Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jan. 20th, 2006 09:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdLots of Canadian reports this time; American and Canadian fundamentalist groups are both hoping for a big Tory win on Monday, and expect that marriage rights for gayfolk will be eliminated if Harper becomes PM. Hopefully, they're wrong. Canadians may wish to note the close co-operation between American and Canadian evangelical fundamentalist groups. If the current projections hold up, there will either have to be a minourity government, unless someone wants to align with the Bloc Quebecois. Looks like Canadians might have to fight this fight again.
"Partner's death ends happy life on ranch," or, "Take that, fags!" - state overturns will on technical issues, orders ranch sold with proceeds to go to cousins, who are suing the surviving partner for "back-rent" proclaimed due for the decades the two men were together;
Closing a feedback loop and/or creating our own very small echo chamber, I link to Nick Mamatas's very amusing deconstruction of one of the articles posted in the previous CWU;
Maryland judge rules their marriage law violates gender discrimination protections; stays decision pending Supreme Court appeal;
Boston University group on millennialist studies report on apocalyptic Islam;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM for "Sanctity of Human Life Week";
FotF expects more anti-abortion law, more restrictions on abortion rights, in part thanks to a more sympathetic Supreme Court; Rick Santorum talks about the "Culture of Death";
FotF continues promoting Intelligent Design and Creationism, should be taught in biology classes, but the El Tejon School District erred in its approach and other creationists should be more careful;
Focus on the Family and Focus on the Family Canada: Election a chance to reverse course on liberal Canadian culture, reopen the debate on marriage rights for gay and lesbian citizens, with the intent of removing it;
Focus on the Family's coverage of the Maryland marriage ruling, demands Federal anti-marriage amendment, etc;
Concerned Women for America outrage at Maryland ruling; local fundamentalist leaders say it will give their anti-marriage amendment a boost;
CWA demand indecency legislation immediately, calls upon Senate Commerce Committee to move Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-Michigan) Broadcast Indecency Act of 2005 forward;
American Family Association links to albertmohler.com article railing against casting a gay actor in a film about Christians, even if the film is good; "What were they thinking?";
American Family Association quotes Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) president Dr. Charles McVety as saying the Tory government will end marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples;
AFA condemns Soulforce effort to enroll GBLT families in the White House annual egg roll event;
Focus on the Family Canada article on the importance of voting and how vital it is to get a Conservative government;
Real Women of Canada talk about "Growing Conservative Religious Political Activism" and NDP attempts to offset it;
Faith and Freedom Network calls civil rights protections for gayfolk a "slimy slope";
Faith and Freedom Network: Christian voters will oust Supreme Court justices who support marriage rights;
----- 1 -----
Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law
By Jessie Torrisi
Columbia News Service
December 31, 2005
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342
On the face of it, Sam Beaumont, 61, with his cowboy hat, deep-throated chuckle and Northwestern drawl, is not so different from the ranch hands in Ang Lee's critically acclaimed film "Brokeback Mountain," which opened in Indianapolis on Wednesday.
More "Romeo & Juliet" than "Rent," "Brokeback Mountain" challenges modern perceptions of what it means to be gay in rural America.
"Listen," the character Twist says to del Mar as part of a dream that goes unrealized. "I'm thinking, tell you what, if you and me had a little ranch together -- little cow and calf operation, your horses -- it'd be some sweet life."
That pretty much describes the life Beaumont had. He settled down with Earl Meadows and tended 50 head of cattle for a quarter-century on an Oklahoma ranch. "I was raised to be independent. I didn't really care what other people thought," Beaumont said.
[...]
But in 1999, Meadows had a stroke and Beaumont took care of him for a year until he died at age 56.
That's where the fantasy of a life together on the range collides with reality. After a quarter-century on the ranch he shared with his partner, Beaumont lost it all on a legal technicality in a state that doesn't recognize domestic partnerships.
Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature.
[...]
"They took the estate away from me," said Beaumont, who said he put about $200,000 of his own money into the ranch. "Everything that had Earl's name on it, they took. They took it all and didn't bat an eye."
[...]
But only seven states currently give gay couples protections -- such as inheritance rights and health benefits -- through marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. What's more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.
[...]
Last year, Beaumont moved to nearby Wewoka, Okla., to a one-bedroom place with 350 acres for his horses, white Pyrenees and Great Dane to roam. He said he was continuing to fight the cousins, who are suing for back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.
----- 2 -----
And in this issue of "Anyone can be a professor..."
Nick Mamatas
January 20, 2006
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/709317.html
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
solarbird does a daily "Culture War Update," which is a collection of funny-to-distressing URLs about various subjects that get the far right either into a tizzy or send them into action. Today I was struck by the claims of a source in this article, which is worth quoting at length:
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Md. court rules against same-sex marriage ban
Judge says state law 'cannot withstand constitutional challenge'
By Brian Witte
The Associated Press
Originally published January 20, 2006, 11:48 AM EST
Long URL elided
A Baltimore Circuit Court judge today struck down Maryland's
33-year-old law against same-sex marriage, ruling in favor of 19 gay
men and women who contended the prohibition violated the state's equal
rights amendments.
Anticipating that her decision eventually would be appealed to
Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, Judge M. Brooke
Murdock stayed action on her ruling pending that appeal.
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that
Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot
withstand this constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote in her
decision.
[more at URL]
----- 4 -----
Islam and Apocalyptic
Center for Millennial Studies
Boston University
http://www.bu.edu/mille/scholarship/papers/cookabs.html
There is power in apocalypse. Fundamentally, the belief in the imminent end of the world changes people, and gives them the strength of absolute conviction that God is on the side of the believer, a very definite goal, and the impetus to excel above and beyond one's ordinary abilities. All three of these components are present in a truly apocalyptic group, and serve to mold it together into a possibly (though not necessarily) destructive organism, to which the outside world is an enemy to be conquered and dominated. While all of the above is well known and obvious after studying any apocalyptic groups, the question before us is: Is Islam an apocalyptic faith, and if it is, then what are the ramifications for the outside world?
A grasp of history is crucial to the understanding of the modern apocalyptic Muslim, because of the living nature of this past for him. Therefore, our discussion must start at the dawn of Muslim history. Many theories have been proposed in order to explain the phenomenal Muslim conquest of the entire ancient world, from Tours in France to the borders of China in Central Asia, during the period of a century. Some scholars dismiss the idea that religious belief was a primary or even a secondary contributing factor in these conquests. Yet this prejudice is very damaging to our present-day understanding, if only because contemporary Muslims themselves believe that their absolute faith in Allah and the unifying nature of Islam were the most important reasons for their successes. Here, one must read between the lines and understand, that absolute faith and unity were not enough to embark on the jihad. There had to be a third component to this equation: the imperative to conquer the world before the expected Hour of Judgment. This is the component which will interest us here.
It is not so important for us to know what historically impelled this conquest as to understand how the modem Muslim feels about his history. This conquest, called the jihad, is closely connected in the sources to apocalyptic beliefs. In this regard a tradition should be quoted: "Behold! God sent me [the Prophet Muhammad] with a sword, just before the Hour [of Judgment], and placed my daily sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt upon those who oppose me." Muslims, according to this understanding, did not try to conquer the world for the sake of domination, but because God commanded them to, before the imminent end of the world. In Islam we have the first example of what an apocalyptic group can achieve when given a limited time limit to accomplish an impossible task: world conquest. They almost made it. Since the most revolutionary idea present in fundamentalist Islam is that modem Muslims are reenacting the situation of the Prophet Muhammad, during the seventh century, and that all of the rest of the world, including the so called Muslim countries, are infidel. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the feeling that an apocalyptic-jihad is necessary to correct things is very strong.
[Much more at URL]
----- 5 -----
Still Time to Take a Stand for the Sanctity of Human Life
Focus on the Family
Editor's Note
January 20, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
This is Sanctity of Human Life Week -- and you still have
an opportunity to take a public stand for the value and
dignity of all human life.
We've made it easy for you to do that -- in just a few
clicks of your computer's mouse. If you haven't yet, visit
the CitizenLink Action Center at the link below to send a
simple message to several of your state and federal
elected officials.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/issues/alert/?alertid=8379941&type=ML
We've even written the message for you: "During this
Sanctity of Human Life Week, I wanted you to know that I
believe all human life is sacred -- and that I intend to
cast my votes in the future only for men and women who
share that conviction."
Of course, if you'd like to create your own message, or
add to ours, you can edit what we've written.
Thank you for taking a stand for righteousness on this
important issue.
----- 6 -----
2006 MAY BRING ADVANCES IN PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION
March for Life supporters see a favorable shift in public opinion continuing.
Focus from the Family
Family News in Focus
January 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039269.cfm
Tens of thousands of people will gather on the Mall in
Washington, D.C., Monday to participate in the 33rd annual
March for Life. Experts say 2006 may be a bright year for
pro-life issues.
William Greene, president of Rightmarch.com, will take
part in the march. He said the possibility of more
pro-life justices on the Supreme Court and more
restrictions on abortion have him optimistic.
"I think we're also going to start seeing a lot more on
the state level in the state legislatures where you're
starting to see in a number or states that strong pro-life
legislation is not only being proposed, but it is being
passed," he told Family News in Focus.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Booted Origins Class Not a Good Test
from staff reports
SUMMARY: California decision to permanently drop a class
illustrates what is and is not legal.
Teaching the theory of Intelligent design (ID) in the
public school classroom may seem to have taken a hit with
a California school district cutting the subject from a
philosophy class, but ID proponents say the class in
question was not a good test case and was bound to lose.
[...]
"What happened was originally the El Tejon School District
had approved a course that was essentially going to teach
biblical creationism as a fact," he said. "And like it or
not, that has been declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court."
Luskin said the district could have shelved that course
and offered a constitutional version next semester, but
threats by a liberal activist group scared them off.
"The school district was actually bullied by Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State into a
settlement agreement where they agreed never to teach this
course ever again," he said.
[...]
Frank Sherwin of the Institute for Creation Research said
ID may be taught wherever evolution is taught.
"If you're going to put one in a philosophy class, put
both in the philosophy class," he said. "Otherwise they
both can be in a public school biology classroom."
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Q&A: The Canadian Election and Planting Pro-Family 'Seeds'
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
January 20, 2006
SUMMARY: Insight from Derek Rogusky of Focus on the Family
Canada.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039270.cfm
Our "neighbor to the north" faces an important national
election Monday -- and the future of the country could
change dramatically.
Derek Rogusky, senior vice president of Focus on the
Family Canada, talked with CitizenLink about the
election's significance for pro-family Canadians.
Q. What's at stake in the election on Monday?
A. I think it's a real key election. People, finally, in
Canada have some real legitimate choices to make. We've
had such a patchwork of political parties over the last
while and now that they have come together, I think
there's an opportunity for Canadians to make some real key
choices of where we want to head as a country. We have
some real choices before us.
I think what it's going to really determine is what is
Canada's role in the world -- as to what types of values
are we going to promote. Are we going to stand up and have
a strong military? Are we going to stand up for
traditional values? Are we going to have a more
cooperative approach with our American friends? How are we
going to deal with crime and violence and drug issues in
our country? There are some real stark choices to make.
And for the first time, it's actually a contest, because
for the last 10 years or so, it's actually been one-party
rule -- because everyone seemed to know before the
election was called what the outcome was going to be.
Q. The news reports seem to indicate that the Conservative
Party could take control.
A. That's certainly what all the polls seem to be
indicating at this point. You can't count your chickens
before they're hatched, but it certainly looks as though
we're going to see a change in government.
Q. What would that mean?
A. Whenever you have a party that's in government for such
a long period of time, and really has become entrenched,
especially in the way that Canada's parliamentary system
works, you get this sense of arrogance and sense of
entitlement, and I think there's a real move to change the
fundamentals of government -- to try to remove some of the
incentives for corruption and scandal and entitlement. I
think that's going to be a real key, But the other is that
we're going to start to see more and more Canadians who
care about our traditional norms, our traditional
foundations, our institutions of society such as marriage
-- I think they're going to have a bigger say in how we're
governed.
For example, a Conservative Party is going to listen to
the 56 percent of Canadians who didn't want to change the
definition of marriage. So that's an issue that will
probably be reopened under a Conservative government that
wouldn't be opened under the existing Liberal government.
Q. I understand Prime Minister Paul Martin would not allow
his Liberal Party members of Parliament to vote their
consciences on the gay-marriage issue. Is that correct?
A. It was even worse that that. Actually, he wouldn't
allow members of his Cabinet -- the Cabinet is made up of
elected officials in Canada -- to vote their consciences
in Parliament. That is almost 40 members of a 308-member
House.
One Cabinet minister resigned his Cabinet post because he
felt so strongly about the issue. Unfortunately, there
were a number of other Cabinet ministers who decided to
keep their Cabinet positions -- and the perks and salaries
that went with it -- and they reneged on the promises they
made to their constituents to defend traditional marriage.
Q. But the Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, has
pledged to take a different approach?
A. He has. He would allow everyone in Parliament to take a
free vote. Whether they were Cabinet ministers or
backbenchers, they would all have a chance to vote their
conscience or the will of their constituents.
Q. Just how "liberal" is Canada, Derek? I'm not talking
about the Liberal Party of Canada -- or how much support
they have. I know that a big-"L" Liberal isn't the same
thing as what we in the United States think of as
"liberal" -- even though the prime minister and his party
have been very critical of the U.S. in recent months.
But Canada seems to have developed a reputation for being
small-"l" liberal, too, in terms of social policy. How
accurate is that reputation?
A. I don't think Canada is as "liberal" as many people
think it is. Unfortunately, you've got a government that
for whatever reason has felt that it needed to criticize
our American neighbors, but the reality is that two-thirds
to 70 percent of Canadians wanted to retain the definition
of marriage. On a lot of different issues, Canadians are
much more conservative than their judiciary -- or their
elected officials. I think we're going to start to see
momentum change towards that -- and the true opinions of
Canadians are going to start to come out.
A lot of Canadians were sickened by the comments some of
the members of Parliament have made about Americans -- or
about George W. Bush, in particular.
It's OK to disagree on some things -- there are some trade
issues that obviously Canadians and Americans need to work
through, but we don't need to be rude about it -- or
downright offensive about it. I don't think that's where
most Canadians are at.
Most Canadians have lots of friends that are Americans,
and most Canadians vacation in the United States, so I
think most Canadians have a sense for what America is
really all about, and appreciate that.
Q. But Canada has adopted gay marriage . . .
[...]
A. We're 10, maybe 15, years behind where the United
States is, in the sense where we're starting to develop the
expertise and the organizations that can help mobilize
Christians to make a difference. That will come.
We're planting the seeds today — we just need to be
patient and take the small victories when they come.
TO READ THE REST OF THIS INTERVIEW: Click here:
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039270.cfm#jump
TO LEARN MORE: Visit the Focus on the Family Canada Web
site.
http://www.fotf.ca
----- 9 -----
Maryland Judge Declares Marriage Protection Law Unconstitutional
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
January 20, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled today that
Maryland's law defining marriage as a union between one
man and one woman does not withstand constitutional
scrutiny, The Baltimore Sun reported.
Murdock ruled in favor of nine same-sex couples that filed
a lawsuit challenging a state law that made same-sex
marriage illegal.
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds
that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex
marriage cannot withstand constitutional challenge," she
wrote. "Although tradition and societal values are
important, they cannot be given so much weight that they
alone justify a discriminatory statutory classification."
Murdock chose to keep the ruling from taking effect,
pending any appeal.
Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty
Counsel, said the ruling is further proof of the need for
a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a
union between one man and one woman.
"It is outrageous for a judge to morph into a legislator,"
he said. "Marriage should not depend on the stroke of a
single judge's pen."
In her decision, Murdock also declared invalid the
assumption that a union that includes both a mother and a
father makes for a better environment to raise children.
"These assumptions are not rational speculation," she
said. "They are broad unsupported generalizations that do
not establish a rational relationship between same-sex
marriage and the state's interest in promoting
procreation, child-rearing and the best interest of
children."
Staver reacted with disbelief to such logic.
"It is even more incredible to conclude that there is no
conceivable basis to promote marriage between a man and a
woman," he said. "To conclude that there is no
relationship between male-female marriage and
child-rearing, or the best interest of children, shows a
lack of respect to the Legislature, to common sense and to
social science."
----- 10 -----
Maryland Judge Is Latest to Trash Marriage
Concerned Women for America
1/20/2006
By Robert Knight
Baltimore City Circuit Court agrees with ACLU, strikes down state law.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9953/CFI/family/index.htm
Echoing the logic used by four Massachusetts judges who created same-sex “marriage,” a Maryland state judge struck down Maryland’s marriage law today.
The order, by Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, states that Maryland’s “statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional challenge,” according to the Baltimore Sun.
“This is one more outrageous, illogical ruling by a judge with an agenda,” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's (CWA’s) Chief Counsel. “The law applies equally to two men or two women regardless of their so-called ‘sexual orientation.’ There is no discriminatory classification. It's bogus.”
The ruling came in a case in which nine homosexual couples, represented by the ACLU, filed suit in July 2004 challenging a 1973 law that defines marriage as being only the union of one man and one woman.
Murdock immediately stayed her own order pending an appeal from the state Attorney General’s office to Maryland’s Court of Appeals.
“This will give our marriage campaign a huge shot in the arm,” said Tres Kerns, executive director of Votemarriage.org, a group that is backing a state constitutional marriage amendment sponsored by Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) and Sen. Janet Greenip (R-Anne Arundel County).
The House of Delegates has slated a hearing on February 2 for a bill that would bring a constitutional amendment before the voters in November. House Democrats on Thursday changed procedural rules, making it more difficult to bring up a constitutional amendment in floor debate, The Washington Post reported.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
CWALAC Calls on Senate Commerce Committee to Act on Indecency Legislation Immediately
Concerned Women for America
1/18/2006
Long URL elided
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) calls on the Senate Commerce Committee to push final passage of Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-Michigan) Broadcast Indecency Act of 2005, which was easily passed in the House almost a year ago. The Committee will hold hearings Thursday to discuss this indecency legislation, which would enforce stricter broadcasting fines and regulations.
“Our membership is calling on the Senate to give final passage to Rep. Upton’s indecency bill as quickly as possible,” said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. “The Senate has no excuse to continue to stall this much-needed legislation. In passing strong indecency language, broadcasters will be forced to deal with the consequences of violating Federal Communications Commission regulations. Current fines, like those doled out to the masterminds behind Janet Jackson’s infamous wardrobe malfunction, were just a drop in the bucket for network magnates like CBS. Our hope is that in stiffening the fines, broadcasters will think twice before producing, promoting and airing blatantly offensive material.
“It’s high time senators listen to constituent voices and crack down on the garbage that comes through the airwaves by increasing the penalties for those who allow it onto our television sets in the first place.”
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 12 -----
What Were They Thinking? The Controversy Over The End of the Spear
albertmohler.com
Friday, January 20, 2006
Long URL elided
The controversy over the casting of actor Chad Allen in the lead role of the movie The End of the Spear continues to grow -- and rightfully so. The End of the Spear is a retelling of the story of the martyrdom of missionaries Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Roger Youderian, and Ed McCully by Waodani tribesmen in Ecuador in 1956 -- and many Christians have been eagerly awaiting the film's release.
This is one of the classic narratives of Christian missions. Eventually, the widows of these five missionaries led the majority of the Waodani to faith in Christ, ending decades of tribal killings. Steve Saint, the son of Nate Saint, maintains a ministry among the Waodani even now, after having been "adopted" by Mincaye, the very tribesman who killed his father.
The story of the five missionary martyrs and their families has been recounted in several books and films -- most famously Elisabeth Elliot's two books, Shadow of the Almighty and Through Gates of Splendor. Generations of young evangelicals have drawn courage and inspiration from these testimonies, and the larger story of the evangelization of the Waodani people.
This account is a precious stewardship, as are the lives of all involved. I had the honor of sharing dinner with Steve Saint and Mincaye a few years ago during a Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. Their testimony is one of the most powerful affirmations of the power of the Gospel I have ever heard. I was greatly moved by meeting with them and I had looked to the release of the film with great hope.
Thus, the release of The End of the Spear on January 20 has been met with much enthusiasm. The movie was produced by Every Tribe Entertainment and has been received well by critics. So, what is the controversy all about?
The actor chosen to play both Nate and Steve Saint in the movie is Chad Allen, an actor well known to American television viewers for his roles in St. Elsewhere, Our House, and Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. But Chad Allen is also known for something else -- his very public homosexual activism. As a matter of fact, he has been on the cover of The Advocate, the leading homosexual news magazine, at least three times. He also staged Terence McNally's play, Corpus Christi, which portrays Christ as a homosexual involved in a homoerotic dynamic with his disciples.
What were they thinking? Beyond this, Allen (whose real name is Chad Allen Lazzari) also speaks straightforwardly about his syncretistic faith, freely mixing elements of Christianity, Native American spirituality, Buddhism, etc. When I appeared with him on Larry King Live Tuesday night, I found him to be personally friendly and engaging, but I was not surprised to hear him speak of his own personal religion -- a religion that excludes God's commandments concerning sexuality. "I have a deep relationship with God of my understanding. It's very powerful, and it's taken its own shape and form. And I am very much at peace in the knowledge that in my heart God created this beautiful expression of my love," he told the CNN audience [see transcript].
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
January 20, 2006
Compiled by Jenni Parker
American Family Association
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/202006h.asp
[...]
...The president of the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) is confident that the traditional definition of marriage will be restored in his country after Canadians go to the polls on Monday. Dr. Charles McVety has been pleased with the Conservative surge in recent weeks, as party leader Stephen Harper has solidified a double-digit advantage over current Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. McVety says even many Liberals are opposed to Canada's legalization of homosexual "marriage" but last year "had an anti-marriage prime minister who stuck a knife to his friends and forced them to vote against marriage and for his redefinition of this great institution." But this time, the head of CFAC hopes Martin will not be in a position to force his Liberal cronies to vote against their consciences. If Harper becomes prime minister, McVety says he is confident that a free vote will take place and marriage will once again be defined as the union of a man and a woman in Canada. [Chad Groening]
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
IRD Exposes Pro-Homosexual Group's Plan to Invade White House Event
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
American Family Association
January 20, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/202006b.asp
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for a Protestant renewal organization warns that homosexual activists are planning to crash a traditional Easter event at the White House this year. Mark Tooley with the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) says the pro-homosexual religious group Soulforce and the Family Pride Coalition are teaming up in an effort to fill the White House lawn with as many "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families" as possible at the annual Easter Egg Roll on April 17.
Family Pride, an organization that states its purpose as seeking "equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) parents and their families," is jointly sponsoring the White House demonstration with Soulforce, which claims to advocate freedom for LGBT people from "religious and political oppression." According to a press statement, Family Pride took the lead in reaching out to its constituency by extending invitations to the White House Egg Roll to "LGBT families."
According to an internal Soulforce e-mail message that went out to group members, the high-profile event at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is "an amazing opportunity to reach homes in blue states and red states with positive images" of homosexual families. Tooley, director of IRD's United Methodist committee (UMAction), says this attempt to subvert a venerated White House tradition is very much in keeping with Soulforce's tactics.
[...]
Soulforce's new executive director, Jeff Lutes, noted in a recent statement that he and his same-sex partner are looking forward to "bringing our son to the White House lawn this Easter, resurrecting the national conversation about real people with real families." He added that they both hope "our President will welcome the full diversity of American families."
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Every vote counts!
Focus on the Family Canada
January 20, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/misc/012006.html
Canadians have an historic opportunity on Monday to set the nation’s course for possibly years to come – but only if they get out and vote for the candidate they want to be their Member of Parliament.
Every single vote can and does make a difference. In the 1972 federal election, for example, the initial results on election night appeared to give the Progressive Conservatives a plurality of 109 seats to the governing Liberals’ 107 seats. But the following day, once the final ballots were counted, two seats thought to have been won by the Progressive Conservatives were declared won by the Liberals. In other words, just a handful of votes had determined which party formed the next government.
Even looking back to last year reveals what a difference every vote in the House of Commons can make. One example occurred last May, when the Liberal minority government achieved a razor-thin victory in defeating a motion of non-confidence by the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois. After all the MPs present had voted, the result was a tie - 152 to 152 - which Speaker Peter Milliken broke by observing parliamentary tradition and voting with the government.
[...]
Take Action: Vote and convince other eligible voters to vote as well! To find out where you can cast your ballot, check out the Elections Canada website. Also, more information about the election and some of the issues to consider when making your choice can be found on our TFN website. Before you vote, be sure to learn as much as you can about each of the candidates in your riding – and pray for God’s wisdom in choosing the right candidate.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
THE NDP HAS TROUBLES
REAL Women of Canada
November-December 2005
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2005_nov_dec/article_2.html
3. Growing Conservative Religious Political Activism
The NDP is apparently being damaged by growing conservative religious political activism. Several Catholic NDP MPs received varying degrees of censure from their local churches for voting for the same-sex marriage legislation. As a result, NDP caucus members are trying to create some wiggle room for themselves by tabling a motion to create a Faith and Social Justice Caucus within the party to provide them with some cover when campaigning against what they refer to as our "right-wing brethren in the pews." They believe that the party must be made more inviting to religious "progressives" of all faiths, i.e. make room for a faith perspective within the party. As stated by NDP riding association president, Christopher Duncanson-Hines, for the Carlton-Mississippi Mills riding in Ontario, "Faith is becoming more important as an issue in public life, and I don't think we can ignore what's going on."
The faith motion is supported by MP Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie), who was relieved of all official duties in his local Catholic Church for backing the same-sex marriage bill. The motion for the "faith" caucus within the NDP was also supported by Catholic MP Charlie Angus (Timmins - James Bay) who was refused communion by his local parish priest for supporting the same-sex marriage bill. Deputy party leader Bill Blaikie, a United Church minister (Elmwood-Transcona, Manitoba), Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) and Quebecois party activist Pierre Ducasse also backed the motion to create the caucus. The motion to establish the "Faith" caucus will be debated at the NDP's next convention. The purpose of this proposed caucus, however, is not to re-open the party's debate around abortion, capital punishment, and same-sex marriage, etc., but rather to open up the social democratic spiritual floodgates to allow the party to expand its base and incorporate new immigrants with a religious background. MP Tony Martin is quoted as saying, "We ignore the growing conservative religious political activism at our peril!"
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Preventing Discrimination Has Become a Fig Leaf
Faith and Freedom Network
Friday, January 20, 2006
Long URL elided
Preventing discrimination has become the fig leaf to cover a naked political agenda. The political agenda is normalizing homosexual behavior by putting legal approval upon it. It is less a matter of discrimination than it is societal approval. The homosexuals have not shown a pattern of discrimination nor have they shown that they have suffered harm as a class of people. As a group, they are better educated and have a higher standard of living than the rest of society which is hardly the profile of an oppressed minority.
The tension arises from the fact that millions of Washingtonians view homosexual acts as immoral. In an open society we are willing to tolerate private behavior which we view as immoral but unwilling to enshrine it within the sanctuary of the law. Our attorneys tell us that by adding sexual orientation to the law we lose a key element in the “rational basis” test for restraining homosexual marriage. It really is a slimy slope.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Liberals Are Dismissing The Poll
Faith and Freedom Network
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Long URL elided
[...]
Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who announced his bid for re-election last Wednesday (the same day we released the poll) said that while he had not seen the poll, this would certainly not be the first lobbying effort aimed at the Supreme Court.
[...]
He also said that judges are voted out of their positions for personal problems, not single cases.
He and others may be underestimating the resolve of the Christian and conservative voters.
[More at URL]
"Partner's death ends happy life on ranch," or, "Take that, fags!" - state overturns will on technical issues, orders ranch sold with proceeds to go to cousins, who are suing the surviving partner for "back-rent" proclaimed due for the decades the two men were together;
Closing a feedback loop and/or creating our own very small echo chamber, I link to Nick Mamatas's very amusing deconstruction of one of the articles posted in the previous CWU;
Maryland judge rules their marriage law violates gender discrimination protections; stays decision pending Supreme Court appeal;
Boston University group on millennialist studies report on apocalyptic Islam;
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM for "Sanctity of Human Life Week";
FotF expects more anti-abortion law, more restrictions on abortion rights, in part thanks to a more sympathetic Supreme Court; Rick Santorum talks about the "Culture of Death";
FotF continues promoting Intelligent Design and Creationism, should be taught in biology classes, but the El Tejon School District erred in its approach and other creationists should be more careful;
Focus on the Family and Focus on the Family Canada: Election a chance to reverse course on liberal Canadian culture, reopen the debate on marriage rights for gay and lesbian citizens, with the intent of removing it;
Focus on the Family's coverage of the Maryland marriage ruling, demands Federal anti-marriage amendment, etc;
Concerned Women for America outrage at Maryland ruling; local fundamentalist leaders say it will give their anti-marriage amendment a boost;
CWA demand indecency legislation immediately, calls upon Senate Commerce Committee to move Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-Michigan) Broadcast Indecency Act of 2005 forward;
American Family Association links to albertmohler.com article railing against casting a gay actor in a film about Christians, even if the film is good; "What were they thinking?";
American Family Association quotes Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) president Dr. Charles McVety as saying the Tory government will end marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples;
AFA condemns Soulforce effort to enroll GBLT families in the White House annual egg roll event;
Focus on the Family Canada article on the importance of voting and how vital it is to get a Conservative government;
Real Women of Canada talk about "Growing Conservative Religious Political Activism" and NDP attempts to offset it;
Faith and Freedom Network calls civil rights protections for gayfolk a "slimy slope";
Faith and Freedom Network: Christian voters will oust Supreme Court justices who support marriage rights;
----- 1 -----
Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law
By Jessie Torrisi
Columbia News Service
December 31, 2005
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342
On the face of it, Sam Beaumont, 61, with his cowboy hat, deep-throated chuckle and Northwestern drawl, is not so different from the ranch hands in Ang Lee's critically acclaimed film "Brokeback Mountain," which opened in Indianapolis on Wednesday.
More "Romeo & Juliet" than "Rent," "Brokeback Mountain" challenges modern perceptions of what it means to be gay in rural America.
"Listen," the character Twist says to del Mar as part of a dream that goes unrealized. "I'm thinking, tell you what, if you and me had a little ranch together -- little cow and calf operation, your horses -- it'd be some sweet life."
That pretty much describes the life Beaumont had. He settled down with Earl Meadows and tended 50 head of cattle for a quarter-century on an Oklahoma ranch. "I was raised to be independent. I didn't really care what other people thought," Beaumont said.
[...]
But in 1999, Meadows had a stroke and Beaumont took care of him for a year until he died at age 56.
That's where the fantasy of a life together on the range collides with reality. After a quarter-century on the ranch he shared with his partner, Beaumont lost it all on a legal technicality in a state that doesn't recognize domestic partnerships.
Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature.
[...]
"They took the estate away from me," said Beaumont, who said he put about $200,000 of his own money into the ranch. "Everything that had Earl's name on it, they took. They took it all and didn't bat an eye."
[...]
But only seven states currently give gay couples protections -- such as inheritance rights and health benefits -- through marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. What's more, Oklahoma last year amended its state constitution to ensure that neither marriage nor any similar arrangement is extended to same-sex couples.
[...]
Last year, Beaumont moved to nearby Wewoka, Okla., to a one-bedroom place with 350 acres for his horses, white Pyrenees and Great Dane to roam. He said he was continuing to fight the cousins, who are suing for back rent for the years he lived on the ranch.
----- 2 -----
And in this issue of "Anyone can be a professor..."
Nick Mamatas
January 20, 2006
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/709317.html
solarbird does a daily "Culture War Update," which is a collection of funny-to-distressing URLs about various subjects that get the far right either into a tizzy or send them into action. Today I was struck by the claims of a source in this article, which is worth quoting at length:[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Md. court rules against same-sex marriage ban
Judge says state law 'cannot withstand constitutional challenge'
By Brian Witte
The Associated Press
Originally published January 20, 2006, 11:48 AM EST
Long URL elided
A Baltimore Circuit Court judge today struck down Maryland's
33-year-old law against same-sex marriage, ruling in favor of 19 gay
men and women who contended the prohibition violated the state's equal
rights amendments.
Anticipating that her decision eventually would be appealed to
Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, Judge M. Brooke
Murdock stayed action on her ruling pending that appeal.
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that
Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot
withstand this constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote in her
decision.
[more at URL]
----- 4 -----
Islam and Apocalyptic
Center for Millennial Studies
Boston University
http://www.bu.edu/mille/scholarship/papers/cookabs.html
There is power in apocalypse. Fundamentally, the belief in the imminent end of the world changes people, and gives them the strength of absolute conviction that God is on the side of the believer, a very definite goal, and the impetus to excel above and beyond one's ordinary abilities. All three of these components are present in a truly apocalyptic group, and serve to mold it together into a possibly (though not necessarily) destructive organism, to which the outside world is an enemy to be conquered and dominated. While all of the above is well known and obvious after studying any apocalyptic groups, the question before us is: Is Islam an apocalyptic faith, and if it is, then what are the ramifications for the outside world?
A grasp of history is crucial to the understanding of the modern apocalyptic Muslim, because of the living nature of this past for him. Therefore, our discussion must start at the dawn of Muslim history. Many theories have been proposed in order to explain the phenomenal Muslim conquest of the entire ancient world, from Tours in France to the borders of China in Central Asia, during the period of a century. Some scholars dismiss the idea that religious belief was a primary or even a secondary contributing factor in these conquests. Yet this prejudice is very damaging to our present-day understanding, if only because contemporary Muslims themselves believe that their absolute faith in Allah and the unifying nature of Islam were the most important reasons for their successes. Here, one must read between the lines and understand, that absolute faith and unity were not enough to embark on the jihad. There had to be a third component to this equation: the imperative to conquer the world before the expected Hour of Judgment. This is the component which will interest us here.
It is not so important for us to know what historically impelled this conquest as to understand how the modem Muslim feels about his history. This conquest, called the jihad, is closely connected in the sources to apocalyptic beliefs. In this regard a tradition should be quoted: "Behold! God sent me [the Prophet Muhammad] with a sword, just before the Hour [of Judgment], and placed my daily sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt upon those who oppose me." Muslims, according to this understanding, did not try to conquer the world for the sake of domination, but because God commanded them to, before the imminent end of the world. In Islam we have the first example of what an apocalyptic group can achieve when given a limited time limit to accomplish an impossible task: world conquest. They almost made it. Since the most revolutionary idea present in fundamentalist Islam is that modem Muslims are reenacting the situation of the Prophet Muhammad, during the seventh century, and that all of the rest of the world, including the so called Muslim countries, are infidel. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the feeling that an apocalyptic-jihad is necessary to correct things is very strong.
[Much more at URL]
----- 5 -----
Still Time to Take a Stand for the Sanctity of Human Life
Focus on the Family
Editor's Note
January 20, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
This is Sanctity of Human Life Week -- and you still have
an opportunity to take a public stand for the value and
dignity of all human life.
We've made it easy for you to do that -- in just a few
clicks of your computer's mouse. If you haven't yet, visit
the CitizenLink Action Center at the link below to send a
simple message to several of your state and federal
elected officials.
http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/issues/alert/?alertid=8379941&type=ML
We've even written the message for you: "During this
Sanctity of Human Life Week, I wanted you to know that I
believe all human life is sacred -- and that I intend to
cast my votes in the future only for men and women who
share that conviction."
Of course, if you'd like to create your own message, or
add to ours, you can edit what we've written.
Thank you for taking a stand for righteousness on this
important issue.
----- 6 -----
2006 MAY BRING ADVANCES IN PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION
March for Life supporters see a favorable shift in public opinion continuing.
Focus from the Family
Family News in Focus
January 20, 2006
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039269.cfm
Tens of thousands of people will gather on the Mall in
Washington, D.C., Monday to participate in the 33rd annual
March for Life. Experts say 2006 may be a bright year for
pro-life issues.
William Greene, president of Rightmarch.com, will take
part in the march. He said the possibility of more
pro-life justices on the Supreme Court and more
restrictions on abortion have him optimistic.
"I think we're also going to start seeing a lot more on
the state level in the state legislatures where you're
starting to see in a number or states that strong pro-life
legislation is not only being proposed, but it is being
passed," he told Family News in Focus.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Booted Origins Class Not a Good Test
from staff reports
SUMMARY: California decision to permanently drop a class
illustrates what is and is not legal.
Teaching the theory of Intelligent design (ID) in the
public school classroom may seem to have taken a hit with
a California school district cutting the subject from a
philosophy class, but ID proponents say the class in
question was not a good test case and was bound to lose.
[...]
"What happened was originally the El Tejon School District
had approved a course that was essentially going to teach
biblical creationism as a fact," he said. "And like it or
not, that has been declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court."
Luskin said the district could have shelved that course
and offered a constitutional version next semester, but
threats by a liberal activist group scared them off.
"The school district was actually bullied by Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State into a
settlement agreement where they agreed never to teach this
course ever again," he said.
[...]
Frank Sherwin of the Institute for Creation Research said
ID may be taught wherever evolution is taught.
"If you're going to put one in a philosophy class, put
both in the philosophy class," he said. "Otherwise they
both can be in a public school biology classroom."
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Q&A: The Canadian Election and Planting Pro-Family 'Seeds'
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
Family News in Focus
January 20, 2006
SUMMARY: Insight from Derek Rogusky of Focus on the Family
Canada.
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039270.cfm
Our "neighbor to the north" faces an important national
election Monday -- and the future of the country could
change dramatically.
Derek Rogusky, senior vice president of Focus on the
Family Canada, talked with CitizenLink about the
election's significance for pro-family Canadians.
Q. What's at stake in the election on Monday?
A. I think it's a real key election. People, finally, in
Canada have some real legitimate choices to make. We've
had such a patchwork of political parties over the last
while and now that they have come together, I think
there's an opportunity for Canadians to make some real key
choices of where we want to head as a country. We have
some real choices before us.
I think what it's going to really determine is what is
Canada's role in the world -- as to what types of values
are we going to promote. Are we going to stand up and have
a strong military? Are we going to stand up for
traditional values? Are we going to have a more
cooperative approach with our American friends? How are we
going to deal with crime and violence and drug issues in
our country? There are some real stark choices to make.
And for the first time, it's actually a contest, because
for the last 10 years or so, it's actually been one-party
rule -- because everyone seemed to know before the
election was called what the outcome was going to be.
Q. The news reports seem to indicate that the Conservative
Party could take control.
A. That's certainly what all the polls seem to be
indicating at this point. You can't count your chickens
before they're hatched, but it certainly looks as though
we're going to see a change in government.
Q. What would that mean?
A. Whenever you have a party that's in government for such
a long period of time, and really has become entrenched,
especially in the way that Canada's parliamentary system
works, you get this sense of arrogance and sense of
entitlement, and I think there's a real move to change the
fundamentals of government -- to try to remove some of the
incentives for corruption and scandal and entitlement. I
think that's going to be a real key, But the other is that
we're going to start to see more and more Canadians who
care about our traditional norms, our traditional
foundations, our institutions of society such as marriage
-- I think they're going to have a bigger say in how we're
governed.
For example, a Conservative Party is going to listen to
the 56 percent of Canadians who didn't want to change the
definition of marriage. So that's an issue that will
probably be reopened under a Conservative government that
wouldn't be opened under the existing Liberal government.
Q. I understand Prime Minister Paul Martin would not allow
his Liberal Party members of Parliament to vote their
consciences on the gay-marriage issue. Is that correct?
A. It was even worse that that. Actually, he wouldn't
allow members of his Cabinet -- the Cabinet is made up of
elected officials in Canada -- to vote their consciences
in Parliament. That is almost 40 members of a 308-member
House.
One Cabinet minister resigned his Cabinet post because he
felt so strongly about the issue. Unfortunately, there
were a number of other Cabinet ministers who decided to
keep their Cabinet positions -- and the perks and salaries
that went with it -- and they reneged on the promises they
made to their constituents to defend traditional marriage.
Q. But the Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, has
pledged to take a different approach?
A. He has. He would allow everyone in Parliament to take a
free vote. Whether they were Cabinet ministers or
backbenchers, they would all have a chance to vote their
conscience or the will of their constituents.
Q. Just how "liberal" is Canada, Derek? I'm not talking
about the Liberal Party of Canada -- or how much support
they have. I know that a big-"L" Liberal isn't the same
thing as what we in the United States think of as
"liberal" -- even though the prime minister and his party
have been very critical of the U.S. in recent months.
But Canada seems to have developed a reputation for being
small-"l" liberal, too, in terms of social policy. How
accurate is that reputation?
A. I don't think Canada is as "liberal" as many people
think it is. Unfortunately, you've got a government that
for whatever reason has felt that it needed to criticize
our American neighbors, but the reality is that two-thirds
to 70 percent of Canadians wanted to retain the definition
of marriage. On a lot of different issues, Canadians are
much more conservative than their judiciary -- or their
elected officials. I think we're going to start to see
momentum change towards that -- and the true opinions of
Canadians are going to start to come out.
A lot of Canadians were sickened by the comments some of
the members of Parliament have made about Americans -- or
about George W. Bush, in particular.
It's OK to disagree on some things -- there are some trade
issues that obviously Canadians and Americans need to work
through, but we don't need to be rude about it -- or
downright offensive about it. I don't think that's where
most Canadians are at.
Most Canadians have lots of friends that are Americans,
and most Canadians vacation in the United States, so I
think most Canadians have a sense for what America is
really all about, and appreciate that.
Q. But Canada has adopted gay marriage . . .
[...]
A. We're 10, maybe 15, years behind where the United
States is, in the sense where we're starting to develop the
expertise and the organizations that can help mobilize
Christians to make a difference. That will come.
We're planting the seeds today — we just need to be
patient and take the small victories when they come.
TO READ THE REST OF THIS INTERVIEW: Click here:
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039270.cfm#jump
TO LEARN MORE: Visit the Focus on the Family Canada Web
site.
http://www.fotf.ca
----- 9 -----
Maryland Judge Declares Marriage Protection Law Unconstitutional
Focus on the Family
Newsbriefs
January 20, 2006
[Received in email; no URL]
Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled today that
Maryland's law defining marriage as a union between one
man and one woman does not withstand constitutional
scrutiny, The Baltimore Sun reported.
Murdock ruled in favor of nine same-sex couples that filed
a lawsuit challenging a state law that made same-sex
marriage illegal.
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds
that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex
marriage cannot withstand constitutional challenge," she
wrote. "Although tradition and societal values are
important, they cannot be given so much weight that they
alone justify a discriminatory statutory classification."
Murdock chose to keep the ruling from taking effect,
pending any appeal.
Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty
Counsel, said the ruling is further proof of the need for
a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a
union between one man and one woman.
"It is outrageous for a judge to morph into a legislator,"
he said. "Marriage should not depend on the stroke of a
single judge's pen."
In her decision, Murdock also declared invalid the
assumption that a union that includes both a mother and a
father makes for a better environment to raise children.
"These assumptions are not rational speculation," she
said. "They are broad unsupported generalizations that do
not establish a rational relationship between same-sex
marriage and the state's interest in promoting
procreation, child-rearing and the best interest of
children."
Staver reacted with disbelief to such logic.
"It is even more incredible to conclude that there is no
conceivable basis to promote marriage between a man and a
woman," he said. "To conclude that there is no
relationship between male-female marriage and
child-rearing, or the best interest of children, shows a
lack of respect to the Legislature, to common sense and to
social science."
----- 10 -----
Maryland Judge Is Latest to Trash Marriage
Concerned Women for America
1/20/2006
By Robert Knight
Baltimore City Circuit Court agrees with ACLU, strikes down state law.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9953/CFI/family/index.htm
Echoing the logic used by four Massachusetts judges who created same-sex “marriage,” a Maryland state judge struck down Maryland’s marriage law today.
The order, by Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, states that Maryland’s “statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional challenge,” according to the Baltimore Sun.
“This is one more outrageous, illogical ruling by a judge with an agenda,” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's (CWA’s) Chief Counsel. “The law applies equally to two men or two women regardless of their so-called ‘sexual orientation.’ There is no discriminatory classification. It's bogus.”
The ruling came in a case in which nine homosexual couples, represented by the ACLU, filed suit in July 2004 challenging a 1973 law that defines marriage as being only the union of one man and one woman.
Murdock immediately stayed her own order pending an appeal from the state Attorney General’s office to Maryland’s Court of Appeals.
“This will give our marriage campaign a huge shot in the arm,” said Tres Kerns, executive director of Votemarriage.org, a group that is backing a state constitutional marriage amendment sponsored by Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) and Sen. Janet Greenip (R-Anne Arundel County).
The House of Delegates has slated a hearing on February 2 for a bill that would bring a constitutional amendment before the voters in November. House Democrats on Thursday changed procedural rules, making it more difficult to bring up a constitutional amendment in floor debate, The Washington Post reported.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
CWALAC Calls on Senate Commerce Committee to Act on Indecency Legislation Immediately
Concerned Women for America
1/18/2006
Long URL elided
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) calls on the Senate Commerce Committee to push final passage of Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-Michigan) Broadcast Indecency Act of 2005, which was easily passed in the House almost a year ago. The Committee will hold hearings Thursday to discuss this indecency legislation, which would enforce stricter broadcasting fines and regulations.
“Our membership is calling on the Senate to give final passage to Rep. Upton’s indecency bill as quickly as possible,” said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. “The Senate has no excuse to continue to stall this much-needed legislation. In passing strong indecency language, broadcasters will be forced to deal with the consequences of violating Federal Communications Commission regulations. Current fines, like those doled out to the masterminds behind Janet Jackson’s infamous wardrobe malfunction, were just a drop in the bucket for network magnates like CBS. Our hope is that in stiffening the fines, broadcasters will think twice before producing, promoting and airing blatantly offensive material.
“It’s high time senators listen to constituent voices and crack down on the garbage that comes through the airwaves by increasing the penalties for those who allow it onto our television sets in the first place.”
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 12 -----
What Were They Thinking? The Controversy Over The End of the Spear
albertmohler.com
Friday, January 20, 2006
Long URL elided
The controversy over the casting of actor Chad Allen in the lead role of the movie The End of the Spear continues to grow -- and rightfully so. The End of the Spear is a retelling of the story of the martyrdom of missionaries Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Roger Youderian, and Ed McCully by Waodani tribesmen in Ecuador in 1956 -- and many Christians have been eagerly awaiting the film's release.
This is one of the classic narratives of Christian missions. Eventually, the widows of these five missionaries led the majority of the Waodani to faith in Christ, ending decades of tribal killings. Steve Saint, the son of Nate Saint, maintains a ministry among the Waodani even now, after having been "adopted" by Mincaye, the very tribesman who killed his father.
The story of the five missionary martyrs and their families has been recounted in several books and films -- most famously Elisabeth Elliot's two books, Shadow of the Almighty and Through Gates of Splendor. Generations of young evangelicals have drawn courage and inspiration from these testimonies, and the larger story of the evangelization of the Waodani people.
This account is a precious stewardship, as are the lives of all involved. I had the honor of sharing dinner with Steve Saint and Mincaye a few years ago during a Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. Their testimony is one of the most powerful affirmations of the power of the Gospel I have ever heard. I was greatly moved by meeting with them and I had looked to the release of the film with great hope.
Thus, the release of The End of the Spear on January 20 has been met with much enthusiasm. The movie was produced by Every Tribe Entertainment and has been received well by critics. So, what is the controversy all about?
The actor chosen to play both Nate and Steve Saint in the movie is Chad Allen, an actor well known to American television viewers for his roles in St. Elsewhere, Our House, and Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. But Chad Allen is also known for something else -- his very public homosexual activism. As a matter of fact, he has been on the cover of The Advocate, the leading homosexual news magazine, at least three times. He also staged Terence McNally's play, Corpus Christi, which portrays Christ as a homosexual involved in a homoerotic dynamic with his disciples.
What were they thinking? Beyond this, Allen (whose real name is Chad Allen Lazzari) also speaks straightforwardly about his syncretistic faith, freely mixing elements of Christianity, Native American spirituality, Buddhism, etc. When I appeared with him on Larry King Live Tuesday night, I found him to be personally friendly and engaging, but I was not surprised to hear him speak of his own personal religion -- a religion that excludes God's commandments concerning sexuality. "I have a deep relationship with God of my understanding. It's very powerful, and it's taken its own shape and form. And I am very much at peace in the knowledge that in my heart God created this beautiful expression of my love," he told the CNN audience [see transcript].
[More at URL]
----- 13 -----
Commentary & News Briefs
January 20, 2006
Compiled by Jenni Parker
American Family Association
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/202006h.asp
[...]
...The president of the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) is confident that the traditional definition of marriage will be restored in his country after Canadians go to the polls on Monday. Dr. Charles McVety has been pleased with the Conservative surge in recent weeks, as party leader Stephen Harper has solidified a double-digit advantage over current Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. McVety says even many Liberals are opposed to Canada's legalization of homosexual "marriage" but last year "had an anti-marriage prime minister who stuck a knife to his friends and forced them to vote against marriage and for his redefinition of this great institution." But this time, the head of CFAC hopes Martin will not be in a position to force his Liberal cronies to vote against their consciences. If Harper becomes prime minister, McVety says he is confident that a free vote will take place and marriage will once again be defined as the union of a man and a woman in Canada. [Chad Groening]
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
IRD Exposes Pro-Homosexual Group's Plan to Invade White House Event
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
American Family Association
January 20, 2006
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/202006b.asp
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for a Protestant renewal organization warns that homosexual activists are planning to crash a traditional Easter event at the White House this year. Mark Tooley with the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) says the pro-homosexual religious group Soulforce and the Family Pride Coalition are teaming up in an effort to fill the White House lawn with as many "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families" as possible at the annual Easter Egg Roll on April 17.
Family Pride, an organization that states its purpose as seeking "equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) parents and their families," is jointly sponsoring the White House demonstration with Soulforce, which claims to advocate freedom for LGBT people from "religious and political oppression." According to a press statement, Family Pride took the lead in reaching out to its constituency by extending invitations to the White House Egg Roll to "LGBT families."
According to an internal Soulforce e-mail message that went out to group members, the high-profile event at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is "an amazing opportunity to reach homes in blue states and red states with positive images" of homosexual families. Tooley, director of IRD's United Methodist committee (UMAction), says this attempt to subvert a venerated White House tradition is very much in keeping with Soulforce's tactics.
[...]
Soulforce's new executive director, Jeff Lutes, noted in a recent statement that he and his same-sex partner are looking forward to "bringing our son to the White House lawn this Easter, resurrecting the national conversation about real people with real families." He added that they both hope "our President will welcome the full diversity of American families."
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
Every vote counts!
Focus on the Family Canada
January 20, 2006
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/misc/012006.html
Canadians have an historic opportunity on Monday to set the nation’s course for possibly years to come – but only if they get out and vote for the candidate they want to be their Member of Parliament.
Every single vote can and does make a difference. In the 1972 federal election, for example, the initial results on election night appeared to give the Progressive Conservatives a plurality of 109 seats to the governing Liberals’ 107 seats. But the following day, once the final ballots were counted, two seats thought to have been won by the Progressive Conservatives were declared won by the Liberals. In other words, just a handful of votes had determined which party formed the next government.
Even looking back to last year reveals what a difference every vote in the House of Commons can make. One example occurred last May, when the Liberal minority government achieved a razor-thin victory in defeating a motion of non-confidence by the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois. After all the MPs present had voted, the result was a tie - 152 to 152 - which Speaker Peter Milliken broke by observing parliamentary tradition and voting with the government.
[...]
Take Action: Vote and convince other eligible voters to vote as well! To find out where you can cast your ballot, check out the Elections Canada website. Also, more information about the election and some of the issues to consider when making your choice can be found on our TFN website. Before you vote, be sure to learn as much as you can about each of the candidates in your riding – and pray for God’s wisdom in choosing the right candidate.
[More at URL]
----- 16 -----
THE NDP HAS TROUBLES
REAL Women of Canada
November-December 2005
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2005_nov_dec/article_2.html
3. Growing Conservative Religious Political Activism
The NDP is apparently being damaged by growing conservative religious political activism. Several Catholic NDP MPs received varying degrees of censure from their local churches for voting for the same-sex marriage legislation. As a result, NDP caucus members are trying to create some wiggle room for themselves by tabling a motion to create a Faith and Social Justice Caucus within the party to provide them with some cover when campaigning against what they refer to as our "right-wing brethren in the pews." They believe that the party must be made more inviting to religious "progressives" of all faiths, i.e. make room for a faith perspective within the party. As stated by NDP riding association president, Christopher Duncanson-Hines, for the Carlton-Mississippi Mills riding in Ontario, "Faith is becoming more important as an issue in public life, and I don't think we can ignore what's going on."
The faith motion is supported by MP Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie), who was relieved of all official duties in his local Catholic Church for backing the same-sex marriage bill. The motion for the "faith" caucus within the NDP was also supported by Catholic MP Charlie Angus (Timmins - James Bay) who was refused communion by his local parish priest for supporting the same-sex marriage bill. Deputy party leader Bill Blaikie, a United Church minister (Elmwood-Transcona, Manitoba), Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) and Quebecois party activist Pierre Ducasse also backed the motion to create the caucus. The motion to establish the "Faith" caucus will be debated at the NDP's next convention. The purpose of this proposed caucus, however, is not to re-open the party's debate around abortion, capital punishment, and same-sex marriage, etc., but rather to open up the social democratic spiritual floodgates to allow the party to expand its base and incorporate new immigrants with a religious background. MP Tony Martin is quoted as saying, "We ignore the growing conservative religious political activism at our peril!"
[More at URL]
----- 17 -----
Preventing Discrimination Has Become a Fig Leaf
Faith and Freedom Network
Friday, January 20, 2006
Long URL elided
Preventing discrimination has become the fig leaf to cover a naked political agenda. The political agenda is normalizing homosexual behavior by putting legal approval upon it. It is less a matter of discrimination than it is societal approval. The homosexuals have not shown a pattern of discrimination nor have they shown that they have suffered harm as a class of people. As a group, they are better educated and have a higher standard of living than the rest of society which is hardly the profile of an oppressed minority.
The tension arises from the fact that millions of Washingtonians view homosexual acts as immoral. In an open society we are willing to tolerate private behavior which we view as immoral but unwilling to enshrine it within the sanctuary of the law. Our attorneys tell us that by adding sexual orientation to the law we lose a key element in the “rational basis” test for restraining homosexual marriage. It really is a slimy slope.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
Liberals Are Dismissing The Poll
Faith and Freedom Network
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Long URL elided
[...]
Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who announced his bid for re-election last Wednesday (the same day we released the poll) said that while he had not seen the poll, this would certainly not be the first lobbying effort aimed at the Supreme Court.
[...]
He also said that judges are voted out of their positions for personal problems, not single cases.
He and others may be underestimating the resolve of the Christian and conservative voters.
[More at URL]
