Calif. Marriage Defenders Bypass Protest, Work for Votes

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jul. 08 2008 05:31 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES – Up to 175,000 people took part in Los Angeles’ annual gay pride parade in West Hollywood Sunday, capping three days of flamboyant celebration.

Among those honored at this year’s event were Robin Tyler and Troy Perry, two plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to last month's hotly contested Supreme Court ruling which made California the second state in the nation to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

As expected, only a few protestors were present throughout the parade, which has been held in Los Angeles every year since 1970, except for 1973, when infighting over crude displays the previous two years left the organizers in disarray. Pro-family advocates have been mindful of the liberal bias of most secular news agencies and their tendency to demonize those with conservative or biblical views.

"The major media would love to see us engage in fierce protests and hostile demonstrations of outrage against the licensing of same-sex 'marriages,'" Ronald Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, told The Associated Press in an interview last month.

He pointed out, however, that the "battle is not against the same-sex couples who are pursuing the opportunity to `marry' granted them by the activist judges on the California Supreme Court."

Instead of platforms such as the L.A. Gay Pride Parade, pro-family advocates are taking their message to where it matters most – conservative California voters.

Throughout California, efforts are being made to help amplify the concerns of more than half of Californians who reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex “marriages” and back the proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

According to a recent Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll, 29 percent of Californians surveyed strongly approved the Supreme Court’s decision while 12 percent somewhat approved. On the other side, 42 percent of Californians surveyed strongly disapproved of the decision while 10 percent somewhat disapproved.

And pastors and their churches are playing a very significant role in rallying Californians to make a difference in November.

“[T]he Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God’s creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended,” bishops of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles had expressed in a statement last month.

“The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition,” they said. “Its meaning is given, not constructed.

“‘When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened,’” the bishops stated, citing a 2003 document on marriage and same-sex unions issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

While some religious leaders, particularly Catholics, were involved in passing Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, strategists predicted a much greater involvement by evangelical churches in this election.

"We are working with all the churches who are willing to work with us," Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for the initiative, told the L.A. Times last month. "It's woven together to form what we hope will be the largest grassroots campaign in California history."

According to the Times, political analyst Tony Quinn said the involvement of the pastors could be significant, especially because many conservatives are relatively disengaged by the election this year.

"This ... could bring people to the polls that would not otherwise vote. The churches can do that," he said.

Conservative leaders are hoping for a massive Christian outpouring of support for the proposed amendment – one that will dwarf the crowds that took to the streets of West Hollywood over the weekend.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Bishop Calls for Christians to Regain their Nerve

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Maria Mackay
Christian Post Correspondent
Wed, Jun. 25 2008 08:55 AM EDT

At a time when Christian witness should be at its strongest, there is reluctance even among Christians to speak about faith in Jesus, the Bishop of Rochester said at a major summit of conservative Anglicans.

Speaking at a press conference at the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali urged Christians to speak up about their faith and remain committed to mission among those who have still not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

“Let us pray we are able to recover the Christian nerve in the West and to make sure the Gospel is not lost,” he said.

Nazir-Ali added that it was the right of Christians to be able to witness to people of all faiths and none, including Muslims.

“Just as Muslims have a right to invite others to join Islam, Christians have a right to invite others to Jesus,” he said.

Earlier in the day, the conservative bishop said that “the future of the Anglican Communion is to be found in its authentic nature, not in recent innovations or explanations.”

Scripture, the bishop continued, has to remain the authority that underpins any church. “The Bible is the norm by which we appreciate what is authentically apostolic. That is the reason for the Bible being the ultimate and final authority for us in our faith and our lives and this is the reason why Anglicans have taken our study of the Bible so seriously,” he said.

He further urged Anglicans to be clear in their confession. “Some people have the mistaken idea that Anglicans can believe anything, or that Anglicans can believe nothing. I don’t know which one is more serious.”

GAFCON takes place just weeks before Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade gathering of bishops from across the Anglican Communion, in July.

Nazir-Ali, among other conservatives, will not be attending the Lambeth meeting. He said his decision “has to do with being in Eucharistic fellowship with and teaching the common faith alongside those who have ordained a person to be bishop whose style is contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Bible and of the Church down the ages.”

Controversy in the global Communion was heightened when the U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated the openly gay V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire and the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada blessed same-sex unions in 2003.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

IRS Clears Pastor After Huckabee Endorsement

OneNewsNow reports that a California pastor has been cleared by the IRS after endorsing Mike Huckabee last year.

Since the endorsement came in the form of a letter from the pastor (and not directly from the pulpit) and on his radio show, the IRS ruled that it was a "personal endorsement."

"We're going to keep on fighting," says Drake. "We're going to keep on doing what we've been doing -- we're going to keep on preaching against sin, we're going to keep on preaching against bad politicians. And if the IRS doesn't like that, that's too bad," he states.

That's the kind of spirit we need from America's churches. And hopefully we'll see a lot more of that on Pulpit Freedom Sunday this September 28.

Evangelical Manifesto Signers List Was Not Accurate

The Evangelical Manifesto released a week or so ago has generated several denunciations, including my own.

Briefly, while the document seemed innocuous enough on the surface, it's implications and logical end really cannot amount to anything other than a call for the surrender of commitment to Biblical values and a Christian retreat from the public square.

When I read the list of signers and wrote about it, I noted that there were at least a few names I was surprised to see on the list:

While I know that some of the people involved with this manifesto are liberals, I know that at least a couple of the signers are solidly loyal to the Bible, so I don't think it can be said that supporters (at least not all of them) just want to undermine Christian values in the public square.

A handful of the people listed as signers were people I knew weren't compromisers of Biblical truth and weren't the kind to shrink from engaging the culture, so I was a little puzzled to see them there.

Today OneNewsNow reports that one of those names I was surprised by, Dr. Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, actually didn't endorse the manifesto.

Dave Eppling, Caner's chief of staff, says Dr. Caner was consulted about the document but never gave an endorsement.

"How [the endorsement] it occurred, we really don't know," Eppling admits. "At best case, it was an oversight on the folks who drafted the Manifesto; at worst case they were trying to get his name to garner attention to the Manifesto -- and scripture warns us about attributing motive, so I cannot say one way or the other. But Dr. Caner is very, very disappointed that his name was attached to this."

Dr. Caner spoke at my church a couple of years ago. I was impressed by his Biblical scholarship and passion for the faith. As a former Muslim and convert to Christianity, he has an extraordinary insight on different worldviews, and the battle for truth over error in the public square.

Dr. Caner has issued a clear statement on the Seminary website stating his disagreement with many of the positions of the manifesto.

Here are a few excerpts:

Further, reading the document sounds like an extended apology, and I do not apologize for the stance we have taken for decades: evangelicals are unapologetically and unabashedly pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-prayer. We believe that Christianity has been pushed out of the public square, and I do not believe such a “manifesto” will accomplish the aim of bringing prayer back in schools or rescuing the unborn.

We are not “owned” by any political party, but we will stand with and for candidates that are for our values, and against those values that we see as unbiblical, such as homosexuality and abortion.

Popularity is not the goal of an evangelical; Converted souls in heaven are the ultimate goal. You do not change a culture by surrender.

Dr. Caner asks this of the authors of the manifesto:

I shall continue to stand in the public square, without apology. I ask that my name be STRICKEN from the charter list of the Evangelical Manifesto. This is NOT a movement with which I am comfortable.

I checked the signers page again today and found that they had removed his name.

I didn't catch Jerry Falwell's name on the signers list the first time I read it a couple of weeks ago, but the OneNewsNow article says he was originally listed as a signer, but his name is now gone, too.

There are still a couple of names on the signers page that surprise me somewhat, but who knows: maybe we'll see those names disappear, too.

A Manifesto to Clarify or to Quell?

This Evangelical Manifesto first came on my radar last week and has quickly garnered a fair share of media attention this week.

According to the Washington Times article today

A panel of 77 evangelical Christians issued a "manifesto" at the National Press Club yesterday ostensibly to clarify "the confusions and corruptions surrounding the term 'evangelical' "

The article also says evangelicals make up about 26% of the U.S. population.

Probably the best definition of "evangelical" you'll find in a modern dictionary for the modern usage of the term is this: "emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual."

In political discussions of recent years, the term has almost become synonymous with "conservative Christian" or "fundamental Christian."

While some who fit the dictionary definition of evangelical may bristle at this association, the reality is that most evangelicals do hold a conservative ideology. It may be unhappiness at being identified with "conservatives" that has spurred some to come up with this manifesto.

An interesting thing about this "evangelical manifesto" is that a number of noteworthy evangelicals haven't signed it.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council isn't on there. In fact, according to the Washington Times article, he says:

"Theirs is an ivory tower perspective," said Mr. Perkins, who was not asked to sign. "It's an age-old problem with people who are concerned with being spoken well of. They want to rid the world of evil but they don't want to get their hands dirty. It's not true that you can't preach the Gospel and be engaged in taking on the culture."

Christian pollster George Barna isn't on it. Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, wasn't asked to sign it. Janice Crouse, director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America, says there are contradictions in the document. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family said he has "myriad concerns." Also missing are Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, American Values president Gary Bauer, Rick Scarborough of Vision America, Phil Burress of Citizens For Community Values, Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright, and Janet Folger of Faith2Action.

I read the manifesto and found little to disagree with...on the surface.

On the surface, the manifesto calls for what one might call a balanced approach to the Christian faith. It says Christians shouldn't be about "single-issue politics."

Interpreting this from recent political discussions, this is almost certainly a criticism of the attention given by conservative Christians to the issues of abortion and the homosexual agenda.

First of all, a great degree of attention to these issues is not inordinate. Since human life is created in the image of God, and we are commanded by God to "be fruitful and multiply," the taking of innocent human life in the womb demands our utmost attention.

And since God laid out his design for human sexuality at the same time he created human beings, the blatant and public misuse of human sexuality (i.e. homosexual behavior) and the attempted counterfeiting of marriage (homosexual "marriage") also demands a high level of attention.

Even if these issues were not critical and foundational to the life and health of our society, it is unfair to infer that conservative Christians are only concerned about these issues. Most conservative Christians I know are also concerned about freedom, crime, justice, protection of the innocent, national defense, the poor, and the role of government in our society, to name a few.

Another area which might sound harmless at first glance is in the area of science and intellect. The manifesto says that some evangelicals have

fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith.

None of us wants to champion ignorance and stupidity, do we? None of us wants to stand in the way of scientific advances that will improve our world and make our lives better, do we? So this must mean something else.

I can't mistake this as anything other than criticism of the belief that the Bible actually means what it says when God created the earth, and all life on it as we see it today.

That is not anti-intellectualism, but is instead anti-evolutionism or anti-naturalism, or simply belief that God meant what He said. There is nothing anti-intellectual or unscientific about that. Many of the great scientists including Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo were all creationists. God created the universe to operate according to scientific principles; how can one believe in God and His creative work and be anti-science? Creation scientists want to understand how God engineered the universe, even as evolutionists want to understand a universe they believe came about through random chance.

Evolution, naturalism and materialism are not science, but philosophies or interpretations of science. Creation scientists study the same science that evolutionists do; they simply approach the science from a different worldview. The drafters of the manifesto seem to have fallen for the evolutionist lie that naturalism=science and materialism=science.

Conservative Christians are also not anti-intellectual from the educational or philosophical perspective, either. People cut from the same philosophical cloth as today's conservative Christians founded the great Ivy League colleges like Harvard and Yale, and have today founded exceptional institutes of learning like Patrick Henry College.

Further, most conservative Christians I know greatly appreciate the thinking of great minds like that of C.S. Lewis. Lewis was anything but anti-intellectual, as evidenced by books such as The Abolition of Man and Mere Christianity.

One area in which conservative Christians do differ from the liberal worldview is that they do not believe that man's understanding or wisdom is infinite or even potentially infallible. Nor do they believe that human beings can be "educated" into moral excellence.

In short, it seems obvious that the manifesto has adopted the pop-culture contention that Biblical Christianity=superstition, ignorance and myth.

The manifesto also warns of a "politicization" of the faith and calls for "neither privatized nor politicized" Christianity.

Again, on the surface, that sounds fairly reasonable. After all Christ didn't come to set up a political or governmental kingdom here on earth...at least not at the present time. And Christianity shouldn't become married to a government or a political party or even a particular political movement.

Such sentiments are in complete agreement with the originally intended "separation of church and state" America was supposed to (and did for nearly 200 years) operate under. Not a separation of values and government but the prohibition of an official state religion or a theocracy.

But in a free and democratic society, do Christians and does Christianity have a right, role and responsibility to advocate Christian values? This is where I think the manifesto jumps on the wrong boat.

The manifesto attempts to encapsulate the politicization problem thusly:

Christians, especially in modern society, have been pulled toward two extremes. Those more liberal have tended so to accommodate the world that they reflect the thinking and lifestyles of the day, to the point where they are unfaithful to Christ; whereas those more conservative have tended so to defy the world that they resist it in ways that also become unfaithful to Christ.

While this description adequately describes the liberal mindset, the description of the conservative mindset implies an unfair tone of belligerence.

It is true that conservative Christians "defy" the anti-God secular mentality. But would the signers of the manifesto have the "salt and light" of the world be unsavory and dim? It is precisely because Christians were silent and disengaged that American culture has abandoned Christian values in the last 50 years.

The manifesto continues to unfairly characterize the conservative or fundamental position, claiming we wrongly "romanticize the past, some now-lost moment in time, and to radicalize the present."

While we recognize the past was not perfect, it is incontrovertible fact that the moral fiber of America is at an all-time low. And since our current culture lauds the killing of children and sexual license--to the point of trying to call two men having sex "marriage"--on a scale not seen since the decline of the Roman Empire, it's more than fair to say that modern culture is pretty radical.

Do evangelicals sometimes respond too forcefully, even with anger, to the incursions of evil upon our society? Yes, we do, and yes, I have. Some anger is appropriate in the presence of evil and not sinful, but still we sometimes cross the line. We should always strive to be Christ-like, respond appropriately, and "in our anger, do not sin."

But imagine what our world might look like if "fundamental Christians" had abandoned the public square for the last 200 years:

- There would have been no end to the brutal oppression and world conquest of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan, the chief American force behind the demise of the Soviet Union, would have kept his ideas about an "evil empire" and his Bible-based beliefs about freedom and the dignity of man to himself. He would not have "politicized" his faith to oppose a foreign government.

- There would have been no end to segregation and extension of full civil rights to all Americans. Martin Luther King's belief that we are all God's children would have made any civil rights legislation invalid and illegitimate, since it sprang from a religious belief. The teaching of the Bible that race or nationality is irrelevant to God should have been kept in the church where it belonged; to take such beliefs into the streets or into the legislative chamber would have been a "politicization of the faith" and made civil rights advocates "useful idiots" of a political movement.

- There would have been no abolition of slavery. Slavery was, after all, the law of the land. So what if the recognition "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" sprang from the Biblical teachings that men are created in God's image, and that we are all His children, all equal in His sight? Fundamentalist Christians shouldn't have tried to impose their morality or their religion on others. Fundamentalist Christians shouldn't have pressed for laws based on religious beliefs. That would have "politicized the faith."

- There would have been no American Revolution. Our Christian founders would have kept quiet as King George oppressed the colonists, violated their rights and continued his "abuses and usurpations." To join with any other colonists who wanted to change this state would have "politicized the faith" and made them "useful idiots" of rebellion.

While I know that some of the people involved with this manifesto are liberals, I know that at least a couple of the signers are solidly loyal to the Bible, so I don't think it can be said that supporters (at least not all of them) just want to undermine Christian values in the public square.

But at the same time, with no disrespect intended, I have to conclude that some of the signers have allowed themselves to become what the manifesto itself warned of on page 15: useful idiots, or naive tools.

They have allowed themselves to become tools of a liberal political effort to sanitize the public square of Christian values, Christian influence, and Christian voices...leaving them free to pursue their humanist goals of moral license and loyalty to state.

If followed, this manifesto, while innocuous enough on the surface, can only have one result: a diminished Christian influence on our culture, a dilution of the salt and dimming of the light Christians are called to be in the world. And the world needs the salt and light of the truth now more than ever.

While we are called to love, we are called to tell the truth. Jesus himself did no less. He loved those who were hurting, but he told the unadulterated truth, especially to those who sought to undermine the truth.

If those behind the manifesto think that a surrender in the culture war will purchase peace with the forces of evil, they are woefully mistaken. While their silence might buy the illusion of peace for a short time, it will only last until the barbarians have time to reach the gates. It won't even win any converts, outside of a few pretenders who enjoy the comforts of religiosity without the demands of holiness.

Christ never said we could or should expect to be liked. Jesus told us, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." And "Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." And "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

Christianity isn't a popularity contest, and it isn't for the timid.

Christians shouldn't favor politics over their first priorities to worship God and bring the truth to the lost. But neither should they adopt a bunker mentality (the same bunker mentality already held by some for years) and surrender the culture to evil. Just as the Body of Christ has many parts and functions, we can work both inside the church and outside the church.

The world won't be saved by American power or prestige. People won't be saved by the Republican Party, and they won't reach the kingdom of Heaven by conservative ideology.

But they will be saved if they embrace the Gospel. The Gospel, or "good news," begins with some bad news: humans are fallen, sinful creatures living in a self-destructive manner on the road to Hell, and only Jesus Christ can save them. The good news is that Christ loved humans enough to die for us, and wants to redeem us from the pit of hell.

But we can't hang onto sin and grab onto Christ at the same time. Liberal Christian "doctrine" sells the hope that you can, but in the end it won't get you one inch closer to heaven. As Christ said, you can't serve two masters--you'll love one and hate the other. You have to surrender your desire to sin and accept Christ.

It so happens that's what fundamental Christianity teaches, in the church and in the public square. And it's what the Bible teaches.

Is the Evangelical Manifesto an evil document? No. Does it counsel or condone evil? No.

But after reading it, I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that it would sap the power of Christ's truth claims from our culture, leaving us all to live in a much darker place...and a growing number of people without hope.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes - Romans 1:16

Priests for Life Mourns Passing of Cardinal Lopez-Trujillo

ROME, April 20 /Christian Newswire/ -- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, expressed the sadness of the entire Priests for Life organization at the death yesterday of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez-Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

"Cardinal Lopez-Trujillo was one of the Church's strongest advocates for the dignity of the human person and the family, and both his friends and his enemies knew it. He knew and often said that the Church's pro-life stance was not just a teaching, but a battle, and he willingly undertook the sacrifices of that battle in his own life," Fr. Pavone said.

Among the many ways the Cardinal encouraged the Church's pro-life efforts, he was a key member of the Priests for Life Board of Bishops from the beginning of its existence. He asked Fr. Frank Pavone to work at the Vatican for several years. Fr. Pavone explained, "In the course of my day to day work with the Cardinal, he gave me the opportunity to share the vision of Priests for Life with bishops from around the world, and personally encouraged them to adopt our work. In every meeting I had with the Cardinal, he was thinking of new ways to advance the Culture of Life. He felt very keenly the lack of sufficient time to develop and implement the ideas that flowed from his enthusiasm and creativity. Now's the time for all of us to pick up where he left off."

Priests for Life is the largest organization devoted exclusively to ending abortion and euthanasia. It is international and consists of both clergy and laity.

Wilberforce Documentary to Air on PBS in February

Show about British parliamentarian airs nationwide in time for Black History Month

NEW YORK, Jan. 30 /Standard Newswire/ -- In time for Black History Month, an inspiring, new one-hour television documentary, " THE BETTER HOUR: The Legacy of William Wilberforce," will appear nationwide on public television beginning in February, 2008. The film was produced to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the 1807 abolition of British and American slave trade in a 20-year heroic effort led by British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce. (Effective date of U.S. legislation was January, 1808.)

Shot in high definition, "THE BETTER HOUR: The Legacy of William Wilberforce" is an engaging documentary, rich with content and commentary, that can inspire people with the remarkable story of William Wilberforce. He used his position as a British parliamentarian to launch 69 organizations for the betterment of society and end the trans-Atlantic slave trade­­­­-a business that was key to the country's economic strength.

Once, everyone knew the name William Wilberforce. Frederick Douglas said, "Let no man forget the name of William Wilberforce." A quarter century after Wilberforce's death, Abraham Lincoln said, "Every school boy knows the name of William Wilberforce." Yet "few American today understand why, or even know Wilberforce's name," explains executive producer Cullen Schippe.

The film focuses on a politician who, over time, developed strength of character in the service of high and seemingly unattainable goals. This film highlights William Wilberforce's drive and love for humanity and reveals how he and his colleagues worked tirelessly to end the slave trade, even as it represented a large portion of the British economy. In Wilberforce, we see character and a sense of justice for all join together to bring into the world what the English poet William Cowper described as "the better hour."

"This film does an outstanding job of bringing into sharp focus how the passion, persistence and actions of one man changed the course of history and worked to rid the world of the great evil of trafficking in human life," says Marshall Mitchell, Vice Chancellor of Wilberforce University, the second oldest historic black college in the United States.

Wilberforce's compassion, self-discipline, and respect for others offer lessons for a contemporary audience on how to change the world for the better- peacefully and definitively. In the world of politics William Wilberforce's political career is a case study that not only merits attention, but also can inspire others to see the potential for great good in a political life that is built on strength of character rather than expediency. "Wilberforce," says WTIU Public Television Executive Producer Steve Krahnke, "shows us that it is possible to join a religious faith with political will-not as a means to convert unbelievers, but as a means to help make the world a better place for everyone regardless of their beliefs."

Narrated by Avery Brooks, the film features interviews with leading authors, historians and public figures from both the U.K. and the United States, including the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, Wilberforce expert Kevin Belmonte, historian James Walvin, Newton Scholar Marylyn Rouse, Wilberforce University president and former Congressman Floyd Flake, and author Eric Metaxas, among others.

Underwriting support is provided by the John Templeton Foundation. TWC films in association with WTIU and directors, Phil Cooke and Brian Mead, produced the program. Cullen Schippe, Executive Producer and writer of the film, has more than 35 years experience producing educational media for the classroom and for broadcast. In 2004 he retired as the publisher for Music, Religion, and Social Studies for Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.

The Heartland Film Festival selected the film as a featured documentary in October 2007. "THE BETTER HOUR" DVD is available at www.ShopPBS.org, and local broadcast information can be found at http://www.pbs.org/tvschedules/

Catholic 'Call for Civility' Criticized

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 /Christian Newswire/ -- A group of 96 influential Catholics issued a petition today that explicitly criticizes a statement released last November that calls for greater "civility" among Catholics in political discourse.

The signers of the new statement believe the November statement would have the effect of silencing the pro-life movement and silencing criticism of pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

Most of the signers of the new statement are influential actors in the public-square, public policy, or academia. Among the 96 signers are university professors, think-tank scholars, journalists, authors, doctors, lawyers and others. They include such Catholic luminaries as Templeton Prize winner Michael Novak, authors Robert Royal and Peter Kreeft, columnist Russell Shaw and many others.

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), and one of the organizers of the statement released today said, "Rather than giving pro-abortion Catholic politicians a pass, we should vote them out of office and encourage them to repent."

Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute said, "Too often these days civility is defined as giving in to the way the media define the issue under debate, whereas honesty demands insisting upon a different way of looking on things, even when this attempt is treated as a nuisance."

William Saunders of the Family Research Council said, "I signed this statement because, as the Church teaches, abortion is the most important issue in the world; it is not an issue like others, it is not one on which reasonable people can disagree. We cannot let calls for civility toward pro-abortion Catholic politicians obscure our fundamental obligation to oppose abortion."

The new statement called A Catholic Response to the "Call for Civility" says in part:

"All men and women of good will value civility, but civility is not the highest -- or the only -- civic virtue. Rather, justice is. As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us in Deus Caritas Est, "Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics."

The statement goes on to say,

"If Catholic politicians advocated segregation or -- even worse -- slavery, would there be a call for civility towards them? If Catholic politicians said the poor are poor because of their bad behavior and we are not obliged to help them in any way, wouldn't we say they are heartless and even un-Christian? Some ask for civility now for one reason, abortion."

"The lack of public civility comes not from pro-lifers but from those Catholic politicians who support the right to kill innocent life in the womb and those who support defining man-woman marriage out of existence. But, some want to treat these politicians differently because they agree with them on important but purely prudential questions like health care, and the minimum wage."

The statement concludes:

"Though not all of its signers intend it, we believe the effect of the "Call for Civility" would be to silence the pro-life and pro-family movements. We oppose this effort root and branch."

"In short, we will feel free even strongly to condemn the public policy positions of Catholic politicians who support abortion, embryo-destructive research, and homosexual marriage. They stand against the teachings of the Church and in favor of morally repugnant practices that are counter to the common good and that should be unwelcome in a just or even polite society."

The entire statement and a list of signatories can be read at Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), Cardinal Newman Society, Crossroads Pro-Life, or Fidelis.

MLK: Truth, Love, and Endurance

BreakPoint - Chuck Colson and Mark Earley

From the abolition of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the civil-rights movement, America has a rich history of Christian activism. But what lies at the heart of true Christian activism?

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com

Reports of Religious Right's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Gerald F. Seib has a piece at the Wall Street Journal which points out that reports of the demise of the Christian Right have been overstated, as evidenced by Mike Huckabee's win in Iowa. I believe his analysis is balanced and reasonable.

Here's an excerpt:

At a minimum, the Iowa results change the conventional wisdom about the power of Christian conservatives in 2008. With no obvious Christian conservative darling among the early leading candidates, the predictions of their demise as a power were widely disseminated: conservative Christians were too dispirited to get engaged, they might sit on their hands, they might even look for a third-party candidate of their own.

But what happened in Iowa was that the foot soldiers moved out on their own, without regard to where their leaders were heading. They singled out Mr. Huckabee, and turned him from after-thought to front-runner.

And so doing they have changed the character of the Republican contest from here on out. But the point is that the conservative Christian vote is important, not that it is locked up.

After last year's loss of both houses of congress, it was understandable that the media might believe the influence of the Christian voter was over. What they failed to realize was exactly the opposite (and it's the lesson the Republican Party desperately needs to learn): when both parties are full of big-spending immoral dirtbags, Christians will usually stay home, rather than vote the lesser of two evils. (Right now, apparently many in the Religious Right are fooled into thinking Huckabee isn't a big government type, but they may be in for a rude awakening if they succeed in getting him elected).

And from an AP piece at CBS4Denver, James Dobson is quoted:

Huckabee's victory "was evidence of an energized and highly motivated conservative community," Dobson said. "Not bad for a supposed bunch of demoralized, depressed, disillusioned and disengaged Reaganites."

From LifeNews.com, exit polling data points to a strong showing for the Religious Right vote in Iowa:

Previous polls show about 70-75 percent of Republican voters in Iowa take a pro-life position and Huckabee’s frequent references to his strongly pro-life views -- in the face of attacks from Mitt Romney and other candidates -- may have made the difference.

CNN exit polling showed Huckabee winning 46 percent of the evangelical voters that turned out on Thursday night while Romney only received the support of 19 percent of that segment. Those who said a candidate's religious views mattered significantly backed Huckabee 56-11 percent over Romney.

The disappointing thing:

Those voters who described themselves as “very conservative” sided with Huckabee on a 35-23 percentage point margin and Huckabee won with the largest group of Republicans who said the most important consideration was someone who shared their political values.

Why would someone who describes themselves as "very conservative" support a candidate who is conservative on a couple of issues...and liberal on most of the rest? Especially when there were much better choices out there (can you say "Duncan Hunter"?). Some of these voters may get a chance to wake up someday and want to saw off their arm, if you get my meaning.

From The Swamp comes news of statement from the anti-Christian People for the American Way:

If there were any doubts that Religious Right voters are still a powerful force in the Republican Party, Mike Huckabee’s huge win in Iowa put them to rest.

I think Christian voters are making a big, big mistake and if Huckabee does get elected, there will be a lot of "buyer's remorse" in short order next year.

Actually, from the polling breakdown, it looks like Huckabee did best with that segment of religious voter most often prone to emotional decisions and reactions (and you know who they are), than those who more often follow well-researched evidence. In other words, he may have done better with those who aren't solid conservatives, or that don't have a consistent biblical worldview.

But Huckabee would be much more palatable to Christians who are serious about their faith; while he's liberal in many areas, some Christians draw the line at supporting someone (like Giuliani) who supports abortion--after all, they see it as murder.

And for all his warped social theology, at least Huckabee's theology doesn't undermine the deity of Jesus Christ as does Mitt Romney's Mormonism--another non-starter for many serious Christians.

If this keeps up, those fears of a third party move from Christian conservatives might be laid to rest.

At least Christians are getting excited and getting out there. I wish they'd wake up a little more and get their eyes open a little more, but I guess I'll take groggy over completely asleep.

Dirty Tricks to Keep Christians Out of Politics

Time magazine yesterday says some secularists are trying to scare Christians away from the political process in Iowa.

In recent days, at least two evangelical pastors who are personally supporting Mike Huckabee received anonymous mailings warning that their churches risk sanction by the Internal Revenue Service if they become too involved in politics. The pastors said that the letters, one of which is notable for exaggerated punctuation and a spelling mistake, appeared aimed at preventing church leaders from encouraging congregants to turn out on caucus night.

The article provides a brief outline of what is permissible under the tax code governing tax exempt organizations:

Under federal rules, churches and other tax exempt organizations are barred from explicitly supporting or opposing a candidate. Church leaders, however, can still encourage congregants to participate in elections or caucuses, and they may discuss general political issues, like abortion and marriage, from the pulpit. Leaders can also endorse candidates in their capacity as private citizens.

By the way, these rules have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or in any way with the grossly misconstrued mythical "separation of church and state."

These rules go back to a law dreamed by by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954. A nonprofit group opposed Johnson, and in retaliation Johnson fought for and won approval of a law restricting nonprofit organizations from speaking for or against candidates. Before that--going all the way back to the Revolution--there were no restrictions whatsoever on clergy or churches making political endorsements. They could rightfully speak to the morality of issues and candidates.

At the invitation of the South Dakota Family Policy Council, Gary McCaleb, Senior Vice President of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), came to South Dakota in 2006 and spoke in several cities to pastors about exactly what they could and couldn't do with regard to their tax exempt status. I attended the Rapid City meeting and did a detailed writeup of what McCaleb said. Here is an excerpt:

Today in Rapid City, McCaleb told a filled room of 60 Black Hills area pastors and church leaders, “What they are saying is that you can lose your tax exemption as a church if you speak out on the abortion ban, or the gambling issue if it comes up, or in favor of marriage. I’ve come up from Arizona...to tell you very directly that this is absolutely inaccurate, wrong, false information. If you speak out even directly from your pulpit and tell your people to vote in favor of the marriage amendment, or vote in favor of the abortion ban, that is not going to put your tax exemption at risk.”

McCaleb also said churches may use an “insubstantial portion of your ministry resources to directly lobby on legislative matters like these [marriage and abortion] laws.” He said this is at least 5% of the total ministry value (not just the church budget, but the value of volunteer labor, and all the things that go into the ministry) on direct lobbying; this can involve buying yard signs, advertising, holding public rallies and such to encourage others to support legislation. McCaleb said some courts have said it is permissible to go up to 15-20%, but he advised 5% as a completely safe figure. Churches can also financially support the work of groups like the South Dakota Family Policy Council, VoteYesForLife.com and others, as long as reporting procedures are followed.

McCaleb said, “If anybody tells you differently, find out what they are quoting and give me a call. I guarantee you they are wrong. They are spreading misinformation. They are trying to silence the church.”

If a church is acting within what is allowed by law, but a complaint is filed against them for violating the tax code, McCaleb said the Alliance Defense Fund would help defend them at no cost. He said they exist to support Christians doing their work in defense of the Gospel.

You can read the entire article here.

Christians should not allow themselves to be intimidated out of the political process; not by secularists, not by misconceptions about the First Amendment or "church and state" issues, not by misunderstandings about tax law, and not by lies.

Christians have every right to be fully involved in the political process--indeed, they have a duty. If Christians are not fully engaged, they may rest assured that the enemies of Christian values will see their candidates elected and their values instituted into public policy.

Slideshow: Gala Ball Honoring Dr. James Dobson

This slideshow is from Saturday night's Gala Ball Honoring Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family for his lifetime of ministry to the family.

Slideshow: Washington Briefing, Day Two

Below is a slideshow from Day Two of the Washington Briefing, Oct. 20, 2007

Slideshow: Washington Briefing, Day One

Below is a slideshow from Day One of the Washington Briefing, Oct. 19, 2007.

First Amendment Assault at Capitol Stopped

Who says complaining does no good and Christians should just keep silent as our religious freedoms and Christian heritage erodes away?

From The Hill:

Turner objected to the AoC’s decision to eliminate the word “God” from a certificate mailed to one of his constituents, a 17-year-old who wished to honor his grandfather. The requested text was, “This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, Country and family.” The end of the message on the certificate returned with the flag instead read, “for his dedication and love of Country and family.”

The AoC said it was enforcing a rule, established in 2003, that said “religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates.”

But that's changing now because some good people spoke up against this outrage against the First Amendment.

The Architect of the Capitol’s (AoC) office is reversing its policy on the use of religious language on flag certificates, according to a draft document, after dozens of lawmakers condemned the practice of removing the word “God” from the certificates.

Stephen Ayers, acting Architect of the Capitol, said in a statement the new policy will be effective immediately and will be outlined in a memo sent to congressional offices.

“The Office of the Architect of the Capitol is a service organization. Flying the flags over the Capitol is an important constituent service for Members of Congress. When one of our services or policies doesn’t effectively serve Members of Congress or the American public, it needs to be changed immediately,” Ayers said in a draft statement.

The Left, and all the destructive ideological groups that comprise the Left, have no qualms about being very outspoken and very loud. That's why traditional values and respect for the Constitution have been so undermined for the past 60 years: they've been very loud and very determined...while traditional Americans sat on their hands and moped.

It's time for Christians and other traditional American to stand up and counter the erosion of our history, our heritage, our rights and our Constitution. Time is running short; if we don't take a stand now, soon it'll be too far gone to reverse.

ADF Assures Pastors of Their Constitutional Rights

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — The Alliance Defense Fund issued a joint educational letter Monday with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the James Madison Center for Free Speech to pastors across the country, equipping them with legal information on how they can speak out on moral issues during the 2008 elections and not jeopardize their churches’ tax-exempt status. (Full Article)

Actors Taking a Stand

"MEDIA MATTERS
Actors tell Hollywood 'Enough is Enough'
Petition set up to seek respect for Jesus' name

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 22, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Actress Kathy Griffin's rant at the Emmy awards in which she told Jesus to "suck it" has triggered a petition campaign intended to tell Hollywood "Enough is Enough!"

Please read the above article from WorldNetDaily.com in its entirety and then sign the petition. A petition that stems, in part, from...

"I guess hell froze over," Griffin announced. "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this. ... Suck it, Jesus! This award is my god now."

(The above quote is from another WorldNetDaily.com article on the Griffin matter - Sept. 11, 2007. Please read it as well.)

From the signatures on the petition, it looks like actors aren't the only ones saying "Enough is Enough"!!! Will you be signing as well???

Giuliani wins and the Elephant dies!!

Giuliani's nomination would destroy the Republican Party!

The Whigs died when they were mushy about slavery. Lincoln unified the Righteous against that horrific evil and the Republican Party was born.

Affirming and defending the Sanctity of Life and Normal Marriage are the 2 issues that make the platform of the Republican Party the polar opposite of the Democrat Party which supports infanticide and homosexual marriage. Giuliani is wrong about both.

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.

Rudy must not win.

All Patriotic Christians must sacrifice for the very soul of America which still is defended by some second tier candidates like Huckaby and Brownback; but they have no chance without enormous infusions of cash.

Fred Thompson looks like the best hope for pro-life, pro-family activists and his support for Chief Justice Roberts is a very good sign; but he will need a lot of cash and volunteers to beat Rudy and then Hillary or Barack Hussein Obama.

Christian Patriots can make a difference if they prayerfully agree on a champion; and then say,"What can I do?"

WHAT IF 1,000 PEOPLE GAVE $1,000.00 TO 1 CANDIDATE? $1MILLION CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WHAT IF THEY EACH GAVE $4,000...$4MILLION, THANK YOU VERY MUCH;
BUT WHAT IF 25,000 GAVE $4,000 EACH! 100 MILLION CAN GIVE THE RIGHT CANDIDATE
A CHANCE TO BE PRESIDENT! THIS IS POSSIBLE! AMERICA IS WORTH IT!

Just as important as financial support is volunteer help. Many people giving a few hours each week can change the world.

A Christian Political Support List is being formed called "The Patrick Henry List".
My prayer is that this list will be 100 times as committed and influential as Emily's pro-evil list is. When the details are worked out, The Patrick Henry List will be presented right here on the Dakota Voice Blog...so stay tuned and help us reclaim America for Christ.

May God Bless and Activate every true Christian Patriot in America;
freedompoet

The Education of America's Founding Patriots

Abe Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

The better we understand the education of the generations that led up to and included our founding fathers, the better we will understand exactly how they wanted us to be governed; and what were the driving ideals and passionate Truths that they were all willing to die for?

There is no doubt that America is the Richest, Strongest, Most Free, and mostgenerous nation that has ever existed. Not 1 in 10 public high school graduates can explain with any clarity why this is so. When many graduate from colleges they have been convinced to hate their Mother Country that still remains Freedom's only substantial hope on earth. This treason is rampant and only widespread knowledge of our true history can keep us free.

Does it not make sense that if the young people of America have no idea why we are special,they will not be able to defend what they do not understand?

Beyond any shadow of doubtthe most important fact of American history is the Christian Faith of our Founding Fathers! They studied the Bible hard as their primary textbook. They believed the Bible was the inspired and inerrant Word of God. They all believed that the 10 commandments were essential to peaceful civilization; and the Golden Rule was the source of the consideration and respect that held families and communities together.

Their belief in Satan and ultimate evil led to the first public education law ever passed in the United States in 1642 called "The Old Deluder Satan Act" because it was a chief aim of Satan to keep children from studying the Bible therefore the settlers made a law to insure that education was based on the Word of God.

The first textbook was published in America in 1690 by Benjamin Harris was called The New England Primer. This sweet book helped millions of American children for more than 200 years to learn their ABC's with Christian Rhymes:

"A" in Adams fall we sinned all.
"B" Heaven to find, the Bible mind.
"C" Christ crucified for sinners died.

The New England Primer also included prayers, lessons, and a catechism that taught the 10 commandments as well as their meanings. Most of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolution, signed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights started their education with the Bible and the New England Primer.

The schools of higher learning that many of the Founding Fathers attended were based on the Christian Faith. Harvard helped educate John Adams, John Hancock and Sam Adams and declared its educational purpose clearly:

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.

Harvard students were required to read the Bible twice each day in order to give an account of his proficiency therein.

Yale taught many prominent founders such as Noah(dictionary) Webster and those students were required to be present both morning and evening at public prayer.

Princeton produced more Founding Fathers than any other single school: President and Father of the Constitution, James Madison, the Father of American Medicine and signer of the Declaration, Benjamin Rush; and the incredible John Witherspoon who literally mentored James Madison as President of Princeton and also signed the Declaration of Independence.

Princeton's educational policy was articulated by its first president, Jonathan Dickinson who stated, "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the Cross of Christ."

The 3 main reasons for education were stated as the required educational philosophy for any new states to be admitted to the Union in the Northwest Ordinance:

Religion, Morality, and Knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

The Northwest Ordinance was passed by the same congress in the same year (1789) as the First Amendment regarding Freedom of Religion (Not Freedom from Religion) I have no doubt that they knew it gave them the right and the obligation to give Biblical Education to All American children.

George Washington was clearly the most important Founding Father and he was truly our spiritual father as well as First President. Many native Americans believed that he could not die in battle and when several Delaware Chiefs brought their children to him to be educated he said," You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the Religion of Jesus Christ. This will make you a greater and happier people than you are."

Noah Webster was called America's Schoolmaster, he published the first American Dictionary in the English Language and it contained the greatest number of biblical definitions given in a secular volume. Noah standardized spelling for the first time in his famous "blue-backed speller" which sold a million copies a year for 100 years.

Noah Webster stated that "the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...no Truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Webster also stated, "The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good"!!!

The Bible was by far the most important book to most of our 300 most influential Founding Fathers.

McGuffey's Readers were first published in 1836 and for 100 years they too sold a million copies or more each year. William McGuffey wrote upon publication that, "The Christian religion is the religion of our country." These great books carried the new nation to a character that would abolish slavery because millions believed that God was just and life is eternal so we must be willing to die for Righteousness sake.

The American dream was Freedom with Responsibility; and to lovingly seek and serve God and our fellow man and walk in the one true God's peace that passes all human understanding.

God is the Father of us all and only true source of love in the universe; why have we deprived millions of American children this glorious heritage?

Selfishness and depravity have replaced nobility and altruism because we have taught garbage and lies to American Children for many decades. Are we nuts? We are up against the wall...We are running out of time....We have traded an educational philosophy which works and results in deep satisfaction and eternal security; with nonsense that is an abject failure in millions of wasted lives who have millions of unwanted children.

The American Founding Fathers were right to teach Biblical values because: CHRISTIANITY IS ALWAYS THE BEST POLICY.

We are not a theocracy but one of the most intense battle cries of the Revolution was,"NO KING BUT KING JESUS!" amen

Thank God for another July 4th;
freedompoet