps to remind us of that
danger, but then thinks we don't need to be reminded of
the danger of living a sinful life?"
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the Justice Sunday II Web
site:
http://www.justicesunday.com
[More at URLs]
----- 4 -----
TEENS CONSIDER A FUTURE IN LAW
Conferences show young people how the law can protect religious liberty.
from staff reports
Focus on the Family
August 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037549.cfm
SUMMARY: Conferences show young people how skillful use of
the law can protect religious liberty.
The TeenPact Judicial Program that offers high school
students insight into pursuing a career in law is held
each year at Regent University in Virginia, but this year
it also expanded westward to Arizona.
Jenna Ellis attended TeenPact when she was 13. Now a
college graduate, she said the experience opened up
unbelievable opportunities.
"This fall I will actually be a White House intern in the
Office of Media Affairs," she told Family News in Focus.
"At 15 years old, through TeenPact, I was introduced to
the lieutenant governor of Colorado, which is the state
that I'm from, and I was his intern and personal aid from
the time that I was 15 to 17."
This year's conferences were held Aug. 8-14. The new
western training was at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)
headquarters in Scottsdale, Ariz. Emily Smith, the
director of the judicial program, said Christians need to
impact the legal world.
"TeenPact is seeking to inspire young people who are
Christians to consider law," she said, "and to have the
tools at their fingertips to enter the world of law with a
Biblical world view."
[...]
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the TeenPact Judicial Program
Web site:
http://www.tpjudicial.org/
----- 5 -----
Canada Enacts Same-Sex ‘Marriage’: What Now?
Concerned Women for America
8/16/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8711/CWA/family/index.htm
Canada has enacted C28 into law, a measure that allows for same-sex marriage across the nation. What is ahead for our neighbors to the north as this law now works hand-in-hand with other laws to squelch the free speech of pastors and people of faith? Is there a change to turn this decision back? And what can we in the United States learn from this tragedy? Martha Kleder spoke with Canadian Senator Anne Cools, one of the few conservative Christians in the Canadian legislature.
[URL to audio: http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20050816a ]
[Senator Anne Cools, Canadian Senate: "As you know, the government controls the Senate overwhelmingly... I never had any doubt that the government would have its way in the Senate... there are 22 or 23 conservatives, and a handful of independents... I would like to go to what I would call the substance of the issue and what I would consider to be the law of the issue... I am of the very strenuous and strong opinion that the government of Canada, to arrive at a conclusion that the law of marriage... is open to same-sex couples, homosexual couples, I am of the opinion that to do that they have vandalised the law... I've coined a term... I call it 'constitutional vandalism,' because it is impossible, tracing the thread of the law of marriage as it entered Canada and where we are now... it is legally impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the government arrived at. So am of the opinion that an enormous legal and intellectual fraudulence has been perpetrated against Canadians by the government of Canada."
"The law of marriage as we have had it in Canada until yesterday is essentially the same law of marriage as it has stood since 1759. ... the control over the granting of marriage licenses was placed in the hands of the governor by what we call the King's Letters-Patent... the powers passed from the Pope, to the Archbishop of Canterbury... the power of marriage licenses was put in the hands of the governor ... of the new, conquered territories... they wanted to come to an accommodation that would be [acceptable] to both the English and French colonists..."
"They just declare that this and that is not important... they say that marriage is not about procreation because many couples don't have children, or many older couples cannot have children... they believe that they can dismiss 800 years of the law of marriage..."
"In 1867... the accommodation of marriage was a major consideration in the drafting of that [Confederation] document... the control... was inserted into the Governor's Letters-Patent." Also divorce. "And the interesting thing... the first prime minister... I have documents citing the first Prime Minister of Canada saying that essentially the structure of marriage in the first B&A act was essentially to accommodate the Roman Catholics of French Canada at that time..." "What the government has just done in creating a civil marriage is exactly what the Confederation was created to avoid."
"Marriage came into Canada as a sacrament of the Church, it was largely governed by canon law... and thought that statute law and common law should exist in a state of balance with canon law... so in a way, what this government has done has turned everything on its head because many of these individuals would tell us is that the parliament has not legislated much on marriage... one of the reasons is that marriage was a sacrament of the church, and it belonged to the church." Talks about how Canon law forbids mother-son marriage and similar incestual relationships.
"The fact of the matter is that any law that parliament passes, parliament can repeal... nobody really knows how this situation is going to unfold. You said that Canada is the fourth country, but very few people have observed that Canada is the first common law country [to legalise marriage]. I am told that the reason the advocates of homosexual marriage have pushed this law so hard and so fiercely in Canada is precisely because of that fact, that Canada would be the first common-law country... that once Canada got this law, it would then be easier to pressure other common-law countries... the United States of America... the USA. ... I tell you this so you understand the enormity of the challenge you are facing."
Talks about Section 15 of the Charter of Rights - the equality section - "that is the section that has been used to apply to marriage." Claims that later modifications to the Constitution cannot be used to override earlier portions of the constitution. Claims judicial activism, tho' not in those words. "I do not believe that this matter ends with the fact that that bill was passed, although we do have a situation now where I used to look at the United States of America and lament that these situations existed there, but as it is, based on the composition of the court, I don't see too many changes, see? It is a matter of great concern to me that in today's era of mass communications... that governments seem to be using manipulation more than principles than to put their messages out. And what the government did... is that they repeated again and again the whole phenomenon of equality and rights, that one can't have two levels of, two classes of citizens, and the fact is that marriage is not now and never has been a right, and if it were a right, any one of us could go and sue, I dunno, anybody, because they wouldn't marry us. ... Marriage is not a right!" Talks nostalgically about how people not in good standing with their local parish used to not be able to get married. "I'm beginning to open more and more contacts with [people] in the US on this issue."
"The advocates of same-sex marriage... appropriate the language of the black civil rights movement." "We can't have separate but equal." "A lot of individuals are quick to raise the fact that the anti-mysogination laws... were the same problem, the homosexual who want to marry are in the same position as black people and white people who couldn't parry... there was no need to alter or to change the definition of marriage... and in point of fact, the prohibition against mysogination... they weren't everywhere... the people who raise those points are, in actual fact, proving my point... the entire anti-marriage, anti-mysogination regime... were exactly against marrying inter-racially because of the heterosexual relationship of [the] marriage..." The point seems to be that racial anti-marriage laws were passed on the basis of preventing procreation and that this proves her point that without procreation there can't be marriage, tho' she never comes out and says that.
Starts talking about Jamaican history, and talks again about how comparing gay rights struggles to racial rights struggles is "very wrong." Claims that most "homosexual people" "are not concerned with getting married."
"I would love [election change] to happen, I would be delighted... but... I don't think it as straightforward as that. ... so that is not really controlled by the individual provinces... it would take all of the people of Canada voting this government out and voting my side in, the Conservatives in..." Talks about how this is to "compel" other countries to go along.
"Now, for the first time in Canada for 150 years, there are large numbers of people feeling... that their freedom of religion is going to be at risk, and I think their fears are justified. ... Huge numbers of Christian people have begun to work together, groups that never spoke to each other before... and I think that is good. And large numbers of people who just never took part in politics or just left it all or ignored it found themselves involved, because part of the situation in the last two years... people were organising, church groups, evangelicals, Roman Catholics were organising... Defend Marriage Coaltiion, working through Christians everywhere... if there is a good benefit that has come out of this, it is the fact that many Christian people have become alive again to the importance of their religion, and many many Christian people have found themselves working ... with people who were formerly strangers to each other."
----- 6 -----
Red Cross Defensive About Michael Hartman Case
Concerned Women for America
8/14/2005
By Lindsey Douthit
Claims it “does not dismiss people for their viewpoints.”
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8721/CFI/family/index.htm
The American Red Cross, which recently dismissed Christian employee Michael Hartman after he objected to the organization’s Gay Pride campaign, has responded to a CWA report about it.
“The American Red Cross does not dismiss people based on their viewpoints,” Devorah Goldburg, a Red Cross spokeswoman at National Headquarters in Washington, D.C., told CWA.
She also insisted that the organization does not endorse homosexuality as a lifestyle, and that the Gay Pride e-mail was a “routine communication.” When asked how the circulation of a nationwide e-mail telling employees to celebrate Gay Pride month was not an endorsement of homosexuality, Goldburg maintained that the Red Cross “did not endorse sexual orientation.”
CWA also asked the question, “How is it that the Red Cross can promote homosexuality when it doesn’t even allow homosexual men to give blood?”
Goldburg, after a period of hesitation, answered that the Red Cross “follows FDA guidelines for blood donations.”
The e-mail promoting homosexuality, sent June 1, 2005, by Chief Diversity Officer David Wilkins, said, “It is my pleasureto announce that June will be recognized as Gay and Lesbian Pride month at national headquarters.” [Emphasis added.]
He went on to praise Red Cross chapters for their “outreach and cultural recognition efforts for their local gay and lesbian communities.”
The situation began after Michael Hartman, a Christian, was troubled by the e-mail instructing employees to “take a step past creating awareness” for Gay Pride month and to “consider outreach to increase volunteerism, the creation of programs and services, or holding your own diversity celebration.” Hartman expressed his concerns to his supervisor and several head administrators.
In e-mails to administrators, Hartman expressed that he “is a Christian not willing to compromise my beliefs to promote the agenda of the homosexual community,” and “it’s disgraceful that while most of us [at the Red Cross] are trying to save lives, a select few are using this organization to promote their own lifestyles which in my opinion are unacceptable.”
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Conservatives Alarmed at Roberts’ Role in Playboy Case
by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Aug 12, 2005
Human Events Online
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8544
Prominent conservatives tell HUMAN EVENTS they are troubled by the revelation that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group--the second time in one week information has come to light that Roberts helped a liberal cause.
Last Thursday conservatives were hit with the news that Roberts, while a partner at Hogan & Hartson, did pro bono work for gay-rights advocates in the case Romer v. Evans, which challenged a Colorado voter-approved initiative on sexual orientation. Yesterday, HUMAN EVENTS documented Roberts’ similar involvement in a case involving Playboy and its challenge of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to restrict young children from viewing pornography.
Roberts’ firm came out on the winning side in each case before the Supreme Court. But it is his involvement in both--playing the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting--that has led to second-guessing among conservatives who wonder why he wouldn’t politely decline such assignments.
“John Roberts was a senior partner. John Roberts did not have to take these cases,” said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. “If John Roberts volunteered to take these cases, then this is very, very troubling.
“It goes to a core value,” Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS. “Would there be any cases Judge Roberts wouldn’t take? Would he defend the North American Man/Boy Love Association? Would he defend racist groups? Is there a line drawn where an attorney would not take cases? I would suppose if it isn’t for stifling a voter-approved initiative and for pornography being made more available to minors, then what kind of cases wouldn’t Judge Roberts take?”
One conservative group--Public Advocate--pulled its support for Roberts this week after learning of his role in the Romer case. The fact that Roberts was involved in the Playboy case as well should outrage conservative activists who are supporting his confirmation, said the group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio.
“We’ve got somebody who has worked for the political opposition for free and for pay. If he worked for pro-aborts, would that be enough?” Delgaudio said. “Do we really think, as conservatives, the stampede toward pornography and gay rights is the right thing? When do we starting mobilizing and reacting?”
[...]
“We don’t feel compelled to either attack him or defend him at this point,” said Peter Brandt, director of issues response for Focus on the Family. “These are all issues that I’m sure will come out at the hearings, and we don’t want to speculate on them. We’re like everyone else--anxious to watch the hearings and hear the questions that will be asked of him.”
Added Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America: “It’s a troubling revelation, and it raises the question whether and when attorneys should excuse themselves from certain cases that violate their beliefs. Attorneys are hired guns. They don’t necessarily believe in the cause they represent, but there must be some limitation somewhere when you’re dealing with issues that have the potential to change the moral fabric of the country. We hope that there are some good questions at the September hearing for Judge Roberts.”
The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, said Roberts still has his backing, but he questioned whether Roberts could have avoided any anxiety by declining involvement in the cases. He said he is encouraging Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be “quiet severe” in their line of questioning.
[More at URL]
[Ed. Note: the online copy actually did say "quiet severe." I presume they meant "quite severe," but a [sic] would have been ambiguous.]
----- 8 -----
NARAL, PPA Ads Signal Hostility Toward Christians is Growing
By Bill Wilson
Focus on the Family
August 15, 2005
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0037539.cfm
Both the misleading NARAL television ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and the Planned Parenthood video that vaporized pro-life demonstrators and drowned an abstinence advocate have been pulled after public outrage, mainly from conservative Christians. The groups took aim at Christian values, suggesting that Christians were ignorant or violent. Jim Sedlak of the American Life League thinks demonizing Christians is becoming a matter of collective strategy
“Well I think that there is at the base level a link between them. I think they want to portray Christians as being out of the mainstream, as being groups that are not to be trusted or respected within this country.”
Concerned Women for America ’s Bob Knight thinks liberal groups are “hoping that enough people can be influenced initially by the “hit” piece that even if they withdraw it, they’ll have drawn some blood.” Sedlak expects attacks against Christians to escalate.
“I think this is the opening salvo and I think we are going to see more and more of this and I think we are going to be seeing more and more of a direct attack on Christians in this nation and we have to gird up to fight that, we have to do it in prayer. We have to do it peacefully.”
